Dergiler / Ankara Medical Journal / 2022 / Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 1

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OFFICE AND AMBULATORY BLOOD PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS IN PATIENTS USING TRIPLE ANTIHYPERTENSIVE TREATMENT

Sayfa
37–48
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Also, depending on ABPM rather than office/clinic measurements may save time and expenses when investigating secondary causes.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objectives: It has been suggested that blood pressure (BP) measurements in the office/clinic may fall short of detecting phenomena such as a white coat or masked hypertension (HT).
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Materials and Methods: Of the included 57 patients using triple antihypertensives, 28 had high office BP measurements (HOM-HT group), whereas 29 had normal office BP values (NOM-HT group).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Also, depending on ABPM rather than office/clinic measurements may save time and expenses when investigating secondary causes.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Objectives: It has been suggested that blood pressure (BP) measurements in the office/clinic may fall short of detecting phenomena such as a white coat or masked hypertension (HT). In this cross-sectional study, we aimed to evaluate the differences in office and ambulatory BP measurements (ABPM) and investigate the secondary causes in patients using triple antihypertensive medication. Materials and Methods: Of the included 57 patients using triple antihypertensives, 28 had high office BP measurements (HOM-HT group), whereas 29 had normal office BP values (NOM-HT group). Both groups underwent an ABPM. Also, serum biochemistry, 24-hour urine tests, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and renal artery Doppler assessments were performed to detect secondary causes of HT. Groups were compared regarding ABPM values, tests, scale results, and secondary causes. Results: No significant differences were found between the demographics and serum tests. According to the ABPM, white coat HT was detected in 15 patients (53.67%) in the HOM-HT group, whereas five (17.24%) in the NOM-HT group had masked HT (p=0.018). In three patients, secondary causes were detected (hyperaldosteronism, renal artery compression, and sleep apnea), all of whom were in the HOM-HT group. The groups did not differ significantly regarding the frequency of secondary causes (p=0.112). In contrast to when the ABPM is taken into account (16.66% vs. 0% p=0.028). Conclusion: Data of the present study showed that ABPM is necessary to detect white coat and masked HT. Also, depending on ABPM rather than office/clinic measurements may save time and expenses when investigating secondary causes.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

BARÇIN, C., AYDOĞAN, Ü., İSMAİLOĞLU, T. (2022). DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OFFICE AND AMBULATORY BLOOD PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS IN PATIENTS USING TRIPLE ANTIHYPERTENSIVE TREATMENT. Ankara Medical Journal, Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 1, 37–48. https://ajindex.com/articles/441677

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (14)

  1. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HL, et al. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. The JNC 7 Report. JAMA. 2003;289(19):2560-71
  2. Benjamin EJ, Virani SS, Callaway CW, et al. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2018 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2018 Mar 20;137(12):e67-e492
  3. Altun B, Arici M, Nergizoǧlu G, et al. Prevalence, awareness, treatment and control of hypertension in Turkey (the PatenT study) in 2003. J Hypertens. 2005 Oct;23(10):1817-23
  4. Calhoun DA, Jones D, Textor S, et al. Resistant Hypertension: Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Treatment. A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Professional Education Committee of the Council for High Blood Pressure Research. Circulation. 2008;117:510-26
  5. De La Sierra A, Segura J, Banegas JR, Gorostidi M, De La Cruz JJ, Armario P, et al. Clinical features of 8295 patients with resistant hypertension classified on the basis of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Hypertension. 2011;57(5):898–902
  6. Judd E, Calhoun DA. Apparent and true resistant hypertension: Definition, prevalence and outcomes. J Hum Hypertens. 2014 Aug;28(8):463-8
  7. Achelrod D, Wenzel U, Frey S. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of resistant hypertension in treated hypertensive populations. Am J Hypertens. 2015;28(3):355–61
  8. Sarafidis PA. Epidemiology of Resistant Hypertension. J Clin Hypertens. 2011;13(7):523–8
  9. Muxfeldt ES, Bloch KV, Da Rocha Nogueira A, Salles GF. True resistant hypertension: Is it possible to be recognized in the office? Am J Hypertens. 2005;18(12):1534–40
  10. Erdogmus S, Kutlay S, Celebi ZK, et al. Clinical Correlates of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Phenotypes at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Turkey. Kidney Blood Press Research. 2018;43(3):690-700
  11. Yavuz BB, Yavuz B, Tayfur O, et al. White coat effect and its clinical implications in the elderly. Clinical and Experimental Hypertension. 2009 Jun;31(4):306-15
  12. Piper MA, Evans C V., Burda BU, Margolis KL, O'Connor E, Whitlock EP. Diagnostic and predictive accuracy of blood pressure screening methods with consideration of rescreening intervals: A systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2015 Feb 3;162(3):192-204
  13. Brown MA, Buddle ML, Martin A. Is resistant hypertension really resistant? Am J Hypertens. 2001;14(12):1263–9
  14. Ohkubo T, Kikuya M