White Coat Uncontrolled Hypertension in Teleconsultation: A New and Frequent Entity

Background and Purpose: Among stroke survivors, uncontrolled hypertension is a major risk factor for recurrent stroke. Blood pressure (BP) medication titration often relies on office BP measures, which may be inaccurate due to the white coat effect (WCE). We sought to determine the prevalence of the WCE in stroke survivors and to determine whether clinical and demographic factors were associated with WCE. Methods: We followed ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke and transient ischemic attack patients with prior hypertension presenting to our stroke clinic for a BP study. Sitting BP was obtained by a medical assistant using an office automated BP machine (OABP). Patients also underwent BP measurement using BPtru, an automated machine that measures and averages five BPs with the patient alone in a room. BPtru approximate BPs obtained by the gold standard ambulatory blood pressure machine. Systolic BP (SBP) obtained by BPtru was subtracted from that obtained by OABP. WCE was defined as SBP difference ≥ 10mmHg. Uncontrolled BP was defined as SBP ≥ 135 mmHg by BPtru or ≥ 140 mmHg by OABP. We used student t-tests (continuous) and chi-squared or Fischer’s exact tests (categorical) for univariate analyses. Results: Of 94 patients, mean age was 60 (SD 12), 60.6% were male, 26.6% were Non-Hispanic White, 46.8% were Black, and 23.4% were Hispanic. Systolic OABP was 13.2 mmHg (SD 19.3) higher than BPtru SBP (student t-test; p <0.001). WCE was present in 58.5 % of participants and BP was misclassified as uncontrolled in 21.2%. In univariate analyses, age (p = 0.14), sex (p = 0.78), race (0.07), stroke type (0.92), body mass index (p = 0.65), and tobacco use (p = 0.35) were not significantly associated with presence of WCE. The presence of normal SBP by OABP was associated with a decreased likelihood of WCE (p = 0.006). Conclusions: Among hypertensive stroke patients following in a clinic, WCE was highly prevalent and one-fifth of patients were misclassified as uncontrolled. Neither race nor other previously described predictors of WCE were associated with WCE in this study. Our findings suggest that in patients with elevated office BP, findings should be confirmed with an automated machine like BPtru in order to avoid over-titration of medication or incorrect assessment of BP control.

Download Full-text

Poor reproducibility of masked and white coat uncontrolled hypertension: important new information on MUCH and WUCH

European Heart Journal ◽

10.1093/eurheartj/ehz703 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 41 (16) ◽

pp. 1572-1574 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Sverre E Kjeldsen ◽

Ingrid Os

Keyword(s):

White Coat ◽

Uncontrolled Hypertension ◽

New Information

Download Full-text

American Versus European Hypertension Guidelines: The Case of White Coat Hypertension

American Journal of Hypertension ◽

10.1093/ajh/hpaa029 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 33 (7) ◽

pp. 629-633 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Cesare Cuspidi ◽

Federico Paoletti ◽

Marijana Tadic ◽

Carla Sala ◽

Raffaella Dell’Oro ◽

...

Keyword(s):

European Society ◽

American Heart ◽

Prognostic Significance ◽

Heart Association ◽

White Coat ◽

Uncontrolled Hypertension ◽

White Coat Hypertension ◽

Hypertension Guidelines ◽

Esc Guidelines ◽

The Impact

Abstract BACKGROUND The impact of the 2017 American College Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on reclassification of white coat hypertension (WCH) and white coat uncontrolled hypertension (WUCH) phenotypes has not been thoroughly investigated, so far. The aim of the present analysis was to compare the prevalence rates of WCH and WUCH according to either 2018 European Society Hypertension/European Society Cardiology and 2017 ACC/AHA hypertension guidelines. METHODS A large database of individual 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (BP) recordings from untreated and treated hypertensive individuals with office BP ≥140 and/or 90 mm Hg was analyzed. RESULTS As many as 3,223 (39% men) out of 7,353 (47% men) fulfilled diagnostic criteria for WCH (n = 1,281) and WUCH (n = 1,942) according to the 2018 ESH/ESC guidelines (mean 24-hour BP <130/80 mm Hg), the prevalence rate being 17.4% and 26.4%, respectively. The corresponding figures according to the 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines (mean 24-hour BP <125/75 mm Hg) were 15.6 and 9.4%, respectively. Thus, a total of 1,378 patients (42.7%) either defined as WCH and WUCH by ESH/ESC guidelines, were classifiable as untreated sustained and uncontrolled sustained hypertensives by ACC/AHA guidelines. CONCLUSIONS The ACC/AHA reclassification of patients with office BP ≥140/90 mm Hg leads to a marked decrease in the prevalence of WCH/WUCH. This may have relevant clinical implications because the prognostic significance of these phenotypes is often ignored in clinical practice and, consequently, contributes to the high burden of cardiovascular diseases worldwide.

Download Full-text

Risk of Atrial Fibrillation in Masked and White Coat Uncontrolled Hypertension

American Journal of Hypertension ◽

10.1093/ajh/hpaa185 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Francesca Coccina ◽

Anna M Pierdomenico ◽

Matteo De Rosa ◽

Lorenzo Belli ◽

Melissa Foglietta ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Atrial Fibrillation ◽

Blood Pressure ◽

Confidence Interval ◽

Sinus Rhythm ◽

Ambulatory Blood Pressure ◽

White Coat ◽

Uncontrolled Hypertension ◽

Hypertensive Patients ◽

New Onset

Abstract Background Risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) in masked and white coat uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH and WUCH, respectively) has not yet been investigated. We assessed the risk of new-onset AF in MUCH and WUCH detected by ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring. Methods The occurrence of AF was evaluated in 2135 treated hypertensive patients aged >40 years, with baseline sinus rhythm, by electrocardiogram. Controlled hypertension (CH) was defined as clinic BP <140/90 mmHg and daytime BP, regardless of nighttime BP, <135/85 mmHg, MUCH as clinic BP <140/90 mmHg and daytime BP ≥135 and/or ≥85 mmHg, WUCH as clinic BP >140 and/or >90 mmHg and daytime BP <135/85 mmHg and sustained uncontrolled hypertension (SUCH) as clinic BP >140 and/or >90 mmHg and daytime BP >135 and/or >85 mmHg. Results MUCH was identified in 203 patients (9.5% of all the population, 29% of those with normal clinic BP) and WUCH in 503 patients (23.5% of all the population, 35% of those with high clinic BP). During the follow-up (mean 9.7 years), 116 cases of AF occurred. After adjustment for covariates, patients with MUCH (hazard ratio (HR) 2.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06-3.85) and SUCH (HR 1.83, 95% CI, 1.04-3.21) had higher risk of new-onset AF than those with CH, whereas those with WUCH (HR 1.12, 95% CI, 0.59-2.13) did not. Conclusions When compared to patients with CH, those with MUCH and SUCH are at higher risk (approximately doubled) of new-onset AF, whereas those with WUCH are not.

Download Full-text

Effects of Intensive Versus Standard Office-Based Hypertension Treatment Strategy on White-Coat Effect and Masked Uncontrolled Hypertension

Hypertension ◽

10.1161/hypertensionaha.120.15300 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 76 (4) ◽

pp. 1090-1096

Author(s):

Lama Ghazi ◽

Laura P. Cohen ◽

Paul Muntner ◽

Daichi Shimbo ◽

Paul E. Drawz

Keyword(s):

Blood Pressure ◽

White Coat ◽

Uncontrolled Hypertension ◽

Similar Proportion ◽

Hypertension Treatment ◽

Intervention Trial ◽

Treatment Groups ◽

Ancillary Study ◽

White Coat Effect ◽

Ambulatory Bp Monitoring

Guidelines recommend using out-of-office blood pressure (BP) measurements to confirm the diagnoses of hypertension and in the titration of antihypertensive medication. The prevalence of out-of-office BP phenotypes for an office systolic/diastolic BP goal <140/90 mm Hg has been reported. However, the prevalence of these phenotypes when targeting an office systolic/diastolic BP goal <120/80 is unknown. The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) Ambulatory BP Ancillary study evaluated out-of-office BP using ambulatory BP monitoring in 897 participants 27 months after randomization to intensive versus standard BP targets (office systolic BP <120 versus <140 mm Hg). We used office and daytime BP to assess the proportion of participants with white-coat effect (standard target: office BP ≥140/90 mm Hg and daytime BP <135/85 mm Hg versus intensive target: office BP ≥120/80 mm Hg and daytime BP <120/80 mm Hg) and masked uncontrolled hypertension (standard target: office BP <140/90 mm Hg and daytime BP ≥135/85 mm Hg versus intensive target: office BP <120/80 mm Hg and daytime BP ≥120/80 mm Hg) in each treatment arm. The prevalence of white-coat effect and masked uncontrolled hypertension was 9% and 34%, in both treatment groups. Among participants with uncontrolled office BP, white-coat effect was present in 20% and 23% in the intensive and standard groups, respectively. Among participants with controlled office BP, masked uncontrolled hypertension was present in 62% and 56% in the intensive and standard groups, respectively. In conclusion, a more intensive BP target resulted in a similar proportion of patients with white-coat effect and masked uncontrolled hypertension compared with a standard target.

Download Full-text