Prevalence of isolated nocturnal hypertension according to 2018 European Society of Cardiology and European Society of Hypertension office blood pressure categories. Issue 3 (March 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Salazar, Martin R.; Espeche, Walter G.; Balbín, Eduardo; Leiva Sisnieguez, Carlos E.; Minetto, Julián; Leiva Sisnieguez, Betty C.; Maciel, Pablo M.; Stavile, Rodolfo N.; Carbajal, Horacio A.
• Is Part Of: Journal of hypertension. Volume 38:Issue 3(2020:Mar.)
• Publication Date: 2020-03
• Subjects: ambulatory blood pressure monitoring -- isolated nocturnal hypertension -- office blood pressure; Hypertension -- Periodicals; Hypertension -- Periodicals; 616.132005
• DOI: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000002278
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1473-5598

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of isolated nocturnal hypertension (INH) and its relationships with office blood pressure (BP) categories defined by 2018 ESC/ESH guidelines. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study in consecutive patients referred to perform an ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) for diagnosis or therapeutic purposes. Office BP measurements and ABPM were performed in the same visit. The cohort was divided according to office BP in optimal, normal, high-normal and hypertension. The prevalence and adjusted risk for combined daytime and nocturnal hypertension and INH were estimated for each category. Results: We evaluated 1344 individuals, 59.3% women (51 ± 14 years old) and 40.7% men (52 ± 15 years old). 61.5% of the individuals had nocturnal hypertension, 12.9% INH and 48.7% combined daytime and nocturnal hypertension. Prevalence of combined daytime and nocturnal hypertension increased through office BP categories ( P < 0.001). Conversely, prevalence of INH was lower in individuals with hypertension than in normotensives (7.4 vs. 17.2%, P < 0.001) and similar between nonhypertensive office BP categories, 16.6, 15 and 19.4% for optimal, normal and high-normal BP, respectively ( P < 0.399). In individuals with office BP values less than 140/90 mmHg, the prevalence of masked hypertension phenotypes were 8.6, 17.2 and 30.2% for daytime, INH and combined daytime and nocturnal hypertension, respectively. Adjusted risk for combined daytime and nocturnal hypertension increased significantly through office BP categories; conversely, the risk for INH was similar in all nonhypertensive office BP categories. Conclusion: Nocturnal hypertension was the more prevalent phenotype of masked hypertension and more than one-third of the individuals with nocturnal hypertension had INH. The risk for INH was not related to nonhypertensive office BP categories.