 |
|
Is "Isolated Home" Hypertension as Opposed to "Isolated Office" Hypertension a Sign of Greater Cardiovascular Risk?
Guillaume Bobrie, MD;
Nathalie Genès, MD;
Laurent Vaur, MD;
Pierre Clerson, MD;
Bernard Vaisse, MD;
Jean-Michel Mallion, MD;
Gilles Chatellier, MD
Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:2205-2211.
ABSTRACT
| |
Background The SHEAF (Self-Measurement of Blood Pressure at Home in the Elderly:
Assessment and Follow-up) study is an observational study (from February 1998
to early 2002) designed to determine whether home blood pressure (BP) measurement
has a greater cardiovascular prognostic value than office BP measurement among
elderly ( 60 years) French patients with hypertension. The objective of
this present work is to describe the baseline characteristics of the treated
patients in the SHEAF study from February 1998 to March 1999, placing special
emphasis on "isolated office" and "isolated home" hypertension.
Methods Baseline office BP measurement was assessed using a mercury sphygmomanometer.
Home BP measurement was performed over a 4-day period. A 140/90–mm Hg
threshold was chosen to define office hypertension, and a 135/85–mm
Hg threshold to define home hypertension.
Results Of the 5211 hypertensive patients in the SHEAF study with a valid home
BP measurement, 4939 received treatment with at least 1 antihypertensive drug.
Patients with isolated office hypertension represented 12.5% of this population,
while patients with isolated home hypertension represented 10.8%. The characteristics
of the patients with isolated office hypertension were similar to those of
patients with controlled hypertension. However, patients with isolated office
hypertension had fewer previous cardiovascular complications. In contrast,
rates of cardiovascular risk factors and history of cardiovascular disease
in patients with isolated home hypertension resembled those in patients with
uncontrolled hypertension.
Conclusions This retrospective analysis suggests that patients with isolated home
hypertension belong to a high-risk subgroup. The 3-year follow-up of these
patients will provide prospective data about the cardiovascular prognosis
of these subgroups.
INTRODUCTION
HYPERTENSION IS one of the most prominent risk factor for cardiovascular
disease in industrialized countries.1 Cardiovascular
morbidity and mortality remain high in spite of the many drug therapies and
treatment guidelines for hypertension as well as the appropriately designed
controlled trials and meta-analyses providing precise evaluations of the potential
benefits of treatment.2-3 There
are probably many explanations for this, from inappropriate diagnosis to inappropriate
management. The primary step in hypertension management is blood pressure
(BP) measurement. Until now, the clinical gold standard for measuring BP was
with a sphygmomanometer at a physician's office. Epidemiological studies have
established the prognostic value of BP measured by conventional methods.4 Moreover, therapeutic trials using the conventional
method for measuring BP have shown that a reduction in BP is associated with
a reduction in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.5
However, for many years it has been shown that measurement by physicians lacks
exactitude (digital preference) and reproducibility.6-8
Conversely, quality of both automatic devices (used for ambulatory and home
measurements) and their validation is now acceptable.9-10
Using these methods, physicians have shown that in some patients office BP
is persistently elevated whereas BP outside the clinical environment (at home
or in ambulatory conditions) is not. This condition is widely known as "white
coat" hypertension,11 although the term isolated office hypertension is now preferred.12 Controversy remains on whether isolated office hypertension
is a benign clinical condition or is linked with an increased risk of target
organ damage and a worse prognosis.13
The converse phenomenon "reverse white coat effect"14-15
or "white coat normotension"16-17
has already been discussed. Although few data are available, they support
the hypothesis that subjects with these conditions may represent a high-risk
group.15, 17
The SHEAF (Self-Measurement of Blood Pressure at Home in the Elderly:
Assessment and Follow-up) study is an observational study from February 1998
to early 2002.18 This prospective cohort study
of elderly patients with hypertension is designed to assess whether home BP
measurement provides additional prognostic information (cardiovascular mortality
and morbidity) over office BP measurement by general practitioners.18 The objective of the present work is to describe
the initial characteristics of 4939 treated patients included in the SHEAF
study from February 1998 to March 1999, with special emphasis on office and
home phenomena.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
DESIGN AND PATIENTS
The SHEAF study is a 3-year prospective cohort study designed to assess
whether the prognostic value of home BP measurement is greater than that of
office BP measurement.18 Subjects of both sexes
were recruited by general practitioners and included when they fulfilled the
following inclusion criteria: (1) 60 years or older; (2) primary permanent
hypertension defined by the presence of an antihypertensive treatment or,
in the absence of treatment, by an office BP higher than 140/90 mm Hg on 2
separate occasions during the prior year; (3) arm size allowing the use of
a standard cuff; (4) ability to perform an appropriate number of BP measurements
at home with the device of the study (the Omron HEM-705-CP device; Omron Corporation,
Tokyo, Japan); and (5) absence of any threatening disease or recent acute
cardiovascular events (eg, myocardial infarction or stroke).
The study comprised 2 successive phases. The first phase consisted of
a 2-week period of evaluation with 2 separate visits performed 2 weeks apart.
Medical history of the patients and antihypertensive treatments were recorded
as well as office and home BP measurements. This phase took place from February
1998 to March 1999. The second phase is a 3-year follow-up of patients. Follow-up
visits are to be performed every year by the patients' general practitioners.
There is no specific recommendation with regard to management of hypertension
and BP goals. The primary end point is cardiovascular mortality. Secondary
end points are total mortality and the combination of cardiovascular mortality,
myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, hospitalization
for angina or heart failure, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty,
or coronary artery bypass graft. This phase will end in early 2002.
BP MEASUREMENTS
Office BP Measurement
During the first phase, triplicate BP measurements were taken at each
visit by the physician using a mercury sphygmomanometer with the patient in
the sitting position after a 5-minute rest. No recommendation about time of
measurement was made to the physicians. Systolic BP was measured at phase
1 of the Korotkoff sounds and diastolic BP at phase 5 of the Korotkoff sounds.
The mean of the 6 readings was considered the office baseline BP measurement
for each patient.
Home BP Measurement
Home BP measurement was performed during the first phase of the study.
It was planned over a 4-day period chosen at the patient's convenience. Every
day a series of 3 consecutive measurements was requested in the morning (8
AM) and repeated in the evening (8 PM). Measurements were performed with the
patient in the sitting position after a 5-minute rest. All subjects used the
Omron HEM-705-CP device, which is a printer-equipped, semiautomatic, digitized
device based on the oscillometric method. This device had been previously
validated by comparison with the mercury sphygmomanometer according to the
revised protocol of the British Hypertension Society.19
Because it has been shown that the degree of reliability of hypertensive patients'
reporting of self-measured BP was both variable and unpredictable, each patient
was asked first to write results of measurements in a booklet designed for
the study and second, to store all printouts.20-21
Home BP Data Management
For each patient, aberrant BP measurements were deleted according to
the following rules: diastolic BP lower than 40 mm Hg or diastolic BP higher
than 150 mm Hg; systolic BP lower than 60 mm Hg or higher than 250 mm Hg;
and pulse pressure lower than 10 mm Hg. Measurements performed outside the
predefined morning and evening times (outside the 4 AM to noon range or the
4 PM to midnight range) were also discarded.
Patients were included in the study only if they exhibited at least
15 valid measurements, with at least 6 measurements in the morning and 6 measurements
in the evening. As recommended by the first international consensus conference,9 for each included patient the mean of all the available
home measurements was taken as the home BP measurement and used for comparison
with office measurements.
DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN OFFICE AND HOME BP MEASUREMENTS: STATISTICAL
APPROACH
For each patient the difference between office and home BP measurements
was calculated. For the study population, BP differences were expressed as
mean ± SD because they were normally distributed. According to the
distribution of the differences, patients were classified into 3 groups: (1)
Group A, the "small difference group" included patients whose difference in
BP measurements (office minus home) all fell within the mean ± SD BP
difference of the study population. In these patients, office and home BP
measurements were reasonably close. (2) Group B included patients with differences
in BP measurements greater than 1 SD above the mean. These patients presented
with an office BP measurement higher than a home BP measurement. This refers
to the commonly labeled "white coat effect" or "office effect." (3) Group
C included patients having a difference in BP measurement lower than 1 SD
below the mean. These patients presented with a home BP measurement higher
than an office BP measurement. This group was labeled with "home effect" as
opposed to office effect. This analysis was performed for systolic BP, diastolic
BP, and pulse pressure, and only in patients treated with antihypertensives
drugs.
DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN OFFICE AND HOME BP MEASUREMENTS: CLINICAL APPROACH
In this approach we used cutoff points to compare the 2 methods to obtain
a 2 x 2 table in which a patient belonged to 1 of the 4 following categories:
(1) normal BP by the 2 methods (controlled hypertension); (2) high BP by the
2 methods (uncontrolled hypertension); (3) high BP with office BP measurement
and normal BP with home BP measurement (commonly called isolated office hypertension);
and (4) normal BP with office BP measurement and high BP with home BP measurement
(which we propose to call "isolated home" hypertension).
Because patients were already treated in this analysis, we chose 140/90
mm Hg as the threshold for the office BP measurement, which refers to the
officially recommended goal for antihypertensive treatment.2
According to the first international consensus conference of self-BP monitoring,
the threshold defining hypertension on the basis of home BP measurement was
135/85 mm Hg.9
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Quantitative data are summarized as mean ± SD and qualitative
data as percentages. The normality of distributions was verified using the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Linear correlations between office and home BP measurements
were calculated using the Pearson coefficient. Comparisons among the 3 groups
defined in the "Statistical Approach"
section and comparisons among the 4 groups defined in the "Clinical Approach" section were performed
as follows: (1) For quantitative variables (eg, BP, heart rate, and age) the
between-group comparisons were performed using a 1-way analysis of variance.
(2) For qualitative variables (eg, cardiovascular risk factors and history
of cardiovascular diseases), the between-group comparisons were performed
using the  2 test. (3) When age could explain between-group
differences, a covariance analysis was performed. (4) With 3 groups of patients
in the statistical approach and 4 groups of patients in the clinical approach,
multiple comparisons concerned 3 and 6 pairs of means, respectively, for each
variable. Because multiple comparisons were not preplanned in the protocol,
we chose to remain descriptive.
P<.05 was considered statistically significant.
However, because of the large number of patients recruited in this study,
the power was very high and, consequently, small differences between groups
could be statistically significant. Therefore, in addition to statistical
significance, between-group differences should also be analyzed with reference
to their clinical significance. All calculations were performed using SAS
version 6.12 statistical software (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC).
RESULTS
PATIENTS
From February 1998 to March 1999, 1428 general practitioners recruited
5649 patients. Among these patients, 186 were excluded for an age younger
than 60 years and 252 for invalid home BP measurement. Thus, 5211 patients
(2565 men and 2646 women) with valid home BP measurement were included. Their
general characteristics are given in Table
1. Most patients (4939 [95%]) were receiving treatment with at least
1 antihypertensive drug. Characteristics of treated and untreated patients
are given in Table 1. Further
analyses were made only in treated patients: 12% had a history of coronary
artery disease (myocardial infarction, angina, percutaneous transluminal coronary
angioplasty, or coronary artery bypass graft); 15% had diabetes; 32%, history
of tobacco consumption; and 44%, a treated dyslipidemia (diet and/or drugs).
|
|
|
|
Table 1. General Characteristics of the Subjects*
|
|
|
The mean office BP was 152 ± 17 mm Hg (systolic) and 85 ±
9 mm Hg (diastolic), and mean office pulse pressure was 67 ± 13 mm
Hg. The mean home BP was 146 ± 19 mm Hg for systolic BP, 82 ±
10 mm Hg for diastolic BP, and 64 ± 15 mm Hg for pulse pressure.
A linear correlation was found between office and home BP measurements
for both systolic BP (r = 0.62;
P<.001) and diastolic BP
(r = 0.54; P<.001). According to this regression line, the self-recorded
BP equivalent to a conventional pressure of 140 mm Hg (systolic) and 90 mm
Hg (diastolic) was 138/85 mm Hg, and thus the 135/85 mm Hg threshold proposed
by the first international consensus conference of self-BP monitoring was
confirmed.9
DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN OFFICE AND HOME BP MEASUREMENTS: STATISTICAL
APPROACH
Home BP measurement was lower than office BP measurement by 5.9 ±
15.6 mm Hg for systolic BP, 2.6 ± 9.0 mm Hg for diastolic BP, and 3.3
± 12.0 mm Hg for pulse pressure (all P<.05).
These differences held constant whatever the BP level was.
For systolic BP, the reference group (group A) was constituted of patients
having a mean difference (office minus home) ranging from -9.7 mm Hg
to 21.4 mm Hg. This group comprised 3549 subjects (71.9%). Group B comprised
720 subjects (14.6%). For these patients having a higher BP at the office,
the difference between office and home BP measurements ranged from 21.4 mm
Hg to 102.0 mm Hg. Group C comprised 670 subjects (13.6%). For these patients
having a higher BP at home, the difference between office and home BP measurements
ranged from -9.7 mm Hg to -72.6 mm Hg.
The characteristics of the 3 groups are given in Table 2. Patients with home effect (group C) had more cardiovascular
risk factors: they were older, more often male, more often had diabetes, and
more likely to be former smokers. They also were more likely to have a history
of cardiovascular disease than subjects in the reference group. Conversely,
patients with office effect (group B) were not more likely to have a history
of cardiovascular disease than the reference group. These trends were also
found in a sex subgroup analysis.
|
|
|
|
Table 2. Comparison of the Patients According to the Magnitude of the
Difference Between Office and Home BP Measurements*
|
|
|
The same trends were observed for cardiovascular risk factors and cardiovascular
history between patients with home effect and the reference group when the
analysis was performed on pulse pressure. On the other hand, the between-group
differences for diastolic BP were only significant for sex and history of
stroke (data not shown).
DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN OFFICE AND HOME BP MEASUREMENTS: CLINICAL APPROACH
Classification of patients in the 4 groups defined by our cutoffs (140/90
mm Hg for office BP measurement and 135/85 mm Hg for home BP measurement)
is given in Table 3. The level
of agreement between the 2 methods assessed by the  statistic was 0.40.
Using the conventional threshold, 74% of the patients had systolic BPs over
140 mm Hg or diastolic BPs over 90 mm Hg. Patients with isolated office hypertension
represented 12.5% of the population, while patients with isolated home hypertension
represented 10.8% of the population. The characteristics of the patients according
to the classifications controlled hypertension (both office and home BP measurement),
uncontrolled hypertension (both office and home BP measurement), isolated
office hypertension, and isolated home hypertension are reported in Table 4. The characteristics of the patients
with isolated office hypertension were similar to those with controlled hypertension.
However, patients with isolated office hypertension had fewer previous cardiovascular
complications (coronary artery disease, 8.4% vs 12.7%; stroke, 2.8% vs 3.8%).
In contrast, patients with isolated home hypertension resembled the patients
with uncontrolled hypertension in rates of cardiovascular risk factors and
history of cardiovascular disease (coronary artery disease, 13.4% vs 13.1%;
history of stroke, 6.8% vs 5.0%). These trends were also found in a sex subgroup
analysis (data not shown).
|
|
|
|
Table 3. Classification of the Patients According to Their Office and
Home BP Measurements*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 4. Comparison of the Patients According to Their Hypertension
Status*
|
|
|
COMMENT
The objective of the SHEAF study18 is
to assess whether home BP measurement has a greater prognostic value than
office BP measurement. Until now, 1 study has investigated the prognostic
significance of home BP measurement22 and found
that home BP measurement had a stronger predictive power for mortality than
did casual BP measurement. However, only 52 cardiovascular deaths were reported
in this study, and the greater prognostic value was found for systolic BP
but not diastolic BP. Moreover, these results were obtained in a population
of mainly normotensive Japanese people, who are known for having different
risk of stroke and coronary disease than white populations. The SHEAF study,
in which 5211 patients with valid home BP measurements have been included,
will allow a more detailed analysis because a larger number of cardiovascular
deaths is expected and morbidity data will be available.
As is usually reported,6, 23-26
in this work we found lower BPs by home BP measurement than by physician measurements.
When using the cutoff point of 140/90 mm Hg for office BP measurement, we
found the corresponding point-estimate of home BP to be 138/85 mm Hg. This
figure can be compared with the 134/86 mm Hg cutoff found in the Self-Measurement
for the Assessment of the Response to Trandolapril (SMART) study, which included
1710 patients with hypertension.6 It is also
in agreement with the first international consensus conference of self-BP
monitoring.9
Although a correlation was found in this study between the 2 methods,
important individual discrepancies are clearly shown. In some patients, BPs
measured by the 2 methods were very different, and it was of interest to ascertain
whether these differences in BP measurements were associated with differences
in demographic and cardiovascular profile of the patients.
To evaluate the differences in BP measurements between the 2 methods,
2 different approaches were used in this work. The first approach, called
the statistical approach, is based on the statistical distribution of the
differences and does not easily allow for BP management as far as diagnosis
or therapeutic decisions are concerned. Indeed, patients presenting with a
large between-method difference in BP measurements may exhibit both normal
and abnormal BP measurements with the 2 methods. So, we proposed a second
approach called the clinical approach, which is based on the classification
of patients as normotensive and hypertensive according to predefined cutoff
points. This allowed first for the identification of patients with isolated
office hypertension, and second, for the identification of patients with isolated
home hypertension.
In the present study, using the threshold of 135/85 mm Hg, we found
isolated office hypertension in only 12% of the population. This figure is
lower than the findings of other studies27-28
that report a 20% to 25% prevalence of isolated office hypertension. The definition
of the cutoff point may be responsible for the between-study discrepancies.
Because the upper limit of normal ambulatory or home BP has been regarded
as 140/90 mm Hg in some studies, isolated office hypertension has been reported
in a large fraction of the population. The effect of age on white coat hypertension
seems to be somewhat conflicting. It has been reported that older patients
exhibited white coat hypertension more often than younger patients24, 29; however, in the present study, as
in some other studies,30 there was no relation
between the presence of isolated office hypertension and age. This may be
explained by the fact that all the patients in our study were in the same
age range. Consistent with the findings of other studies,28, 31-33
we found that patients with isolated office hypertension were more frequently
women and were more likely to exhibit the same cardiovascular profile as normotensive
patients.
Isolated home hypertension was present in 11% of the population of this
study. This figure is higher than the finding of a previous study conducted
in patients receiving a recent diagnosis of hypertension, which reported only
a 3% prevalence.14 In addition, the patients
with isolated home hypertension represented 42% of the office normotensive
patients, whereas only 21% of clinically normotensive patients presented an
elevated ambulatory BP in the study of Liu et al.17
Using the statistical approach, differences in BP measurements were
associated with differences in patients' cardiovascular history. There was
a continuous trend across the 3 subgroups for a decrease in risk: patients
with office effect exhibited the lowest risk profile, whereas patients with
home effect presented the highest prevalence of both risk factors and prior
cardiovascular events. Whether these different profiles are linked to different
prognoses remains mostly unknown. It has been shown in the prospective Japanese
study that office effect was not significantly related to cardiovascular mortality,
while the reversed white coat effect, which is equivalent to our home effect,
was a strong predictor of cardiovascular risk.15
Using the clinical approach, we found that differences in BP measurements
were also associated with differences in patient characteristics. Isolated
office hypertension was not associated with more frequent previous cardiovascular
complications. The prospective follow-up of these patients will address this
issue. In already published studies, it has been shown that isolated office
hypertension was associated with low cardiovascular risk.28, 34
Patients with home hypertension in our study were characterized by a
cardiovascular profile similar to the cardiovascular profile of patients with
uncontrolled hypertension: they were mainly men and exhibited a high rate
of risk factors and previous cardiovascular complications such as history
of coronary disease, stroke, or diabetes. These data are close to those previously
published in which patients with isolated ambulatory hypertension were older
and had higher body mass indexes and glucose levels than normotensive patients.17 Moreover, this condition was associated with prognostically
important target organ damage resulting in increased left ventricular mass
and carotid wall thickness when compared with normotensive patients. This
supports the hypothesis that patients with isolated home hypertension could
represent a high-risk group. Thus, it would be of interest, as it has not
been addressed, to determine whether isolated home hypertension is associated
with an elevated rate of cardiovascular events. The prospective follow-up
of these patients would address this issue.
CONCLUSIONS
The prospective SHEAF study18 included
5211 elderly hypertensive patients. The use of both office BP and home BP
measurements allowed us to identify 12% of patients with isolated office hypertension
and 11% of patients with isolated home hypertension. The cardiovascular risk
profile of these groups was markedly different. The 3-year follow-up will
provide a precise evaluation of the cardiovascular prognosis of such patients
and assess the concept of isolated home hypertension.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Accepted for publication March 29, 2001.
Presented in part as abstracts at the 15th Scientific Meeting of the
American Society of Hypertension, New York, NY, May 16-20, 2000, and 10th
European Meeting on Hypertension, Göteborg, Sweden, May 29-June 3, 2000.
The authors gratefully acknowledge Prof Joël Ménard, MD,
for his comments on this work.
Corresponding author and reprints: Nathalie Genès, MD, Laboratoire
Aventis, 46 Quai de la Rapée, 75601 Paris CEDEX 12, France (e-mail: nathalie.genes{at}aventis.com).
From the Service d'Hypertension Artérielle, Hôpital Européen
Georges Pompidou, Paris, France (Dr Bobrie); Laboratoire Aventis, Paris (Dr
Genès and Vaur); Orgamétrie, Wasquehal, France (Dr Clerson);
Médecine Interne, Hôpital de la Timone, Marseille, France (Dr
Vaisse); Médecine Interne et Cardiologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire,
Grenoble, France (Dr Mallion); and the Département d'Information Hospitalière,
Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris (Dr Chatellier).
REFERENCES
| |
1. Kannel WB. Risk factors in hypertension. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1989;13 Suppl 1:S4-S10.
2. Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and
Treatment of High Blood Pressure. The Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection,
Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:2413-2446.
FREE FULL TEXT
3. Guidelines Subcommittee. World Health Organization—International Society of Hypertension
Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension. J Hypertens. 1999;17:151-183.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
4. MacMahon S, Peto R, Cutler J, et al. Blood pressure, stroke and coronary heart disease, I: prolonged differences
in blood pressure—prospective observational studies corrected for the
regression dilution bias. Lancet. 1990;335:765-774.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
5. Collins R, Peto R, MacMahon S, et al. Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease, II: short-term
reductions in blood pressure—overview of randomised drug trials in their
epidemiological context. Lancet. 1990;335:827-839.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
6. Chatellier G, Dutrey-Dupagne C, Vaur L, Zannad F, Genès N, Elkik F. Home self blood pressure measurement in general practice: the SMART
study. Am J Hypertens. 1996;9:644-652.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
7. James GD, Pickering TG, Yees LS, Harshfield GA, Riva S, Laragh JH. The reproducibility of average ambulatory, home and clinic pressures. Hypertension. 1988;11:545-549.
FREE FULL TEXT
8. Trazzi S, Mutti E, Frattola A, Imhorz B, Parati G, Mancia G. Reproducibility of non-invasive and intra-arterial BP monitoring: implications
for studies on hypertensive treatment. J Hypertens. 1991;9:115-119.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
9. Asmar R, Zanchetti A for the Organizing Committee and participants. Guidelines for the use of self-blood pressure monitoring: a summary
report of the First International Consensus Conference. J Hypertens. 2000;18:493-508.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
10. Staessen JA, Beilin L, Parati G, Waeber B, White W. Task force IV: clinical use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring—participants
of the 1999 Consensus Conference on Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring. Blood Press Monit. 1999;4:319-331.
PUBMED
11. Pickering TG, James GD, Boddie C, Harshfield GA, Blank S, Laragh JH. How common is isolated office hypertension? JAMA. 1988;259:225-228.
FREE FULL TEXT
12. Mancia G, Bertinieri G, Grassi G, et al. Effects of blood-pressure measurement by the doctor on patient's blood
pressure and heart rate. Lancet. 1983;2:695-698.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
13. Palatini P, Mormino P, Santonastaso M, et al. Target-organ damage in stage I hypertensive subjects with office and
sustained hypertension: results from the HARVEST study. Hypertension. 1998;31:57-63.
FREE FULL TEXT
14. Hoegholm A, Kristensen KS, Madsen NH, Svendsen TL. Isolated office hypertension diagnosed by 24-h ambulatory monitoring:
examination of 159 newly hypertensive patients. Am J Hypertens. 1992;5:64-70.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
15. Houzawa A, Imai Y, Ohkubo T, et al. Prognostic significance of the office effect defined as the difference
between home and screening blood pressure measurements: the Ohasama study
[abstract]. J Hypertens. 1999;17(suppl 3):S23.
16. Larkin KT, Schauss SL, Elnicki DM. Isolated clinic hypertension and normotension: false positives and
false negatives in the assessment of hypertension. Blood Press Monit. 1998;3:247-254.
17. Liu JE, Roman MJ, Pini R, Schwartz JE, Pickering TG, Devereux RB. Cardiac and arterial target organ damage in adults with elevated ambulatory
and normal office blood pressure. Ann Intern Med. 1999;131:564-572.
FREE FULL TEXT
18. Genès N, Bobrie G, Vaur L, Chatellier G, Vaïsse B, Mallion JM. Comment évaluer la valeur pronostique de l'automesure tensionnelle
chez l'hypertendu âgé: protocole de l'étude SHEAF. Presse Med. 1999;28:870-874.
19. O'Brien E, Mee F, Atkins N, Thomas M. Evaluation of three devices for self-measurement of blood pressure
according to the revised British Hypertension Society Protocol: the Omron
HEM-705 CP, Philips HP 5332 and Nissei DS-175. Blood Press Monit. 1996;1:55-61.
PUBMED
20. Mengden T, Hernandez RM, Beltran B, Alvarez E, Kraft K, Vetter H. Reliability of reporting self-measured blood pressure values by hypertensive
patients. Am J Hypertens. 1998;11:1413-1417.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
21. Nordmann A, Frach B, Walker T, Martina B, Battegay E. Reliability of patients measuring blood pressure at home: prospective
observational study. BMJ. 1999;319:1172.
FREE FULL TEXT
22. Ohkubo T, Imai Y, Tsuji I, et al. Home blood pressure measurement has a stronger predictive power for
mortality than does screening blood pressure measurement: a population-based
observation in Ohsama, Japan. J Hypertens. 1998;16:971-975.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
23. Mancia G, Sega R, Bravi C, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure normality: results from the PAMELA study. J Hypertens. 1995;13:1377-1390.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
24. Weisser B, Grüne S, Burger R, et al. The Dübendorf Study: a population-based investigation on normal
values of blood pressure self-measurement. J Hum Hypertens. 1994;8:227-231.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
25. Imai Y, Satoh H, Nagai K, et al. Characteristics of a community-based distribution of home blood pressure
in Ohasama in northern Japan. J Hypertens. 1993;11:1441-1449.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
26. De Gaudemaris R, Chau NP, Mallion JM for the Groupe de la Mesure, French Society of Hypertension. Home blood pressure: variability, comparison with office readings and
proposal for reference values. J Hypertens. 1994;12:831-837.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
27. Julius S. Home blood pressure monitoring: advantages and limitations. J Hypertens. 1991;9(suppl 3):S4-S46.
28. Verdecchia P, Porcellati C, Schillaci G, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure: an independent predictor of prognosis in
essential hypertension. Hypertension. 1994;24:793-801.
FREE FULL TEXT
29. Mansoor GA, Mc Cabe EJ, White WB. Determinants of the white coat effect in hypertensive subjects. J Hum Hypertens. 1996;10:87-92.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
30. Stergiou GS, Zourbaki AS, Skeva II, Mountokalakis TD. White coat effect detected using self-monitoring of blood pressure
at home: comparison with ambulatory blood pressure. Am J Hypertens. 1998;11:820-827.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
31. White WB, Schulman P, Mc Cabe EJ, Dey HM. Average daily blood pressure, not office blood pressure, determines
cardiac function in patients with hypertension. JAMA. 1989;261:873-877.
FREE FULL TEXT
32. Gosse P, Promax H, Durandet P, Clemency J. "Office" hypertension, no harm for the heart. Hypertension. 1993;22:766-770.
FREE FULL TEXT
33. Cavallini MC, Roman MJ, Pickering TG, Schwartz JE, Pini R, Devereux RB. Is isolated office hypertension associated with arterial disease or
left ventricular hypertrophy? Hypertension. 1995;26:413-419.
FREE FULL TEXT
34. Gueyffier F, Cornu C, Bossard N, et al. Intérêt pronostique de la mesure ambulatoire de la pression
artérielle en France. Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss. 1999;92:1151-1157.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Call to Action on Use and Reimbursement for Home Blood Pressure Monitoring: A Joint Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association, American Society of Hypertension, and Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association
Pickering et al.
Hypertension 2008;52:10-29.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Self-Measurement of Blood Pressure at Home in the Management of Hypertension
Celis et al.
Clin Med Res 2005;3:19-26.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Guidelines for Home- and Office-Based Blood Pressure Monitoring--Reply
Staessen et al.
JAMA 2004;291:2315-2316.
FULL TEXT
Cardiovascular Prognosis of "Masked Hypertension" Detected by Blood Pressure Self-measurement in Elderly Treated Hypertensive Patients
Bobrie et al.
JAMA 2004;291:1342-1349.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Antihypertensive Treatment Based on Blood Pressure Measurement at Home or in the Physician's Office: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Staessen et al.
JAMA 2004;291:955-964.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
