Reproducibility of masked hypertension and office-based hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Issue 6 (June 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Antza, Christina; Farmakis, Ioannis; Doundoulakis, Ioannis; Akrivos, Evangelos; Stalikas, Nikolaos; Zafeiropoulos, Stefanos; Kostopoulos, Georgios; Stabouli, Stella; Giannakoulas, George; Kotsis, Vasilios
• Is Part Of: Journal of hypertension. Volume 40:Issue 6(2022)
• Page Start: 1053
• Page End: 1059
• Publication Date: 2022-06
• Subjects: blood pressure -- masked hypertension -- meta-analysis -- office-based hypertension -- reproducibility; Hypertension -- Periodicals; Hypertension -- Periodicals; 616.132005
• DOI: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000003111
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1473-5598

Abstract

Abstract : Blood pressure (BP) phenotypes have a prognostic significance for target organ damage in long-term studies. However, it remains uncertain whether a single baseline phenotype classification is reproducible over time and represents accurately the patients' BP status. The aim of this study was to systematically investigate the reproducibility of masked hypertension and office-based hypertension either with ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring (HBPM). PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched to identify studies with paired baseline office BP and ABPM or HBPM measurements at two timepoints. The outcome of the analysis was the individual phenotype reproducibility between the baseline and follow-up timepoints. The used effect measure was Cohen's kappa coefficient. We found 15 studies eligible for the meta-analysis enrolling a total of 5729 patients. The reproducibility of masked hypertension was better with ABPM, kappa reliability test: 0.41 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.32–0.49], than with HBPM, kappa reliability test: 0.26 (95% CI: 0.10–0.40). The reproducibility of office-based hypertension with both methods was low, indicating slight agreement. Kappa reliability test was slightly better with ABPM (κ: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.12–0.41) than with HBPM (κ: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.08–0.27). This systematic review and meta-analysis show a slight to fair reproducibility of masked hypertension and office-based hypertension assessed through ABPM and HBPM. Considering that poor reproducibility may be a result of office BP measurements, an ABPM/HBPM-based strategy should be established for the evaluation and treatment of patients with masked hypertension or office-based hypertension.