Discordance between Ambulatory versus Clinic Blood Pressure According to the Global Cardiovascular Risk Groups

Abstract

Background/Aims: The detection of white coat hypertension (WCH), treated normalized hypertension, and masked hypertension (MH) is important to im-prove the effectiveness of hypertension management. However, whether global cardiovascular risk (GCR) profile has any effect on the discordance between ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) and clinic blood pressure (CBP) is unknown.Methods: Data from 1,916 subjects, taken from the Korean Multicenter Regis-try for ABP monitoring, were grouped according to diagnostic and therapeutic thresholds for CBP and ABP (140/90 and 135/85 mmHg, respectively). GCR was assessed using European Society of Hypertension 2007 guidelines. Results: The mean subject age was 54.1 ± 14.9 years, and 48.9% of patients were female. The discordancy rate between ABP and CBP in the untreated and treat-ed patients was 32.5% and 26.5%, respectively (p = 0.02). The prevalence of WCH or treated normalized hypertension and MH was 14.4% and 16.0%, respectively. Discordance between ABP and CBP was lower in the very high added-risk group compared to the moderate added-risk group (odds ratio [OR], 0.649; 95% confi-dence interval [CI], 0.487 to 0.863; p = 0.003). The prevalence of WCH or treated normalized hypertension was also lower in the very high added-risk group (OR, 0.451; 95% CI, 0.311 to 0.655). Conclusions: Discordance between ABP and CBP was observed more frequently in untreated subjects than in treated subjects, and less frequently in the very high added-risk group, which was due mainly to the lower prevalence of WCH or treat-ed normalized hypertension.