An Update on Masked Hypertension.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Anstey DE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5723434 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
An Update on Masked Hypertension.
Anstey D Edmund DE Pugliese Daniel D Abdalla Marwah M Bello Natalie A NA Givens Raymond R Shimbo Daichi D
Current hypertension reports 20171025 12
Masked hypertension refers to the phenomenon of having a non-elevated clinic blood pressure (BP) despite having an elevated out-of-clinic BP. Masked hypertension is a common phenotype with a cardiovascular risk profile similar to that of sustained hypertension, defined as elevated clinic and out-of-clinic BP. Current guidelines offer little guidance on the best practices for detecting and treating masked hypertension. This is in part due to insufficient evidence upon which to base recommendation ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Objective: This study aimed to develop machine learning-based prediction models to predict masked hypertension and masked uncontrolled hypertension using the clinical characteristics of patients at a single outpatient visit. Methods: Data were derived from two cohorts in Taiwan. The first cohort included 970 hypertensive patients recruited from six medical centers between 2004 and 2005, which were split into a training set (n = 679), a validation set (n = 146), and a test set (n = 145) for model development and internal validation. The second cohort included 416 hypertensive patients recruited from a single medical center between 2012 and 2020, which was used for external validation. We used 33 clinical characteristics as candidate variables to develop models based on logistic regression (LR), random forest (RF), eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGboost), and artificial neural network (ANN). Results: The four models featured high sensitivity and high negative predictive value (NPV) in internal validation (sensitivity = 0.914-1.000; NPV = 0.853-1.000) and external validation (sensitivity = 0.950-1.000; NPV = 0.875-1.000). The RF, XGboost, and ANN models showed much higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) (0.799-0.851 in internal validation, 0.672-0.837 in external validation) than the LR model. Among the models, the RF model, composed of 6 predictor variables, had the best overall performance in both internal and external validation (AUC = 0.851 and 0.837; sensitivity = 1.000 and 1.000; specificity = 0.609 and 0.580; NPV = 1.000 and 1.000; accuracy = 0.766 and 0.721, respectively). Conclusion: An effective machine learning-based predictive model that requires data from a single clinic visit may help to identify masked hypertension and masked uncontrolled hypertension.
| S-EPMC8639874 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) is diagnosed in patients treated for hypertension who are normotensive in the clinic but hypertensive outside. In this study of 333 veterans with CKD, we prospectively evaluated the prevalence of MUCH as determined by ambulatory BP monitoring using three definitions of hypertension (daytime hypertension ?135/85 mmHg; either nighttime hypertension ?120/70 mmHg or daytime hypertension; and 24-hour hypertension ?130/80 mmHg) or by home BP monitoring (hypertension ?135/85 mmHg). The prevalence of MUCH was 26.7% by daytime ambulatory BP, 32.8% by 24-hour ambulatory BP, 56.1% by daytime or night-time ambulatory BP, and 50.8% by home BP. To assess the reproducibility of the diagnosis, we repeated these measurements after 4 weeks. Agreement in MUCH diagnosis by ambulatory BP was 75-78% (? coefficient for agreement, 0.44-0.51), depending on the definition used. In contrast, home BP showed an agreement of only 63% and a ? coefficient of 0.25. Prevalence of MUCH increased with increasing clinic systolic BP: 2% in the 90-110 mmHg group, 17% in the 110-119 mmHg group, 34% in the 120-129 mmHg group, and 66% in the 130-139 mmHg group. Clinic BP was a good determinant of MUCH (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.76-0.87). In diagnosing MUCH, home BP was not different from clinic BP. In conclusion, among people with CKD, MUCH is common and reproducible, and should be suspected when clinic BP is in the prehypertensive range. Confirmation of MUCH diagnosis should rely on ambulatory BP monitoring.
| S-EPMC4769206 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMasked hypertension (MHT) and prehypertension (PHT) are both associated with an increase in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, relative to sustained normotension. This study examined the diagnostic overlap between MHT and PHT, and their interrelationships with left ventricular (LV) mass index (LVMI), a marker of cardiovascular end-organ damage.MethodsA research nurse performed three manual clinic blood pressure (CBP) measurements on three occasions over a 3-week period (total of nine readings, which were averaged) in 813 participants without treated hypertension from the Masked Hypertension Study, an ongoing worksite-based, population study. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) was assessed by using a SpaceLabs 90207 monitor. LVMI was determined by echocardiography in 784 (96.4%) participants.ResultsOf the 813 participants, 769 (94.6%) had normal CBP levels (<140/90 mm Hg). One hundred and seventeen (15.2%) participants with normal CBP had MHT (normal CBP and mean awake ABP ?135/85 mm Hg) and 287 (37.3%) had PHT (mean CBP 120-139/80-89 mm Hg). 83.8% of MHT participants had PHT and 34.1% of PHT participants had MHT. MHT was infrequent (3.9%) when CBP was optimal (<120/80 mm Hg). After adjusting for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), race/ethnicity, history of high cholesterol, history of diabetes, current smoking, family history of hypertension, and physical activity, compared with optimal CBP with MHT participants, LVMI was significantly greater in PHT without MHT participants and in PHT with MHT participants.ConclusionsIn this community sample, there was substantial diagnostic overlap between MHT and PHT. The diagnosis of MHT using an ABP monitor may not be warranted for individuals with optimal CBP.
| S-EPMC3668422 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The prognostic relevance of masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) is incompletely clear, and its global impact on cardiovascular outcomes and mortality has not been assessed. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis on the prognostic value of MUCH. We searched for articles assessing outcome in patients with MUCH compared with those with controlled hypertension (CH) and reporting adjusted hazard ratio and 95% CI. We identified 6 studies using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (12?610 patients with 933 events) and 5 using home blood pressure measurement (17?742 patients with 394 events). The global population included 30?352 patients who experienced 1327 events. Selected studies had cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality as primary outcome, and the main result is a composite of these events. The overall adjusted hazard ratio was 1.80 (95% CI, 1.57-2.06) for MUCH versus CH. Subgroup meta-analysis showed that adjusted hazard ratio was 1.83 (95% CI, 1.52-2.21) in studies using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and 1.75 (95% CI, 1.38-2.20) in those using home blood pressure measurement. Risk was significantly higher in MUCH than in CH independently of follow-up length and types of studied events. MUCH was at significantly higher risk than CH in all ethnic groups, but the highest hazard ratio was found in studies, including black patients. Risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality is significantly higher in patients with MUCH than in those with CH. MUCH detected by ambulatory or home blood pressure measurement seems to convey similar prognostic information.
| S-EPMC6205750 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Masked hypertension (MH) is a commonly overlooked phenotype of hypertension in practice. Lifestyle factors and conditioned stress response specific to out of clinic blood pressure readings may be the mechanisms leading to this phenomenon. 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring or home blood pressure monitoring in an out of office setting are required for its reliable diagnosis. MH has a high risk of progressing to sustained hypertension with comparable cardiovascular and mortality risk. In this review, we discuss current evidence-based perspectives on definition, pathological mechanisms, risk factors, screening, clinical implications, and treatment of MH.
| S-EPMC7576393 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRecent US blood pressure (BP) guidelines recommend using ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring (HBPM) to screen adults for masked hypertension. However, limited evidence exists of the expected long-term effects of screening for and treating masked hypertension.MethodsWe estimated the lifetime health and economic outcomes of screening for and treating masked hypertension using the Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Policy Model, a validated microsimulation model. We simulated a cohort of 100,000 US adults aged ≥20 years with suspected masked hypertension (i.e., office BP 120-129/<80 mm Hg, not taking antihypertensive medications, without CVD history). We compared usual care only (i.e., no screening), usual care plus ABPM, and usual care plus HBPM. We projected total direct healthcare costs (2021 USD), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Future costs and QALYs were discounted 3% annually. Secondary outcomes included CVD events and serious adverse events.ResultsRelative to usual care, adding masked hypertension screening and treatment with ABPM and HBPM was projected to prevent 14.3 and 20.5 CVD events per 100,000 person-years, increase the proportion experiencing any treatment-related serious adverse events by 2.7 and 5.1 percentage points, and increase mean total costs by $1,076 and $1,046, respectively. Compared with usual care, adding ABPM was estimated to cost $85,164/QALY gained. HBPM resulted in lower QALYs than usual care due to increased treatment-related adverse events and pill-taking disutility.ConclusionsThe results from our simulation study suggest screening with ABPM and treating masked hypertension is cost-effective in US adults with suspected masked hypertension.
| S-EPMC9340638 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The prevalence of masked hypertension (out-of-clinic daytime systolic/diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) ≥135/85 mm Hg on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring [ABPM] among adults with clinic SBP/DBP <140/90 mm Hg) is high. It is unclear who should be screened for masked hypertension. The authors derived a clinic blood pressure (CBP) index to identify populations for masked hypertension screening. Index cut points corresponding to 75% to 99% sensitivity and prehypertension were evaluated as ABPM testing criterion. In a derivation cohort (n=695), the index was clinic SBP+1.3*clinic DBP. In an external validation cohort (n=675), the sensitivity for masked hypertension using an index ≥190 mm Hg and ≥217 mm Hg and prehypertension status was 98.5%, 71.5%, and 82.5%, respectively. Using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data (n=11,778), the authors estimated that these thresholds would refer 118.6, 44.4, and 59.3 million US adults, respectively, to ABPM screening for masked hypertension. In conclusion, the CBP index provides a useful approach to identify candidates for masked hypertension screening using ABPM.
| S-EPMC5086321 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association blood pressure (BP) Hypertension Clinical Practice Guidelines recommends ambulatory BP monitoring to detect masked hypertension. Data on the short-term reproducibility of masked hypertension are scarce. The IDH study (Improving the Detection of Hypertension) enrolled 408 adults not taking antihypertensive medication from 2011 to 2013. Office BP and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring were performed on 2 occasions, a median of 29 days apart. After excluding participants with office hypertension (mean systolic BP ≥130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥80 mm Hg), the analytical sample included 254 participants. Using the κ statistic, we evaluated the reproducibility of masked awake hypertension (awake systolic/diastolic BP ≥130/80 mm Hg) defined by the 2017 BP guideline thresholds, as well as masked 24-hour (24-hour systolic/diastolic BP ≥125/75 mm Hg), masked asleep (asleep systolic/diastolic BP ≥110/65 mm Hg), and any masked hypertension (high awake, 24-hour, and asleep BP). The mean (SD) age of participants was 38.0 (12.3) years and 65.7% were female. Based on the first and second ambulatory BP recordings, 24.0% and 26.4% of participants, respectively, had masked awake hypertension. The κ statistic (95% CI) was 0.50 (0.38-0.62) for masked awake, 0.57 (0.46-0.69) for masked 24-hour, 0.57 (0.47-0.68) for masked asleep, and 0.58 (0.47-0.68) for any masked hypertension. Clinicians should consider the moderate short-term reproducibility of masked hypertension when interpreting the results from a single ambulatory BP recording.
| S-EPMC7490832 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Masked hypertension, defined as nonelevated clinic blood pressure (BP) and elevated out-of-clinic BP may be an intermediary stage in the progression from normotension to hypertension. We examined the associations of out-of-clinic BP and masked hypertension using ambulatory BP monitoring with incident clinic hypertension in the Jackson Heart Study, a prospective cohort of blacks. Analyses included 317 participants with clinic BP <140/90 mm?Hg, complete ambulatory BP monitoring, who were not taking antihypertensive medication at baseline in 2000 to 2004. Masked daytime hypertension was defined as mean daytime blood pressure ?135/85 mm?Hg, masked night-time hypertension as mean night-time BP ?120/70 mm?Hg, and masked 24-hour hypertension as mean 24-hour BP ?130/80 mm?Hg. Incident clinic hypertension, assessed at study visits in 2005 to 2008 and 2009 to 2012, was defined as the first visit with clinic systolic/diastolic BP ?140/90 mm?Hg or antihypertensive medication use. During a median follow-up of 8.1 years, there were 187 (59.0%) incident cases of clinic hypertension. Clinic hypertension developed in 79.2% and 42.2% of participants with and without any masked hypertension, 85.7% and 50.4% with and without masked daytime hypertension, 79.9% and 43.7% with and without masked night-time hypertension, and 85.7% and 48.2% with and without masked 24-hour hypertension, respectively. Multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) of incident clinic hypertension for any masked hypertension and masked daytime, night-time, and 24-hour hypertension were 2.13 (1.51-3.02), 1.79 (1.24-2.60), 2.22 (1.58-3.12), and 1.91 (1.32-2.75), respectively. These findings suggest that ambulatory BP monitoring can identify blacks at increased risk for developing clinic hypertension.
| S-EPMC4900933 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) in treated hypertensive patients is defined as controlled automated office blood pressure (BP; <135/85 mm?Hg) in-clinic but uncontrolled out-of-clinic BP by ambulatory BP monitoring (awake [daytime] readings ?135/85 mm?Hg or 24-hour readings ?130/80 mm?Hg). To determine whether MUCH is attributable to antihypertensive medication nonadherence. One hundred eighty-four enrolled patients were confirmed to have controlled office BP; of these, 167 patients were with adequate 24-hour ambulatory BP recordings. Of 167 patients, 86 were controlled by in-clinic BP assessment but had uncontrolled ambulatory awake BP, indicative of MUCH. The remaining 81 had controlled in-clinic and ambulatory awake BP, consistent with true controlled hypertension. After exclusion of 9 patients with missing 24-hour urine collections, antihypertensive medication adherence was determined based on the detection of urinary drugs or drug metabolites by high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Of the 81 patients with MUCH, 69 (85.2%) were fully adherent and 12 (14.8%) were partially adherent (fewer medications detected than prescribed). Of the 77 patients with true controlled hypertension, 69 (89.6%) were fully adherent with prescribed antihypertensive medications and 8 (10.4%) were partially adherent. None of the patients in either group were fully nonadherent. There was no statistically significant difference in complete or partial adherence between the MUCH and true controlled groups (P=0.403). Measurement of urinary drug and drug metabolite levels demonstrates a similarly high level of antihypertensive medication adherence in both MUCH and truly controlled hypertensive patients. These findings indicate that MUCH is not attributable to antihypertensive medication nonadherence.
| S-EPMC6687528 | biostudies-literature