0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

Is "Isolated Home" Hypertension as Opposed to "Isolated Office" Hypertension a Sign of Greater Cardiovascular Risk? FREE

Guillaume Bobrie, MD; Nathalie Genès, MD; Laurent Vaur, MD; Pierre Clerson, MD; Bernard Vaisse, MD; Jean-Michel Mallion, MD; Gilles Chatellier, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

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).


Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(18):2205-2211. doi:10.1001/archinte.161.18.2205.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

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.

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.68 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.

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 × 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 "S tatistical A pproach" section and comparisons among the 4 groups defined in the "C linical A pproach" 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 χ2 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).

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 Graphic Jump LocationTable 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 Graphic Jump LocationTable 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 κ 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 Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Classification of the Patients According to Their Office and Home BP Measurements*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Comparison of the Patients According to Their Hypertension Status*

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,6,2326 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,28,3133 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.

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.

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@aventis.com)

Kannel  WB Risk factors in hypertension. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1989;13Suppl 1S4- S10
Link to Article
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;1572413- 2446
Link to Article
Guidelines Subcommittee, World Health Organization—International Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension. J Hypertens. 1999;17151- 183
MacMahon  SPeto  RCutler  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;335765- 774
Link to Article
Collins  RPeto  RMacMahon  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;335827- 839
Link to Article
Chatellier  GDutrey-Dupagne  CVaur  LZannad  FGenès  NElkik  F Home self blood pressure measurement in general practice: the SMART study. Am J Hypertens. 1996;9644- 652
Link to Article
James  GDPickering  TGYees  LSHarshfield  GARiva  SLaragh  JH The reproducibility of average ambulatory, home and clinic pressures. Hypertension. 1988;11545- 549
Link to Article
Trazzi  SMutti  EFrattola  AImhorz  BParati  GMancia  G Reproducibility of non-invasive and intra-arterial BP monitoring: implications for studies on hypertensive treatment. J Hypertens. 1991;9115- 119
Link to Article
Asmar  RZanchetti  AOrganizing Committee and participants, Guidelines for the use of self-blood pressure monitoring: a summary report of the First International Consensus Conference. J Hypertens. 2000;18493- 508
Link to Article
Staessen  JABeilin  LParati  GWaeber  BWhite  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;4319- 331
Pickering  TGJames  GDBoddie  CHarshfield  GABlank  SLaragh  JH How common is isolated office hypertension? JAMA. 1988;259225- 228
Link to Article
Mancia  GBertinieri  GGrassi  G  et al.  Effects of blood-pressure measurement by the doctor on patient's blood pressure and heart rate. Lancet. 1983;2695- 698
Link to Article
Palatini  PMormino  PSantonastaso  M  et al.  Target-organ damage in stage I hypertensive subjects with office and sustained hypertension: results from the HARVEST study. Hypertension. 1998;3157- 63
Link to Article
Hoegholm  AKristensen  KSMadsen  NHSvendsen  TL Isolated office hypertension diagnosed by 24-h ambulatory monitoring: examination of 159 newly hypertensive patients. Am J Hypertens. 1992;564- 70
Houzawa  AImai  YOhkubo  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
Larkin  KTSchauss  SLElnicki  DM Isolated clinic hypertension and normotension: false positives and false negatives in the assessment of hypertension. Blood Press Monit. 1998;3247- 254
Liu  JERoman  MJPini  RSchwartz  JEPickering  TGDevereux  RB Cardiac and arterial target organ damage in adults with elevated ambulatory and normal office blood pressure. Ann Intern Med. 1999;131564- 572
Link to Article
Genès  NBobrie  GVaur  LChatellier  GVaïsse  BMallion  JM Comment évaluer la valeur pronostique de l'automesure tensionnelle chez l'hypertendu âgé: protocole de l'étude SHEAF. Presse Med. 1999;28870- 874
O'Brien  EMee  FAtkins  NThomas  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;155- 61
Mengden  THernandez  RMBeltran  BAlvarez  EKraft  KVetter  H Reliability of reporting self-measured blood pressure values by hypertensive patients. Am J Hypertens. 1998;111413- 1417
Link to Article
Nordmann  AFrach  BWalker  TMartina  BBattegay  E Reliability of patients measuring blood pressure at home: prospective observational study. BMJ. 1999;3191172
Link to Article
Ohkubo  TImai  YTsuji  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;16971- 975
Link to Article
Mancia  GSega  RBravi  C  et al.  Ambulatory blood pressure normality: results from the PAMELA study. J Hypertens. 1995;131377- 1390
Link to Article
Weisser  BGrüne  SBurger  R  et al.  The Dübendorf Study: a population-based investigation on normal values of blood pressure self-measurement. J Hum Hypertens. 1994;8227- 231
Imai  YSatoh  HNagai  K  et al.  Characteristics of a community-based distribution of home blood pressure in Ohasama in northern Japan. J Hypertens. 1993;111441- 1449
Link to Article
De Gaudemaris  RChau  NPMallion  JMGroupe de la Mesure, French Society of Hypertension, Home blood pressure: variability, comparison with office readings and proposal for reference values. J Hypertens. 1994;12831- 837
Link to Article
Julius  S Home blood pressure monitoring: advantages and limitations. J Hypertens. 1991;9(suppl 3)S4- S46
Link to Article
Verdecchia  PPorcellati  CSchillaci  G  et al.  Ambulatory blood pressure: an independent predictor of prognosis in essential hypertension. Hypertension. 1994;24793- 801
Link to Article
Mansoor  GAMc Cabe  EJWhite  WB Determinants of the white coat effect in hypertensive subjects. J Hum Hypertens. 1996;1087- 92
Stergiou  GSZourbaki  ASSkeva  IIMountokalakis  TD White coat effect detected using self-monitoring of blood pressure at home: comparison with ambulatory blood pressure. Am J Hypertens. 1998;11820- 827
Link to Article
White  WBSchulman  PMc Cabe  EJDey  HM Average daily blood pressure, not office blood pressure, determines cardiac function in patients with hypertension. JAMA. 1989;261873- 877
Link to Article
Gosse  PPromax  HDurandet  PClemency  J "Office" hypertension, no harm for the heart. Hypertension. 1993;22766- 770
Link to Article
Cavallini  MCRoman  MJPickering  TGSchwartz  JEPini  RDevereux  RB Is isolated office hypertension associated with arterial disease or left ventricular hypertrophy? Hypertension. 1995;26413- 419
Link to Article
Gueyffier  FCornu  CBossard  N  et al.  Intérêt pronostique de la mesure ambulatoire de la pression artérielle en France. Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss. 1999;921151- 1157

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. General Characteristics of the Subjects*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Comparison of the Patients According to the Magnitude of the Difference Between Office and Home BP Measurements*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Classification of the Patients According to Their Office and Home BP Measurements*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Comparison of the Patients According to Their Hypertension Status*

References

Kannel  WB Risk factors in hypertension. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1989;13Suppl 1S4- S10
Link to Article
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;1572413- 2446
Link to Article
Guidelines Subcommittee, World Health Organization—International Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension. J Hypertens. 1999;17151- 183
MacMahon  SPeto  RCutler  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;335765- 774
Link to Article
Collins  RPeto  RMacMahon  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;335827- 839
Link to Article
Chatellier  GDutrey-Dupagne  CVaur  LZannad  FGenès  NElkik  F Home self blood pressure measurement in general practice: the SMART study. Am J Hypertens. 1996;9644- 652
Link to Article
James  GDPickering  TGYees  LSHarshfield  GARiva  SLaragh  JH The reproducibility of average ambulatory, home and clinic pressures. Hypertension. 1988;11545- 549
Link to Article
Trazzi  SMutti  EFrattola  AImhorz  BParati  GMancia  G Reproducibility of non-invasive and intra-arterial BP monitoring: implications for studies on hypertensive treatment. J Hypertens. 1991;9115- 119
Link to Article
Asmar  RZanchetti  AOrganizing Committee and participants, Guidelines for the use of self-blood pressure monitoring: a summary report of the First International Consensus Conference. J Hypertens. 2000;18493- 508
Link to Article
Staessen  JABeilin  LParati  GWaeber  BWhite  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;4319- 331
Pickering  TGJames  GDBoddie  CHarshfield  GABlank  SLaragh  JH How common is isolated office hypertension? JAMA. 1988;259225- 228
Link to Article
Mancia  GBertinieri  GGrassi  G  et al.  Effects of blood-pressure measurement by the doctor on patient's blood pressure and heart rate. Lancet. 1983;2695- 698
Link to Article
Palatini  PMormino  PSantonastaso  M  et al.  Target-organ damage in stage I hypertensive subjects with office and sustained hypertension: results from the HARVEST study. Hypertension. 1998;3157- 63
Link to Article
Hoegholm  AKristensen  KSMadsen  NHSvendsen  TL Isolated office hypertension diagnosed by 24-h ambulatory monitoring: examination of 159 newly hypertensive patients. Am J Hypertens. 1992;564- 70
Houzawa  AImai  YOhkubo  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
Larkin  KTSchauss  SLElnicki  DM Isolated clinic hypertension and normotension: false positives and false negatives in the assessment of hypertension. Blood Press Monit. 1998;3247- 254
Liu  JERoman  MJPini  RSchwartz  JEPickering  TGDevereux  RB Cardiac and arterial target organ damage in adults with elevated ambulatory and normal office blood pressure. Ann Intern Med. 1999;131564- 572
Link to Article
Genès  NBobrie  GVaur  LChatellier  GVaïsse  BMallion  JM Comment évaluer la valeur pronostique de l'automesure tensionnelle chez l'hypertendu âgé: protocole de l'étude SHEAF. Presse Med. 1999;28870- 874
O'Brien  EMee  FAtkins  NThomas  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;155- 61
Mengden  THernandez  RMBeltran  BAlvarez  EKraft  KVetter  H Reliability of reporting self-measured blood pressure values by hypertensive patients. Am J Hypertens. 1998;111413- 1417
Link to Article
Nordmann  AFrach  BWalker  TMartina  BBattegay  E Reliability of patients measuring blood pressure at home: prospective observational study. BMJ. 1999;3191172
Link to Article
Ohkubo  TImai  YTsuji  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;16971- 975
Link to Article
Mancia  GSega  RBravi  C  et al.  Ambulatory blood pressure normality: results from the PAMELA study. J Hypertens. 1995;131377- 1390
Link to Article
Weisser  BGrüne  SBurger  R  et al.  The Dübendorf Study: a population-based investigation on normal values of blood pressure self-measurement. J Hum Hypertens. 1994;8227- 231
Imai  YSatoh  HNagai  K  et al.  Characteristics of a community-based distribution of home blood pressure in Ohasama in northern Japan. J Hypertens. 1993;111441- 1449
Link to Article
De Gaudemaris  RChau  NPMallion  JMGroupe de la Mesure, French Society of Hypertension, Home blood pressure: variability, comparison with office readings and proposal for reference values. J Hypertens. 1994;12831- 837
Link to Article
Julius  S Home blood pressure monitoring: advantages and limitations. J Hypertens. 1991;9(suppl 3)S4- S46
Link to Article
Verdecchia  PPorcellati  CSchillaci  G  et al.  Ambulatory blood pressure: an independent predictor of prognosis in essential hypertension. Hypertension. 1994;24793- 801
Link to Article
Mansoor  GAMc Cabe  EJWhite  WB Determinants of the white coat effect in hypertensive subjects. J Hum Hypertens. 1996;1087- 92
Stergiou  GSZourbaki  ASSkeva  IIMountokalakis  TD White coat effect detected using self-monitoring of blood pressure at home: comparison with ambulatory blood pressure. Am J Hypertens. 1998;11820- 827
Link to Article
White  WBSchulman  PMc Cabe  EJDey  HM Average daily blood pressure, not office blood pressure, determines cardiac function in patients with hypertension. JAMA. 1989;261873- 877
Link to Article
Gosse  PPromax  HDurandet  PClemency  J "Office" hypertension, no harm for the heart. Hypertension. 1993;22766- 770
Link to Article
Cavallini  MCRoman  MJPickering  TGSchwartz  JEPini  RDevereux  RB Is isolated office hypertension associated with arterial disease or left ventricular hypertrophy? Hypertension. 1995;26413- 419
Link to Article
Gueyffier  FCornu  CBossard  N  et al.  Intérêt pronostique de la mesure ambulatoire de la pression artérielle en France. Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss. 1999;921151- 1157

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 53

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
JAMAevidence.com

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Clinical Scenario

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Example 1: Diabetes and Target Blood Pressure