PS 02-64 PREVALENCE OF WHITE-COAT HYPERTENSION AND MASKED HYPERTENSION IN KOREAN AMBULATORY BLOOD PRESSURE REGISTRY FOR PRIMARY CARE CLINIC SETTING, PILOT STUDY DATA

Several ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) phenotypes including masked hypertension are associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Diabetes is associated with CVD risk as well as a higher prevalence of hypertension. However, little is known about whether ABPM phenotypes differ between individuals with versus without diabetes. We evaluated the association between diabetes and ABPM phenotypes including clinic hypertension, awake hypertension, sustained hypertension, nocturnal hypertension, non-dipping pattern, white coat hypertension, and masked hypertension in the Jackson Heart Study (JHS). Baseline data collection included two clinic blood pressure measurements using standardized protocols. ABPM measurements were taken in the 24 hours following the baseline visit. Diabetes was defined as fasting glucose ≥126 mg/dL, hemoglobin A1c ≥6.5%, or use of diabetes medications. Of the 1,032 JHS participants with valid ABPM data (67.7% female, mean age 59.2 years), 253 (24.5%) had diabetes. The prevalence of clinic hypertension was similar for participants with and without diabetes (Table 1). After multivariable adjustment, diabetes was associated with an increased prevalence ratio of awake, sustained, and masked hypertension and a lower prevalence ratio of white coat hypertension compared with individuals without diabetes. In summary, there was an increased prevalence of adverse blood pressure phenotypes among individuals with versus those without diabetes that was not captured in the clinic setting alone. The role of ABPM for identifying high risk individuals with diabetes should be further investigated.

Download Full-text

Prevalence and control of hypertension by 48-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in haemodialysis patients: a study by the European Cardiovascular and Renal Medicine (EURECA-m) working group of the ERA-EDTA

Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation ◽

10.1093/ndt/gfy147 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 34 (9) ◽

pp. 1542-1548 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Pantelis A Sarafidis ◽

Francesca Mallamaci ◽

Charalampos Loutradis ◽

Robert Ekart ◽

Claudia Torino ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Blood Pressure ◽

Ambulatory Blood Pressure ◽

Working Group ◽

Blood Pressure Monitoring ◽

Antihypertensive Agents ◽

White Coat ◽

Uncontrolled Hypertension ◽

White Coat Hypertension ◽

Masked Hypertension ◽

Very High

Abstract Background Population-specific consensus documents recommend that the diagnosis of hypertension in haemodialysis patients be based on 48-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring. However, until now there is just one study in the USA on the prevalence of hypertension in haemodialysis patients by 44-h recordings. Since there is a knowledge gap on the problem in European countries, we reassessed the problem in the European Cardiovascular and Renal Medicine working group Registry of the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association. Methods A total of 396 haemodialysis patients underwent 48-h ABP monitoring during a regular haemodialysis session and the subsequent interdialytic interval. Hypertension was defined as (i) pre-haemodialysis blood pressure (BP) ≥140/90 mmHg or use of antihypertensive agents and (ii) ABP ≥130/80 mmHg or use of antihypertensive agents. Results The prevalence of hypertension by 48-h ABP monitoring was very high (84.3%) and close to that by pre-haemodialysis BP (89.4%) but the agreement of the two techniques was not of the same magnitude (κ statistics = 0.648; P <0.001). In all, 290 participants were receiving antihypertensive treatment. In all, 9.1% of haemodialysis patients were categorized as normotensives, 12.6% had controlled hypertension confirmed by the two BP techniques, while 46.0% had uncontrolled hypertension with both techniques. The prevalence of white coat hypertension was 18.2% and that of masked hypertension 14.1%. Of note, hypertension was confined only to night-time in 22.2% of patients while just 1% of patients had only daytime hypertension. Pre-dialysis BP ≥140/90 mmHg had 76% sensitivity and 54% specificity for the diagnosis of BP ≥130/80 mmHg by 48-h ABP monitoring. Conclusions The prevalence of hypertension in haemodialysis patients assessed by 48-h ABP monitoring is very high. Pre-haemodialysis BP poorly reflects the 48 h-ABP burden. About a third of the haemodialysis population has white coat or masked hypertension. These findings add weight to consensus documents supporting the use of ABP monitoring for proper hypertension diagnosis and treatment in this population.

Download Full-text

Elderly Patients in Primary Care are Still at Risks of Receiving Potentially Inappropriate Medications

Journal of Primary Care & Community Health ◽

10.1177/21501327211035088 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 ◽

pp. 215013272110350

Author(s):

Pasitpon Vatcharavongvan ◽

Viwat Puttawanchai

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Primary Care Clinic ◽

Clinical Decision ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Study Data ◽

Patient Specific ◽

Potentially Inappropriate Medications ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Care Clinic ◽

Inappropriate Medications

Background Most older adults with comorbidities in primary care clinics use multiple medications and are at risk of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) prescription. Objective This study examined the prevalence of polypharmacy and PIMs using Thai criteria for PIMs. Methods This study was a retrospective cross-sectional study. Data were collected from electronic medical records in a primary care clinic in 2018. Samples were patients aged ≥65 years old with at least 1 prescription. Variables included age, gender, comorbidities, and medications. The list of risk drugs for Thai elderly version 2 was the criteria for PIMs. The prevalence of polypharmacy and PIMs were calculated, and multiple logistic regression was conducted to examine associations between variables and PIMs. Results Of 2806 patients, 27.5% and 43.7% used ≥5 medications and PIMs, respectively. Of 10 290 prescriptions, 47% had at least 1 PIM. The top 3 PIMs were anticholinergics, proton-pump inhibitors, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Polypharmacy and dyspepsia were associated with PIM prescriptions (adjusted odds ratio 2.48 [95% confident interval or 95% CI 2.07-2.96] and 3.88 [95% CI 2.65-5.68], respectively). Conclusion Prescriptions with PIMs were high in the primary care clinic. Describing unnecessary medications is crucial to prevent negative health outcomes from PIMs. Computer-based clinical decision support, pharmacy-led interventions, and patient-specific drug recommendations are promising interventions to reduce PIMs in a primary care setting.

Download Full-text