X

Clinical Hypertension and Vascular Diseases
Series Editor: William B. White
William B. White Editor
Blood Pressure
Monitoring in
Cardiovascular
Medicine
and Therapeutics
Third Edition
Series Editor: William B. White
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/7673

Other titles in this series
Blood Pressure Monitoring in Cardiovascular Medicine and Therapeutics,

Third Edition
White, William B. (Ed.), 2016
Hypertension in High Risk African Americans
Ferdinand, Keith C. (Ed.), 2015
Chronic Kidney Disease and Hypertension
Weir, Matthew R, Lerma, Edgar V. (Eds.), 2015
Pediatric Hypertension, Third Edition
Flynn, Joseph T, Ingelfinger, Julie R, Portman, Ronald J. (Eds.), 2013
Hypertension and Stroke
Aiyagari, Venkatesh, Gorelick, Philip B. (Eds.), 2011
Pediatric Hypertension, Second Edition
Flynn, Joseph T, Ingelfinger, Julie R, Portman, Ronald J. (Eds.), 2011
Blood Pressure Monitoring in Cardiovascular Medicine and Therapeutics,
Second Edition
Lower Extremity Arterial Disease
Caralis, Dennis G, Bakris, George L. (Eds.), 2005
Hypertension in the Elderly
Prisant, L. Michael (Ed.), 2005
Pediatric Hypertension
Portman, Ronald J, Sorof, Jonathan M, Ingelfinger, Julie R. (Eds.), 2004
Secondary Hypertension
Mansoor, George A. (Ed.), 2004
Blood Pressure Monitoring in Cardiovascular Medicine and Therapeutics
William B. White
Editor
Blood Pressure Monitoring

in Cardiovascular Medicine
and Therapeutics
Third Edition
Editor
William B. White, M.D., F.A.S.H., F.A.H.A., F.A.C.P.
Calhoun Cardiology Center
University of Connecticut School of Medicine
Farmington, CT, USA

ISBN 978-3-319-22770-2 ISBN 978-3-319-22771-9 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-22771-9
Library of Congress Control Number: 2015958778
Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2000, 2007, 2016
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
Humana Press is a brand of Springer

Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland is part of Springer Science+Business Media
(www.springer.com)
Foreword
This Third Edition of Blood Pressure Monitoring in Cardiovascular Medicine and

Therapeutics extends the tradition of excellence in this area and is now entering its
16th year. The editor, Dr. William B. White, has assembled a group of well-respected
authors to cover the entire spectrum of how ambulatory blood pressure monitoring
(ABPM) has changed the face of clinical trials and clinical medicine. It also helps
the reader understand how to interpret data in different clinical settings. For those
with an interest in blood pressure variability and 24 h ABPM, this book is an indis-
pensable resource. ABPM is now recommended for initial evaluation of hyperten-
sion by some national guidelines, while all guidelines recommend its use for
conditions such as masked hypertension, white coat hypertension, and adequacy of
blood pressure control while sleeping.
The technology available in the most recent monitors is quite sophisticated and
can assess changes in vascular compliance as well as overall blood pressure pat-
terns. For this reason both the clinical and research use of these devices have
expanded dramatically over the past 6–8 years since the book’s last edition was
published. The third edition covers all aspects of blood pressure monitoring includ-
ing review of the epidemiology and methodology used in outcome and blood pres-
sure studies, comprehensive assessment of home blood pressure monitoring research
and its translation into clinical practice, and a discussion of its use in the general
management of patients.
The pathophysiology of circadian rhythms is discussed with five chapters dedi-
cated to this topic covering the spectrum of chronobiology. A new chapter on rele-
vance of blood pressure variability as a potential determinant of cardiovascular
morbidity and mortality is an important addition to this edition of the book.
Additionally, a new chapter covering the importance of neurohormonal activity,
sodium and other cations, as well as renin–angiotensin system, obstructive sleep
apnea, and the environment on blood pressure variability has been added. Another
new and interesting chapter deals with ABPM and stroke outcomes. Moreover,
there is a new chapter on the use of ABPM in clinical practice. This is a case-based
chapter with nearly a dozen different clinical examples demonstrating the utility of
ambulatory monitoring as an adjunct to the rest of the diagnostic work-up.
v
vi Foreword
A whole section of the book has been dedicated to special populations including
children, older people, and those with kidney disease as well as ischemic heart
disease and outcomes based on ambulatory blood pressure readings.
There is no question that this is the quintessential text on blood pressure monitor-
ing in clinical medicine and is second to none for its authoritative chapters and
practical advice to clinicians as well as its perspective on understanding the ABPM
results of a given patient. I highly recommend it to all who have an interest in this
topic as “The Book on the Subject.”
Chicago, IL, USA George L. Bakris, M.D., F.A.S.H.

Preface
The third edition of Blood Pressure Monitoring in Cardiovascular Medicine and

Therapeutics is devoted to the topic of circadian variation in cardiovascular disease,
with a special emphasis on blood pressure and the clinical evaluation and treatment
of hypertension. Clinical investigation related to home and ambulatory monitoring
of the blood pressure has led to significant improvements in our ability to confirm
hypertension as well as to identify clinical entities in patients with hypertension and
vascular complications. This research is important not only because hypertension is
so ubiquitous among adults around the globe, but also because the attributable car-
diovascular morbidity and mortality associated with the hypertensive disease pro-
cess are so substantial.
Since the first edition of this book in 2000 and its second edition in 2007, research
efforts in basic and clinical hypertension have progressed, and work devoted to the
measurement of blood pressure and blood pressure variability has been a major part
of this scientific advancement with new measurement devices, novel drug and
device therapies, and outcomes research in observational studies and clinical trials.
During the past 8 years, numerous important research papers in the fields of ambula-
tory and home blood pressure monitoring have been published, and regular consen-
sus conferences have been held at the European and/or International Society of
Hypertension meetings as well as at the American Society of Hypertension annual
meeting and expositions. Thus, it remains important and clinically relevant to have
an updated third edition of my book that cohesively aggregates research findings
involving blood pressure monitoring in clinical medicine and in cardiovascular
therapeutics.
The volume has been organized into four major sections which cover broad areas
in blood pressure measurement or monitoring as it relates to epidemiology, method-
ology, clinical associations and outcomes, and practical utility. The five chapters in
Part I describe the methodology of clinical, home, and ambulatory blood pressure
monitoring in research and clinical practice. Dr. Myers presents a concise chapter
on different means to accurately measure the blood pressure in the medical care
environment based on his many years of work in this area in Toronto. A comprehen-
sive assessment of home blood pressure monitoring research as it translates into
vii
viii Preface
clinical practice including review of the epidemiologic data and other outcome
findings, the importance of blood pressure variability, and discussing its use for the
general management of patients was provided by Dr. Parati and colleagues from
Milan. My former colleague, Dr. Mansoor from St. John’s, Antigua, explains the
importance of the environment and physical activity recordings in cardiovascular
disease. These techniques may be helpful for obtaining meaningful data during
ambulatory blood pressure recordings in clinical trials. Advances in actigraphy
research have allowed investigators to pinpoint changes in physical activity that
may directly impact on blood pressure variability. Vanessa Barber and I from
Farmington, Connecticut, have updated an overview of ambulatory monitoring of
the blood pressure, including descriptions of device validation, patterns of blood
pressure variation discovered with the advent of this technique, and usefulness of
the methodology in clinical hypertension practice. Drs. Atkins and O’Brien have
updated their chapter on the importance of device validation and their reliability.
While seemingly an unexciting topic, the importance of device validation cannot be
overestimated as it is a requirement for investigators to confirm the overall validity
of these recorders being used in clinical trial research and clinical practice.
The five chapters in Part II bring in new information related to our understanding
of the pathophysiology of the circadian biology of cardiovascular disorders. A num-
ber of prior authors from the second edition as well as new authors and topics com-
prise this section. Drs. Smolensky, Portaluppi, and Hermida begin with an overview
of the chronobiology of blood pressure regulation in humans. This chapter lays the
groundwork for the rest of this section with its comprehensive discussion of the
progress that has been made in research involving the chronophysiology of human
disease with major emphases on hypertension, coronary artery disease, and stroke.
Dr. Asayama and colleagues from Leuven have written a new chapter on relevance
of blood pressure variability as a potential determinant of cardiovascular morbidity
and mortality. During the past two decades, there has been substantial controversy
over the independent relevance of short-term blood pressure variability derived
from ambulatory monitoring versus longer-term variability that is associated with
weekly or monthly clinical visits—these topics are covered in this balanced chapter.
Dr. Burnier and coworkers from Lausanne have also written a new chapter covering
the importance of neurohormonal activity, sodium and other cations, renin–angio-
tensin system, obstructive sleep apnea, and the environment on blood pressure vari-
ability. Drs. Angeli and Verdecchia from Perugia have once again provided a
state-of-the-art chapter on the prognostic value of ambulatory blood pressure moni-
toring based on their long-term research in this field as well as through other data-
bases from around the world. To wrap up this section, Dr. Gorelick and colleagues
from Grand Rapids, Michigan, have written a new chapter for the book on ambula-
tory blood pressure and stroke—the authors are experts in vascular neurology who
have had a long-standing interest in the relationships among blood pressure, stroke,
and cognitive function, and their chapter is a welcome addition to this book.
There are eight chapters in Part III which focus on ambulatory blood pressure in
special populations of patients with hypertension: Drs. Gulati and White from
Hartford and Farmington, Connecticut, cover the older patient with systolic
Preface ix
hypertension from the perspective of clinical cardiology and their longitudinal work
on small vessel brain disease as it relates to out-of-office blood pressure; Dr. Flynn
from Seattle comprehensively covers children and adolescents from the perspective
of a leader in pediatric nephrology and hypertension; Drs. Hermida and Ayala from
Vigo, Spain, comprehensively evaluate data during pregnancy from the perspective
of experts in physiology and maternal–fetal medicine; Dr. Peixoto and coworkers
from New Haven, Connecticut, and Rio de Janeiro provide us with a substantially
updated and complete chapter on patients with chronic kidney disease and those on
dialysis from the perspective of experts in clinical nephrology.
There are also four new chapters in Part III: a focus on ambulatory blood pres-
sure in patients with ischemic heart disease and heart failure by Drs. Campbell and
Javed from Little Rock and New Orleans from their perspective as experts in heart
failure and hypertension; Dr. Viera from Chapel Hill, North Carolina, has an update
on masked hypertension based on his own research as well as that of others in this
important new field, while Dr. Krakoff from New York has written an update on
white coat hypertension from the perspective of a hypertension specialist and a
long-time researcher in out-of-office blood pressure monitoring. Finally, Dr.
Lemmer from Heidelberg has written a new chapter on the importance of gender
from the perspective of a clinical pharmacologist using examples from both animal
models and clinical data.
In Part IV, there are three chapters, with two new authors for the book’s third
edition. The focus of the section is on the applications of home and ambulatory
monitoring in clinical research and hypertension management. Drs. Stergiou and
Ntineri from Athens have written a very comprehensive review of the use of home
(or self) monitoring of the blood pressure in clinical research with a particular focus
on therapeutic trials—at the time of publication of the prior edition of this book,
there were very few studies published in this area. We welcome this new chapter by
dedicated experts in this area. Drs. White and Malha from Farmington and New York
have developed an updated, extensive review of the usefulness of ambulatory blood
pressure monitoring during antihypertensive drug development as well as in novel
trials of device therapy, such as renal denervation. Ambulatory blood pressure mon-
itoring elucidates the efficacy of new antihypertensive therapies versus placebo as
well as in comparator trials of two therapies. It also is an important tool to assess
device therapy of hypertension to reduce the impact of observer bias. In the final
chapter, Dr. Townsend, a hypertension specialist from Philadelphia, has written a
new chapter on the use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in clinical practice.
This is case-based chapter with nearly a dozen different clinical examples demon-
strating the utility of ambulatory monitoring as an adjunct to the rest of the diagnos-
tic work-up.
The clinicians and investigators who contributed to this textbook have written
comprehensive and up-to-date information from a field in hypertension and vascular
medicine that is dynamic and in which knowledge is advancing at a rapid pace. Just
20 years ago, most research in the field of ambulatory monitoring of the blood pres-
sure was descriptive and did not correlate the data to target organ disease or cardio-
vascular outcomes. Hence, practicing physicians were not provided with enough
x Preface
solid information to have an impact on the day-to-day management of their patients.

This certainly is no longer the case as after nearly 30 years of outcomes studies that
include target organ disease and events, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring has
matured into a highly useful methodology for clinical hypertension research as well
as an important aid in the management of patients with hypertension and vascular
disease. In fact, policymakers in many countries have supported its use in the evalu-
ation and treatment of newly diagnosed patients with hypertension.
I am truly grateful for all of the outstanding chapters provided by my contributing
authors, which greatly enhanced my job as volume editor. Diane Webster, my long-
time assistant at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine, provided out-
standing support in helping to organize the manuscripts during the course of their
production as well as to review references, author information, permissions, and titles.
Special thanks to Vanessa Barber, a talented research assistant in our clinical research
center who not only coauthored a chapter with me but also spent a large amount of
time and effort assessing the 21 chapters for overlap and redundancy as well as for-
mat. Finally, I would like to extend my ongoing gratitude to my wife, Nancy Petry, a
highly accomplished researcher, author, and editor in the field of behavioral medicine
and devoted mother of our dear children Hannah and Noah White, for her love and
support during the past decade.
Farmington, CT, USA William B. White, M.D.

Contents
Part I Techniques for Monitoring Blood Pressure

1 Monitoring Blood Pressure in the Office .............................................. 3
Martin G. Myers
2 Home (Self) Monitoring of Blood Pressure........................................... 15
Gianfranco Parati and Juan Eugenio Ochoa
3 Activity Monitoring and the Effects of the Environment
on Blood Pressure.................................................................................... 45
George A. Mansoor
4 Ambulatory Monitoring of Blood Pressure:
An Overview of Devices, Analyses, and Clinical Utility ...................... 55
William B. White and Vanessa Barber
5 Validation and Reliability Testing of Blood Pressure Monitors.......... 77
Neil Atkins and Eoin O’Brien
Part II Concepts in the Circadian Variation

of Cardiovascular Disease
6 Circadian and Cyclic Environmental Determinants
of Blood Pressure Patterning and Implications
for Therapeutic Interventions ................................................................ 105
Michael H. Smolensky, Francesco Portaluppi,
and Ramón C. Hermida
7 Blood Pressure Variability as Elusive Harbinger
of Adverse Health Outcomes.................................................................. 129
Kei Asayama, Fang-Fei Wei, Azusa Hara, Tine W. Hansen,
Yan Li, and Jan A. Staessen
xi
xii Contents
8 Physiologic Control of the Circadian Variability

in Blood Pressure .................................................................................... 149
Michel Burnier, Olivier Bonny, and Gregoire Wuerzner
9 Prognostic Value of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring ............ 165
Fabio Angeli and Paolo Verdecchia
10 Ambulatory Blood Pressure and Stroke ............................................... 193
Philip B. Gorelick, Muhammad U. Farooq, and Jiangyong Min
Part III Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring

in Special Populations
11 Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Older Persons ................. 209
Vinay Gulati and William B. White
12 Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring
in Children and Adolescents .................................................................. 227
Ian Macumber and Joseph T. Flynn
in Special Populations: During Pregnancy ........................................... 253
Ramón C. Hermida and Diana E. Ayala
14 Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Patients
with Chronic Kidney Disease ................................................................. 277
William S. Asch, Sergio F.F. Santos, and Aldo J. Peixoto
in Coronary Artery Disease and Heart Failure .................................... 299
Fahad Javed and Patrick T. Campbell
in Special Populations: Masked Hypertension ..................................... 323
Anthony J. Viera
17 White Coat Hypertension ....................................................................... 331
Lawrence R. Krakoff
18 Gender and Circadian Rhythms in Cardiovascular Function............ 343
Björn Lemmer
Part IV Applications of Out-of-Office Blood Pressure Monitoring

19 Home (Self) Monitoring of Blood Pressure in Clinical Trials ............. 353
George S. Stergiou and Angeliki Ntineri
Contents xiii

in Clinical Trials of Drugs and Devices ................................................. 371
William B. White and Line Malha
21 Out-of-Office Monitoring in Clinical Practice ..................................... 395
Raymond R. Townsend
Index ................................................................................................................. 411

Contributors
Fabio Angeli, M.D. Division of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Pathophysiology,

Hospital “S.M. della Misericordia”, Perugia, Italy
Kei Asayama, M.D., Ph.D. Studies Coordinating Centre, Research Unit
Hypertension and Cardiovascular Epidemiology, KU Leuven Department of
Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Department of Planning for Drug Development and Clinical Evaluation, Tohoku
University Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Sendai, Japan
Department of Hygiene and Public Health, Teikyo University School of Medicine,
Tokyo, Japan
William S. Asch, M.D., Ph.D. Section of Nephrology, Yale University School of
Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
Neil Atkins Medaval Ltd., Dublin, Ireland
Diana E. Ayala, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D. Bioengineering & Chronobiology
Laboratories, Atlantic Research Center for Information and Communication
Technologies (AtlantTIC), University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain
Vanessa Barber Clinical Research Center, University of Connecticut School of
Medicine, CT, USA
Olivier Bonny, M.D., Ph.D. Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology,
Universite de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
Michel Burnier, M.D. Department of Medicine, Service of Nephrology and
Hypertension, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland
Patrick T. Campbell, M.D. Heart Failure and Transplant Cardiology, Transplant
Institute Baptist Health, Little Rock, AR, USA
xv
xvi Contributors
Muhammad U. Farooq, M.D. Division of Stroke and Vascular Neurology, Mercy

Health Hauenstein Neurosciences, Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Joseph T. Flynn, M.D., M.S. Division of Nephrology, Seattle Children’s Hospital,
Seattle, WA, USA
Philip B. Gorelick, M.D., M.P.H. Mercy Health Hauenstein Neurosciences,
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Department Translational Science & Molecular Medicine, Michigan State
University, College of Human Medicine, Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Vinay Gulati, M.D. Division of Cardiology, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT, USA
Tine W. Hansen, M.D., Ph.D. The Steno Diabetes Center, Gentofte and Research
Center for Prevention and Health, Copenhagen, Denmark
Azusa Hara, Ph.D. Studies Coordinating Centre, Research Unit Hypertension and
Cardiovascular Epidemiology, KU Leuven Department of Cardiovascular Sciences,
University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Ramón C. Hermida, Ph.D. Bioengineering and Chronobiology Laboratories,
Atlantic Research Center for Information and Communication Technologies
(AtlantTIC), University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain
Fahad Javed, M.D. Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute, New Orleans, LA, USA
Lawrence R. Krakoff, M.D. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York,
NY, USA
Björn Lemmer, M.D. Faculty of Medicine Mannheim, Institute of Experimental
& Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, Ruprecht-Karls University of Heidelberg,
Mannheim, Germany
Yan Li, M.D., Ph.D. Center for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials and
Center for Vascular Evaluations, Shanghai Institute of Hypertension, Shanghai Key
Laboratory of Hypertension, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School
of Medicine, Shanghai, China
Ian Macumber, M.D. Division of Nephrology, Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle,
WA, USA
Line Malha, M.D. NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA
George A. Mansoor, M.Sc., M.B.B.S. Mount Saint John Medical Center,
St. Johns, Antigua and Barbuda
Jiangyong Min, M.D., Ph.D. Division of Stroke and Vascular Neurology, Mercy
Health Hauenstein Neurosciences, Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Martin G. Myers, M.D. Schulich Heart Program, Division of Cardiology,
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
Contributors xvii
Angeliki Ntineri, M.D. Third University Department of Medicine, Hypertension

Center STRIDE-7, Sotiria Hospital, Athens, Greece
Eoin O’Brien, M.D. The Conway Institute, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Juan Eugenio Ochoa, M.D., Ph.D. Department of Cardiovascular Neural and
Metabolic Sciences, San Luca Hospital, IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano,
Milan, Italy
Gianfranco Parati, M.D. Department of Health Sciences, University of Milano-
Bicocca, Milan, Italy
Department of Cardiovascular Neural and Metabolic Sciences, San Luca Hospital,
IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Milan, Italy
Aldo J. Peixoto, M.D. Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Nephrology,
Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
Francesco Portaluppi, M.D., Ph.D. Hypertension Center, S. Anna University
Hospital, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
Sergio F.F. Santos, M.D., Ph.D. Division of Nephrology, State University of Rio
de Janeiro (UERJ), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
Michael H. Smolensky, Ph.D. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Cockrell
School of Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
Jan A. Staessen, M.D., Ph.D. VitaK Research and Development, Maastricht
University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Studies Coordinating Centre, Research Unit Hypertension and Cardiovascular
Epidemiology, KU Leuven Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of
Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
George S. Stergiou, M.D. Third University Department of Medicine, Hypertension
Center STRIDE-7, Sotiria Hospital, Athens, Greece
Raymond R. Townsend, M.D. Perelman School of Medicine, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Paolo Verdecchia, M.D. Department of Internal Medicine, Hospital of Assisi,
Assisi, Italy
Anthony J. Viera, M.D. Department of Family Medicine and Hypertension Research
Program, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Fang-Fei Wei, M.D. Studies Coordinating Centre, Research Unit Hypertension
and Cardiovascular Epidemiology, KU Leuven Department of Cardiovascular
Sciences, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
xviii Contributors
Center for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials and Center for Vascular
Evaluations, Shanghai Institute of Hypertension, Shanghai Key Laboratory of
Hypertension, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine,
Shanghai, China
William B. White, M.D. Calhoun Cardiology Center, University of Connecticut
School of Medicine, Farmington, CT, USA
Gregoire Wuerzner, M.D. Department of Medicine, Service of Nephrology and
Hypertension, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland
Part I
Techniques for Monitoring
Blood Pressure
Chapter 1
Monitoring Blood Pressure in the Office
Martin G. Myers
Historical Perspective
The measurement of blood pressure (BP) originated in a field with a horse and a
cleric. In 1733, the Reverend Stephen Hales used a water-filled glass tube inserted
into the left crural artery of a horse to demonstrate that the circulating blood was
under a pressure of about 2.5 m of water. However, it was not until 1896 that Riva-
Rocci developed the first practical method to record systolic BP using a cuff inflated
on the upper arm attached to a mercury column to record the pressure at which the
pulse was obliterated. In 1905, Korotkoff modified the technique by introducing aus-
cultation over the brachial artery to detect the systolic and diastolic BP during defla-
tion of the cuff on the upper arm. Thus, began the modern era of BP measurement.
For the next century, the mercury sphygmomanometer was the standard tech-
nique for recording BP in the office setting. A BP reading became part of the routine
examination. Typically, the physician would first take the patient’s medical history
and then move to an adjacent room where the physical examination which included
a BP measurement was performed. Detailed guidelines were developed by organi-
zations such as the American Heart Association in an attempt to standardize the
measurement technique, especially after research indicated that readings could be
affected by a variety of factors. In his classic text, High Blood Pressure [1], pub-
lished in 1968, Sir George Pickering described various causes of measurement
M.G. Myers, M.D. (*)

Schulich Heart Program, Division of Cardiology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre,
2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, Canada, M4N 3M5
Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
e-mail: [email protected]
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 3

W.B. White (ed.), Blood Pressure Monitoring in Cardiovascular Medicine
and Therapeutics, Clinical Hypertension and Vascular Diseases,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-22771-9_1
4 M.G. Myers
error, mostly related to the patient and physician but also to the surroundings. The
concept of “casual” versus “basal” BP was proposed, including measures to reduce
the effect of the patient’s anxiety on BP, such as multiple readings taken without
conversation. Unknown at the time, these were likely the first attempts to deal with
office-induced hypertension, now known as the “white coat effect.”
Although Pickering made many important contributions to our understanding of
BP, he was an early proponent of BP as a continuous variable with no specific cut-
point separating a normal BP from hypertension. In several chapters of High Blood
Pressure, he reviewed the epidemiologic data showing the relationship between
increasing levels of BP and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. He also noted
the different cut-points proposed for defining hypertension, covering a range from
120/80 to 180/110 mmHg. It soon became clear that the selection of 140/90 mmHg
for defining hypertension based upon manual BP readings was quite arbitrary.
Moreover, the prevailing belief at that time was that diastolic BP was most impor-
tant with systolic hypertension simply being a manifestation of a rigid aorta and, in
itself, not associated with cardiovascular risk.
General Conditions for BP Measurement
There are several aspects of BP measurement which need to be considered regard-

less of the type of sphygmomanometer used to take the reading.
On the first visit, BP should be recorded supine and standing to detect any pos-
tural changes. Also, readings should be taken in both arms, either simultaneously, if
feasible, or sequentially in the same arm. For routine visits, readings are usually
taken with the patient seated in a chair with the back supported and legs uncrossed.
More than one reading is recommended, especially if the initial BP is borderline or
high. The mean BP should be noted, although individual readings may also be of
interest if there is a marked decrease after the first one, which could reflect increased
anxiety on the part of the patient. The patient should be in a quiet place and must not
talk before or during the reading, neither to the doctor/nurse nor on a mobile phone,
if left alone. Resting for about five minutes before the readings is recommended for
most types of measurements, particularly those which involve the presence of a
heath professional during the readings. An appropriate size cuff with a bladder
which encircles the upper arm should be used for all devices.
Devices for Manual BP Measurement (Table 1.1)
In what is probably the single most important development in the measurement of

blood pressure, the mercury sphygmomanometer is no longer the preferred method
for recording BP in routine clinical practice [2, 3]. There are two main reasons for
this change. The first relates to concerns about the adverse effects mercury has on
1 Monitoring Blood Pressure in the Office 5
Table 1.1 Commonly used Manual

devices for blood pressure
Mercury sphygmomanometer
measurement in the office
setting Aneroid sphygmomanometer
Semi-automated
Home BP recorders adopted for office use
Fully automated
BpTRU
Omron HEM-907
Microlife WatchBP Office
the environment, which has led the European Community and other countries to
restrict its use [4]. The second reason is that measurement of BP with a mercury
sphygmomanometer is subject to multiple types of bias and error which are not
shared by modern electronic devices.
Recording BP manually using a mercury or aneroid-type sphygmomanometer
involves a health professional auscultating the Korotkoff sounds over the brachial
artery, while inflating the cuff to at least 20 mmHg above the anticipated systolic BP
and then deflating it at a rate of 2 mmHg per heartbeat. These steps require special
training, normal hearing, no conversation, strict adherence to the inflation and defla-
tion protocol, precise recording of the point at which the Korotkoff sounds appear
and then disappear, and taking of multiple readings and then accurate transcription
of the readings. Many of these requirements are frequently disregarded in routine
clinical practice. Examples include not allowing the patient to rest for 5 min before
the first measurement, talking with the patient, overly rapid deflation of the cuff, and
rounding off readings to the nearest zero value (digit preference). Minimizing the
role of humans in recording BP eliminates many potential sources of error which
leads to a more accurate reading [5].
One advantage of the mercury sphygmomanometer itself is that it does not
require calibration or periodic servicing other than verifying that there has not been
any loss of mercury and that the cuff, tubing, and deflation mechanism are function-
ing properly. The mercury sphygmomanometer continues to be used in the valida-
tion of other devices such as electronic, oscillometric sphygmomanometers, so
hypertension centers should maintain at least one mercury device for this purpose.
Some experts also recommend using a mercury sphygmomanometer in patients
with special conditions such as atrial fibrillation, although there is little evidence
that a manual BP reading taken by a health professional in such circumstances is
more accurate than readings taken with other devices such as an automated, elec-
tronic sphygmomanometer. What may be most important is to obtain multiple read-
ings, regardless of the BP measurement technique, in order to account for the
variable heart rate.
Next to the mercury sphygmomanometer, the most widely used manual BP
recorder in clinical practice has been the aneroid device which also has the advan-
tage of being portable and relatively inexpensive. However, the actual mechanism
inside the aneroid sphygmomanometer responsible for obtaining the pressure read-
6 M.G. Myers
ing requires periodic maintenance and re-calibration, a procedure which is often not
followed [6]. Other manual mercury sphygmomanometers such as the Hawksley
Random Zero were developed in an effort to circumvent some of the shortcomings
of the standard mercury device, but these have been found to have other sources of
measurement error which have precluded their use [7].
In recent years, more sophisticated, non-mercury, manual sphygmomanometers
for office use have been developed. Models which have passed independent valida-
tion include the Accoson Greenlight 300 [8], Heine Gamma G7 [9], Nissei DM-3000
[10], Rossamax Mandaus I [11], and Welch-Allyn Maxi Stabil 3 [12]. Each of these
devices requires the involvement of a health professional. To date, none of these
recorders has achieved widespread use in clinical practice.
Impact of Manual BP in Management of Hypertension
The involvement of a health professional in the measurement of BP can affect the

accuracy and reliability of the readings [13]. The failure to follow guidelines for BP
measurement, as noted above, tends to provoke a white coat effect, especially in
patients who may already be anxious about seeing a physician. Stimuli such as con-
versation can cause substantial increases in BP, potentially leading to a misdiagno-
sis of “white coat hypertension” [14]. On average, manual office BP in routine
clinical practice is about 10/7 mmHg higher than manual BP recorded in a research
study according to guidelines (Table 1.2). It is estimated that 15–25 % of patients
diagnosed with mild–moderate hypertension will be normal when BP is recorded
outside of the office setting such as with 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM)
or home BP [15, 16]. The presence of a white coat effect in patients already receiv-
ing drug therapy may also lead to additional, unnecessary medication, a condition
called pseudo-resistant hypertension [17]. Longitudinal, clinical outcome studies
have consistently reported that manual BP, even when recorded according to guide-
lines in a research setting, correlates poorly with target organ damage. Much stron-
ger correlations have been seen with ABPM and home BP [18, 19].
Table 1.2 Differences between manual BP recorded in routine clinical practice and manual BP
obtained following standard guidelines in research studies
Type of blood pressure measurement (mmHg)
First author N Routine clinical practice Guidelines BP in research study
Myers [40] 147 146/87 140/83
Brown [43] 611 161/95 152/85
Myers [27] 309 152/87 140/80
Graves [44] 104 152/84 138/74
Gustavsen [45] 420 165/104 156/100
Head [46] 6817 150/89 142/82
Mean difference 10/7
Semi-automated Sphygmomanometers in Office Practice
Concerns about the accuracy of manual office BP in diagnosing hypertension have

resulted in recent guidelines recommending against the use of manual BP measure-
ment in the office for the diagnosis and management of hypertension [2, 3]. One
option has been to rely upon 24-h ABPM for diagnosing hypertension and home BP
for management of hypertension after therapy has been started. However, many
physicians have been reluctant to abandon office BP and have chosen to use semi-
automated, electronic devices as a replacement for mercury and aneroid
sphygmomanometers.
Most semi-automated devices are modifications of oscillometric home BP
recorders, which have been adapted for use in the office setting. The use of semi-
automated recorders in major studies [20], such as the Omron-HEM 705 in the
Anglo-Scandinavian Outcomes Trial (ASCOT), has prompted both primary care
physicians and hypertension specialists to switch from manual BP recorders to
semi-automated devices which have been validated for accuracy. Typically, the doc-
tor or nurse follows procedures used previously with manual BP except that read-
ings are taken without auscultation and manual cuff inflation/deflation, which
reduces measurement error and observer bias. Some semi-automated recorders take
two or three readings at pre-specified intervals after the start button is pressed.
Three studies [21–23] have compared the mean awake ambulatory BP or home
BP with office BP readings taken with a semi-automated recorder with the patient
alone in an examining room (Table 1.3). With the office BP readings being taken 2,
3, or 5 times, the mean value exceeded the out-of-office BP by 12/5, 7/4, and 4/5
mmHg, respectively. In a fourth study [24], three semi-automated BP readings taken
in a hypertension clinic in the presence of a nurse or doctor were compared to home
BP readings recorded using the same device by the patient. Once again, the mean
semi-automated office BP was higher (9/5 mmHg) than the mean home BP. Thus,
replacement of manual BP recorders with semi-automated, oscillometric sphygmo-
manometers does not eliminate the white coat effect, even if readings are taken with
the patient resting quietly alone. Nonetheless, semi-automated devices have been
quite popular in that they are readily available and relatively inexpensive. To date,
there have been no studies comparing conventional manual BP with semi-automated
BP in routine clinical practice, which makes it difficult to document the specific
advantages the semi-automated method is presumed to have.
Table 1.3 Studies comparing semi-automated BP (mmHg) readings with awake ambulatory BP
(a) or home BP (b)
No. of Semi-automated Awake ambulatory BP or home
Study author patients BP BP
Myers et al. [21] 27 157/83 145/78a
Myers et al. [22] 139 146/86 142/81a
Stergiou et al. [24] 30 137/83 128/83b
Al-Karkhi et al. [23] 162 140/86 133/83b
8 M.G. Myers
Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement
The most recent guidelines focus primarily on semi-automated electronic devices as

the sphygmomanometer of choice for office BP readings. The ESH/ESC 2013 rec-
ommendations [2] did go one step further and recommended (fully) automated
recorders capable of taking multiple BP readings with the patient resting alone. This
type of BP measurement has been called “automated office BP (AOBP).” Canadian
guidelines now recommend AOBP readings in routine clinical practice [25].
The importance of AOBP in clinical practice first became evident in 2005 when
Beckett and Godwin reported on AOBP readings recorded in 481 treated hyperten-
sive patients recruited from primary care practices in the community [26]. In this
population, mean AOBP (140/80 mmHg) was significantly lower than the mean of
the last three routine manual BP readings (151/83 mmHg) recorded by the patients’
own family physicians. These findings were subsequently confirmed in a series of
309 patients referred for 24-h ABPM who had a mean AOBP of 132/75 mmHg
compared to the last routine manual office BP of 152/87 mmHg recorded by the
patient’s own family physician [27].
The main advantage of AOBP over semi-automated electronic devices is that
AOBP does not require any active involvement of the patient or a health profes-
sional. The presence of a doctor or nurse when BP is measured increases the BP
reading in some patients, presumably by adding to the anxiety generated by the visit
itself. Having the patient take their own readings using a semi-automated device
circumvents this factor, but the readings are still, on average, higher. One study [22]
compared five AOBP readings taken with the fully automated BpTRU device with
five readings taken by the patient while resting alone using a semi-automated sphyg-
momanometer. The latter BP was 5/4 mmHg higher than the AOBP, which was
similar to the mean awake ambulatory BP.
The Pros and Cons of AOBP
As noted in the European and Canadian guidelines [2, 3, 25], an AOBP measure-
ment has three basic components; the use of a fully automated sphygmomanometer
which is capable of taking multiple readings with the patient resting quietly alone.
There are currently three validated devices specifically designed for AOBP: the
BpTRU [28], the Omron HEM-907 [29], and the Microlife WatchBP Office [30]. To
date, most of the research into AOBP has been conducted using the BpTRU. Each
of these devices is capable of taking 3–5 readings at 1 min intervals with no more
than a one minute period required before the first reading is taken. The BpTRU
takes five readings timed from the start of the first reading to the start of the second,
whereas the other two devices record BP with a full minute from the end of one
reading to the start of the next. Thus, an average AOBP reading can be taken over
5–6 min. Initially, there was some concern about the time required to take multiple
AOBP readings in a busy clinical practice. However, if guidelines for recording a

proper (manual or semi-automated) office BP are followed, the patient should
remain quiet for 5 min before the first of at least two readings are taken. Thus,
AOBP would only take longer if the doctor or nurse does not adhere to the current
guidelines for office BP measurement which is likely often the case.
Studies [31, 32] using manual BP measurement have reported that as little as 10
s between readings may be all the time required to obtain an accurate measurement.
Experiments conducted with the BpTRU and Omron HEM-907 have shown that
readings taken at 1-minute intervals are comparable to readings taken at 2-min
intervals [33]. Earlier studies using the BpTRU recorded BP at 2-min intervals, but
1 min is now recommended for an AOBP measurement [34]. Also, in most studies
on AOBP, the patient was kept seated alone in a quiet room. However, AOBP values
are also similar when readings are taken with the patient resting quietly in an office
waiting room versus an examining room (35,36). Conventional manual BP is
affected by the surroundings in which readings are taken. Such is not the case with
AOBP. Readings taken with the BpTRU with the subjects resting quietly in a com-
munity pharmacy were similar to AOBP recorded in the office of their family physi-
cian [37]. Moreover, AOBP obtained in a hypertension specialist’s office was
similar to AOBP taken in an ABPM unit [38]. Thus, a valid AOBP reading should
be possible provided the patient is resting alone without talking or otherwise inter-
acting with other people, especially health professionals.
Finally, the higher cost of AOBP recorders has been an impediment to their
greater use in clinical practice. Recently, less expensive models have appeared
which should make financial considerations much less of an issue when it comes to
selecting the optimum sphygmomanometer for office use.
Relationship Between AOBP and ABPM
ABPM has become the gold standard for determining the risk of experiencing a
cardiovascular event in relation to an individual’s BP. AOBP has been compared
with the mean awake ambulatory BP in various populations and settings (Table 1.4).
Mean AOBP is similar to the mean awake ambulatory BP in unselected hyperten-
sive patients attending the offices of their own family physicians. This relationship
was present in both treated and untreated patients. Mean AOBP was also similar to
the awake ambulatory BP in patients with suspected hypertension referred for
ambulatory BP monitoring, a population more likely to have a white coat effect.
This similarity in BP readings is present regardless of whether or not the patients are
receiving antihypertensive drug therapy. In all studies, the manual BP recorded dur-
ing routine visits to the patient’s own family doctor outside of the context of a
research study was substantially higher than both the AOBP and awake ambulatory
BP [13, 39]. The ambulatory BP also exhibited a significantly stronger correlation
with the AOBP than the routine manual office BP [13].
10 M.G. Myers
Table 1.4 Comparison of automated office BP (AOBP) with the awake ambulatory BP in different
patient populations
Study author No. of Subjects Setting AOBP Awake ambulatory BP
Beckett et al. [26] 481 Family practice 140/80 142/80
Myers et al. [27] 309 ABPM unit 132/75 134/77
Myers et al. [38] 62 Hypertension clinic 140/77 141/77
Godwin et al. [48] 654 Family practice 139/80 141/80
Myers et al. [39] 303 Family practice 136/78 133/74
Mean 137/79 138/79
Even though the measurement of BP is an integral part of primary care, compara-

tively little research has been done into the validity of readings taken during routine
office visits compared to BP recorded with strict adherence to guidelines in research
studies (Table 1.2). In one study [40], the mean manual office BP obtained in 147
patients by their own family physicians was 6/4 mmHg higher than comparable
office readings taken by the same doctors as part of a research study. Moreover, left
ventricular mass index, a measure of target organ damage related to BP, correlated
significantly (r = 0.27) with the special manual BP taken for research purposes, but
there was no correlation (r = 0.06) with the routine manual BP. This phenomenon is
known as the “Hawthorne Effect” and is used to describe changes in behavior which
tend to occur when an individual (e.g., doctor or nurse) is under observation, such
as recording BP as part of a research study [41].
The Conventional versus Automated Measurement of Blood

Pressure in the Office Study
Until recently, there was considerable reluctance to abandon conventional manual

BP measurement in favor of more modern techniques such as the oscillometric
recorders used for ABPM, home BP, and AOBP. The proponents of manual BP
maintained that virtually all of the data upon which the diagnosis and management
of hypertension are based were obtained using the mercury sphygmomanometer.
The pendulum finally shifted to electronic devices in 2011 when the British National
Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence’s (NICE) evidence-based guidelines
[42] recommended that a diagnosis of hypertension should be based upon 24-h
ABPM and not the office BP. For many physicians, this dramatic departure from
conventional thinking led to considerable confusion. The result was a shift to elec-
tronic devices to record BP in the office with the assumption that this approach
would alleviate many of the concerns about manual BP documented in the NICE
monograph. However, there is little evidence that changing the device without
removing other causes of measurement error is sufficient to justify the continued

use of office BP for the diagnosis and management of hypertension.
Concurrently, investigators decided to examine the impact that introducing
AOBP into routine primary care practice might have on the accuracy of office BP. In
the Conventional versus Automated Measurement of Blood Pressure in the Office
(CAMBO) study [39], 67 practices (555 patients) in five cities in Eastern Canada
were randomly allocated to either use of the BpTRU to record the patient’s BP or
continued use of manual sphygmomanometers. In order to minimize the “Hawthorne
Effect” [41] as a factor, there were no other interventions such as educating staff on
proper management of hypertension.
At the first office visit after enrollment, the mean AOBP had decreased by 14/3
mmHg compared to the mean routine manual office BP (150/81 mmHg) recorded
by the patient’s own family physician prior to entry into the study. The mean AOBP
(136/78 mmHg) was only slightly higher than the mean awake ambulatory BP
(133/74 mmHg). There was a relatively small decrease in office BP at the first office
visit in the control, manual BP group, presumably due to the Hawthorne Effect, with
clinic staff obtaining lower BP readings.
The results of this cluster randomized clinical trial in a real-world setting con-
firmed the earlier findings in previous series of hypertensive patients in a variety of
settings.
Principles of Automated Office BP
An important aspect of office BP measurement is the need to minimize extraneous

factors which might affect the accuracy of the reading and lead to misdiagnosis of
hypertension. Office BP is highest and least accurate with greater involvement of
the patient and physician or nurse [7]. Manual BP in routine clinical practice is the
best example of this with BP being on average 10/7 mmHg higher than readings
taken according to guidelines in the context of a research study (Table 1.2). When
these guidelines are followed, the “research” office BP more closely approximates
the awake ambulatory and home BP but is still about 5–10/5 mmHg higher [27],
giving a cut-point for hypertension of 140–145/90 versus 135/85 mmHg for the out-
of office readings. The apparent equivalence of AOBP and both awake ambulatory
BP and home BP (Table 1.4) makes the cut-point for defining hypertension using
AOBP the same for all three methods (135/85 mmHg).
There are three basic principles to follow in order to obtain a proper AOBP read-
ing: Multiple readings with a fully automated sphygmomanometer with the patient
resting alone in a quiet place. If these principles are followed, AOBP will be an
improvement over conventional manual BP measurement by providing more accu-
rate readings which are devoid of a white coat effect and which are suitable for most
types of office practice in countries with sufficient resources.
12 M.G. Myers
Table 1.5 Recommendations for office BP measurement

• Conventional manual BP measurement should be discouraged
• Use automated electronic sphygmomanometers which have been independently validated for
accuracy
• Human involvement in BP measurement should be kept to a minimum in order to reduce
observer error and bias and to decrease the patient’s anxiety
• Multiple readings should be taken with fully automated electronic sphygmomanometers with
the patient resting quietly alone (AOBP)
• Hypertension diagnosed in the office should be confirmed with 24-h ABPM or home BP if
ABPM is not available
Conclusions
The determination of an individual’s BP status is currently in a transition phase.

Reliance upon the mercury sphygmomanometer during the past century has now
progressed to the use of automated electronic devices to record BP in the office, at
home, and over 24-h. Longitudinal cardiovascular outcome studies have consis-
tently shown ABPM to be the best predictor of future risk based upon an individu-
al’s BP status with home BP being an acceptable alternative if ABPM is not
available. Under these circumstances, the role of office BP in the diagnosis and
management of hypertension has been questioned. Now that office BP is no longer
synonymous with manual BP measurement, it is being viewed in a more favorable
light, provided that validated electronic devices are used and certain procedures are
followed (Table 1.5). The accumulating evidence supports AOBP measurement as
the best method for determining BP status in the office, with a more definitive diag-
nosis of hypertension still requiring 24-h ABPM or home BP. Thus, all three types
of BP measurement are complementary with each method continuing to have a role
in the management of hypertension.
References
1. Pickering G. High blood pressure. London: J&A Churchill; 1968.

2. Mancia G, Fagard R, Krzysztof N, et al. 2013 ESH/ESC guidelines for the management of
arterial hypertension. J Hypertens. 2013;31:1281–357.
3. Weber ME, Schiffrin EL, White WB, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of
hypertension in the community – a statement of the American Society of Hypertension and the
International Society of Hypertension. J Hypertens. 2014;32:3–15.
4. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks. Mercury sphygmoma-
nometers in healthcare and the feasibility of alternatives. SCENIHR, 2009. (http://ec.europa.
eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/scenihr_09-13/opinions_en.htm)
5. Myers MG. Eliminating the human factor in office blood pressure measurement. J Clin
Hypertens. 2014;16:83–6.
6. Mion D, Pierin AMG. How accurate are sphygmomanometers. J Hum Hypertens. 1981;12:
245–8.
7. O’Brien E, Mee F, Atkins N, O’Malley K. Inaccuracy of the Hawksley random zero sphygmo-
manometer. Lancet. 1990;336:1465–8.
8. Graves JW, Tibor M, Murtagh B, Klein L, Sheps SG. The Accoson Greenlight 300, the first
non-automated mercury-free blood pressure measurement device to pass International Protocol
for blood pressure measuring devices in adults. Blood Press Monit. 2004;9:13–7.
9. Dorigatti F, Bonso E, Zanier A, Palatini P. Validation of Heine Gamma G7 (G5) and XXL-LF
aneroid devices for blood pressure measurement. Blood Press Monit 2007;12:29-33.
10. Tasker F, De Greeff A, Shennan AH. Development and validation of a blinded hybrid device
according to the European Hypertension Society protocol: Nissei DM-3000. J Hum Hypertens.
2010;24:609–16.
11. Tasker F, de Greff A, Liu B, Shennan AH. Validation of a non-mercury ascultatory device
according to the European Society of Hypertension protocol: Rosssmax Mandaus II. Blood
Press Monit. 2009;14:121–4.
12. Reinders A, Jones C, Cuckson A, Shennan A. The Maxi Stabil 3: Validation of an aneroid
device according to a modified British Hypertension Society protocol. Blood Press Monit.
2003;8:83–9.
13. Myers MG. The great myth of office blood pressure measurement. J Hypertens. 2012;30:
1894–8.
14. Lynch JJ, Long JM, Thomas SA, Malinow KL, Katcher AH. The effects of talking on blood
pressure of hypertensive and normotensive individuals. Psychosom Med. 1981;43:25–32.
15. Pickering TG, Hall JE, Appel LJ, et al. Recommendations for blood pressure measurement in
humans and experimental animals Part 1: blood pressure measurement in humans a statement
for professionals from the subcommittee of Professional and Public Education of the AM
Heart Association Council on High Blood Pressure Research. Hypertension. 2005;45:
142–61.
16. Parati G, Stergiou GS, Asmar R, et al. European Society of Hypertension guidelines for blood
pressure monitoring at home: a summary report of the Second International Consensus
Conference on Home Blood Pressure Monitoring. J Hypertens. 2008;26:1505–26.
17. Myers MG. Pseudoresistant hypertension attributed to white-coat effect. Hypertension.
2012;59:532–3.
18. Hansen TW, Kikuya M, Thijs L, et al. Prognostic superiority of daytime ambulatory conven-
tional blood pressure in four populations: a meta-analysis of 7030 individuals. J Hypertens.
2007;25:1554–64.
19. Stergiou GS, Siontis KCM, Ioannidis JPA. Home blood pressure as a cardiovascular outcome
predictor. Hypertension. 2010;55:1301–3.
20. Dahlhof B, Sever PS, Poulter NR, et al. Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihyper-
tensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol, adding bendro-
flumethazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial - Blood pressure
lowering arm (ASCOT-BPLA): a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Lancet.
2005;366:895–906.
21. Myers MG, Meglis G, Polemidiotis G. The impact of physician vs automated blood pressure
readings on office-induced hypertension. J Hum Hypertens. 1997;11:491–3.
22. Myers MG, Valdivieso M, Chessman M, Kiss A. Can sphygmomanometers designed for self-
measurement of blood pressure in the home be used in office practice? Blood Press Monit.
2010;15:300–4.
23. Al-Karkhi I, Al-Rubaiy R, Rosenqvist U, Falk M, Nystrom FH. Comparisons of automated
blood pressures in a primary health care setting with self-measurements at the office and home
using the Omron i-C10 device. Blood Press Monit 2015;20:98–103.
24. Stergiou GS, Efstathiou SP, Alamara CV, Mastorantonakis SE, Roussias LG. Home or self
blood pressure measurement? What is the correct term? J Hypertens. 2003;21:2259–64.
25. Daskalopoulou SS, Rabi DM, Zarnke KB, et al. The 2015 Canadian Hypertension Education
Program recommendations for blood pressure measurement, diagnosis, assessment of risk,
prevention, and treatment of hypertension. Can J Cardiol 2015;31:549–568.
14 M.G. Myers
26. Beckett L, Godwin M. The BpTRU automatic blood pressure monitor compared to 24-h ambu-
latory blood pressure monitoring in the assessment of blood pressure in patients with hyperten-
sion. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2005;5:18.
27. Myers MG, Valdivieso M, Kiss A. Use of automated office blood pressure measurement to
reduce the white coat response. J Hypertens. 2009;27:280–6.
28. Mattu GS, Perry Jr TL, Wright JM. Comparison of the oscillometric blood pressure monitor
(BPM-100Beta) with the auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometer. Blood Press Monit.
2001;6:153–9.
29. White WB, Anwar YA. Evaluation of the overall efficacy of the Omron office digital blood
pressure HEM-907 monitor in adults. Blood Press Monit. 2001;6:107–10.
30. Stergiou GS, Tzamouranis D, Protogerou A, Nasothimiou E, Kapralos C. Validation of the
Microlife WatchBP Office professional device for office blood pressure measurement accord-
ing to the International Protocol. J Hypertens. 2008;26 (Suppl 1):S481.
31. Yarrows SA, Patel K, Brook R. Rapid oscillometric blood pressure measurement compared to
conventional oscillometric measurement. Blood Press Monit. 2001;6:145–7.
32. Eguchi K, Kuruvilla S, Ogedegbe G, Gerin W, Schwartz JE, Pickering TG. What is the optimal
interval between successive blood pressure readings using an automated oscillometric device.
J Hypertens. 2009;27:1172–7.
33. Myers MG, Valdivieso M, Kiss A, Tobe SW. Comparison of two automated sphygmomanom-
eters for use in the office setting. Blood Press Monit. 2009;14:45–7.
34. Myers MG, Valdivieso M, Kiss A. Optimum frequency of automated blood pressure measure-
ments using an automated sphygmomanometer. Blood Press Monit. 2008;13:333–8.
35. Greiver M, White D, Kaplan DM, Katz K, Moineddin R, Doabchian E. Where should auto-
mated blood pressure measurements be taken? Blood Press Monit. 2012;17:137–8.
36. Armstrong D, Matangi M, Brouillard D, Myers MG. Automated office blood pressure – being
alone and not location is what matters most. Blood Press Monit 2015;20:204–208.
37. Chambers LW, Kaczorowski J, O’Reilly S, Ig Nagni S, Hearps SJC. Comparison of blood
pressure measurements using an automated blood pressure device in community pharmacies
and family physicians’ offices: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ Open 2013.DOI:10.9778/
cmajo.2013005.
38. Myers MG, Valdivieso M, Kiss A. Consistent relationship between automated office blood
pressure recorded in different settings. Blood Press Monit. 2009;14:108–11.
39. Myers MG, Godwin M, Dawes M, et al. Conventional versus automated measurement of blood
pressure in primary care patients with systolic hypertension: randomized parallel design con-
trolled trial. BMJ. 2011;342:d285.
40. Myers MG, Oh P, Reeves RA, Joyner CD. Prevalence of white coat effect in treated hyperten-
sive patients in the community. Am J Hypertens. 1995;8:591–7.
41. Sedgwick P. The Hawthorne effect. BMJ. 2011;344:d8262.
42. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Hypertension NICE Clinical Guidelines
127. National Clinical Guidelines Centre. London, UK, August, 2011.
43. Brown MA, Buddle ML, Martin A. Is resistant hypertension really resistant? Am J Hypertens.
2001;14:1263–9.
44. Graves JW, Nash C, Burger K, Bailey K, Sheps SG. Clinical decision-making in hypertension
using an automated (BpTRU) measurement device. J Hum Hypertens. 2003;17:823–7.
45. Gustavsen PH, Hoegholm A, Bang LE, Kristensen KS. White coat hypertension is a cardiovas-
cular risk factor: a 10-year follow-up study. J Hum Hypertens. 2003;17:811–7.
46. Head GA, Mihallidou AS, Duggan KA, et al. Definition of ambulatory blood pressure targets
for diagnosis and treatment of hypertension in relation to clinic blood pressure: prospective
cohort study. BMJ. 2010;340:1104–11.
47. Myers MG. A proposed algorithm for diagnosing hypertension using automated office blood
pressure measurement. J Hypertens. 2010;28:703–8.
48. Godwin M, Birtwhistle R, Delva D, et al. Manual and automated office measurements in rela-
tion to awake ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Fam Pract. 2011;28:110–7.
Chapter 2
Home (Self) Monitoring of Blood Pressure
Gianfranco Parati and Juan Eugenio Ochoa
Introduction
Elevated blood pressure (BP) levels represent the most important modifiable risk
factor for cardiovascular disease and for disease burden in developed countries [1].
Consistent evidence has shown that BP reduction with antihypertensive therapy
reduces cardiovascular events, particularly in patients with moderate to severe
hypertension [2]. An accurate assessment of BP levels and early identification and
treatment of hypertension is thus essential for reducing the cardiovascular risk asso-
ciated with this condition [3]. Since most evidence on the cardiovascular risk asso-
ciated with elevated BP, as well as on the benefits of lowering BP levels, comes from
studies using office BP (OBP) measures [4, 5], this technique is regarded as the
reference standard for assessment of BP in clinical practice [3]. However, OBP is
affected by important intrinsic limitations (i.e., inherent inaccuracy of the technique
and the inability to track BP changes during subjects’ usual activities and over a
long period of time) and by extrinsic factors (i.e., observer’s bias, digit preference,
interference by the “white coat effect”) that lead to over- or underestimation of sub-
jects’ BP values. In turn, this leads to misclassification of BP levels, i.e., masked
hypertension, white coat hypertension, and false BP control or false resistant hyper-
tension in treated subjects. In recognition of this, current guidelines for
G. Parati, M.D. (*)

Department of Health Sciences, University of Milano-Bicocca,
Piazza Brescia 20, Milan 20149, Italy
Department of Cardiovascular Neural and Metabolic Sciences, San Luca Hospital, IRCCS
Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Milan, Italy
J.E. Ochoa, M.D., Ph.D.
Department of Cardiovascular Neural and Metabolic Sciences, San Luca Hospital, IRCCS
Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Milan, Italy

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-22771-9_2
16 G. Parati and J.E. Ochoa
hypertension management advise combining OBP with information on out-of-office

BP levels measured by means of ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) or home BP
monitoring (HBPM) [3, 6–11], with the aim to better identify the presence of high
BP levels and to define the need to start/modify antihypertensive treatment.
Currently, 24-h ABPM is considered the gold standard for out-of-office BP moni-
toring, [10, 12]; however, because of its costs and need of trained clinic staff and
specialized equipment, its use is in most cases (with the exception of NICE guide-
lines) recommended for selected groups of hypertensive patients [3, 4, 6, 13, 14].
Although HBPM cannot provide the extensive information on daily life BP behav-
ior available with 24-h ambulatory recordings, it may represent an excellent com-
plement to both OBP and ABPM in assessing BP levels for several reasons. In
particular, the wide availability of automated and easy-to-use devices for home BP
monitoring, which are acceptable for both patients and physicians, supports the
extensive implementation of HBPM in clinical practice. Moreover, when performed
on a regular basis, repeated BP measures obtained by patients at home (i.e., home
BP monitoring of BP levels over 7 days before the clinical visit) offer the possibility
to obtain accurate and frequent information on out-of-office BP not only during a
single day, but also over several days, weeks, or months in a usual life setting, also
allowing evaluation of dynamic BP changes over wider time windows, and to quan-
tify the degree of BP variability (BPV) [8] (Table 2.1). All of these features not only
allow a better identification of elevated BP levels, but also assessment of BP control
in treated subjects, thus aiding in guiding therapeutic decisions. Besides, at variance
from OBP, HBPM requires the active involvement of patients in managing their
high BP conditions, which enhances patients’ compliance and adherence to antihy-
pertensive treatment, thus potentially increasing the rates of BP control. Because
HBPM combines improved accuracy with the advantages of low cost and easy
implementation, it is recommended whenever feasible for routine use in the clinical
management of hypertension. The present chapter is aimed at reviewing the main
features of HBPM, its prognostic significance, clinical advantages, and potential
applications for the management of hypertension. In its last part, the chapter
addresses the role of home-based blood pressure telemonitoring and information
technologies for the management of hypertensive patients.
Methodological Aspects of HBPM
Measurement conditions and procedures: Although automated and semi-automated

HBPM devices based on the oscillometric technique are widely used by hyperten-
sive patients, their application is not always accompanied by the required knowledge
or sufficient training to ensure a proper BP self-measurement at home. The resulting
problems often include use of inaccurate devices and errors in measurement meth-
odology and in interpretation of HBP values [15]. Care is thus required to guarantee
that HBP measurements are kept under close supervision by physicians, in order to
prevent an excessive frequency of self-BP readings due to anxiety as well as improper
Table 2.1 Comparison of features of three main methods for BP measurement
Feature OBP ABPM HBPM
No. of readings Low High Medium
White coat effect Yes No No
Operator dependency Yes No No
Need of device validation Noa Yes Yes
Daytime BP + +++ ++
Night-time BP and dipping − +++ −/+b
Morning BP ± ++ +
24-h BP variability − ++ ±
Long-term BP variability − ± ++
WCH and MH diagnosis − ++ ++
Placebo effect ++ − −
2 Home (Self) Monitoring of Blood Pressure
Reproducibility Low High (24-h average values) High (average of several values)
Prognostic value + +++ ++
Patient involvement − − ++
Patient training − ± ++
Physician involvement +++ ++ +
Patients’ acceptance ++ ± ++
Monitoring of treatment effects Limited information Extensive information on 24-h BP profile, Appropriate for long-term monitoring,
cannot be repeated frequently limited information on BP profile
Hypertension control improvement + ++ +++
Cost Low High Low
Availability High Low High
Modified from Parati et al. [8], by permission
WCH white coat hypertension, MH masked hypertension, OBP Office Blood Pressure, ABPM ambulatory BP monitoring, HBPM home BP monitoring
a
Yes if oscillometric device is used
b
New HBPM devices may perform night-time BP measures
17
self-management of drug treatment by patients. Overall, conditions and procedures

for proper HBP performance are similar to those recommended for OBP measure-
ments [9]. Specifically, the patient should be relaxed in the sitting position, with the
back supported, without crossing legs, in a quiet room and at least 5 min of rest
should precede the measurement. The arm should be supported on a table and the
cuff positioned at the heart level (when the arm-cuff is below or above the heart
level, BP will be overestimated or underestimated, respectively). At the time of the
first visit, when prescribing HBPM, BP measurements should be comparatively per-
formed in both arms. If inter-arm BP difference exceeds 10 mmHg for SBP and/or
5 mmHg for DBP and persists after repeated measurements, the arm with the higher
BP should be selected for future BP measurements both in the office and at home
[9]. Attention should be given to selection of cuff size according to arm circumfer-
ence, so that the bladder dimensions are adequate for accurate BP measurement.
Device selection: Monitors that measure BP at the upper arm (brachial artery)
have been shown to be the most accurate and reliable in measuring peripheral BP
levels. Although some automatic devices for BP measurement at the wrist or at the
finger level have been developed, it should be mentioned that they are subject to
important limitations mainly related to peripheral vasoconstriction, alterations in
BP waveform going from central to more distal sites of recording, and the possibil-
ity of varying hydrostatic height difference between the peripheral cuff and the heart
level, which may lead to significant inaccuracies in BP measurement. This is why
use of wrist cuff devices is currently discouraged. Finally, it should be mentioned
that despite the multitude of devices available on the market for HBPM, only some
of them have fulfilled independent validation criteria for use in clinical practice
(updated lists of validated BP-measuring devices are provided at dedicated websites
such as www.dableducational.org, www.ipertensionearteriosa.net or www.bhsoc.
org). In summary, on the background of the available evidence, current guidelines
for HBPM recommend the use of validated, automated, electronic, oscillometric,
upper arm-cuff devices, particularly those offering the possibility to store, transmit,
or print measurements [9].
Frequency and timing of HBPM: When performed in a standardized fashion, BP
measures collected by patients at home have been shown to be more accurate and
reproducible than office and ambulatory BP levels [16–18]. To achieve the maxi-
mum benefits from HBPM, the optimal HBPM schedule to be used for clinical
decision making should be able to offer a quantification of the prevailing level of
HBP, aimed at yielding reproducible information on HBP values, with prognostic
relevance. Since the reliability of HBPM increases with the number of BP readings
available for analysis, a minimum of 12 measurements and up to 25 measurements
are needed to achieve clinically relevant information on HBP levels. Recent second-
ary analysis of a large, randomized, clinical trial compared strategies for home- or
clinic-based BP monitoring to determine the optimal methodology for obtaining
clinically meaningful BP measurements [19]. In this trial, participants were asked to
record BP values every other day at the same time. A minimum of three values over
two weeks was required and only values spaced over 12 h were included. The study
concluded that the best approach for correctly classifying BP control should be an
2 Home (Self) Monitoring of Blood Pressure 19
average of several BP measurements including both measurements from the clinic-

and home-based settings [19–21]. However, the important variations in terms of
frequency of self-BP measures, the frequency of reporting home-monitored values,
clinicians’ involvement, duration, and setting have been widely variable among
studies, thus preventing authors from deriving consistent conclusions. Current
guidelines recommend measuring BP levels at home over 7 days, with at least two
morning and two evening measurements [9]. For clinical decision making, the aver-
age of all these values should be used with the exception of the first day, which
should be discarded [9]. This 7-day schedule is recommended immediately before
each visit to the physician’s office, either at diagnosis or during follow-up. In recog-
nition that long-term HBPM might allow a closer assessment of the stability of HBP
control, improve patients’ involvement and compliance with treatment, and main-
tain their BP measurement skills, it was suggested that 1–2 measurements per week
might be useful also during the between-visit period [9]. Of note, programmable
HBPM devices have been recently introduced that provide measures of night time
BP levels comparable to those obtained by means of 24-h ABPM [22–24], thus
widening the clinical applications of HBPM.
How Are Hypertension and BP Control Defined Based

on HBPM?
Hypertension has a strong, continuous relationship with cardiovascular risk.

Traditionally, OBP measurements have been used for cardiovascular risk stratifica-
tion and for defining targets of therapy. The classification of BP categories (i.e.,
optimal BP <120/80; pre-hypertension 120–139/80–89; and hypertension
≥140/90 mmHg) as well as definition of BP targets to be achieved by treatment, has
been based on epidemiological studies using OBP measurements [3, 25]. These
values cannot be directly extrapolated to HBPM, because meta-analyses of several
studies on unselected populations or hypertensive patients [26, 27], comparing HBP
and OBP distribution curves, have demonstrated HBP values to be lower than cor-
responding OBP values. Longitudinal studies in general populations [28–37] and in
hypertensive subjects [38–40] as well as clinical trials on the use of HBPM have
confirmed that the cut-off limit to define hypertension based on HBP should be
lower than that used for OBP [41, 42]. Although the relationship between BP values
self-measured at home and the incidence of CV morbidity and mortality should be
further clarified by prospective studies, there is an agreement to diagnose hyperten-
sion when HBP is >135/85 mmHg (corresponding to an OBP of >140/90 mmHg).
Prospective data are still needed, however, to formally recommend the proposed
thresholds of <120/80 mmHg and <130/85 mmHg to define optimal and normal
HBP, respectively. A couple of studies suggested that HBP thresholds for hyperten-
sion in high-risk patients might be lower than 135/85 mmHg [30, 39]. Although the
target HBP to be achieved with treatment should logically be below the threshold
used to diagnose hypertension (i.e., <135/85 mmHg), these target HBP levels
are still unknown, being currently explored by the ongoing HBPM studies [43].
Although attaining therapeutic goals may be difficult in some patients, it should be
remembered that, even if BP is not fully controlled, each mmHg of reduction in
HBP is important, as it contributes to the prevention of CV complications.
Prognostic Value of HBPM
As a general remark, it has to be acknowledged that the evidence available to sup-

port the prognostic value of HBPM is less than for ABPM, also because of the
smaller number of outcome studies available so far [8, 9]. When averaged over a
period of a few days, home BP measures have been shown to significantly predict
the development of major nonfatal cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction,
stroke) [28–35, 38, 44–52] as well as cardiovascular (fatal cardiovascular events)
and all-cause mortality [28, 34, 35, 39, 47, 48, 53]. In most available studies, the
prognostic value of HBPM has been found superior to that of OBP measurements
with one exception, where a similar predictive value was observed for both tech-
niques [38] (see Fig. 2.1 and Table 2.2).
Longitudinal and cross-sectional studies have reported that target organ involve-
ment, including left ventricular mass index (LVMI), carotid intima-media thickness,
Fig. 2.1 Kaplan–Meier curves for survival free of CV disease in subjects with office, home, and
ambulatory SBP values above and below median values. Modified from Sega et al. [35], by
permission
Table 2.2 Home blood pressure measurements and outcomes
Time of Average number of
Study Population measurements measurements Outcome
Ohkubo et al. (1998) General population aged ≥40 years Morning 21 Cardiovascular, non-cardiovascular, and
(Ohasama) [28], Hozawa et al. all-cause mortality
(2000) (Ohasama) [47]
Ohkubo et al.2004 General population aged ≥40 years Morning 1–25 Total stroke morbidity
(Ohasama) [29]
Asayama et al. (2005) General population aged ≥40 years Morning 25 Total stroke morbidity
(Ohasama) [30]
Ohkubo et al.2004 General population aged ≥40 years Morning 25 Total, hemorrhagic, and ischemic stroke
(Ohasama) [31] morbidity
Asayama et al. 2004 General population aged ≥40 years Morning and evening 47 Total stroke morbidity
(Ohasama) [32]
Nishinaga et al. 2005 Community dwelling elderly aged Morning and evening 20 Cardiovascular, non-cardiovascular and
(Kahoku) [33] ≥65 years all-cause mortality
Okumiya et al. 1999 Community dwelling elderly aged Morning and evening 20 Disability, cardiovascular and all-cause
(Kahoku) [48] ≥75 years mortality, cardiovascular and stroke morbidity,
Bobrie et al. 2004 Treated hypertensives aged ≥60 years Morning and evening 27 Cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, total
(SHEAF study) [38] cardiovascular morbidity
Sega et al. (2005), Mancia General population aged 25–74 years Morning and evening 2 Cardiovascular and all-cause mortality
et al. (2006) (PAMELA study)
[34, 35]
Agarwal et al. 2006 (CKD Veterans with CKD Morning, afternoon Not available Morbidity of end stage renal disease, all-cause
Veterans) [39] and evening mortality
Fagard, et al. 2005 General population aged ≥60 years Morning 3 Major cardiovascular events (cardiovascular
(Flanders) [46] death, myocardial infarction and stroke)
Stergiou et al. 2007. General population aged ≥18 years Morning and evening 12 Total cardiovascular morbidity and mortality
(Didima) [53]
Niiranen et al. 2014 [49] Two cohorts of General population aged Morning and evening 14 composite of cardiovascular mortality,
34–64 years; and newly diagnosed and myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure
untreated hypertensive men and women hospitalization, and coronary intervention
aged 35–54 years
Modified from Parati et al. [8], by permission
and microalbuminuria, is more strongly correlated with HBP measurements than

with OBP measurements in patients with hypertension [51, 54–60] as well as in
patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) on hemodialysis (HD) [61], in elderly
people, in women with pre-eclampsia, and in hypertensive patients with diabetes
[8]. In the case of patients with CKD, HBP has been shown to be a better predictor
of progression of CKD (as assessed with eGFR) [40, 62], including its progression
to end stage renal disease (ESRD) [39] and of cardiovascular events and mortality
[63] than OBP. In particular, in ESRD, HBPM may be more informative than pre-
and post-dialysis OBP readings as it provides BP measurements that are more rep-
resentative of the BP load over the interdialytic period. Indeed, several studies in
ESRD have found HBP to be prognostically superior than OBP also in predicting
subclinical organ damage (i.e., LVH) [61] and cardiovascular events (i.e., all-cause
and CV mortality) [64, 65].
Role of HBPM in the Diagnosis and Management

of Hypertension: Identification of Masked Hypertension
and White-Coat Hypertension
As discussed above, HBPM and ABPM provide out-of-office BP measurements

detecting BP changes in real life conditions and preventing the alarm reaction
associated with OBP [66]. It is thus not surprising that BP levels measured in the
clinic setting are in general higher than ambulatory BP measurements performed
out of the clinic environment [67]. This is considered a major explanation for the
frequently observed disagreements between OBP and out-of-office BP measure-
ments when classifying hypertensive subjects [30]. Indeed, when considering the
threshold values to define hypertension using OBP (≥140/90 mmHg) and HBP or
24h ABP (≥130/80 mmHg), a given individual may fall into one of four BP catego-
ries: sustained normotension (normal office BP and normal home or 24h ABP),
sustained hypertension (high OBP and high home or 24h ABP), white coat hyper-
tension (high office BP and normal home or 24h ABP), or masked hypertension
(normal office BP and high home or 24h ABP) (Fig. 2.2).
Evidence on the ability of HBPM to identify WCH and MH [56, 68] was pro-
vided in a report of the Pressioni Arteriose Monitorate e Loro Associazioni
(PAMELA) study in which the initial diagnosis of WCH (i.e., identified as office BP
>140/90 mmHg and 24-h BP mean <125/79 mmHg or home BP <132/82 mmHg)
was reassessed 10 years later. Overall, the study showed similar results in the ability
of HBPM and ABPM for identifying WCH, sustained hypertension, true normoten-
sion, and masked hypertension, even if a substantial percentage of subjects changed
from one category to another, including progression to sustained hypertension
(Fig. 2.3).
(140/90 mmHg)
Normal office BP High office BP

High home or daytime High home or daytime
BP BP
Home or Daytime Ambulatory BP
“Masked ”Sustained
hypertension” Hypertension”
or
“Uncontrolled
hypertension”
(<135/85 mmHg)
Normal office BP
High office BP
Normal home or
Normal home or
daytime BP
daytime BP
“Sustained
“White coat
Normotension”
hypertension”
(“isolated office
or
hypertension”)
“Controlled
hypertension”
Office BP
Fig. 2.2 Schematic relationship between office and home or daytime ambulatory BP. Classification
of patients based on the comparison of office and home or daytime ambulatory blood pressure
(BP). When focusing on ABP, current guidelines recommend to use 24h rather than daytime ABP,
in order to include also night-time BP values Taken from Parati et al. [8], by permission
Role of HBPM in the Assessment of BP Control in Treated

Hypertension
In the light of the available evidence supporting the prognostic and clinical advan-
tages offered by HBPM, current international and national guidelines recommend
the use of HBPM as part of the routine diagnostic and therapeutic approach to
hypertension, particularly in treated patients [8, 69–74]. By providing accurate and
frequent BP measures at regular time intervals over several days, weeks, or months,
in a setting of typical daily living, HBPM is able to accurately track changes in BP
levels induced by antihypertensive treatment and becomes a better indicator of BP
control than OBP measurements alone [8]. HBPM may be an excellent tool to assess
and improve the achievement of BP control, particularly in patients with apparent
resistant hypertension in whom BP cannot be easily controlled even with several
classes of antihypertensive medications. In support of this concept, several studies
Fig. 2.3 Mean percentage changes in BP status among normotension (NT), white coat hyperten-
sion (WCHT), and masked hypertension (MHT) over the 10-year period of the study. Data refer-
ring to true hypertension (true HT) are shown for comparison. Taken from Mancia et al. [68], with
permission
exploring the benefits of HBPM for the long-term management of patients on anti-
hypertensive therapy have shown that when properly implemented, HBPM may
significantly increase achievement of BP control when compared to conventional
OBP [75, 76], while reducing the need of follow-up medical visits [77]. The benefits
of HBPM in this regard may be derived from several factors. First, the use of HBPM
improves adherence to prescribed treatment (see below). Secondly, in subjects who
receive antihypertensive treatment, OBP measurements alone may be inaccurate in
assessing true BP control. For instance, the alerting reaction to the medical visit
may continue to be present in anyone treated for hypertension, regardless of the
number of drugs being taken [78]. It is not uncommon to find patients with mild
hypertension based on HBPM or ABPM who yet appear to have severe hyperten-
sion in the clinic, due to a white coat effect in this condition [79], or treated subjects
who, despite achieving adequate out-of-office BP control with antihypertensive
drugs, continue to present elevation in office BP levels because of a persistent emo-
tional reaction to the medical visit. This phenomenon, which is equivalent to WCH
in untreated patients, has been addressed as “white coat resistant hypertension”
(WCRH) or false resistant hypertension in order to emphasize its occurrence in
subjects receiving antihypertensive treatment [14].
Observational and interventional studies in treated hypertensives implementing
OBP measures along with ambulatory or home BP monitoring have shown over-
whelmingly that up to one-third of treated hypertensives may be mistakenly classi-

fied as having resistant hypertension, when they actually have “false resistant
hypertension” due to a persisting white coat effect [80]. A condition of greater clini-
cal concern is masked resistant hypertension (MRH) or false BP control (i.e., BP
appear to be controlled based on OBP, but is elevated when out-of-office BP levels
are recorded)—this condition has been also reported to occur in about 30 % of
treated subjects [81, 82].
The high prevalence of MRH and WCRH among treated hypertensive individuals
further reinforces the clinical relevance of identifying these conditions. On the one
hand, identification of WCRH would prevent undesirable modifications of antihy-
pertensive treatment, i.e., an unnecessary increase in dose or number of antihyper-
tensive drugs, and reduction of the chance of adverse effects associated with
improperly prescribed multidrug therapy that often interferes with patients’ quality
of life, leading in the end to poor compliance with treatment. At the same time, it
would reduce the expenditures associated with unnecessary additional pharmaco-
logical treatment and/or unnecessary interventional device-based strategies (i.e.,
carotid baroreceptor activation [83] and renal denervation [84]) for the management
of resistant hypertension. Indeed, given the elevated costs and the invasive nature of
these approaches, as well as their potential adverse effects when improperly indi-
cated, discarding WCRH based on out-of-office BP measures is currently consid-
ered among the eligibility criteria before proceeding with interventional treatment
of resistant hypertension [85]. In contrast, identification of MRH would indicate the
need to implement early modifications on antihypertensive treatment in order to
prevent development/progression of subclinical organ damage and cardiovascular
events associated with this condition.
Regarding the ability to identify masked hypertension and white coat hyperten-
sion, several studies have comparatively explored the performance of HBPM against
the reference standard for out-of-office BPM represented by ABPM. Although MH
was first studied with ABPM [86], it has been demonstrated that HBP can be as reli-
able as ABPM in identifying this phenomenon as well as the associated target-organ
damage associated with MH [87]. Evidence has also been provided that HBPM is as
reliable as ABPM in identifying WCH [87] and useful in identifying “truly” hyper-
tensive patients likely to benefit from implementation of antihypertensive therapy
from those with WCH in whom antihypertensive treatment is probably not needed
[41]. In a recent study conducted in a group of subjects on stable treatment with ≥3
antihypertensive drugs using ABPM as reference method [88] in which resistant
hypertension was defined as elevated OBP (≥140/90 mmHg) and true resistant
hypertension as concomitant elevation in-office and out-of-office BP (SBP and/or
DBP ≥ 135/85 mmHg for HBP or awake ABP), there was agreement between ABP
and HBP in diagnosing clinic or “white coat” resistant hypertension in 82 % of the
cases (59 % with and 23 % without clinic resistant hypertension; kappa 0.59).
Regarding the diagnosis of true resistant hypertension, there was agreement between
ABP and HBP in 74 % of the cases (49 % with and 25 % without true resistant
hypertension; kappa 0.46). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative
predictive values for HBP in detecting white coat resistant hypertension were 93 %,
63 %, 81 %, and 83 %, respectively. The respective values for HBP in detecting true

resistant hypertension were 90 %, 55 %, 71 %, and 82 %, indicating that HBP may
be a useful tool in the evaluation of false and true resistant hypertension [88].
Based on the above data, it may be concluded that a proper assessment of BP
control and classification of treated hypertensive patients with the combined use of
office, ambulatory, and ideally home BP measurements are essential for defining
the need of performing additional diagnostic procedures (i.e., screening tests for
secondary causes of resistant hypertension) and/or implementing more aggressive
pharmacological or interventional strategies (Fig. 2.4) [89].
While emphasizing the above advantages of HBPM in assessing BP control by
treatment, we have also to acknowledge that HBPM may not provide information
on BP levels during night-time sleep, which have shown to be of major clinical
relevance because of their demonstrated prognostic value [35, 44, 90–93]. However,
in recent years validated, memory-equipped devices have been designed that can be
programmed to provide nocturnal BP readings comparable to those obtained with
24-h ABPM [22–24].
Fig. 2.4 Initial diagnostic approach to the patient with clinic resistant hypertension. AHT antihy-
pertensive treatment, HT hypertension, OBP office blood pressure, DM diabetes mellitus, CKD
chronic kidney disease, CV cardiovascular, BP blood pressure, ABPM ambulatory blood pressure
monitoring, HBPM home blood pressure monitoring, WCRH “white coat” resistant hypertension,
MRH “masked” resistant hypertension, RH resistant hypertension, LSC life style changes. Modified
from Parati et al. [89], with permission
HBPM is admittedly less effective than ABPM in assessing the time distribution
of BP control by treatment over 24 h. However, HBPM performed in the morning
(before drug intake) and in the evening over different days may provide useful infor-
mation about the efficacy of therapeutic coverage over 24 h and in the long term and
may identify cases of morning hypertension attributable to insufficient duration of
action of prescribed antihypertensive medications.
HBPM allows patients to perform repeated and regular BP measurements over
extended periods of time and may be particularly advantageous in the case of treated
hypertensive subjects with CKD, and particularly in those with ESRD. In hemodi-
alysis (HD) patients, BP control poses unique challenges because of the marked
reductions in intravascular volume immediately after HD and its progressive
increases throughout the inter-dialytic period, which induce an extremely variable
behavior of BP [94]. In this context, HBPM provides potential advantages such as
the possibility of sampling BP at various times throughout the inter-dialytic period
to aid in tracking daytime and day-to-day BP variations and providing BP measure-
ments that are more representative of subject’s actual BP burden.
HBPM: A Substitute or a Complement to ABPM and OBP

Measures?
In view of the limitations characterizing OBP measurements, it becomes clear that

an adequate assessment of BP control and a proper diagnosis of resistant hyperten-
sion cannot be based on just isolated OBP readings. Indeed, a recent position paper
on ABPM of the European Society of Hypertension [14] recommends performing
24-h ABPM and/or HBPM for detecting the presence of WCH and identifying the
presence of true hypertension and masked hypertension in all patients with uncom-
plicated, stage 1 and 2 hypertension before starting antihypertensive drug therapy.
Based on the evidence from several studies supporting the clinical value of ABPM
either for selecting patients for treatment or for assessing the effects of antihyper-
tensive drug therapy, ABPM is currently considered the standard method for con-
firming the diagnosis of hypertension in clinical practice [12, 14] and for assessing
BP control in treated hypertensive patients [3, 6, 14, 10]. However, ABPM is not
always available everywhere and requires trained clinic staff and specialized equip-
ment and software for its analysis [9].
When performed on a regular basis and following standardized protocols [9],
repeated BP measures obtained by patients at home result in accurate and
frequent out-of-office BP measurements not only during a single day, but also
over several days, weeks, or months in the non-medical setting, hence providing
more reliable measures not only on the degree, but also on the consistency of BP
control over time [9].
In view of the available evidence supporting the superior prognostic value of
home vs. office BP levels, as well as the clinical advantages of HBPM, current
hypertension guidelines recommend more extensive use of HBPM not only for the
initial diagnostic approach to hypertension (i.e., to identify “truly” hypertensive

patients, likely to benefit from implementation of antihypertensive therapy [41]),
but also for the long-term follow-up of treated hypertensive patients, even if they
have controlled OBP, in order to better define the actual BP normalization rate
achieved by various drug regimens [8, 9, 3, 25, 95]. Although HBPM shares many
of the advantages of ABPM, including a cost-effective approach to the diagnosis of
hypertension, it should not be considered as a substitute but rather as a complement
to ABPM, since these methods are likely to pick up different types of BP behavior
in a person’s activities of daily living.
Role of HBPM in Improving Adherence to Treatment

and Reducing Therapeutic Inertia
Poor adherence to therapy has been recognized as one of the most important factors
contributing to uncontrolled hypertension. By encouraging patients to become actively
involved in their care, and by positively affecting their perceptions about the manage-
ment of hypertension, HBPM offers the possibility to improve patient’s compliance
and adherence to lifestyle changes and/or medical treatment [96]. Recent meta-analy-
ses of randomized controlled trials have shown that compared to usual care based on
OBP measurements, HBPM-guided antihypertensive treatment may significantly
increase rates of achievement of BP control [75, 97] probably as a consequence of
better compliance to treatment. In fact, HBPM is being increasingly implemented in
clinical settings not only to guide antihypertensive therapy and to assess long-term BP
control, but also as a means to improve patient’s compliance and adherence to antihy-
pertensive treatment [98]. Another important advantage of HBPM in clinical practice
is that it may help to overcome therapeutic inertia, since more information is provided
to practitioners that allow more appropriate clinical decisions.
Assessment of Day-to-Day Blood Pressure Variability
HBPM may offer clinically relevant information when considering BPV over long
periods of time. Although most studies on the prognostic relevance of BPV have
focused on short-term BP changes assessed from 24-h ABPM, evidence from
recent studies and clinical trials has suggested that an increased BPV in the mid-
term (day-to-day) and in the long-term (i.e., between weekly, monthly, or yearly
visits) relates to adverse implications for CV prognosis [99–103]. Although an
extensive assessment of BPV for intermediate periods could theoretically be
obtained by performing ABPM over consecutive days (i.e., during 48 h or more),
this approach is neither well-accepted by patients nor available in all clinical set-
tings. An alternative method for assessment of day-by-day BPV consists of its
calculation from BP measurements performed by patients at home over several

days. Although HBPM cannot provide extensive information on nocturnal BP and
BP profiles as ABPM does, a major advantage of this technique is that it provides
information on the consistency of BP control over time earlier than when consider-
ing long-term visit-to-visit BPV, thus allowing early adjustment of antihyperten-
sive treatment (and thus timely preventing development/progression of organ
damage associated with inconsistent BP control). Besides, HBP monitors are
widely available and are well-accepted by patients and are a more feasible approach
for the evaluation of day-by-day BPV by applying different metrics: (1) Blood
pressure standard deviation [104, 105], but with accounting for its dependence on
mean BP levels, i.e., by calculating the coefficient of variation (SD × 100/BP mean)
[104]; (2) morning maximum and minimum blood pressure (MMD); (3) "average
real variability" (ARV), computed as the average of the absolute differences
between consecutive BP measurements, focusing on the sequence of BP readings,
thus reflecting reading-to-reading, within-subject variability in BP levels [106]; (4)
variance independent of the mean (VIM), a method proposed to exclude the effect
of mean BP from BPV by applying nonlinear regression analysis (i.e., plotting SD
against mean) [99]. These indices of day-by-day BPV have been shown to be of
prognostic value as indicated by a series of studies in which an increased day-by-
day BPV independently of average home BP levels was predictive of development,
establishment, and evolution of cardiac, vascular, and renal organ damage [107]. In
a cross-sectional analysis of a population of never-treated participants with hyper-
tension, an increased day-by-day BPV in home systolic BP (assessed as the maxi-
mum mean triplicate in home systolic BP over 14 consecutive days) was positively
correlated with left ventricular mass index, increased carotid intima-media thick-
ness, and urinary albumin/creatinine ratio over and above mean home SBP levels
[107]. In a population of type 2 diabetes patients from Japan, increasing values of
day-by-day variability (assessed as CV of morning and evening HBP measured
over 14 consecutive days) were significantly higher in subjects presenting with
macroalbuminuria (i.e., urinary albumin excretion ≥300 mg/g creatinine).
Additionally, the CVs of morning systolic and diastolic BP and evening systolic BP
were significantly correlated with urinary albumin excretion independently of other
confounders [108]. A further report, also in type 2 diabetic patients, found higher
values of SD of morning systolic HBP to be associated with increased arterial stiff-
ness (i.e., higher pulse wave velocity) independent of other known risk factors
[109]. Another study, conducted in a cohort of hypertensive patients, found home
systolic BPV and max systolic BP to be associated with urinary albumin excretion
[110]. In the frame of the Home Blood Pressure for Diabetic Nephropathy
(HBP-DN) study, a prospective study in type 2 diabetic patients with microalbu-
minuria, higher values of SD of home systolic blood pressure (HSBP) were
observed among subjects with the lowest values of estimated GFR (eGFR) [111].
Regarding the predictive value for cardiovascular events and mortality, the two
main population studies exploring the prognostic value of mid-term BPV have
found increasing values of day-by-day BPV to be associated with an increased risk
of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events [101–103]. In the Ohasama study from
Japan, increasing values of variability in systolic HBP were associated with a
higher risk of the composite end point of cardiac and stroke mortality, but only with
a significant risk of stroke mortality, when the outcomes were independently con-
sidered [101]. In another report from the Ohasama study, increasing values of vari-
ability in systolic HBP were associated with a higher risk of cerebral infarction in
ever smokers, but not in never smokers [102]. When the prognostic value of novel
indices of BPV derived from self-measured HBP was evaluated in the population
of the Ohasama study, increasing values of VIM and ARV, but not of morning
maximum and minimum blood pressure (MMD) determined on a median of 26
readings, were associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular and total mortal-
ity. However, when adjustment was performed by accounting for average BP and
common confounders, the incremental predictive value of VIM, MMD, and ARV
over and beyond HBP level was only marginal (i.e., from <0.01 to 0.88 %) [102].
In the Finn–Home study in a cohort of adults from the general population [103],
increasing variability in systolic and diastolic HBP measures performed over seven
consecutive days was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events after
7.8 years of follow-up, which remained significant even after adjusting for age and
average HBP levels, thus supporting the additive value of HBP variability in pre-
dicting CV prognosis [103]. Contrasting results were reported after 12-years of
follow-up in a Belgium population in which no predictive value for HBP variability
was observed for either cardiovascular mortality or morbidity after accounting for
average BP levels [112]. In relation to the effects of antihypertensive treatment,
despite the wide availability of monitors for HBP monitoring, only few interven-
tional studies in hypertension have implemented routine assessment of HBPV in
order to address whether reducing day-by-day BP variability with antihypertensive
treatment in addition to reducing average home BP levels is associated with
improvements in cardiovascular protection.
The results of interventional studies addressing the effects of antihypertensive
treatment on HBP variability have been inconsistent. While some have found treat-
ment with a beta-blocker to be related with lower HBP variability [109], other stud-
ies conducted in diabetic patients or in the general population have reported higher
values of HBP variability in the arm receiving beta-blockers [109, 112]. A longitu-
dinal study conducted in a population of hypertensive patients from Japan (with
systolic HBP > 135 mmHg) explored whether reductions in HBP variability (deter-
mined on the basis of BP measures performed in the morning and the evening over
seven consecutive days) were associated with changes in renal damage [assessed
with urinary albumin excretion (UAE)] before and after 6 months of candesartan
treatment. Although significant reductions were observed both in average BP levels
and in HBP variability after 6 months of therapy, only treatment-induced reductions
in average HBP but not in home BPV or in maximum home SBP were associated
with reductions in UAE levels [110]. Another study reported lower values of sys-
tolic BPV in patients treated for <12 months with an angiotensin receptor blocker
(ARB) but not with a calcium channel blocker (CCB) [113]. The only clinical study
comparing the effects of different antihypertensive drug classes on BPV found a
CCB/ARB combination to be more effective in reducing systolic HBP variability,

than a ARB/thiazide combination [114]. In the same study, significant reductions in
pulse wave velocity (an index of arterial stiffness) induced by the ARB/CCB treat-
ment (6 months) were independently correlated with changes in systolic HBP vari-
ability [114]. A recent non-randomized analysis of a population of diabetic subjects
receiving different drug classes found lower values of morning HBP variability in
subjects receiving calcium antagonists than in those receiving angiotensin convert-
ing enzime (ACE) inhibitors or ARBs [115].
Telemonitoring of Home BP Monitoring
The wide availability and low cost of automated BP measuring devices and the
emphasis put by healthcare systems on delivering patient-centered care have stimu-
lated development of home-based telemonitoring. Such a system requires active
involvement of patients who self-monitor their BP levels as well as pulse rate and
send these values to a healthcare provider. However, in daily clinical practice, these
data are usually reported in handwritten logbooks and oftentimes are inaccurate
and/or illegible. This makes interpretation of HBPM values a difficult task, either
when exploring BP behavior over the recording period and/or when estimating the
BP changes in response to antihypertensive treatment. These issues may discourage
physicians from using HBPM data for clinical decision-making. In recent years, the
rapid development of e-health-related technologies has made it possible to develop
home-based telemonitoring systems that allow transfer of data obtained by patients
at home to a remote sever (through a stationary or mobile phone or internet connec-
tion) where HBPM values are stored and analyzed [116, 117]. Automatically gen-
erated reports of these data are easier to interpret by the physician or the health
personnel and thus more useful to make therapeutic decisions, which may be com-
municated to the patient without the need for additional clinic visits. Several HBPT
systems are available, some of which also allow sending reminders to patients indi-
cating the time of BP measurement and/or of medication intake. Patients can alter
their health behaviors or have adjustments made in their medication regimen
between visits, avoiding the need to wait months between visits for adjustments.
Home-based monitoring may also alert the provider about new changes in a
patient’s health that may be associated with uncontrolled hypertension. In addition
to traditional face-to-face clinic visits, patient-centered care involves providing
care outside the clinic as well, which has been linked to improved patient satisfac-
tion and to innovative ways of providing healthcare [118]. Moreover, telephone
contacts offer a medium to enable patients to be reached regardless of geographic
location and have been shown effective in changing multiple patient behaviors
[119, 120]. Considering the decreased transportation burden and time savings,
home-based telemonitoring may be more convenient for patients [121] and may
encourage the development of a sense of control and support for chronic disease
self-management [122].
Improving Achievement of BP Control Rates with Home BP

Telemonitoring
Recent reports of interventional studies and meta-analyses of clinical trials have

provided evidence that addition of remote telemonitoring of home BP values is
effective in improving compliance to treatment, blood pressure control, and related
medical and economic outcomes in hypertensive patients [117, 123–126], espe-
cially in those with treatment-resistant hypertension due to poor compliance with
multiple drug prescriptions [127] (Fig. 2.5).
Preliminary reports also suggest a possible utility of HBPT for self-titration of
antihypertensive medication by patients [128]. However, despite these results, het-
erogeneity of published studies in terms of HBPM protocols (i.e., devices, fre-
quency of measures, method for reporting BP levels) and study populations suggests
that well-designed, large-scale, randomized, controlled studies are still required to
demonstrate the clinical usefulness of this technique [117, 126].
The Role of Nurse and Pharmacist in Home Blood Pressure

Telemonitoring Systems
Patient-centered hypertension management requires a team-oriented approach often

involving multidisciplinary roles (nurses, pharmacists, physicians) with the patient at
the core [129]. In recent trials, nurses with varying levels of training [120, 130–133],
Fig. 2.5 Percentage of patients with daytime ambulatory BP normalization (systolic BP

<130 mmHg and diastolic BP <80 mmHg). In this study, hypertensive patients were randomized
to be conventionally managed based on office BP measurement (white bars, n = 111) or to be man-
aged based on teletransmission of home BP values (gray bars: n = 187). Modified from Parati et al.
[123], by permission
and clinical pharmacists [134–138], have been involved in this approach to patients’
care. In particular, nurse-delivered interventions have been shown to contribute to
improved patient outcomes [120, 132]. These nursing professionals are trained to
address lifestyle and behavioral actions such as diet and exercise patterns, strategies
for weight reduction, and smoking cessation, among others. Nurses at all practice
levels are able to educate patients on proper home-based BP monitoring techniques,
procedures for telemonitoring, and interpretation about appropriate BP thresholds. In
addition, nurse practitioners (NP) are advanced practice-registered nurses with addi-
tional training enabling them to prescribe or manage pharmacotherapy. Their ser-
vices involve ordering, conducting, and interpreting diagnostic and laboratory tests;
prescribing pharmacologic agents and non-pharmacologic therapy; and teaching and
counseling. Like the NP, clinical pharmacists with additional training and scopes of
practice are able to prescribe and manage pharmacotherapy. Clinical pharmacists are
an excellent source of counseling regarding safe, appropriate, and cost-effective
medications use [139, 140]. Pharmacists may initiate, discontinue, or adjust pharma-
cotherapy based on clinical indications [135, 141, 139, 140].
Clinical pharmacist-administered behavioral and medication management inter-
ventions have been shown to improve BP control and the management of other
chronic conditions leading to reductions in cardiovascular risk [141]. To date
though, most of the evidence supporting the effects of pharmacist-driven interven-
tions on BP levels has been provided in a traditional community-based setting rather
than through telemonitoring [142, 143]. Of note, while the NP or clinical pharma-
cist may appear to be ideal interventionists with their pharmacotherapy privileges,
cost-effectiveness is a major factor as LPNs and RNs may require significantly less
monetary resources.
Cost-effectiveness of Home BP Telemonitoring-Based

Programs
Although some financial aspects may limit the implementation of HBPT (i.e., costs
of purchasing and maintaining the system, the need of trained personnel, require-
ment of telephonic/Internet connections), they may be partly counterbalanced by
the reduction in the costs of patients’ management compared with usual care. It is
suggested that home-based monitoring may encourage more appropriate resource
utilization by curtailing the need for unnecessary clinic visits (e.g., visits solely for
a BP check), while simultaneously initiating needed visits when a patient’s BP is
out of target range. Several studies have demonstrated that home-based BP monitor-
ing, especially when coupled with behavioral interventions, may be cost-additive or
cost-neutral to the healthcare system in the short-term [144–146]. Of note, combin-
ing telemonitoring of BP levels plus behavioral modification and/or self-modification
of treatment with the support of pharmacies could represent an excellent strategy
not only to improve achievement of BP control, but also to further reduce healthcare
costs and expenses. It has been generally felt that the initial expense will result in
long-term savings through cardiovascular disease reduction. The few studies

conducted exploring this issue have shown that home-based BP telemonitoring may
not only improve achievement of BP control, but also reduce the adverse cardiovas-
cular outcomes associated with elevated BP levels. However, additional research is
still needed to better understand the cost-effectiveness and long-term effects of
home-based BP monitoring in clinical outcomes.
Conclusions
HBPM is a simple, inexpensive methodology that offers significant clinical

advantages over routine OBP measurements. Consistent evidence has indicated
that home BP is a strong and modifiable risk factor with superior prognostic value
over conventional OBP measurements in predicting initiation, establishment and
progression of subclinical organ damage, and the development of fatal and non-
fatal CV events and all-cause and CV mortality in hypertension. A number of
randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have also provided evidence of the benefits
and cost-effectiveness of programs based on implementation of home-based BP
telemonitoring. During the diagnostic assessment of hypertension, it reduces mis-
classification of BP levels by identifying WCH and MH, and in treated hyperten-
sive subjects telemonitoring allows a better assessment of the BP response to
antihypertensive treatment and may help improving therapeutic decisions. At
variance from OBP, HBPM requires the active involvement of patients in manag-
ing their high BP conditions, which enhances patients’ compliance and adherence
to antihypertensive treatment. Besides, provided that the practitioner has more
information available to make clinical decisions, HBPM also helps to reduce
therapeutic inertia. In turn, all of this may potentially increase rates of BP control.
Finally, unlike ABPM, HBPM does not allow the assessment of BP during sleep
or at work, nor the quantification of short-term BP variability, although it may
allow to assess day-by-day BP variability, thus offering a means to quantify long-
term BP variations which, as recently suggested, may have prognostic signifi-
cance. Based on these clinical advantages over OBP measurements (in particular
its improved accuracy, low cost and easy implementation), the use of HBPM has
been strongly supported by current guidelines for hypertension management as a
complement to office BP measures and ambulatory BP monitoring and as part of
the routine diagnostic and therapeutic approach to hypertension management
[3, 8, 11, 12, 25, 147].
Despite the several advantages and potential applications offered by HBPM, in
particular in subjects with resistant hypertension, evidence from intervention ran-
domized trials on hypertension management is still needed in order to address sev-
eral important issues in this field, such as the definition of HBP targets to achieve
with BP lowering strategies or the optimal strategy for a meaningful application of
HBPM in clinical practice.
References
1. Lim SS, Vos T, Flaxman AD, Danaei G, Shibuya K, Adair-Rohani H, et al. A comparative risk
assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clus-
ters in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study
2010. Lancet. 2012;380(9859):2224–60. Epub 2012/12/19.
2. Wright Jr JT, Bakris G, Greene T, Agodoa LY, Appel LJ, Charleston J, et al. Effect of blood
pressure lowering and antihypertensive drug class on progression of hypertensive kidney
disease: results from the AASK trial. JAMA. 2002;288(19):2421–31. Epub 2002/11/21.
3. Mancia G, Fagard R, Narkiewicz K, Redon J, Zanchetti A, Bohm M, et al. 2013 ESH/ESC
guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: the Task Force for the Management
of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European
Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2013;34(28):2159–219. Epub 2013/06/19.
4. O'Brien E, Asmar R, Beilin L, Imai Y, Mallion JM, Mancia G, et al. European Society of
Hypertension recommendations for conventional, ambulatory and home blood pressure mea-
surement. J Hypertens. 2003;21(5):821–48. Epub 2003/04/26.
5. MacMahon S, Peto R, Cutler J, Collins R, Sorlie P, Neaton J, et al. Blood pressure, stroke,
and coronary heart disease. Part 1, Prolonged differences in blood pressure: prospective
observational studies corrected for the regression dilution bias. Lancet. 1990;335(8692):765–
74. Epub 1990/03/31.
6. Parati G, Stergiou G, O'Brien E, Asmar R, Beilin L, Bilo G, et al. European Society of
Hypertension practice guidelines for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. J Hypertens.
2014;32(7):1359–66. Epub 2014/06/03.
7. Armstrong C. JNC8 Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension in Adults. Am Fam
Physician. 2014;90(7):503–4. Epub 2014/11/05.
8. Parati G, Stergiou GS, Asmar R, Bilo G, de Leeuw P, Imai Y, et al. European Society of
Hypertension guidelines for blood pressure monitoring at home: a summary report of the
Second International Consensus Conference on Home Blood Pressure Monitoring.
J Hypertens. 2008;26(8):1505–26. Epub 2008/07/16.
9. Parati G, Stergiou GS, Asmar R, Bilo G, de Leeuw P, Imai Y, et al. European Society of
Hypertension practice guidelines for home blood pressure monitoring. J Hum Hypertens.
2010;24(12):779–85. Epub 2010/06/04.
10. Ritchie LD, Campbell NC, Murchie P. New NICE guidelines for hypertension. BMJ.
2011;343:d5644. Epub 2011/09/09.
11. Houle SK, Padwal R, Tsuyuki RT. The 2012-2013 Canadian Hypertension Education
Program (CHEP) guidelines for pharmacists: an update. Can Pharm J. 2013;146(3):146–50.
Epub 2013/06/26.
12. Pickering TG, Miller NH, Ogedegbe G, Krakoff LR, Artinian NT, Goff D. 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. Hypertension. 2008;52(1):10–29. Epub 2008/05/24.
13. Chertow GM, Levin NW, Beck GJ, Depner TA, Eggers PW, Gassman JJ, et al. In-center
hemodialysis six times per week versus three times per week. N Engl J Med. 2010;
363(24):2287–300. Epub 2010/11/26.
14. O'Brien E, Parati G, Stergiou G, Asmar R, Beilin L, Bilo G, et al. European Society of
Hypertension position paper on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. J Hypertens.
2013;31(9):1731–68. Epub 2013/09/14.
15. Stryker T, Wilson M, Wilson TW. Accuracy of home blood pressure readings: monitors and
operators. Blood Press Monit. 2004;9(3):143–7. Epub 2004/06/17.
16. Stergiou GS, Efstathiou SP, Argyraki CK, Gantzarou AP, Roussias LG, Mountokalakis
TD. Clinic, home and ambulatory pulse pressure: comparison and reproducibility.
J Hypertens. 2002;20(10):1987–93. Epub 2002/10/03.
17. Stergiou GS, Baibas NM, Gantzarou AP, Skeva II, Kalkana CB, Roussias LG, et al.
Reproducibility of home, ambulatory, and clinic blood pressure: implications for the design
of trials for the assessment of antihypertensive drug efficacy. Am J Hypertens. 2002;15(2 Pt
1):101–4. Epub 2002/02/28.
18. Warren RE, Marshall T, Padfield PL, Chrubasik S. Variability of office, 24-hour ambulatory,
and self-monitored blood pressure measurements. Br J Gen Pract. 2010;60(578):675–80.
Epub 2010/09/21.
19. Powers BJ, Olsen MK, Smith VA, Woolson RF, Bosworth HB, Oddone EZ. Measuring blood
pressure for decision making and quality reporting: where and how many measures? Ann
Intern Med. 2011;154(12):781-8, W-289-90. Epub 2011/06/22.
20. McManus RJ, Mant J, Bray EP, Holder R, Jones MI, Greenfield S, et al. Telemonitoring and
self-management in the control of hypertension (TASMINH2): a randomised controlled trial.
Lancet. 2010;376(9736):163–72. Epub 2010/07/14.
21. Kaambwa B, Bryan S, Jowett S, Mant J, Bray EP, Hobbs FD, et al. Telemonitoring and self-
management in the control of hypertension (TASMINH2): a cost-effectiveness analysis. Eur
J Prev Cardiol. 2014;21(12):1517–30. Epub 2013/08/31.
22. Ishikawa J, Shimizu M, Sugiyama Edison E, Yano Y, Hoshide S, Eguchi K, et al. Assessment
of the reductions in night-time blood pressure and dipping induced by antihypertensive medi-
cation using a home blood pressure monitor. J Hypertens. 2014;32(1):82–9. Epub 2013/12/12.
23. Ushio H, Ishigami T, Araki N, Minegishi S, Tamura K, Okano Y, et al. Utility and feasibility
of a new programmable home blood pressure monitoring device for the assessment of night-
time blood pressure. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2009;13(5):480–5. Epub 2009/05/19.
24. Stergiou GS, Triantafyllidou E, Cholidou K, Kollias A, Destounis A, Nasothimiou EG, et al.
Asleep home blood pressure monitoring in obstructive sleep apnea: a pilot study. Blood Press
Monit. 2013;18(1):21–6. Epub 2012/12/25.
25. Lackland DT. Hypertension: Joint National Committee on Detection, Evaluation, and
Treatment of High Blood Pressure guidelines. Curr Opin Neurol. 2013;26(1):8–12. Epub
2012/12/18.
26. Thijs L, Staessen JA, Celis H, de Gaudemaris R, Imai Y, Julius S, et al. Reference values for
self-recorded blood pressure: a meta-analysis of summary data. Arch Intern Med.
1998;158(5):481–8. Epub 1998/03/21.
27. Thijs L, Staessen JA, Celis H, Fagard R, De Cort P, de Gaudemaris R, et al. The international
database of self-recorded blood pressures in normotensive and untreated hypertensive sub-
jects. Blood Press Monit. 1999;4(2):77–86. Epub 1999/08/18.
28. Ohkubo T, Imai Y, Tsuji I, Nagai K, Kato J, Kikuchi N, et al. Home blood pressure measure-
ment has a stronger predictive power for mortality than does screening blood pressure mea-
surement: a population-based observation in Ohasama. Jpn J Hypertens. 1998;16(7):971–5.
Epub 1998/10/30.
29. Ohkubo T, Asayama K, Kikuya M, Metoki H, Hoshi H, Hashimoto J, et al. How many times
should blood pressure be measured at home for better prediction of stroke risk? Ten-year
follow-up results from the Ohasama study. J Hypertens. 2004;22(6):1099–104. Epub
2004/05/29.
30. Asayama K, Ohkubo T, Kikuya M, Metoki H, Obara T, Hoshi H, et al. Use of 2003 European
Society of Hypertension-European Society of Cardiology guidelines for predicting stroke
using self-measured blood pressure at home: the Ohasama study. Eur Heart J. 2005;
26(19):2026–31. Epub 2005/05/27.
31. Ohkubo T, Asayama K, Kikuya M, Metoki H, Obara T, Saito S, et al. Prediction of ischaemic
and haemorrhagic stroke by self-measured blood pressure at home: the Ohasama study.
Blood Press Monit. 2004;9(6):315–20. Epub 2004/11/27.
32. Asayama K, Ohkubo T, Kikuya M, Metoki H, Hoshi H, Hashimoto J, et al. Prediction of
stroke by self-measurement of blood pressure at home versus casual screening blood pressure
measurement in relation to the Joint National Committee 7 classification: the Ohasama study.
Stroke. 2004;35(10):2356–61. Epub 2004/08/28.
33. Nishinaga M, Takata J, Okumiya K, Matsubayashi K, Ozawa T, Doi Y. High morning home
blood pressure is associated with a loss of functional independence in the community-
dwelling elderly aged 75 years or older. Hypertens Res. 2005;28(8):657–63. Epub 2006/01/06.
34. Mancia G, Facchetti R, Bombelli M, Grassi G, Sega R. Long-term risk of mortality associ-
ated with selective and combined elevation in office, home, and ambulatory blood pressure.
Hypertension. 2006;47(5):846–53. Epub 2006/03/29.
35. Sega R, Facchetti R, Bombelli M, Cesana G, Corrao G, Grassi G, et al. Prognostic value of
ambulatory and home blood pressures compared with office blood pressure in the general
population: follow-up results from the Pressioni Arteriose Monitorate e Loro Associazioni
(PAMELA) study. Circulation. 2005;111(14):1777–83. Epub 2005/04/06.
36. Asayama K, Ohkubo T, Kikuya M, Obara T, Metoki H, Inoue R, et al. Prediction of stroke by
home "morning" versus "evening" blood pressure values: the Ohasama study. Hypertension.
2006;48(4):737–43. Epub 2006/09/06.
37. Tsuji I, Imai Y, Nagai K, Ohkubo T, Watanabe N, Minami N, et al. Proposal of reference
values for home blood pressure measurement: prognostic criteria based on a prospective
observation of the general population in Ohasama, Japan. Am J Hypertens. 1997;10(4 Pt
1):409–18. Epub 1997/04/01.
38. Bobrie G, Chatellier G, Genes N, Clerson P, Vaur L, Vaisse B, et al. Cardiovascular prognosis
of "masked hypertension" detected by blood pressure self-measurement in elderly treated
hypertensive patients. JAMA. 2004;291(11):1342–9. Epub 2004/03/18.
39. Agarwal R, Andersen MJ. Prognostic importance of clinic and home blood pressure record-
ings in patients with chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int. 2006;69(2):406–11. Epub 2006/01/13.
40. Rave K, Bender R, Heise T, Sawicki PT. Value of blood pressure self-monitoring as a predic-
tor of progression of diabetic nephropathy. J Hypertens. 1999;17(5):597–601. Epub
1999/07/14.
41. Staessen JA, Den Hond E, Celis H, Fagard R, Keary L, Vandenhoven G, et al. Antihypertensive
treatment based on blood pressure measurement at home or in the physician's office: a ran-
domized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004;291(8):955–64. Epub 2004/02/26.
42. Verberk WJ, Kroon AA, Lenders JW, Kessels AG, van Montfrans GA, Smit AJ, et al. Self-
measurement of blood pressure at home reduces the need for antihypertensive drugs: a ran-
domized, controlled trial. Hypertension. 2007;50(6):1019–25. Epub 2007/10/17.
43. Saito S, Asayama K, Ohkubo T, Kikuya M, Metoki H, Obara T, et al. The second progress
report on the Hypertension Objective treatment based on Measurement by Electrical Devices
of Blood Pressure (HOMED-BP) study. Blood Press Monit. 2004;9(5):243–7. Epub
2004/10/09.
44. Fagard RH, Celis H. Prognostic significance of various characteristics of out-of-the-office
blood pressure. J Hypertens. 2004;22(9):1663–6. Epub 2004/08/18.
45. Mancia G, Zanchetti A, Agabiti-Rosei E, Benemio G, De Cesaris R, Fogari R, et al.
Ambulatory blood pressure is superior to clinic blood pressure in predicting treatment-
induced regression of left ventricular hypertrophy. SAMPLE Study Group. Study on
Ambulatory Monitoring of Blood Pressure and Lisinopril Evaluation. Circulation.
1997;95(6):1464–70. Epub 1997/03/18.
46. Fagard RH, Van Den Broeke C, De Cort P. Prognostic significance of blood pressure mea-
sured in the office, at home and during ambulatory monitoring in older patients in general
practice. J Hum Hypertens. 2005;19(10):801–7. Epub 2005/06/17.
47. Hozawa A, Ohkubo T, Nagai K, Kikuya M, Matsubara M, Tsuji I, et al. Prognosis of isolated
systolic and isolated diastolic hypertension as assessed by self-measurement of blood pres-
sure at home: the Ohasama study. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(21):3301–6. Epub 2000/11/23.
48. Okumiya K, Matsubayashi K, Wada T, Fujisawa M, Osaki Y, Doi Y, et al. A U-shaped asso-
ciation between home systolic blood pressure and four-year mortality in community-dwelling
older men. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1999;47(12):1415–21. Epub 1999/12/11.
49. Niiranen TJ, Maki J, Puukka P, Karanko H, Jula AM. Office, home, and ambulatory blood
pressures as predictors of cardiovascular risk. Hypertension. 2014;64(2):281–6. Epub
2014/05/21.
50. Ward AM, Takahashi O, Stevens R, Heneghan C. Home measurement of blood pressure and
cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.
J Hypertens. 2012;30(3):449–56. Epub 2012/01/14.
51. Fuchs SC, Mello RG, Fuchs FC. Home blood pressure monitoring is better predictor of car-
diovascular disease and target organ damage than office blood pressure: a systematic review
and meta-analysis. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2013;15(11):413. Epub 2013/09/24.
52. Niiranen TJ, Hanninen MR, Johansson J, Reunanen A, Jula AM. Home-measured blood pres-
sure is a stronger predictor of cardiovascular risk than office blood pressure: the Finn-Home
study. Hypertension. 2010;55(6):1346–51. Epub 2010/04/14.
53. Stergiou GS, Baibas NM, Kalogeropoulos PG. Cardiovascular risk prediction based on home
blood pressure measurement: the Didima study. J Hypertens. 2007;25(8):1590–6. Epub
2007/07/11.
54. Stergiou GS, Argyraki KK, Moyssakis I, Mastorantonakis SE, Achimastos AD, Karamanos
VG, et al. Home blood pressure is as reliable as ambulatory blood pressure in predicting
target-organ damage in hypertension. Am J Hypertens. 2007;20(6):616–21. Epub 2007/05/29.
55. Tachibana R, Tabara Y, Kondo I, Miki T, Kohara K. Home blood pressure is a better predictor
of carotid atherosclerosis than office blood pressure in community-dwelling subjects.
Hypertens Res. 2004;27(9):633–9. Epub 2005/03/08.
56. Hara A, Ohkubo T, Kikuya M, Shintani Y, Obara T, Metoki H, et al. Detection of carotid
atherosclerosis in individuals with masked hypertension and white-coat hypertension by self-
measured blood pressure at home: the Ohasama study. J Hypertens. 2007;25(2):321–7. Epub
2007/01/11.
57. Niiranen T, Jula A, Kantola I, Moilanen L, Kahonen M, Kesaniemi YA, et al. Home-measured
blood pressure is more strongly associated with atherosclerosis than clinic blood pressure: the
Finn-HOME Study. J Hypertens. 2007;25(6):1225–31. Epub 2007/06/15.
58. Tsunoda S, Kawano Y, Horio T, Okuda N, Takishita S. Relationship between home blood
pressure and longitudinal changes in target organ damage in treated hypertensive patients.
Hypertens Res. 2002;25(2):167–73. Epub 2002/06/06.
59. Tomiyama M, Horio T, Yoshii M, Takiuchi S, Kamide K, Nakamura S, et al. Masked hyper-
tension and target organ damage in treated hypertensive patients. Am J Hypertens.
2006;19(9):880–6. Epub 2006/09/01.
60. Gaborieau V, Delarche N, Gosse P. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring versus self-
measurement of blood pressure at home: correlation with target organ damage. J Hypertens.
2008;26(10):1919–27. Epub 2008/09/23.
61. Agarwal R, Brim NJ, Mahenthiran J, Andersen MJ, Saha C. Out-of-hemodialysis-unit blood
pressure is a superior determinant of left ventricular hypertrophy. Hypertension.
2006;47(1):62–8. Epub 2005/12/14.
62. Suzuki H, Nakamoto H, Okada H, Sugahara S, Kanno Y. Self-measured systolic blood pres-
sure in the morning is a strong indicator of decline of renal function in hypertensive patients
with non-diabetic chronic renal insufficiency. Clin Exp Hypertens. 2002;24(4):249–60. Epub
2002/06/19.
63. Agarwal R, Andersen MJ. Blood pressure recordings within and outside the clinic and cardio-
vascular events in chronic kidney disease. Am J Nephrol. 2006;26(5):503–10. Epub
2006/11/25.
64. Alborzi P, Patel N, Agarwal R. Home blood pressures are of greater prognostic value than
hemodialysis unit recordings. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;2(6):1228–34. Epub 2007/10/19.
65. Agarwal R. Blood pressure and mortality among hemodialysis patients. Hypertension.
2010;55(3):762–8. Epub 2010/01/20.
66. Parati G, Mancia G. White coat effect: semantics, assessment and pathophysiological impli-
cations. J Hypertens. 2003;21(3):481–6. Epub 2003/03/18.
67. Little P, Barnett J, Barnsley L, Marjoram J, Fitzgerald-Barron A, Mant D. Comparison of
agreement between different measures of blood pressure in primary care and daytime ambu-
latory blood pressure. BMJ. 2002;325(7358):254. Epub 2002/08/03.
68. Mancia G, Bombelli M, Facchetti R, Madotto F, Quarti-Trevano F, Polo Friz H, et al. Long-
term risk of sustained hypertension in white-coat or masked hypertension. Hypertension.
2009;54(2):226–32. Epub 2009/07/01.
69. Mancia G, De Backer G, Dominiczak A, Cifkova R, Fagard R, Germano G, et al. 2007
Guidelines for the Management of Arterial Hypertension: The Task Force for the Management
of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European
Society of Cardiology (ESC). J Hypertens. 2007;25(6):1105–87. Epub 2007/06/15.
70. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, Cushman WC, Green LA, Izzo Jr JL, et al. Seventh
report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment
of High Blood Pressure. Hypertension. 2003;42(6):1206–52. Epub 2003/12/06.
71. Williams B, Poulter NR, Brown MJ, Davis M, McInnes GT, Potter JF, et al. Guidelines for
management of hypertension: report of the fourth working party of the British Hypertension
Society, 2004-BHS IV. J Hum Hypertens. 2004;18(3):139–85. Epub 2004/02/20.
72. Whitworth JA, World Health Organization ISoHWG. 2003 World Health Organization
(WHO)/International Society of Hypertension (ISH) statement on management of hyperten-
sion. J Hypertens. 2003;21(11):1983–92. Epub 2003/11/05.
73. Imai Y, Otsuka K, Kawano Y, Shimada K, Hayashi H, Tochikubo O, et al. Japanese society
of hypertension (JSH) guidelines for self-monitoring of blood pressure at home. Hypertens
Res. 2003;26(10):771–82. Epub 2003/11/19.
74. Pickering TG, Hall JE, Appel LJ, Falkner BE, Graves J, Hill MN, et al. Recommendations for
blood pressure measurement in humans and experimental animals: Part 1: blood pressure
measurement in humans: a statement for professionals from the Subcommittee of Professional
and Public Education of the American Heart Association Council on High Blood Pressure
Research. Hypertension. 2005;45(1):142–61. Epub 2004/12/22.
75. Cappuccio FP, Kerry SM, Forbes L, Donald A. Blood pressure control by home monitoring:
meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ. 2004;329(7458):145. Epub 2004/06/15.
76. Rogers MA, Small D, Buchan DA, Butch CA, Stewart CM, Krenzer BE, et al. Home moni-
toring service improves mean arterial pressure in patients with essential hypertension. A ran-
domized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134(11):1024–32. Epub 2001/06/05.
77. McManus RJ, Mant J, Roalfe A, Oakes RA, Bryan S, Pattison HM, et al. Targets and self
monitoring in hypertension: randomised controlled trial and cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ.
2005;331(7515):493. Epub 2005/08/24.
78. Myers MG. Pseudoresistant hypertension attributed to white-coat effect. Hypertension.
2012;59(3):532–3. Epub 2012/01/19.
79. Parati G, Ulian L, Santucciu C, Omboni S, Mancia G. Difference between clinic and daytime
blood pressure is not a measure of the white coat effect. Hypertension. 1998;31(5):1185–9.
Epub 1998/05/12.
80. de la Sierra A, Segura J, Banegas JR, Gorostidi M, de la Cruz JJ, Armario P, et al. Clinical
features of 8295 patients with resistant hypertension classified on the basis of ambulatory
blood pressure monitoring. Hypertension. 2011;57(5):898–902. Epub 2011/03/30.
81. Oikawa T, Obara T, Ohkubo T, Kikuya M, Asayama K, Metoki H, et al. Characteristics of resis-
tant hypertension determined by self-measured blood pressure at home and office blood pres-
sure measurements: the J-HOME study. J Hypertens. 2006;24(9):1737–43. Epub 2006/08/18.
82. de la Sierra A, Banegas JR, Oliveras A, Gorostidi M, Segura J, de la Cruz JJ, et al. Clinical
differences between resistant hypertensives and patients treated and controlled with three or
less drugs. J Hypertens. 2012;30(6):1211–6. Epub 2012/04/25.
83. Papademetriou V, Doumas M, Faselis C, Tsioufis C, Douma S, Gkaliagkousi E, et al. Carotid
baroreceptor stimulation for the treatment of resistant hypertension. Int J Hypertens.
2011;2011:964394. Epub 2011/08/09.
84. Doumas M, Faselis C, Papademetriou V. Renal sympathetic denervation in hypertension.
Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2011;20(6):647–53. Epub 2011/09/03.
85. Schmieder RE, Redon J, Grassi G, Kjeldsen SE, Mancia G, Narkiewicz K, et al. ESH posi-
tion paper: renal denervation - an interventional therapy of resistant hypertension. J Hypertens.
2012;30(5):837–41. Epub 2012/04/04.
86. Pickering TG, Davidson K, Gerin W, Schwartz JE. Masked hypertension. Hypertension.
2002;40(6):795–6. Epub 2002/12/07.
87. Stergiou GS, Salgami EV, Tzamouranis DG, Roussias LG. Masked hypertension assessed by
ambulatory blood pressure versus home blood pressure monitoring: is it the same phenome-
non? Am J Hypertens. 2005;18(6):772–8. Epub 2005/06/01.
88. Nasothimiou EG, Tzamouranis D, Roussias LG, Stergiou GS. Home versus ambulatory
blood pressure monitoring in the diagnosis of clinic resistant and true resistant hypertension.
J Hum Hypertens. 2012;26(12):696–700. Epub 2011/11/11.
89. Parati G, Ochoa JE, Bilo G. False versus true resistant hypertension. In: Mancia G, editor.
Resistant hypertension: epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment. Milan:
Springer; 2013. p. 59–75.
90. Staessen JA, Thijs L, Fagard R, O'Brien ET, Clement D, de Leeuw PW, et al. Predicting
cardiovascular risk using conventional vs ambulatory blood pressure in older patients with
systolic hypertension. Systolic Hypertension in Europe Trial Investigators. JAMA.
1999;282(6):539–46. Epub 1999/08/18.
91. Kikuya M, Ohkubo T, Asayama K, Metoki H, Obara T, Saito S, et al. Ambulatory blood pres-
sure and 10-year risk of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular mortality: the Ohasama study.
92. Fagard RH, Celis H, Thijs L, Staessen JA, Clement DL, De Buyzere ML, et al. Daytime and
nighttime blood pressure as predictors of death and cause-specific cardiovascular events in
hypertension. Hypertension. 2008;51(1):55–61. Epub 2007/11/28.
93. Boggia J, Li Y, Thijs L, Hansen TW, Kikuya M, Bjorklund-Bodegard K, et al. Prognostic
accuracy of day versus night ambulatory blood pressure: a cohort study. Lancet.
2007;370(9594):1219–29. Epub 2007/10/09.
94. Lacson Jr E, Lazarus JM. The association between blood pressure and mortality in ESRD-not
different from the general population? Semin Dial. 2007;20(6):510–7. Epub 2007/11/10.
95. Mallion JM, Clerson P, Bobrie G, Genes N, Vaisse B, Chatellier G. Predictive factors for
masked hypertension within a population of controlled hypertensives. J Hypertens.
2006;24(12):2365–70. Epub 2006/11/04.
96. Edmonds D, Foerster E, Groth H, Greminger P, Siegenthaler W, Vetter W. Does self-
measurement of blood pressure improve patient compliance in hypertension? J Hypertens
Suppl. 1985;3(1):S31–4. Epub 1985/04/01.
97. Agarwal R, Bills JE, Hecht TJ, Light RP. Role of home blood pressure monitoring in over-
coming therapeutic inertia and improving hypertension control: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. Hypertension. 2011;57(1):29–38. Epub 2010/12/01.
98. Logan AG, Dunai A, McIsaac WJ, Irvine MJ, Tisler A. Attitudes of primary care physicians
and their patients about home blood pressure monitoring in Ontario. J Hypertens.
2008;26(3):446–52. Epub 2008/02/28.
99. Rothwell PM, Howard SC, Dolan E, O'Brien E, Dobson JE, Dahlof B, et al. Prognostic sig-
nificance of visit-to-visit variability, maximum systolic blood pressure, and episodic hyper-
tension. Lancet. 2010;375(9718):895–905. Epub 2010/03/17.
100. Kearney PM, Whelton M, Reynolds K, Muntner P, Whelton PK, He J. Global burden of
hypertension: analysis of worldwide data. Lancet. 2005;365(9455):217–23. Epub 2005/01/18.
101. Kikuya M, Ohkubo T, Metoki H, Asayama K, Hara A, Obara T, et al. Day-by-day variability
of blood pressure and heart rate at home as a novel predictor of prognosis: the Ohasama
study. Hypertension. 2008;52(6):1045–50. Epub 2008/11/05.
102. Hashimoto T, Kikuya M, Ohkubo T, Satoh M, Metoki H, Inoue R, et al. Home blood pressure
level, blood pressure variability, smoking, and stroke risk in Japanese men: the Ohasama
study. Am J Hypertens. 2012;25(8):883–91. Epub 2012/06/08.
103. Johansson JK, Niiranen TJ, Puukka PJ, Jula AM. Prognostic value of the variability in home-
measured blood pressure and heart rate: the Finn-Home Study. Hypertension. 2012;59(2):212–
8. Epub 2012/01/05.
104. di Rienzo M, Grassi G, Pedotti A, Mancia G. Continuous vs intermittent blood pressure mea-
surements in estimating 24-hour average blood pressure. Hypertension. 1983;5(2):264–9.
Epub 1983/03/01.
105. Mancia G, Di Rienzo M, Parati G. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring use in hyperten-
sion research and clinical practice. Hypertension. 1993;21(4):510–24. Epub 1993/04/01.
106. Mena L, Pintos S, Queipo NV, Aizpurua JA, Maestre G, Sulbaran T. A reliable index for the
prognostic significance of blood pressure variability. J Hypertens. 2005;23(3):505–11. Epub
2005/02/18.
107. Matsui Y, Ishikawa J, Eguchi K, Shibasaki S, Shimada K, Kario K. Maximum value of home
blood pressure: a novel indicator of target organ damage in hypertension. Hypertension.
2011;57(6):1087–93. Epub 2011/05/04.
108. Ushigome E, Fukui M, Hamaguchi M, Senmaru T, Sakabe K, Tanaka M, et al. The coefficient
variation of home blood pressure is a novel factor associated with macroalbuminuria in type
2 diabetes mellitus. Hypertens Res. 2011;34(12):1271–5. Epub 2011/08/05.
109. Fukui M, Ushigome E, Tanaka M, Hamaguchi M, Tanaka T, Atsuta H, et al. Home blood
pressure variability on one occasion is a novel factor associated with arterial stiffness in
patients with type 2 diabetes. Hypertens Res. 2013;36(3):219–25. Epub 2012/10/26.
110. Hoshide S, Yano Y, Shimizu M, Eguchi K, Ishikawa J, Kario K. Is home blood pressure vari-
ability itself an interventional target beyond lowering mean home blood pressure during anti-
hypertensive treatment? Hypertens Res. 2012;35(8):862–6. Epub 2012/04/06.
111. Nishimura M, Kato Y, Tanaka T, Todo R, Tone A, Yamada K, et al. Significance of estimating
the glomerular filtration rate for the management of hypertension in type 2 diabetes with
microalbuminuria. Hypertens Res. 2013;36(8):705–10. Epub 2013/04/05.
112. Schutte R, Thijs L, Liu YP, Asayama K, Jin Y, Odili A, et al. Within-subject blood pressure
level--not variability--predicts fatal and nonfatal outcomes in a general population.
113. Ishikura K, Obara T, Kato T, Kikuya M, Shibamiya T, Shinki T, et al. Associations between
day-by-day variability in blood pressure measured at home and antihypertensive drugs: the
J-HOME-Morning study. Clin Exp Hypertens. 2012;34(4):297–304. Epub 2012/05/09.
114. Matsui Y, O'Rourke MF, Hoshide S, Ishikawa J, Shimada K, Kario K. Combined effect of
angiotensin II receptor blocker and either a calcium channel blocker or diuretic on day-by-
day variability of home blood pressure: the Japan Combined Treatment With Olmesartan and
a Calcium-Channel Blocker Versus Olmesartan and Diuretics Randomized Efficacy Study.
115. Ushigome E, Fukui M, Hamaguchi M, Tanaka T, Atsuta H, Ohnishi M, et al. Beneficial effect
of calcium channel blockers on home blood pressure variability in the morning in patients
with type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Investig. 2013;4(4):399–404. Epub 2014/05/21.
116. Pickering TG, Gerin W, Holland JK. Home blood pressure teletransmission for better diagno-
sis and treatment. Curr Hypertens Rep. 1999;1(6):489–94. Epub 2000/09/12.
117. Parati G, Omboni S. Role of home blood pressure telemonitoring in hypertension manage-
ment: an update. Blood Press Monit. 2010;15(6):285–95. Epub 2010/11/19.
118. Rosenthal TC. The medical home: growing evidence to support a new approach to primary
care. J Am Board Fam Med. 2008;21(5):427–40. Epub 2008/09/06.
119. Friedman RH, Kazis LE, Jette A, Smith MB, Stollerman J, Torgerson J, et al. A telecommu-
nications system for monitoring and counseling patients with hypertension. Impact on medi-
cation adherence and blood pressure control. Am J Hypertens. 1996;9(4 Pt 1):285–92. Epub
1996/04/01.
120. Bosworth HB, Olsen MK, Gentry P, Orr M, Dudley T, McCant F, et al. Nurse administered
telephone intervention for blood pressure control: a patient-tailored multifactorial interven-
tion. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;57(1):5–14. Epub 2005/03/31.
121. Friedman RH. Automated telephone conversations to assess health behavior and deliver
behavioral interventions. J Med Syst. 1998;22(2):95–102. Epub 1998/05/08.
122. Cottrell E, McMillan K, Chambers R. A cross-sectional survey and service evaluation of
simple telehealth in primary care: what do patients think? BMJ Open. 2012;2(6), e001392.
Epub 2012/11/30.
123. Parati G, Omboni S, Albini F, Piantoni L, Giuliano A, Revera M, et al. Home blood pressure
telemonitoring improves hypertension control in general practice. The TeleBPCare study.
J Hypertens. 2009;27(1):198–203. Epub 2009/01/17.
124. Parati G, Omboni S, Compare A, Grossi E, Callus E, Venco A, et al. Blood pressure control
and treatment adherence in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome: protocol of a
randomized controlled study based on home blood pressure telemonitoring vs. conventional
management and assessment of psychological determinants of adherence (TELEBPMET
Study). Trials. 2013;14:22. Epub 2013/01/25.
125. Omboni S, Gazzola T, Carabelli G, Parati G. Clinical usefulness and cost effectiveness of
home blood pressure telemonitoring: meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.
J Hypertens. 2013;31(3):455–67. discussion 67-8. Epub 2013/01/10.
126. Omboni S, Guarda A. Impact of home blood pressure telemonitoring and blood pressure
control: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Am J Hypertens. 2011;24(9):989–
98. Epub 2011/06/10.
127. Ogedegbe G, Schoenthaler A. A systematic review of the effects of home blood pressure
monitoring on medication adherence. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2006;8(3):174–80.
Epub 2006/03/09.
128. Bobrie G, Postel-Vinay N, Delonca J, Corvol P, Investigators S. Self-measurement and self-
titration in hypertension: a pilot telemedicine study. Am J Hypertens. 2007;20(12):1314–20.
Epub 2007/12/01.
129. Carter BL, Bosworth HB, Green BB. The hypertension team: the role of the pharmacist,
nurse, and teamwork in hypertension therapy. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2012;14(1):51–
65. Epub 2012/01/13.
130. Chiu CW, Wong FK. Effects of 8 weeks sustained follow-up after a nurse consultation on
hypertension: a randomised trial. Int J Nurs Stud. 2010;47(11):1374–82. Epub 2010/04/24.
131. Hebert PL, Sisk JE, Tuzzio L, Casabianca JM, Pogue VA, Wang JJ, et al. Nurse-led disease
management for hypertension control in a diverse urban community: a randomized trial.
J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(6):630–9. Epub 2011/12/07.
132. Kim MT, Han HR, Hedlin H, Kim J, Song HJ, Kim KB, et al. Teletransmitted monitoring of
blood pressure and bilingual nurse counseling-sustained improvements in blood pressure
control during 12 months in hypertensive Korean Americans. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich).
2011;13(8):605–12. Epub 2011/08/03.
133. Bosworth HB, Powers BJ, Olsen MK, McCant F, Grubber J, Smith V, et al. Home blood pres-
sure management and improved blood pressure control: results from a randomized controlled
trial. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(13):1173–80. Epub 2011/07/13.
134. Magid DJ, Ho PM, Olson KL, Brand DW, Welch LK, Snow KE, et al. A multimodal blood
pressure control intervention in 3 healthcare systems. Am J Manag Care. 2011;17(4):e96–
103. Epub 2011/07/21.
135. Melnyk SD, Zullig LL, McCant F, Danus S, Oddone E, Bastian L, et al. Telemedicine cardio-
vascular risk reduction in veterans. Am Heart J. 2013;165(4):501–8. Epub 2013/03/30.
136. Zullig LL, Melnyk SD, Goldstein K, Shaw RJ, Bosworth HB. The role of home blood pres-
sure telemonitoring in managing hypertensive populations. Curr Hypertens Rep.
2013;15(4):346–55. Epub 2013/04/30.
137. Zullig LL, Melnyk SD, Stechuchak KM, McCant F, Danus S, Oddone E, et al. The
Cardiovascular Intervention Improvement Telemedicine Study (CITIES): rationale for a tai-
lored behavioral and educational pharmacist-administered intervention for achieving cardio-
vascular disease risk reduction. Telemed J E Health. 2014;20(2):135–43. Epub 2013/12/07.
138. Omboni S, Sala E. The pharmacist and the management of arterial hypertension: the role of
blood pressure monitoring and telemonitoring. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2015;13(2):209–
21. Epub 2015/01/13.
139. Harris IM, Baker E, Berry TM, Halloran MA, Lindauer K, Ragucci KR, et al. Developing a
business-practice model for pharmacy services in ambulatory settings. Pharmacotherapy.
2008;28(2):285. Epub 2008/01/30.
140. Burke JM, Miller WA, Spencer AP, Crank CW, Adkins L, Bertch KE, et al. Clinical pharma-
cist competencies. Pharmacotherapy. 2008;28(6):806–15. Epub 2008/05/28.
141. Santschi V, Chiolero A, Burnand B, Colosimo AL, Paradis G. Impact of pharmacist care in
the management of cardiovascular disease risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
of randomized trials. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(16):1441–53. Epub 2011/09/14.
142. Carter BL, Bergus GR, Dawson JD, Farris KB, Doucette WR, Chrischilles EA, et al. A cluster
randomized trial to evaluate physician/pharmacist collaboration to improve blood pressure
control. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2008;10(4):260–71. Epub 2008/04/11.
143. McLean DL, McAlister FA, Johnson JA, King KM, Makowsky MJ, Jones CA, et al. A ran-
domized trial of the effect of community pharmacist and nurse care on improving blood
pressure management in patients with diabetes mellitus: study of cardiovascular risk inter-
vention by pharmacists-hypertension (SCRIP-HTN). Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(21):2355–
61. Epub 2008/11/26.
144. Wang V, Smith VA, Bosworth HB, Oddone EZ, Olsen MK, McCant F, et al. Economic evalu-
ation of telephone self-management interventions for blood pressure control. Am Heart
J. 2012;163(6):980–6. Epub 2012/06/20.
145. Reed SD, Li Y, Oddone EZ, Neary AM, Orr MM, Grubber JM, et al. Economic evaluation of
home blood pressure monitoring with or without telephonic behavioral self-management in
patients with hypertension. Am J Hypertens. 2010;23(2):142–8. Epub 2009/11/21.
146. Lovibond K, Jowett S, Barton P, Caulfield M, Heneghan C, Hobbs FD, et al. Cost-effectiveness
of options for the diagnosis of high blood pressure in primary care: a modelling study. Lancet.
2011;378(9798):1219–30. Epub 2011/08/27.
147. Parati G, Bilo G. Home blood pressure measurements will or will not replace 24-hour ambu-
latory blood pressure measurement. Hypertension. 2009. Epub 2009/09/10.
Chapter 3
Activity Monitoring and the Effects
of the Environment on Blood Pressure
George A. Mansoor
Introduction
Blood Pressure (BP), heart rate, and other cardiovascular parameters are not static
biological variables. Multiple factors, internal and external to the human organ-
ism, affect human BP and heart rate variability. Important examples of these fac-
tors include the extent and nature of physical exercise and activity, the amount
and quality of sleep, stress levels, the levels of anxiety and fear, anger, food con-
sumption, hormones, and environmental factors such as temperature, noise, air
pollutants and particulate matter, altitude, and latitude. This is a complex con-
stantly changing set of inputs to cardiovascular variability. Untangling this lattice
will not begin until good tools are developed that assess these factors reliably and
then they can be related to cardiovascular parameter variability. Examples of such
tools include electronic activity recording that has not only reached main street
[1] with consumer-targeted activity devices, but have also provided significant
insights into the relationship of activity both during awake hours and sleep hours
to BP and its variability. Other tools are used to assess internal and external fac-
tors, but the ability to quantify many of these is rudimentary. In this chapter, we
will review the expanding knowledge of activity and BP and other cardiovascular
parameters and briefly review some of the other environmental influences on
hemodynamic parameters.
G.A. Mansoor, M.Sc., M.B.B.S. (*)

Mount Saint John Medical Center, St. Johns, Antigua and Barbuda

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-22771-9_3
46 G.A. Mansoor
Activity Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability
Activity Monitoring: Methods and Limitations
It has long been appreciated that chronically sedentary lifestyles may play a role in
the development of obesity and cardiovascular diseases. On a short-term basis, it
was always recognized that physical activity is an important factor in the variability
of heart rate and BP. Accurate monitoring of physical activities is a key step to
understanding these relationships [2].
A pedometer is one type of motion sensor that tracks walking or running, hence
the term also used is a step counter. The small highly portable units are attached to
the waist belt. They are very location-specific and many do not function well if
placed elsewhere as they detect vertical motion of the hips during walking. Recent
models that do not require hip placement and take readings once held by the moving
object or person have become available. Various algorithms in the software also
deliver the amount of active time and calories burned. Pedometers are widely used
in research and by health conscious individuals. Simple pedometers use a mechani-
cal switch to count steps.
Accelerometers are pedometers that have micro-electro-mechanical systems;
typically a cantilever beam with a piezo-electric crystal and an appropriate detection
and recording apparatus. Acceleration deflects the device and generates a signal.
Devices can be single, double, or triple axis in terms of the acceleration vector
required. These devices can not only count steps, but also sense and quantify the
force delivered. This allows more quantitative and precise data to be obtainable
from triple axis devices; such data can be converted into calories or other pertinent
health parameters. These are the type of devices most commonly used in cardiovas-
cular research.
Data management by these devices can vary from use of an internal memory that
can store 5–15 days of data with no download capability, to devices that can store
multiple days and output the data to a computer, to devices that only detect the sig-
nal and beam data to a separate device such as a computer or phone.
It must be repeatedly appreciated that data collected by devices from different
manufacturers are not interchangeable and that clinically important large differ-
ences have been observed in laboratory testing. There are three types of methods
that have been in use in actigraphs to quantify activity; time above threshold (TAT),
zero crossing mode (ZCM), and the newest format called digital integration. The
TAT has a preset activity level as the threshold and activity is counted when this is
exceeded. Each minute this process is repeated, a count is generated. The ZCM
mode is similar to TAT except that the threshold is zero or close to it. Within each
minute, counts are made and with each minute it is reset. With digital integration,
acceleration signal is very frequently sampled (up to 40 times per second) and the
signal is digitized and graphically analyzed to provide summary measures (e.g.,
total area under the curve) for that time. It should be realized that the TAT and ZCM
modes are unable to determine the magnitude of any movement detected. Digital
integration overcomes this limitation to some extent.
3 Activity Monitoring and the Effects of the Environment on Blood Pressure 47
However, the sophistication and promise of such devices is exemplified by

devices that not only have triple axis accelerometers, but also can sense skin tem-
perature, a heat dissipation sensor, and skin impedance. These integrated multi-
functionality devices may play major roles in research on the complex factors that
affect cardiovascular reactivity.
Despite their promise, use of activity monitoring devices continues to have
important limitations. First, each device and manufacturer uses their own units and
algorithms to define activity amounts and intensities and various algorithms are
used to infer inactivity, sleep, and its phases. Hence, as mentioned above, data gen-
erated by these devices are not interchangeable or linearly comparable to each other.
Secondly, special attention must be paid to the number and location of devices used
in a particular study. Special considerations may be needed when these devices are
used to define various sleep parameters in different populations. In particular, these
devices have poor ability to detect wakefulness during sleep periods [3]. This is not
surprising since the actigraph detects movements while sleep may be associated
with movement and complete inactivity may be an awake person and not a person
who is asleep. We assume that reduced activity indicates sleep and that disturbed
patterns of activity during sleep may reflect sleep disorders. These assumptions may
be particularly untrue in some populations (e.g., elderly patients).
Physical Activity and Hemodynamic Parameters
There is a complex relationship between physical movements, BP, and heart rate. It
is important to distinguish between short-term (e.g., minute by minute) activities
and long-term (e.g., months or years) activities. Short-term physical activity is
important to understand absolute BP levels, diurnal variations of BP, and overall BP
variability.
Chronically higher activity levels are a key tool in the prevention of hypertension
and vascular morbidity. Many cardiovascular society guidelines do recommend
physical activity as a way to prevent hypertension. Ever since Paffenbarger made
the initial observations [4], subsequent plethora of studies have confirmed this using
a variety of experimental designs. What remains is a less than full understanding of
the intensity and other characteristics of an exercise regimen that is optimal. We
refer the reader to a recent update here [5]. Actigraphy has been recently applied to
get around the limitations of self reporting of physical activity and confirms, in
cross-sectional studies, that an inverse association is present between activity levels
in general and vascular aging indices [6]. In this study, 432 relatively healthy par-
ticipants between the ages of 30-60 years underwent ultrasonography and activity
observations over 8 days. Data analysis revealed that the extent of physical activity
was independently associated with carotid artery stiffness indices, but not intima
media thickness.
48 G.A. Mansoor
Actigraphy and Sleep
One of the promises of activity monitoring has been the possibility of nonintrusively,
in the patients’ own environment, assess their sleep and its characteristics. Raw
activity signals are subjected to various algorithms that define that period of interest
as awake or asleep. Despite the promise of this methodology and its usefulness in
defining “sleep,” there remains a search for its optimal use.
Use in Ambulatory BP Monitoring
The use of actigraphy to refine the definition of awake and asleep periods during
ambulatory BP monitoring is largely restricted to research purposes. Some ambula-
tory BP monitors have a built-in activity monitor to allow simultaneous acquisition
of activity data. This work has been extended to the use of activity to relate sleep
characteristics to the BP profile from day to night (dipping or non-dipping). The
hypothesis is that poor sleep quality may directly or indirectly cause persistent ele-
vation of BP. Sherwood et al. [7] recently evaluated whether sleep quality may play
a role in the more prevalent non-dipping BP profile in African Americans. In 128
participants, triplicate 24-h BP monitoring studies, actigraphy, sleep interviews, and
self-report of sleep and fractionated catecholamines were measured about one week
apart on a regular weekday. Regression analyses suggested that body mass index,
sleep quality, and sleep period reduction in sympathetic nervous system activity
were likely independent factors in systolic BP dipping. Ethnicity was not a signifi-
cant factor once these three factors were in the model.
Similarly, Agarwal and colleagues (8) studied the relationships of activity to
ambulatory BP and dipping in 103 veterans ranging 18–90 years, with chronic kid-
ney disease. Activity was monitored with actigraphy for 6–7 days and then an
ambulatory BP monitoring study was done with simultaneous actigraphy. This set
of evaluations was repeated about 1 month later. Patients who were morbidly obese,
with an eGFR of 15 mL/min/1.73m2 with uncontrolled hypertension, or who had
been hospitalized within the prior 2 months were excluded. The results showed that
in patients who normally sleep well, the use of an ambulatory BP monitor causes
them to spend less time in bed and be less asleep during that time and there was
reduced sleep efficiency. These results suggest that the wearing and repeated infla-
tion deflation of an ambulatory monitor may alter sleep and cause more patients to
have non-dipping BP. However, these data may only be true in elderly males and
studies in other populations are needed. Sleep itself, when altered by any factor,
may affect awake–sleep BP variability. Similar results were obtained by Hinderliter
et al. [9] in their study of 115 untreated adults with untreated hypertension. These
patients underwent study in triplicate with ambulatory BP monitoring and an acti-
graph monitor about a week apart. BP averages were relatively stable. Systolic dip-
ping variability was greater in subjects with higher awake BP. In addition, day-to-day
variations in dipping were related to variations in the fragmentation index. Again
actigraphy-determined sleep parameters suggest that sleep quality affects BP
variability.
Activity Monitoring and Neurological Disorders
There is an attraction to the idea that actigraphy and motion monitoring systems
may quantify disorders in which abnormal or reduced movements predominate
(e.g., Parkinsons or restless legs syndrome or stroke). In the monitoring of stroke
patients, there are small studies that have described activity levels of paretic limbs
over time. It is not yet known how stroke location and size affect the actigraphic
output. In stroke patients, it is likely that 2–4 devices should be worn on all limbs to
provide adequate information on movement or activity.
In the case of Parkinson’s Disease, there are not only tremors but these patients
frequently have gait and sleep disorders. Actigraphy can be useful to quantify over-
all changes in activity levels, either as a reflection of the natural history or to assess
the effects of drug therapy [10].
Activity Monitoring and Sleep Apnea
A large number of studies continue to be conducted in the area of sleep medicine.

The small, battery-efficient, and automated analysis aspects of actigraphy seem to
vastly outweigh the labor-intensive polysomnography sleep studies typically
required for sleep apnea diagnosis. However, it has become clear that actigraphy
may be complementary to polysomnography, a technique that remains the gold
standard for diagnosis of sleep apnea. Lack of standardization of data capture and
analysis continues to pose significant hurdles in the understanding of the perfor-
mance in sleep disorders (e.g., apnea). It has been suggested [11] that one advanta-
geous use may be as an extension to a diagnostic polysomnograph. When utilized
for 9 days or more after a full polysomnograph, it can provide valuable information
on naps taken during the daytime. In situations where PSG is not available, actigra-
phy may provide a high level assessment of activity levels during day and night, but
it will not provide the detailed assessment of sleep stages.
Sadeh [3] recently reviewed the role and validity of actigraphy in sleep disorders
and has articulated a limited role and highlights the low specificity of actigraphy in
detecting wakefulness during sleep periods. It was also suggested that where actig-
raphy is used complementary assessment methods be considered.
Seasonal Effects, Temperature and BP,

and Heart Rate
Multiple clinical studies show that office, home, and ambulatory BPs are higher in
winter months than in the summer months [12]. Studies of season, temperature, and
latitude and their effects on hemodynamic parameters have been consistent in
50 G.A. Mansoor
showing an association between colder temperatures and increases in BP. The effect
has an onset within days and recurs with each cold period.
Such variations in BP across seasons can be of a clinically meaningful magni-
tude, especially in the elderly, and have implications for cardiovascular risk, and
also the conduct and interpretation of clinical trials especially ones that are con-
ducted over a substantial portion of the year. Despite these observations, the com-
plex changes in a number of climatic (sunlight and ultraviolet light) and behavioral
factors (physical activity, dietary changes in food and alcohol and sleep quality)
with seasons require directed study to unravel their effects independently.
Several physiological perturbations have been observed during temperature
changes in the laboratory setting that may explain this phenomenon. Studies in the
laboratory have shown that a reduction in environmental temperatures was associ-
ated with an increase in BP and less so in heart rate. Furthermore, acutely skin
vasoconstriction and elevations of catecholamines with significant drops in tem-
perature are reported suggesting a causal link [13, 14].
In a recent longitudinal study [15] that explored the association of temperature
and BP, 1831 hypertensive patients were followed up for 3 years with measurement
not only of BP, but also ambient temperatures. In this study, BP showed an inverse
association with ambient temperature and explained clinically important percentages
of BP variability. Interestingly, the use of the antihypertensive medication, benaz-
epril, attenuated the level of the change though the inverse association remained.
Further insight into this complex relationship was obtained in the REGARDS
study [16] that suggested that it is likely that the observed variations of BP with
season are mostly mediated via temperature changes (REGARDS). In this cross-
sectional study of >26,000 participants over the age of 45, minimum and maximum
temperatures and previous week temperatures at various self-reported geographical
residencies, as well as clinical and demographic data, were analyzed using multi-
variable models. This study shows that the effect of temperature on SBP was con-
sistent across race, age, stroke risk region, education, and other factors.
Environmental Noise and Cardiovascular System
Increasingly, there is considerable environmental noise that is present not just dur-
ing the day time periods but also at night. The source of the noise is road traffic,
airplanes, and various industrial sources. Using noise maps in large cities has shown
that about 20% of the population was exposed to excessive levels of noise due to
traffic [17]. It is likely that this finding is similar in most large cities.
Chronic exposure to traffic, railway, or aircraft noise may not be just a nuisance.
Studies have suggested that as road noise increases, the prevalence of hypertension
also increases. Similarly, there are some but not all studies suggesting that road
noise predisposes persons to myocardial infarction and stroke. Further work is
needed to clarify the strength of the association of noise with these cardiovascular
complications.
Brief and long-term exposure to noise may not only raise BP, but also be associ-
ated with the development of hypertension.
In human studies, increases in norepinephrine have been observed with repeti-
tive noise exposure. In other types of noise exposure, there are observed increases
in epinephrine [18].
Night time noise due to aircraft even when not loud enough to wake patients can
be associated with disrupted sleep and also impaired endothelial function. In the
HYENA study, night noise but not day noise was associated with BP increases [18].
Particulate Matter and Cardiovascular Risk
Particulate matter air pollution refers to particulate matter that is <2.5 μm in diam-
eter. Problematic in understanding the effects of particulate matter is the fact that it
is always present with other particulates and with several gases. Inhalation of fine
particulate matter does induce an inflammatory reaction with release of cytokines.
Similarly, there is an increase in endothelin activity as well as a shift towards domi-
nance of the sympathetic nervous system [19, 20, 21]. With these changes also
observed is an increase in atherosclerotic burden. Long considered an interesting
topic by cardiovascular disease experts, it has not received patient level consider-
ation by physicians and instead considered more of a societal issue.
Recently, using double blind randomized studies in relatively healthy young vol-
unteers, fine particulate matter and not ozone was suggested to be the main factor
increasing diastolic BP and possibly reducing brachial artery flow-mediated
dilation.
Summary and Conclusions
In this chapter I focused on some of the variables that influence cardiovascular vari-
ability and in particular BP and heart rate. These include activity, temperature,
noise, and atmospheric particulate matter. Chronic physical activity such as exercise
has an important effect to reduce cardiovascular complications. Day-to-day activity
using actigraphy is an important factor in understanding short-term changes in BP
and heart rate and in defining sleep versus awake periods for the analysis of 24-h
ambulatory BP monitoring. Indeed, actigraphy has become a mass-marketed con-
sumer gadget that may allow individuals to monitor their own daily levels of activ-
ity. Other novel uses of actigraphy include supplementing polysomnography for
sleep studies and also in a variety of neurological or other disorders. There seems
little doubt that colder temperatures are associated with somewhat higher BP and
heart rate. What is needed is a better understanding of whether the effects are due to
temperature alone or due to other factors that change during the seasons.
Environmental noise has come to full attention as an important factor in
52 G.A. Mansoor
cardiovascular risk. Potential mechanisms are being elucidated that are known to
link to worse cardiovascular outcomes. Regulations should be able to keep expo-
sure below critical thresholds. Lastly, the effects of air pollution and, in particular,
fine particulate matter are now well-recognized by many cardiovascular groups as
being adverse on cardiovascular disease. Studies suggest that there is a direct effect
of fine particulate matter to raise BP and also to increase sympathetic nervous sys-
tem activity. It is likely that further refinements will be made to these factors influ-
encing BP variability.
References
1. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/how-accurate-are-fitness-monitors/
2. Tryon WW. The ambulatory measurement of physical activity. In: Luiselli JK, Reed DD, edi-
tors. Behavioral sport psychology, evidence based approaches to performance enhancement.
New York: Springer; 2011.
3. Sadeh A. The role and validity of actigraphy in sleep medicine: An update. Sleep Med Rev.
2011;259–267.
4. Paffenbarger Jr RS, Thomas MC, Wing AL. Chronic disease in former college students.
VIII. Characteristics in youth predisposing to hypertension in later years. Am J Epidemiol.
1968;88:25–32.
5. Diaz KM, Shimbo D. Physical Activity and the Prevention of Hypertension. Curr Hypertens
Rep. 2013;15:659–68.
6. Kozakova M, Palombo C, Mhamdi L, Konrad T, Nilsson P, Staehr PB, Paterni M, et al.
Habitual physical activity and vascular aging in a young to middle-age population at low car-
diovascular risk. Stroke. 2007;38(9):2549–55.
7. Sherwood A, Routledge FS, Wohlgemuth WK, Hinderliter AL, Kuhn CM, Blumenthal JA. BP
Dipping: Ethnicity, sleep quality and sympathetic nervous system activity. Am J Hypertens.
2011;24(9):982–8.
8. Agarwal R, Light RP. Physical activity and hemodynamic reactivity in chronic kidney disease.
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;3(6):1660–8.
9. Hinderliter AL, Routledge FS, Blumenthal JA, Koch G, Hussey M, Wohlgemuth WK, et al.
Reproducibility of BP dipping: Relation to day to day variability in sleep quality. Am
J Hypertens. 2013;7(6):423–39.
10. Pan W, Song Y, Kwak S, Yoshida S, Yamamoto Y. Quantitative evaluation of the use of actig-
raphy for neurological and psychiatric disorders. Behav Neurol. 2014;4:1–6.
11. De Weerd AW. Actigraphy, the alternative way? Front Psychiatry. 2014;155:1–3.
12. Barnett AG, Sans S, Salomaa V, Kuulasmaa K, Dobson AJ, WHO MONICA Project. The
effect of temperature on systolic BP. Blood Press Monit. 2007;12(3):195–203.
13. Babisch W. Stress hormones in the research on cardiovascular effects of noise. Noise Health.
2003;5(18):1–11.
14. Munzel T, Gori T, Babisch W, Basner M. Cardiovascular effects of environmental noise expo-
sure. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:829–36.
15. Chen Q, Wang J, Tian J, et al. Association between Ambient Temperature and BP and BP
Regulators: 1831 Hypertensive Patients Followed Up for Three Years. PLoS One.
2013;8(12):e84522.
16. Kent ST, Howard G, Crosson WL, Prineas RJ, McClure LA. The association of remotely-
sensed outdoor temperature with BP levels in REGARDS: a cross-sectional study of a large,
national cohort of African-American and white participants. Environ Health. 2011;10(1):7.
17. Stansfeld S, Crombie R. Cardiovascular effects of environmental noise: Research in the United
Kingdom. Noise Health. 2011;13(52):229–33.
18. Jarup L, Babisch W, Houthuijs D, HYENA Study Team, et al. Hypertension and exposure to
noise near airports: the HYENA study. Environ Health Perspect. 2008;116(3):329–33.
19. Newby DE, Mannucci PM, Tell GS, ESC Working Group on Thrombosis, European
Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation, ESC Heart Failure Association,
et al. Expert position paper on air pollution and cardiovascular disease. Eur Heart
J. 2015;36(2):83–93.
20. Brook RD, Rajagopalan S, Pope 3rd CA, American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology
and Prevention, Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and Council on Nutrition,
Physical Activity and Metabolism, et al. Particulate matter air pollution and cardiovascular
disease: An update to the scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation.
2010;121(21):2331–78.
21. Brook RD, Urch B, Dvonch T, et al. Insights into the mechanisms and mediators of the effects
of air pollution exposure on BP and vascular function in healthy humans. Hypertension.
2009;54(3):659–67.
Chapter 4
Ambulatory Monitoring of Blood Pressure:
An Overview of Devices, Analyses,
and Clinical Utility
William B. White and Vanessa Barber
Introduction
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) has been available for more than
40 years, and despite substantial evidence that this diagnostic tool provides a more
precise picture of BP status in individual persons, in most countries, clinic BP mea-
surements remain the primary method used for hypertension screening, diagnosis,
and management. Ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitors have become increas-
ingly popular in clinical practice. The numerous benefits include the avoidance of
potential blood pressure measurement errors such as observer bias and terminal
digit preference and provision of more comprehensive information on blood pres-
sure behavior than is possible with office or home blood pressure measurement [1].
Blood pressure varies reproducibly over a 24-h cycle with a number of well-
recognized patterns. Most patients are “dippers;” these individuals are characterized
by at least a 10 % decline in nocturnal blood pressure compared to their awake blood
pressure [2]. Some patients may have an exaggerated drop in nocturnal pressures of
>20 % and have been referred to as “extreme” dippers. Kario et al. demonstrated
that extreme dippers in an older Japanese population were more likely to have isch-
emic lesions on magnetic resonance imaging compared to dippers; however, these
data have not been reproduced in other populations [3]. Approximately 10–30 % of
patients are “non-dippers,” in whom the blood pressure decline is blunted or absent
during sleep [4, 5]. This may be the result of various types of autonomic dysfunction
W.B. White, M.D. (*)

Calhoun Cardiology Center, University of Connecticut School of Medicine,
263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030-3940, USA
V. Barber
Clinical Research Center, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, CT, USA

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-22771-9_4
56 W.B. White and V. Barber
or certain causes of secondary hypertension and the loss of nocturnal BP decline is

also a risk factor for target organ damage [6]. Multiple studies, in hypertensives as
well as normotensives (NTs), have consistently shown that target organ damage is
more likely in non-dippers than dippers [7]. Additionally, nocturnal BP is an inde-
pendent, powerful indicator of cardiovascular disease [2]. A small proportion of
patients exhibit an “inverse” dipping pattern [8]. Here, the nocturnal blood pressures
do not fall during sleep and, in some cases, may actually be higher than the daytime
readings. Other 24-h blood pressure patterns that have been observed resulting from
the advent of ABP include “white coat” hypertension (WCH) or the “white coat
effect” [9]. In these patients, medical care environment blood pressures are substan-
tially higher than ambulatory awake blood pressure averages. There are also some
individuals who may present with “masked hypertension,” where ABP is elevated
but office blood pressure is normal. This phenomenon may, in part, be the result of
factors not present in the physician’s office (e.g., smoking cigarettes, mental stress,
or physical activity). Liu et al. reported that people with masked hypertension are as
likely to have left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and carotid artery intimal-medial
thickening as those patients with definite hypertension [10]. More recently, a 10-year
follow-up of the Ohasama study showed that the cardiovascular mortality and stroke
rates were significantly higher in masked hypertensives as compared with normo-
tensives (relative hazard ratio = 2.1) [11]. Another pattern identified by ABP that has
been linked to increased incidence of stroke in hypertensive patients is the “morning
surge,” which is a marked rise in BP during the early morning awakening hours [12].
Most research has shown that isolated clinic blood pressure values do not accu-
rately estimate a patient’s overall hypertension burden since they represent only one or
two points in time on a patient’s 24-h blood pressure profile. ABP monitors overcome
this problem by obtaining multiple readings over the 24-h period and capturing the
blood pressure variability. Numerous studies have also shown that clinic blood pres-
sures are inferior in predicting hypertensive target end-organ damage, as well as
long-term cardiovascular outcomes, compared with ambulatory BP averages. This
chapter will focus on the various types of ABPM devices and their validation and
discuss their clinical application in managing patients with hypertension.
ABPM Devices: Auscultatory and Oscillometric
Ambulatory BP monitors are automated and programmable devices that detect

blood pressure either by the auscultatory method or the oscillometric route. Some
devices have the option of using both techniques. Each method has its own advan-
tages and limitations. The auscultatory devices employ the use of a microphone to
detect Korotkoff sounds. Unfortunately, these devices are also sensitive to external
artifact noise, which may limit their accuracy. They may also be less precise in the
obese upper extremity. In some devices, these limitations have been overcome by
synchronizing the Korotkoff sounds with the R-wave of the electrocardiogram
(electrocardiographic gating) [13]. The oscillometric technique, which is utilized
4 Ambulatory Monitoring of Blood Pressure: An Overview of Devices, Analyses… 57
in the majority of present-day monitors, detects the initial and maximal arterial
vibrations or the mean arterial blood pressure and is less affected by external
artifacts. The systolic and diastolic blood pressure values used in this technique
are actually computed via set algorithms. Hence, the more sensitive the algorithm,
the more accurate the device. Extreme blood pressure values increase the likelihood
of error with the oscillometric devices [14]. Modern ABP recorders are compact,
lightweight monitors that can be programmed to take blood pressure readings at
various intervals (e.g., every 15 min during the day and every 30 min at night). In
most devices, the bleed rates of deflation of the cuff and maximal inflation pres-
sures can be programmed; some devices also have a patient-initiated event button
(to monitor symptoms). Most devices have algorithms to screen out most erroneous
readings and will perform a repeat of the blood pressure measurement within
1–2 min. Prior to initiation and again at the termination of a 24-h monitoring study,
the ABP device may be calibrated against either an aneroid or a mercury-column
sphygmomanometer to verify that the systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood
pressure agree within about 5 mmHg. It is most practical that the cuff be fitted to
the nondominant arm. If there is a large discordance between arms in BP measure-
ment, it is recommended to apply the cuff to the higher value arm if the difference
in systolic BP is greater than 10 mmHg [12, 15]. Patients should be educated
regarding the use of the ABPM at device hookup. Most experts recommend that a
written set of instructions be given for at-home reference along with verbal coun-
seling [12]. For example, the patient needs to be aware that when the actual read-
ings are being measured, the arm should be held motionless to avoid artifact and
repetitive readings [16]. Excessive heavy physical activity during measurements
should be discouraged, as it usually interferes with the accuracy of the measure-
ments. A diary that records wake-up and sleep times, time of medication adminis-
tration, meals, and any occurrence of symptoms should be maintained.
Ambulatory BP monitoring should be performed on a routine working day rather
than a nonworking day or on the weekend to obtain the most representative blood
pressure values. A study conducted by Devereux et al. demonstrated that daytime
(work) blood pressures were a more sensitive determinant of left ventricular mass
index compared to daytime values taken at home [17]. The clinical advantages of
ABPM studies are many and the disadvantages are few (Table 4.1). Ambulatory BP
monitoring eliminates observer error as well as the white coat effect, and it allows
for a more comprehensive assessment of antihypertensive therapy. In addition, ABP
is a superior prognostic indicator for hypertensive target end-organ damage as com-
pared to clinic blood pressures. The potential limitations of ABP devices include
poor technical results in patients with rapid atrial fibrillation or in those patients
with very obese or large, muscular upper arms that exceed a mid-bicep circumfer-
ence of 44 cm. Imprecise data may also be recorded in patients with weak pulses or
an auscultatory gap. The devices are usually well-tolerated by patients, although
occasionally there may be bruising or petechiae at the upper or distal arm, particu-
larly in the elderly or patients on anticoagulation therapies. Some subjects may
experience a lack of sleep at night or poor sleep quality because of the repeated cuff
inflations.
Table 4.1 Advantages and disadvantages of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring compared to
clinic blood pressures
Advantages Disadvantages
Elimination of observer bias/error Cost
Elimination of the white coat effect Time commitment on behalf of
More comprehensive assessment of antihypertensive Patient
therapy Disturbed sleep
Superior prognostic indicator Cuff discomfort
Calculation of blood pressure loads May be inaccurate in atrial fibrillation
Evaluation of dipping/non-dipping status
Ability to better assess blood pressure variability
More reproducible over time
Validation of ABP Monitors
The Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) has long
recognized the importance of evaluation of the accuracy of ABP monitors. A proto-
col was first developed in 1987 for the assessment of device accuracy and reliability
[18]. The AAMI protocol was followed by a more complex method of independent
validation from the British Hypertension Society (BHS) in 1990 [19]. Although the
protocols differed, their aim was to establish minimum accuracy standards for these
devices in order for them to be considered reliable clinical tools. Since then, both
protocols have been revised [20, 21]. In addition to clinical testing, the protocols
include recommendations such as labeling information, details for environmental
performance, as well as stability and safety requirements.
In an updated version in 1992, the AAMI [20] advised that blood pressure should
be measured at the onset and conclusion of the validation study in three positions
(supine, seated, and standing) and the difference between the ABPM vs. the refer-
ence standard should not be more than 5 mmHg with a standard deviation of
8 mmHg. Additionally, the disparity between the ABPM and the reference sphyg-
momanometer should be assessed in 20 subjects at the beginning and at the end of
a 24-h blood pressure study. This difference should not exceed 5 mmHg in at least
75 % of the readings. For reliability testing, three different instruments should be
assessed in a minimum of ten subjects for a total of thirty 24-h ABP studies. It is
recommended that a minimum of 75 readings in each of the 24-h studies be obtained,
with 15-min intervals during the awake period and 30-min intervals during sleep.
The number of satisfactory readings (i.e., no error codes) should exceed 80 % of the
total number of readings programmed for the day.
The BHS protocol is a more complex validation protocol that has the grading
system outlined in Table 4.2. The BHS protocol calls for multiple phases of valida-
tion: (1) before use device validation, (2) in-use (field) assessment, (3) after-use
device calibration, (4) static device calibration where the device is rechecked after 1
month of usage, and (5) report of evaluation. Each phase has its passing criteria [21].
Table 4.2 British Hypertension Society Grading Criteria

Absolute difference between standard and test device (mmHg)
Grade ≤5 (%) ≤10 (%) ≤15 (%)
A 60 85 95
B 50 75 90
C 40 65 85
D Worse than C
Grades are derived from percentages of readings within 5, 10, and 15 mmHg. To achieve a grade,
all three percentages must be equal to or greater than the tabulated values
From ref. [21]
In 2002, the Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring of the European

Society of Hypertension approved a new protocol—the European Society of
Hypertension International Protocol (ESH_IP) [22]. The main purpose of this pro-
tocol was to simplify the previous protocols without compromising their integrity.
Briefly, this protocol consists of the following steps:
1. Observer training and assessment.
2. Familiarization session.
3. Validation measurements (done in two phases, with 15 patients required in the
first phase and 33 in the second).
4. Analysis after each phase.
5. Reporting of results.
This protocol uses “pass” or “fail” for grading the devices as opposed to the A–D
classification of the BHS protocol. One of the other differences from the BHS pro-
tocol is the exclusion of the pre-validation phases (phases 1–3 in the previous list),
thereby considerably reducing time and labor. Also, the specifications regarding
observer training reduce errors in the actual measurement of blood pressures and
resolve major differences between individual observers. A reduced sample size, a
refinement in the range of test blood pressure, and a two-phase system of evaluation
will decrease the time and cost required for validation by using fewer total subjects
and eliminating extremely inaccurate devices in an initial phase of testing. The
international protocol has also been criticized for certain differences from prior pro-
tocols [23]. First, the protocol does not specify a range of arm circumference over
which the device must be tested. Arm circumference is known to affect the accuracy
of blood pressure measurement. Second, the protocol does not specify the maxi-
mum number of subjects that can be excluded. Some experts have brought up con-
cerns that this might give the manufacturers excessive control over data reporting.
In 2010, the ESH-IP was revised with more stringent validation specifications [24].
These specifications include forms with standardized options for responses in the
place of open-ended responses, an age restriction of >25 years, and more stringent
pass levels [25]. The 2002 ESH-PI1 and 2010 ESH-PI2 have been the most fre-
quently used validation protocols primarily due to their ease of use compared to the
AAMI and BHS guidelines [15, 26].
Hodgkinson et al. conducted a systematic review of validation studies using the

AAMI, BHS, ESH-IP1, ISO, and ESH-IP2 protocols and found that the less com-
plicated ESH-IP generated fewer major protocol deviations than the AAMI and
BHS [27]. Ultimately, Hodgkinson et al. recommended the ESH-IP2 protocol citing
its “simplicity of method and greater accuracy requirement” [27].
Analysis of ABPM Data
Upon completion of the 24-h ABP recording, the data are downloaded and analyzed
statistically to calculate blood pressure averages (i.e., 24-h, awake or daytime, and
sleep or nighttime) as well as variations on the blood pressure load. The American
Society of Hypertension as well as other expert groups have proposed limits of nor-
mal blood pressure and blood pressure loads as depicted in Table 4.3 [28].
Descriptive Blood Pressure Data from ABPM
Data are generally reported separately for the 24-h, daytime, and nighttime periods.
These averages should be accompanied by the standard deviations as a simple indi-
cator of blood pressure variability. A study by Kikuya et al. found an association
between increased cardiovascular mortality risk and daytime SBP variability [29].
Some studies have indicated that there is a significant relationship between blood
pressure variability and target end-organ damage [30], especially with beat-to-beat
intra-arterial data. Frattola et al. conducted a study on 73 essential hypertensives
that underwent intra-arterial blood pressure monitoring at the initiation of the study
[31]. Subsequently, echocardiography was performed to assess left ventricular mass
Table 4.3 Suggested upper limits of normal average ambulatory blood pressure and load
Blood pressure measure Probably normal Borderline Probably abnormal
Systolic average
Awake <135 135–140 >140
Asleep <120 120–125 >125
24-h <130 130–135 >135
Diastolic average
Awake <85 85–90 >90
Asleep <75 75–80 >80
24-h <80 80–85 >85
Awake <15 15–30 >30
Asleep <15 15–30 >30
Awake <15 15–30 >30
Asleep <15 15–30 >30
From ref. [28]
on subjects at the onset and at the conclusion of the study 7 years later. The standard
deviations were obtained, and the average blood pressure variability for the group
was calculated as 10.8 mmHg. The authors observed that end-organ damage was
significantly higher in patients who had a greater than average blood pressure vari-
ability (for the group as a whole) given that the 24-h mean arterial pressure was
similar in both groups. Unfortunately, 24-h blood pressure monitoring was not con-
ducted at the end of the study to confirm if the same level of blood pressure vari-
ability persisted.
Blood Pressure Loads
The blood pressure load is calculated as the proportion of blood pressures

>135/85 mmHg during the awake period and >120/75 mmHg during the sleep hours.
White et al. was one of the first groups to introduce the concept of blood pressure
loads [32]. They conducted a study in 30 previously untreated hypertensives and
observed that the blood pressure load was a sensitive predictor of indices of hyper-
tensive cardiac involvement. The results demonstrated that when the systolic or dia-
stolic blood pressure loads were less than 30 %, the likelihood of LVH was negligible.
However, with a systolic blood pressure load exceeding 50 %, the incidence of LVH
approached 90 %, and with the diastolic blood pressure load more than 40 %, LVH
occurred in 70 % of the subjects [33]. Similar results were obtained when Mule et al.
studied 130 patients with mild to moderate hypertension [34]. Subjects with a higher
systolic blood pressure load, adjusted for average 24-h SBP, were found to have
increased relative myocardial wall thickness and total peripheral vascular resistance
as well as increased prevalence of hypertensive retinopathy. These studies suggest
that blood pressure load is an independent predictor of hypertensive target organ
damage and adverse cardiovascular risk profile. However, this parameter has fallen
out of favor in recent years since ‘load’ is not a continuous variable and has no
means to differentiate moderate versus severely hypertensive individuals.
White Coat Hypertension (WCH) and the White

Coat Effect (WCE)
White coat hypertension (also called isolated clinic hypertension) is diagnosed when
the untreated patient’s 24-h blood pressure is within normal limits, but blood pres-
sure in the clinic is persistently elevated (Fig. 4.1), with clinic BP measurements
≥140/90 mmHg, 24-h ABPM <130/80 mmHg, awake ABPM <135/85 mmHg, and
nocturnal ABPM <120/70 mmHg [35]. The prevalence of WCH is reported to be 10
to 20 % of patients with untreated Stage 1 hypertension [36]. Originally thought to
be a benign condition, recent WCH studies have found evidence that CV risk in
individuals with WCH is between that of normotensives and sustained hyperten-
sives. A meta-analysis by Cuspidi et al. in 2014 showed that people with WCH had
Fig. 4.1 Plot showing 24-h pressure curve depicting white coat hypertension (WCH) and dipping
status. The patient’s blood pressure in the physician’s office is 153/76 mmHg. The daytime ambu-
latory average is normal at 108/71 ± 13/9 mmHg. The subject has WCH with a 45/5 mmHg rise in
blood pressure in the physician’s office. The patient also has a normal drop in nocturnal pressures,
with a night time average of 90/60 ± 7/6 mmHg
increased left ventricular mass index, decreased mitral E/A ratio, and greater left
atrial diameter compared to a matched group of normotensive individuals [37]. A key
utility of ambulatory BP monitoring in clinical practice is its ability to identify WCH,
thereby preventing excessive drug therapy [12, 15]. Nevertheless, patients with
WCH do need close observation with ABP performed every 2–3 years to determine
whether a more sustained hypertensive pattern has developed [38]. The white coat
effect (WCE) is defined as an additional presser response in patients with established
and treated hypertension, which causes an overestimation of true blood pressure
when measured in the clinic setting (Fig. 4.2). White coat effect parameters are typi-
cally defined as: treated patients with hypertension where the office BP is
≥140/90 mmHg, 24-h ABPM <130/80 mmHg, daytime ABPM <135/85 mmHg, and
nocturnal ABPM <120/70 mmHg [12].
Masked Hypertension
Masked hypertension (“white coat normotension” or “reverse white coat hyperten-

sion”) is an entity that has been closely studied during the past decade.
Fig. 4.2 Plot showing 24-h blood pressure curve depicting white coat effect and non-dipper sta-
tus. The patient is hypertensive with a daytime average of 158/110 ± 21/23 mmHg. The nighttime
blood pressure does not drop significantly (157/105 ± 15/16 mmHg). The patient, in addition to his
hypertension, has a significant white coat effect in which the blood pressure is 216/98 mmHg in
the physician’s office
Masked hypertension is diagnosed when an individual has a normal office (or

clinic) blood pressure and an elevated ABP in those patients either not currently
being treated for hypertension or on therapy which is not controlling the BP during
a 24-h period. The parameters for this condition are typically: untreated patients
with office BP <140/90 mmHg, 24-h ABP ≥130/80 mmHg, daytime ABP
≥135/85 mmHg, and/or nighttime ABP ≥120/70 mmHg [35]. Patients with normal
office BP in conjunction with stressful occupations, kidney disease, obstructive
sleep apnea, LVH, target organ damage, familial history of hypertension, and
increased blood pressure during exercise should be considered for ambulatory BP
assessment to confirm or deny a diagnosis of masked hypertension [12]. Masked
hypertension, which occurs in 10–15 % of normotensive people, is associated with
an increased risk of target organ damage as well as cardiovascular mortality [10].
Dipping/Non-dipping/Extreme Dipping
Blood pressure normally has a circadian pattern in which blood pressure drops dur-
ing sleep and is higher during the awake hours of the day. This pattern is referred to
as “dipping” (Fig. 4.1). The dipping status can be determined by evaluating awake
and sleep blood pressures and calculating differences between the two averages.
The percentage “dip” is then determined by dividing this difference by the awake
average. The degree of decline in blood pressure varies from person to person, but a
general consensus is that 10–20 % drop in blood pressure during sleep is “normal”
[39]. The patient who has less than a 10 % drop in blood pressure at night is referred
to as a “nondipper” (Fig. 4.2).
Reporting of Ambulatory BP Data for Medical Records
Using all of the above-referenced values, an informative report can be generated

indicating the status of the patient’s blood pressure. The reports should include
demographics, all medications taken during the study, the number of accurate read-
ings obtained, the awake/sleep times, and any symptoms that were experienced. The
clinical report could also graphically depict blood pressures and heart rates over a
24 h period as shown in Figs. 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3.
Reproducibility of ABPM
The majority of clinical trials conducted to evaluate ABP reproducibility confirm

both superior short-term (<1 year) [40, 41] and long-term (>1 year) [42–44] repro-
ducibility of ABPM as compared to clinical blood pressure measurement. One
100
Increased LV mass index (%)
80
60
40
20
0
Casual > 140 mmHg 24-h > 135 mmHg 24-h < 135 mmHg Load > 50% Load < 50%
Systolic blood pressure
Fig. 4.3 Bars show percentage of increased left ventricular (LV) mass in subjects with elevated sys-
tolic blood pressures (both clinical and ambulatory) and systolic blood pressure loads (From ref. [45])
substudy from the Systolic Hypertension in Europe (SYST-EUR) trial evaluated

112 patients who were randomized to receive placebo [42]. Clinical and ABPM
readings done at baseline were repeated after 1 month in 51 subjects and a full year
in 112 subjects. The results indicated that differences in 24-h ambulatory systolic
blood pressure (2.4 ± 10.7 mmHg [p < 0.05]) were far less than for clinical systolic
blood pressure (6.6 ± 15.9 mmHg [p < 0.001]) taken at 1 year (Fig. 4.4). Another
large-scale trial that also observed better reproducibility for ABP monitoring than
clinical blood pressure was the Hypertension and Ambulatory Recording Study
(HARVEST), in which 508 subjects were evaluated [43]. Ambulatory BP monitor-
ing was conducted at baseline and 3 months later in the untreated state. A very mod-
est difference in the two sequential ABPMs for the group as a whole was observed
(0.4/0.7 mmHg).
Studies evaluating the reproducibility of the circadian rhythm have not had
such promising results. For example, in a study by Mochizuki et al., it was
found that there was limited reproducibility of the circadian rhythm [45]. In that
study, 253 untreated essential hypertensives were monitored for 48 h. In these 2
days, 16 % of dippers “converted” into non-dippers and 13 % of non-dippers
“converted” into dippers (Fig. 4.5). The authors suggested that 48-h ABP moni-
tors be performed to assess the circadian blood pressure profile of an individual
[46]. Although this will not solve the problem entirely, it should decrease the
likelihood of error.
Fig. 4.4 Bars show the superior reproducibility of ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) vs. clinic/
office blood pressure from the SYST-EUR trial (n = 112). Blood pressures were measured 1 and 12
months after baseline measurements (From ref. [42])
Fig. 4.5 Illustration of the limited reproducibility of the circadian rhythm (i.e., the dipping/non-
dipping status) with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring studies conducted over 48 h in 253
subjects (From ref. [45])
Indications for ABPM
ABPM has been recognized as an important clinical tool by a number of expert

medical groups and societies. In the US, the Joint National Committee (JNC
VII) recommended ABP monitoring for a number of clinical situations
(Table 4.4) [39].
The 2014 ESH practice guidelines for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring
report that ABPM should be extended to not only to WCH, but also to suspected
Table 4.4 Primary Suspected white coat hypertension

indications for ambulatory
Apparent drug resistance
blood pressure monitoring
Hypotensive symptoms with
antihypertensive medications
Episodic hypertension
Autonomic dysfunction
Suspected white coat effect
Suspected masked hypertension,
particularly in treated patients
cases of nocturnal hypertension, dipping, to assess 24 h BP, masked controlled and

uncontrolled hypertension , and daytime hypertension [47]. These guidelines also
highlighted that ABP analysis could be used in any patient who is hypertensive with
presence of target organ damage, diabetics, and those who have a family history of
CVD [47]. Recently, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
(NICE) updated their guidelines for the management of hypertension to include
ABPM as a confirmatory test in patients with an office blood pressure ≥140/90 mmHg,
citing ABPM’s cost-effectiveness and greater accuracy over HBPM [48]. A 2014
systematic review found that hypertension is inaccurately diagnosed at an exceed-
ingly higher rate when office BP measurements are solely used; they found that
studies that required confirmatory testing had better accuracy in diagnosis and con-
cluded that ABPM should be employed as a confirmatory test in instances for which
office BP is elevated [49].
White Coat Hypertension
WCH, a well-recognized clinical entity since 1983 [9], is a result of the presser
response that patients experience when entering a medical environment. These
patients have normal blood pressure outside of the doctor’s office during activities
of regular daily life. The prevalence has been estimated to be approximately 20 %
in untreated borderline and stage I hypertensives [50]. The prognostic significance
of this diagnosis has been the subject of considerable debate over the past three
decades. Multiple prospective as well as cross-sectional studies have been per-
formed looking at this issue, a large majority of which have shown no significant
difference in long-term cardiovascular outcomes in people with WCH versus those
with normotension. In one of the initial long-term studies, Verdecchia et al. prospec-
tively followed 1187 subjects from the PIUMA registry for up to 7.5 years [51]. In
their study, WCH was defined as an ambulatory daytime blood pressure of
<131/86 mmHg for women and <136/87 mmHg for men, and the clinic blood pres-
sure was >140/90 mmHg. No difference was initially observed between the WCH
and normotensive groups, although follow-up of this database was later conducted
with the use of a larger number (n = 1500) of patients [52]. The WCH patients were
stratified into two subgroups. The first subgroup had a more restrictive and conser-
vative definition of WCH (daytime ABP <130/80 mmHg), whereas the second
group had more liberal limits for ABP (daytime ABP <131/86 mmHg for women
and <136/87 mmHg for men). Cardiovascular morbid events in the first group were
similar to the normal BP controls, but event rates in the more liberally defined group
were significantly higher than the normotensive population. In the HARVEST trial,
722 hypertensive patients were evaluated using a more restrictive threshold to
define WCH [53]. There was a significantly higher left ventricular mass index in the
population with WCH (threshold <130/80 mmHg) when compared with the normo-
tensive population (Fig. 4.6). The PAMELA study also showed that patients with
WCH have cardiac morphological and functional indices that seem to be intermedi-
ate between normals and sustained hypertensives [54]. Given the results of these
rather large trials, WCH might be considered a prehypertensive state in some
patients. Thus, close monitoring and follow-up is required, and at some point the
institution of therapy may be needed. Careful follow-up is necessary even in the
6–8 % of true WCH patients with daytime ABP <130/80 mmHg.
Therapeutic Interventions
Accurate blood pressure measurement is the key step in formulating an effective

treatment plan for hypertensive patients. ABPM can be used to assess the need for
and effectiveness of both initial and additional antihypertensive therapy. To illus-
trate this benefit, Staessen et al. conducted a randomized controlled trial evaluating
419 untreated hypertensive patients over a course of approx. 6 months [55]. The
Fig. 4.6 Bars show the left ventricular mass in three categories of patients (n = 722): normoten-
sives, those with white coat hypertension (threshold <130/80 mmHg), and sustained hypertensives
(HARVEST trial) (From ref. [53])
Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring and Treatment of Hypertension (APTH)

trial randomized patients to an ABP arm vs. a clinical blood pressure arm.
Drug treatment was adjusted in a stepwise fashion based on daytime ABP read-
ings vs. the average of three clinical measurements. At the end of the study, it was
shown that more subjects in the ABP group discontinued antihypertensive drug
therapy. Furthermore, fewer subjects in the ABP group had progressed to receive
multiple antihypertensive drugs (Fig. 4.7). There were no significant differences in
the final blood pressure, left ventricular mass, or reported symptoms between
groups. Therefore, ABP monitors can complement conventional approaches in
determining optimal medication dosage and frequency of dosing.
Resistant Hypertension
Resistant hypertension has been defined as the failure to achieve goal blood pres-
sure despite strict adherence to near-maximal doses of an appropriate 3- or 4-drug
therapy regimen that includes a diuretic [39]. Ambulatory BP monitors have proven
useful in the evaluation of those patients who do not appear to be responding to
therapy or for those on complicated medication regimens. With data derived from
an ABPM, one can ascertain if and at what time additional therapy is needed or if it
is needed at all. Mezzetti et al. evaluated 27 subjects with resistant hypertension by
ABPM [56]. They observed that more than 50 % of the subjects showed a large
white coat effect and were actually normotensive (<135/85 mmHg) on their current
Fig. 4.7 Bars depict the percentage of subjects (n = 419) who stopped antihypertensive therapy
and those who sustained multiple-drug therapy with the medication regimen being controlled
either by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring results or by clinical measurements (APTH trial)
(From ref. [55])
medication regimens. Later, Muxfeldt et al. conducted a cross-sectional study in

286 resistant hypertensives and divided them based on their ABP into a true resis-
tant group (56.3 %) and a white coat resistant group (43.7 %) [57]. The former
group was found to have a significantly increased prevalence of both LVH and
nephropathy. In a 5-year follow-up study, Pierdomenico et al. found that the cardio-
vascular event rate was much lower in false resistant patients than true resistant
hypertensives (1.2 vs. 4.1 events per 100 patient–year) [58]. Finally, Redon et al.
conducted a study in 86 refractory hypertensives over 49 months [59]. These patients
were divided into tertiles of average diastolic blood pressure from the ABPM. The
office blood pressures were not different among the three groups. It was found that
subjects in the highest tertile group (diastolic blood pressure > 97 mmHg) had
greater progression of hypertensive end-organ damage compared to the lower two
tertile groups. Thus, ABPM was capable of identifying high-, medium-, and low-
risk patients with refractory hypertension that was not apparent by office blood
pressure measurements alone.
Type of Therapy/Chronotherapeutics
It has been well-documented that a majority of cardiovascular events occur in the

morning hours because of a number of inciting hemodynamic, hormonal, and hema-
tological factors. Gosse et al. established in 181 patients that the arising blood pres-
sure correlated with left ventricular mass better than did the office blood pressures
[60]. Hence, the higher the early morning blood pressure, the greater the left ven-
tricular mass. The rise in post-awakening morning blood pressure can be obtained
best by a 24-h ABP monitoring study. More recently, a prospective study performed
in older hypertensives showed a higher incidence of stroke (relative risk = 2.7;
p = 0.04) in subjects with a morning blood pressure surge after matching for age and
24-h blood pressures [61]. These studies stress the importance of identifying vul-
nerable subjects and targeting antihypertensive therapy to avoid morning surges of
blood pressure.
Orthostatic Hypotension/Autonomic Dysfunction
Individuals with autonomic dysfunction (e.g., diabetics) or orthostatic hypotension

tend to lose the normal circadian variation in blood pressure and may even demon-
strate an inverse dipping phenomenon (Fig. 4.8).
The Ohasama, Japan, study clearly demonstrated in 1542 subjects that patients
with inverse dipping had a significantly worse cardiovascular outcome as compared
to the other patient groups (Fig. 4.9) [8]. Generally, there is also considerable vari-
ability of blood pressure noted in the inverse-dipping patient population. Patients
with inverse dipping may benefit from short-acting medications that can be taken at
bedtime to reduce the nighttime blood pressure average. In addition, some compli-
cated patients with idiopathic orthostatic hypotension may be severely hypertensive
Fig. 4.8 Plot showing a 24-h blood pressure curve depicting autonomic dysfunction and inverse
dipping. There is significant variability of blood pressure, as seen by the standard deviation. The
awake blood pressure average is 132/71 ± 26/23 mmHg, and the sleep average is 164/89 ± 28/15 mmHg.
The sleep averages are higher than awake averages, indicating an inverse dipping pattern
4
3.69 Extreme dipper
Dipper
Nondipper
3 Inverse dipper
2.56
Relative hazard
2.12
2
1.35 1.32
1 0.96 1 1
1 0.83
0.65
0.53
0
All-cause mortaility Cardiovascular Noncardiovascular
mortaility mortaility
Fig. 4.9 Bars show the relative hazard of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and non-
cardiovascular mortality in four subsets of patients (n = 1542): the extreme dipper, the dipper, the
non-dipper, and the inverse dipper (From ref. [8])
in the supine position and markedly hypotensive in the upright position. Medication
regimens can be tailored individually for these patients by using the detailed blood
pressure information obtained via a 24-h ABPM.
Other indications for an ABPM study include evaluation of symptoms and epi-
sodic hypertension. With the help of a patient-initiated event button, the physician
can determine if the symptoms correlate with either a severely hypertensive (in the
case of pheochromocytoma) or hypotensive period (in the case of excessive medica-
tion or autonomic dysfunction).
Cost-Effectiveness of ABPM
ABPM studies generally cost $150–400 in the United States. In 2002, a national
insurance policy was created by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to
cover 24-h ABPM for “suspected white coat hypertension.” The International
Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 code for this diagnosis is somewhat elusive,
since it is under a different category than the hypertension codes (transient increases
in blood pressure, hypertension nonconfirmed, 796.2). Many private insurance car-
riers have followed the lead of Medicare and also cover some of the cost of an
ambulatory blood pressure monitoring study. Kent et al. looked at ABPM claims
submitted between 2007 and 2010 and found that claims that used code 796.2
(International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, diagnosis code) were
reimbursed 93.8 % of the time [62].
However, there has been some controversy regarding the cost-effectiveness of
ABPM. Moser argued that if 24-h ABPM were to be performed on just 3–5 million
of persons with hypertension in the United States, it would add an additional $600
million to $1.75 billion per year to the cost of management [63]. However, the
APTH trial [55] performed a cost–benefit analysis of ABPM vs. clinical blood pres-
sure monitoring. They observed that the cost of medication was less for the ABP
arm compared to patients who were solely evaluated by office blood pressures
($3390 vs. $4188 per 100 patients per month of therapy). Additionally, the ABP arm
required fewer office visits for close blood pressure monitoring, thereby reducing
physician fees. The authors concluded that the potential savings in the ABP group
were offset by the cost of the study, rendering it equally cost-effective but therapeu-
tically more beneficial. Ambulatory BP guidelines published by the ESH in 2014
suggested that pharmacies equipped with ABP monitors could place these on
patients with doctor’s referrals reducing the individual financial burden of such
monitors on physicians and expanding the availability of such services [47]. In
1994, Yarows et al. from Michigan also conducted a cost-effective study in clinical
practice [64]. They followed two sets of patients: the treatment group that had docu-
mented hypertension on an ABPM and was given appropriate antihypertensive
therapy (n = 192) and a diagnostic group that was documented to be hypertensive in
the physician’s office and was off all antihypertensive therapy (n = 131). The diag-
nostic group had a 24-h ABPM conducted, and the prevalence of WCH in this group
was determined to be 34 % (using a 24-h mean diastolic pressure of 85 mmHg) [65].
The authors ascertained the average yearly cost of antihypertensive medications for
the 192 hypertensive subjects to be $578.40 (range $94.90–$4361.75). They
concluded that in the diagnostic group, the fee for the ABPM ($188) would be offset
by the savings for 1 year of antihypertensive therapy (if no medications were used
for the WCH patients). In a cost-effectiveness analysis, Krakoff used the most
up-to-date information on the prevalence of WCH, probability of WCH transition-
ing to a sustained hypertension, and the costs of medical care and testing [66]. His
analysis predicted savings of 3–14 % in healthcare costs for hypertension when
ABP monitoring was routinely used as a diagnostic tool. The annual cost savings
calculated for secondary screening using ABPM was also less than 10 % of treat-
ment costs, based on the current reimbursement rates. Hopefully, these types of
important analyses [66, 67] will convince the payers as well as clinicians that ambu-
latory blood pressure monitoring has matured into a useful tool for both the diagno-
sis and management of many patients with hypertension.
References
1. Prisant LM. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in the diagnosis of hypertension. Cardiol
Clin. 1995;13(4):479–90.
2. Snyder F, Hobson JA, Morrison DF, Goldfrank F. Changes in respiration, heart rate, and sys-
tolic blood pressure in human sleep. J Appl Physiol. 1964;19:417–22.
3. Kario K, Matsuo T, Kobayashi H, Imiya M, Matsuo M, Shimada K. Nocturnal fall of blood
pressure and silent cerebrovascular damage in elderly hypertensive patients. Advanced silent
cerebrovascular damage in extreme dippers. Hypertension. 1996;27(1):130–5.
4. Pickering TG. The clinical significance of diurnal blood pressure variations. Dippers and non-
dippers. Circulation. 1990;81(2):700–2.
5. O’Brien E, Sheridan J, O’Malley K. Dippers and non-dippers. Lancet. 1988;2(8607):397.
6. Hany S, Baumgart P, Battig B, Walger P, Vetter W, Vetter H. Diagnostic aspects of 24-hour
blood pressure determination. Schweiz Rundsch Med Prax. 1987;76(17):450–4.
7. Shimada K, Kawamoto A, Matsubayashi K, Nishinaga M, Kimura S, Ozawa T. Diurnal blood
pressure variations and silent cerebrovascular damage in elderly patients with hypertension.
J Hypertens. 1992;10(8):875–8.
8. Ohkubo T, Imai Y, Tsuji I, et al. Relation between nocturnal decline in blood pressure and
mortality. The Ohasama Study. Am J Hypertens. 1997;10(11):1201–7.
9. 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(8352):695–8.
10. 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(8):564–72.
11. Ohkubo T, Kikuya M, Metoki H, et al. Prognosis of “masked” hypertension and “white-coat”
hypertension detected by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring 10-year follow-up from
the Ohasama study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(3):508–15.
12. Head GA, McGarth BP, Mihailidou AS, Nelson MR, Schlaich MP, Stowasser M, Mangoni
AA, Cowley D, Brown MA, Ruta LA, Wilson A. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in
Australia: 2011 consensus position statement. J Hypertens. 2012;30:253–66.
13. White WB, Schulman P, McCabe EJ, Nardone MB. Clinical validation of the accutracker, a
novel ambulatory blood pressure monitor using R-wave gating for Korotkoff sounds. J Clin
Hypertens. 1987;3(4):500–9.
14. Anwar YA, Giacco S, McCabe EJ, Tendler BE, White WB. Evaluation of the efficacy of the
Omron HEM-737 IntelliSense device for use on adults according to the recommendations of
the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Blood Press Monit. 1998;
3(4):261–5.
15. O’Brien E, et al. European Society of Hypertension Position Paper on Ambulatory Blood
Pressure Monitoring. J Hypertens. 2013;31:1731–68.
16. White WB, Lund-Johansen P, Omvik P. Assessment of four ambulatory blood pressure moni-
tors and measurements by clinicians vs intraarterial blood pressure at rest and during exercise.
Am J Cardiol. 1990;65(1):60–6.
17. Devereux RB, Pickering TG, Harshfield GA, et al. Left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with
hypertension: importance of blood pressure response to regularly recurring stress. Circulation.
1983;68(3):470–6.
18. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, A.V. American National
Standard for Electronic or Automated Sphygmomanometers, in ANSI/AAMI SP10-1987.
Arlington: AAMI.
19. O’Brien E, Petrie J, Littler W, et al. The British Hypertension Society protocol for the evalua-
tion of automated and semi-automated blood pressure measuring devices with special refer-
ence to ambulatory systems. J Hypertens. 1990;8(7):607–19.
20. White WB, Berson AS, Robbins C, et al. National standard for measurement of resting and ambu-
latory blood pressures with automated sphygmomanometers. Hypertension. 1993;21(4):504–9.
21. O’Brien E, Petrie J, Littler W, et al. An outline of the revised British Hypertension Society pro-
tocol for the evaluation of blood pressure measuring devices. J Hypertens. 1993;11(6):677–9.
22. O’Brien E, Pickering T, Asmar R, et al. Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring of the
European Society of Hypertension International Protocol for validation of blood pressure mea-
suring devices in adults. Blood Press Monit. 2002;7(1):3–17.
23. Campbell NR, McKay DW. Do we need another protocol for assessing the validity of blood
pressure measuring devices? Blood Press Monit. 2002;7(1):1–2.
24. O’Brien E, Atkins N, Stergiou G, Karpettas N, Parati G, Asmar R, Working Group on Blood
Pressure Monitoring of the European Society of Hypertension, et al. European Society of
Hypertension International Protocol revision 2010 for the validation of blood pressure measur-
ing devices in adults. Blood Press Monit. 2010;15:23–38.
25. O’Brien E, et al. European Society of Hypertension International Protocol revision 2010 for
the validation of blood pressure measuring devices. Blood Press Monit. 2010;15(1):23–38.
26. Stergiou GS, Karpettas N, Atkins N, O’Brien E. Impact of applying the more stringent valida-
tion criteria of the revised European Society of Hypertension International Protocol 2010 on
earlier validation studies. Blood Press Monit. 2011;16:67–73.
27. Hodgkinson JA, Sheppard JP, Heneghan C, Martin U, Mant J, Roberts N, Mcmanus
RJ. Accuracy of ambulatory blood pressure monitors: a systematic review of validation stud-
ies. J Hypertens. 2013;31:239–50.
28. Pickering T. Recommendations for the use of home (self) and ambulatory blood pressure mon-
itoring. American Society of Hypertension Ad Hoc Panel. Am J Hypertens. 1996;9(1):1–11.
29. Kikuya M, Hozawa A, Ohokubo T, Tsuji I, Michimata M, Matsubara M, et al. Prognostic sig-
nificance of blood pressure and heart rate variabilities: the Ohasama study. Hypertension.
2000;36.
30. Parati G, Pomidossi G, Albini F, Malaspina D, Mancia G. Relationship of 24-hour blood pres-
sure mean and variability to severity of target-organ damage in hypertension. J Hypertens.
1987;5(1):93–8.
31. Frattola A, Parati G, Cuspidi C, Albini F, Mancia G. Prognostic value of 24-hour blood pres-
sure variability. J Hypertens. 1993;11(10):1133–7.
32. White WB, Dey HM, Schulman P. Assessment of the daily blood pressure load as a determi-
nant of cardiac function in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Am Heart J. 1989;
118(4):782–95.
33. White WB. Accuracy and analysis of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring data. Clin Cardiol.
1992;15(5 Suppl 2):II10–3.
34. Mule G, Nardi E, Andronico G, et al. Relationships between 24 h blood pressure load and
target organ damage in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Blood Press
Monit. 2001;6(3):115–23.
35. Gorostidi M, Vinyoles E, Banegas JR, Sierra A. Prevalence of white-coat and masked hyper-
tension in national and international registries. Hypertens Res. 2015;38:1–7.
36. Sipahioglu NT, Sipahioglu F. A closer look at white-coat hypertension. World J Methodol.
2014;4(3):144–50.
37. Cuspidi C, Rescaldani M, Tadic M, Sala C, Grassi G, Mancia G. White-coat hypertension, as
defined by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, and subclinical cardiac organ damage: a
meta-analysis. J Hypertens. 2014;32:24–32.
38. Mancia G, De Backer G, Dominiczak A, Cifkova R, Fargard R, Germano G, et al. Management
of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension; European Society of
Cardiology: the Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension (ESH) and of the
European Society of Cardiology (ESC). J Hypertens. 2007;25.
39. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al. The Seventh Report of the Joint National
Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the
JNC 7 report. JAMA. 2003;289(19):2560–72.
40. James GD, Pickering TG, Yee LS, Harshfield GA, Riva S, Laragh JH. The reproducibility of
average ambulatory, home, and clinic pressures. Hypertension. 1988;11(6 Pt 1):545–9.
41. Fotherby MD, Potter JF. Reproducibility of ambulatory and clinic blood pressure measure-
ments in elderly hypertensive subjects. J Hypertens. 1993;11(5):573–9.
42. Staessen JA, Thijs L, Clement D, et al. Ambulatory pressure decreases on longterm placebo
treatment in older patients with isolated systolic hypertension. J Hypertens. 1994;12(9):
1035–9.
43. Palatini P, Mormino P, Canali C, et al. Factors affecting ambulatory blood pressure reproduc-
ibility. Results of the HARVEST Trial. Hypertension and Ambulatory Recording Venetia
Study. Hypertension. 1994;23(2):211–6.
44. Mansoor GA, McCabe EJ, White WB. Long-term reproducibility of ambulatory blood pres-
sure. J Hypertens. 1994;12(6):703–8.
45. Mochizuki Y, Okutani M, Donfeng Y, et al. Limited reproducibility of circadian variation in
blood pressure dippers and nondippers. Am J Hypertens. 1998;11(4 Pt 1):403–9.
46. Tamura K, Mukaiyama S, Halberg F. Clinical significance of ABPM monitoring for 48h rather
than 24h. Statistician. 1990;39:301–6.
47. Parati F, et al. European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for ambulatory blood
pressure monitoring. J Hypertens. 2014;32(7):1359–66.
48. Krause T, Lovibond K, Caulfield M, McCormack T, Williams B. Management of hyperten-
sion: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2011;343.
49. Piper MA, Evans CV, Burda BU, Margolis KL, O’Connor E, Whitlock EP. Diagnostic and
predictive accuracy of blood pressure screening methods with consideration of rescreening
intervals: an updated systematic review for the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. Ann
Intern Med. 2014;162(3):192–204. doi:10.7326/M14-1539.
50. Pickering TG, James GD, Boddie C, Harshfield GA, Blank S, Laragh JH. How common is
white coat hypertension? JAMA. 1988;259(2):225–8.
51. Verdecchia P, Porcellati C, Schillaci G, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure. An independent
predictor of prognosis in essential hypertension. Hypertension. 1994;24(6):793–801.
52. Verdecchia P, Schillaci G, Borgioni C, Ciucci A, Porcellati C. White-coat hypertension. Lancet.
1996;348(9039):1444–6.
53. Palatini P, Mormino P, Santonastaso M, et al. Target-organ damage in stage I hypertensive subjects
with white coat and sustained hypertension: results from the HARVEST study. Hypertension.
1998;31(1):57–63.
54. Sega R, Trocino G, Lanzarotti A, et al. Alterations of cardiac structure in patients with isolated
office, ambulatory, or home hypertension: data from the general population (Pressione
Arteriose Monitorate E Loro Associazioni (PAMELA) Study). Circulation. 2001;104(12):
1385–92.
55. Staessen JA, Byttebier G, Buntinx F, Celis H, O’Brien ET, Fagard R. Antihypertensive treat-
ment based on conventional or ambulatory blood pressure measurement. A randomized con-
trolled trial. Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring and Treatment of Hypertension
Investigators. JAMA. 1997;278(13):1065–72.
56. Mezzetti A, Pierdomenico SD, Costantini F, et al. White-coat resistant hypertension. Am
J Hypertens. 1997;10(11):1302–7.
57. Muxfeldt ES, Bloch KV, Nogueira AR, Salles GF. Twenty-four hour ambulatory blood pres-
sure monitoring pattern of resistant hypertension. Blood Press Monit. 2003;8(5):181–5.
58. Pierdomenico SD, Lapenna D, Bucci A, et al. Cardiovascular outcome in treated hypertensive
patients with responder, masked, false resistant, and true resistant hypertension. Am J Hypertens.
2005;18(11):1422–8.
59. Redon J, Campos C, Narciso ML, Rodicio JL, Pascual JM, Ruilope LM. Prognostic value of
ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in refractory hypertension: a prospective study.
Hypertension. 1998;31(2):712–8.
60. Gosse P, Ansoborlo P, Lemetayer P, Clementy J. Left ventricular mass is better correlated with
arising blood pressure than with office or occasional blood pressure. Am J Hypertens. 1997;
10(5 Pt 1):505–10.
61. Kario K, Pickering TG, Umeda Y, et al. Morning surge in blood pressure as a predictor of silent
and clinical cerebrovascular disease in elderly hypertensives: a prospective study. Circulation.
2003;107(10):1401–6.
62. Kent ST, Shimbo D, Huang L, Diaz KM, Viera AJ, Kilgore M, Oparil S, Muntner P. Rates,
amounts, and determinants of ambulatory blood pressure monitor claim reimbursement among
Medicare beneficiaries. Am Soc Hypertens. 2014;8(12):898–908.
63. Moser M. Hypertension can be treated effectively without increasing the cost of care. J Hum
Hypertens. 1996;10 Suppl 2:533–58.
64. Yarows SA, Khoury S, Sowers JR. Cost effectiveness of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure
monitoring in evaluation and treatment of essential hypertension. Am J Hypertens. 1994;
7(5):464–8.
65. Khoury S, Yarows SA, O’Brien TK, Sowers JR. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in a
nonacademic setting. Effects of age and sex. Am J Hypertens. 1992;5(9):616–23.
66. Krakoff LR. Cost-effectiveness of ambulatory blood pressure: a reanalysis. Hypertension.
2006;47(1):29–34.
67. Pessanha P, Viana M, Ferreira P, Bertoquini S, Polonia J. Diagnostic value and cost-benefit
analysis of 24 hours ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in primary care in Portugal. BMC
Cardiovascular Disord. 2013;13:57.
Chapter 5
Validation and Reliability Testing of Blood
Pressure Monitors
Neil Atkins and Eoin O’Brien
Introduction
Though the importance of checking the accuracy of blood pressure measurement

techniques was recognised when it was introduced in the early years of the twenti-
eth century [1], it was largely ignored until the 1980s, when observational concerns
about the London School of Hygiene sphygmomanometer, developed to remove
measurement bias in scientific studies, led to a validation which proved its inaccu-
racy [2]. Similar concerns were later demonstrated that another device, also
developed as a gold standard for research—the Hawksley Random Zero
Sphygmomanometer, was also inaccurate [3]. At that time, there was no stan-
dardised protocol for the evaluation of blood pressure measuring devices. Obvious
discrepancies between clinic measurements and automatic measurements in the
early years of electronic devices led to validation studies using ad-hoc protocols
[4–6], but with the dawn of electronic measurement and the advent of 24-h ambula-
tory blood pressure measurement (ABPM), the need for a standardised protocol
became compelling [7].
N. Atkins
Medaval Ltd., 28-32 Upper Pembroke Street, Dublin 2, Ireland
E. O’Brien, M.D. (*)
The Conway Institute, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-22771-9_5
78 N. Atkins and E. O’Brien
Validation Protocols
AAMI/ISO Standards
Standardised protocols for the validation of the accuracy of blood pressure monitors
were first introduced in 1987 when the Association for the Advancement of Medical
Instrumentation (AAMI) published a standard for electronic and aneroid sphygmo-
manometers that included a protocol for the evaluation of device accuracy [8]. This
protocol required the mean systolic and diastolic measurements of three measure-
ments on the test devices to be compared against simultaneous measurements
recorded using standard mercury sphygmomanometer on each of 85 subjects. If the
mean difference, from the 85 subjects, was no more than 5 mmHg and the standard
deviation was no more than 8 mmHg, then the device was deemed accurate.
The protocol was revised in 1992 (published 1993 and amended 1996) [9, 10]. In
this revision, the accuracy was based on the differences of all 255 measurements.
This effectively made the standard deviation requirements more stringent. The option
of using the test and control measurements sequentially was also introduced.
The AAMI standard was revised again in 2002 (published 2003), 2007, 2009 and
2013 [11–14]. The 2002 revision introduced a second passing criterion based on the
mean measurements from 85 subjects, but standard deviations based on the mean
pressure ensure that the average error in at least 85 % of the subjects is at most
10 mmHg. Since 2007, the AAMI standard has been adopted by the International
Standards Organization (ISO).
BHS Protocols
In 1990, the British Hypertension Society (BHS) published a protocol devoted

solely to the validation of devices in the clinical setting [15]. While basing sample
requirements on the rationale of the 1987 AAMI protocol, it was also based on evi-
dence from validations carried out for Which? consumer magazine [5, 6] and from
research into the comparison of simultaneous and sequential measurements both in
the same arm and in opposite arms [16]. It consisted of five phases—observer train-
ing, before-use inter-device variability, in-use (field) assessment, after-use inter-
device variability and device validation. The protocol recommended sequential
same-arm comparisons in order to remove bias due to insufficient inflation or defla-
tion by the test device. Passing requirements were based on the percentage of mea-
surements falling within 5 mmHg, 10 mmHg and 15 mmHg of the control device
and with A and B pass grades and C and D fail grades.
The BHS protocol was revised in 1993 [17]. This revision introduced a period of
device usage prior to validation, so that validation was not performed on brand new
devices. It also consisted of five phases—before-use device calibration, in-use
(field) assessment, after-use device calibration, static device validation and report of
5 Validation and Reliability Testing of Blood Pressure Monitors 79
evaluation. It was the first time a calibration procedure for sphygmomanometers

was defined carefully with a specific procedure and pressures. Recruitment require-
ments were tightly defined over five ranges for both systolic and diastolic pressures
(<90, 90–129, 130–160, 161–180 and >180 mmHg for SBP and <60, 60–79,
80–100, 101–110 and >110 mmHg for DBP). The criteria for analysing sequential-
measurement differences and the passing criteria were amended and the report
required separate analysis of performance in low, medium and high pressure ranges.
Descriptions of follow-up validations, for devices that achieved an A or B grade, in
special circumstances, namely pregnant women, elderly subjects, paediatric sub-
jects and during exercise, were included.
Importantly, the 1993 BHS protocol included an appendix describing the meth-
odology for observer training that was based on previous work [18] and a video
method of recording was introduced [19].
International Protocols of the ESH
In 2002, the Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring of the ESH published a
protocol, updated from the BHS protocol, named the International Protocol
(ESH-IP) [20]. The Working Group had the advantage of being able to examine and
analyse the data from 19 validation studies performed according to the earlier pro-
tocols at the Blood Pressure Unit in Dublin [21]. While a large number of BP mea-
suring devices were evaluated according to one or both of the AAMI and BHS
protocols, experience demonstrated that the conditions demanded for validation
were extremely difficult to fulfil because of the large number of individuals that
needed to be recruited and the ranges of BP required [22]. Recruitment in very high
ranges of pressure became increasingly difficult due to advances in treatment and,
as adults in the low, normal and hypotensive ranges were not to be referred to hyper-
tension centres, these also became very difficult to recruit. These factors made vali-
dation studies difficult to perform and very costly, with the result that fewer centres
were prepared to undertake them. Technological improvements, both in reliability
(time to failure), device size and device use, also meant that the in-use phase, as
described, was insufficient to highlight device failure [22].
The main change in this protocol was the reduction in the number of subjects
required to 33, 11 of whom had to be recruited from three SBP and three DBP
ranges. This was based on the re-analysis of data gathered from validations studies
using the BHS protocol. The ABCD grading system, used in the BHS protocol, was
abandoned, as it had effectively been a Pass (AB)—Fail (CD) system anyway, but
the pass requirements introduced a subject-based requirement to ensure that errors
were distributed by chance, rather than by subject, which had been defined as a
weakness of earlier protocols by Gerin et al. [23]. The validation procedure was
confined to adults over the age of 30 years. A procedure of stopping, after 45
subjects, in the case of “hopeless” devices was introduced. Validation in special
groups, as defined in the BHS 1993 protocol, was not defined.
In 2010, the ESH International Protocol was revised [24], based on the evidence
and experience acquired from 104 validation studies conducted using the 2002 pro-
tocol [25]. The main purpose of this revision was to require more stringent accuracy
requirements. The accuracy requirements of both the BHS and ESH protocols had
been a compromise of technological ability and problems, such as terminal digit
preference, in the use of manual sphygmomanometers [26]. Advances in technol-
ogy therefore demanded that these be revised. Experience with the 2002 ESH-IP
showed that, in many studies, recruitment pressures were not reflected in the distri-
bution of control measurements and, therefore, measures were included to ensure
that these were not statistically significantly different. The early termination of the
study for “hopeless” devices was removed, as no study availed of this; the age
requirement was changed to 25 years and a small relaxation in recruitment require-
ments was coupled with the introduction of minimum overall SBP and DBP ranges.
Strict reporting requirements were also introduced in order to minimise the number
of protocol violations that had been an on-going problem.
A review assessed the impact the more stringent criteria of the revised ESH
International Protocol 2010 would have had on the previous studies that had used the
ESH International Protocol 2002. If the devices validated according to the earlier pro-
tocol [20] had been validated according to the 2010 revision of the ESH International
Protocol [24], the failure rate would have increased markedly from 17 to 42 % [27].
Protocol Use
In an analysis of validations carried out prior to the publication of the revised

ESH-IP protocol in 2010 [24], it was noted that, in relation to the 2002 ESH-IP
protocol [20], there was “an impressive increase in the publication of validation
studies conducted using this protocol”, while “the use of the BHS [17] and the
AAMI [10–12] protocols remained rather static” [25]. Since 2007, more than twice
as many validations were carried out using this protocol than the other protocols put
together (Table 5.1 and Fig. 5.1).
In its introduction, the 2002 ESH-IP protocol included the sentence “It is antici-
pated that the relative ease of performance of the International Protocol will encour-
age manufacturers to submit blood pressure measuring devices for validation in
order to obtain the minimum approval necessary for a device to be used in clinical
medicine, and that, in time, most devices on the market will be assessed according
to the protocol for basic accuracy”. The figures demonstrate that while the goal of
having “most devices on the market” validated has still some way to go, the protocol
did encourage manufacturers to submit devices for validation.
The analysis demonstrates the importance of practicality in the development of
protocols. Protocols that are difficult and onerous to complete are less attractive
both to centres and to manufacturers. Furthermore, they are rarely carried out cor-
rectly. Ideal evaluation is therefore best achieved, and perhaps can only be achieved,
by a set of simple validations rather than by a single complex one.
Table 5.1 Number of validation studies according to the ESH-IP, the BHS, and the AAMI protocol
reported per year starting from 2000 (2 years before the ESH-IP publication) until June 2009.
Adapted from Stergiou et al. [25]
BHS BHS + AAMI
Year (only) AAMI (only) BHS (all) AAMI (all) ESH-IP Total
2000 2 (20 %) 4 (40 %) 0 (0 %) 6 (60 %) 4 (40 %) — 10
2001 1 (8 %) 5 (42 %) 1 (8 %) 6 (50 %) 6 (50 %) — 12
2002 4 (29 %) 3 (21 %) 1 (7 %) 7 (50 %) 4 (29 %) 3 (21 %) 14
2003 2 (13 %) 0 (0 %) 6 (38 %) 2 (13 %) 6 (38 %) 8 (50 %) 16
2004 1 (6 %) 5 (29 %) 1 (6 %) 7 (41 %) 6 (35 %) 4 (24 %) 17
2005 2 (12 %) 4 (24 %) 0 (0 %) 6 (35 %) 4 (24 %) 7 (41 %) 17
2006 4 (13 %) 5 (17 %) 1 (3 %) 9 (30 %) 6 (20 %) 15 (50 %) 30
2007 1 (3 %) 2 (6 %) 3 (9 %) 3 (9 %) 5 (16 %) 24 (75 %) 32
2008 3 (9 %) 2 (6 %) 1 (3 %) 6 (17 %) 4 (11 %) 25 (71 %) 35
2009a 4 (14 %) 3 (10 %) 0 (0 %) 8 (28 %) 3 (10 %) 18 (62 %) 29
2002–2009a 21 (11 %) 24 (13 %) 13 (7 %) 48 (25 %) 38 (20 %) 104 (55 %) 190
AAMI Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, BHS British Hypertension
Society, ESH-IP European Society of Hypertension International Protocol
a
Until 15/06/2009
Fig. 5.1 Cumulative graph of validation studies performed according to the European Society of
Hypertension International Protocol (ESH-IP) compared with the British Hypertension Society
(BHS) and Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) protocols from
2002 (publication of ESH-IP) until June 2009. Reproduced from Stergiou et al. [25] with permis-
sion from the authors
Differences Between Protocols
At present, the ESH-IP validation protocol is the most widely used, followed by the
AAMI/ANSI/ISO standard. There are some substantial differences between these
validation procedures, as described below and shown in Table 5.2. A detailed com-
parison has also been made by Ng [28]. Nevertheless, they both have a common
objective, namely the standardisation of validation procedures to establish mini-
mum standards of accuracy and performance, and to facilitate comparison of one
device with another. With the substantial data available, it is perhaps timely that a
common protocol be developed that will become a world standard.
Passing Requirements
The AAMI/ISO standard requires two criteria to be fulfilled. In Criterion 1, the

mean error of at least 255 measurements must be at most 5 mmHg with a standard
deviation of at most 8 mmHg. In Criterion 2, the mean error of the mean measure-
ments from at least 85 subjects must be at most 5 mmHg and the standard deviation
at most a value to ensure that the mean error on at least 85 % of subjects is within
10 mmHg. (By extension, this definition also means that the expected number of
subjects with average errors within the more commonly accepted error of 5 mmHg
is around 50 %.) A table, showing the acceptable standard deviations for ranges of
mean errors, is provided. For ABPM devices, similar criteria must also be applied
to a further raised-heartrates test.
The ESH-IP protocol provides two sets of cut-off points. The primary set is for
at least 73/99 measurement errors to be within 5 mmHg, at least 87/99 to be within
10 mmHg and at least 96/99 to be within 15 mmHg. The secondary set is for at least
65/99 measurement errors to be within 5 mmHg, at least 81/99 to be within
10 mmHg and at least 95/99 to be within 15 mmHg. Devices must fulfil at least two
of the primary set and all of the secondary set. In addition, in at least 24/33 subjects,
the errors in at least two of the three measurements recorded must be no more than
5 mmHg and there can be no more than 3/33 subjects with errors over 5 mmHg in
all three measurements.
Methodology
The AAMI/ANSI/ISO standard allows simultaneous same-arm comparisons if the

test device inflates to at least 20 mmHg above SBP and deflates to at least 20 mmHg
below DBP at a rate of between 2 and 3 mmHg/s. Otherwise, sequential same-arm
comparisons or simultaneous opposite-arm comparisons must be used. The ESH-IP
protocol stipulates sequential same-arm comparisons in all circumstances.
Table 5.2 Comparison of ESH-IP 2010 [24] and AAMI/ANSI/ISO 81060-2:2013 [14] requirements for noninvasive validation of blood pressure devices
Protocol provision ESH-IP 2010 AAMI/ANSI/ISO 81060-2:2013
Sample demographics
Sample size 33 85+
Age ≥25 years Adult and adolescent >12 years
Adult, adolescent, 35 subjects 3–12 years and
and children 50 + subjects >25 years
Sex ≥10 Male and ≥10 Female ≥30 % Male and ≥30 % Female
Arm 1 cuff No requirements ≥40 % upper ½, ≥40 % lower ½,
circumference ≥20 % upper ¼, ≥20 % lower ¼
n cuffs, n > 1 ≥1/2n subjects/cuff
Methodology
Sequential same arm 7 alternating measurements (4 observer, 3 test device) 7 alternating measurements (4 observer, 3 test device)
Control measurement is average of 4 values
(preceding and succeeding measurements of each
observer)
Control measurement is the nearer on the preceding and Exclude measurement if observer measurements differ
succeeding mean observer measurements to test by >12 mmHg SBP or >8 mmHg DBP from other 2
measurement measurements. (Max. 10 % of subjects; exclude
5 Validation and Reliability Testing of Blood Pressure Monitors
subject if >10 %)
Simultaneous same arm Not permitted Test device: Inflates ≥SBP + 20 mmHg, deflates
≤DBP—20 mmHg, deflation rate 2 mmHg/s to
3 mmHg/s
3 Pairs of measurements
Control measurement is mean observer measurement
Exclude subject if observer measurements differ by
>12 mmHg SBP or >8 mmHg DBP
(continued)
83
Table 5.2 (continued)
84

Simultaneous opposite arm Not permitted 3 Pairs of measurements with test device on left arm
+3 pairs with test device on right arm
Control measurement is mean observer measurement
with lateral arm difference adjustment
Exclude subject if observer measurements on same
arm differ by >12 mmHg SBP or >8 mmHg DBP of if
lateral difference >15 mmHg SBP or >10 mmHg DBP
Recruitment blood pressure
SBP 90–100 mmHga 10–12 ≥1 Initial pressures are recorded on each subject but they
101–129 mmHg are not used in any calculations. Blood pressure
130–160 mmHg 10–12 distribution requirements are based on the reference
control measurements only
161–169 mmHg 10–12
170–180 mmHga ≥1
DBP 40–50 mmHga 10–12 ≥1
51–79 mmHg
80–100 mmHg 10–12
101–119 mmHg 10–12
120–130 mmHga ≥1
Control BP distribution
SBP ≤100 mmHg 22/99–44/99 Max. difference ≤19/99 ≥5 % (13/255)
101–129 mmHg ≤75 % (191/255)
130–139 mmHg 22/99–44/99
140–159 mmHg ≥20 % (51/255)
160 mmHg ≥5 % (13/255)
>160 mmHg 22/99–44/99
N. Atkins and E. O’Brien
DBP ≤60 mmHg 22/99–44/99 Max. difference ≤19/99 ≥5 %
61–79 mmHg ≤75 %
80–84 mmHg 22/99–44/99
85–99 mmHg ≥20 %
100 mmHg ≥5 %
>100 mmHg 22/99–44/99
Passing requirements (SBP and DBP)
ESH-IP Part 1 based on No. of errors ≤5 mmHg ≤10 mmHg ≤15 mmHg
individual ≥2 of ≥73/99 ≥87/99 ≥96/99
measurement All of ≥65/99 ≥81/99 ≥95/99
errors
Part 2 based on No. of ≥2/3 errors 0/3 errors
measurement subjects ≤5 mmHg ≤5 mmHg
errors per subject Both ≥24/33 ≤3/33
81060-2:2013 Criterion 1 based For comparison with ESH-IP, expected error rates within
on individual bands are shown when the mean error is 5 mmHg ± 8 mmHg
measurement ≤5 mmHg ≤10 mmHg ≤15 mmHg Mean error (255 Max. SD
errors measurements)
39.3 % 70.1 % 88.5 % 5 mmHg 8 mmHg
Criterion 2 based Probability of mean subject error within bands, based on Sample mean error and SD combinations that satisfy
on mean subject normal distribution criteria
5 Validation and Reliability Testing of Blood Pressure Monitors
errors such that, ≤5 mmHg ≤10 mmHg ≤15 mmHg Mean error (85 Max. SD
using the normal subject mean BPs)
distribution, the 0.528 0.850 0.969 0 mmHg 6.95 mmHg
probability of a 0.529 0.850 0.969 1 mmHg 6.87 mmHg
mean subject
0.528 0.850 0.969 2 mmHg 6.65 mmHg
error being within
10 mmHg is 0.525 0.850 0.971 3 mmHg 6.25 mmHg
≥0.85. Selected 0.515 0.850 0.974 4 mmHg 5.64 mmHg
examples shown 0.482 0.851 0.982 5 mmHg 4.79 mmHg
Special circumstances
Exercise No requirements Supplementary study using 35 subjects
85
a
Maximum of four instances in total with SBP < 90 mmHg, SBP > 180 mmHg, DBP < 40 mmHg or DBP > 130 mmHg
Recruitment Requirements
For Criterion 1, the AAMI/ISO standard requires 255 measurements to be recorded

in at least 85 subjects, with at most three measurements per subject. For Criterion 2,
85 subjects with at least three measurements per subject are required. This number
of measurements per subject is doubled if the simultaneous opposite-arm methodol-
ogy is used, with each arm being used for half the control and test measurements.
For ABPM devices, a further 35 subjects are required for a validation with raised
heartrates following exercise.
The ESH-IP protocol requires three measurements to be recorded in each of 33
subjects. However, strict requirements generally necessitate several more subjects
to be recruited in order for these to be satisfied.
Pressure-Range Requirements
The ESH-IP protocol requires between 10 and 12 subjects with SBP in the ranges
<130, 130–160 and >160 mmHg; between 10 and 12 subjects with DBP in the
ranges <80, 80–100 and >100 mmHg; a total of at most for subjects with pressures
outside the “ideal” range of 90–180 mmHg for SBP and 40–130 mmHg for DBP
and minimum ranges of 100–170 mmHg for SBP and 50–120 mmHg for DBP. In
addition, the 99 control measurements must not be statistically different from the
ideal 33 measurements in each range; that is each range must contain 22 and 44
measurements and the difference between the range with the highest count and that
with the lowest count cannot exceed 19.
The AAMI/ISO standard requires at least 5 % (13 measurements, requiring at
least five subjects) of reference systolic blood pressures have to be at least
160 mmHg, at least 20 % (51 measurements, requiring at least 17 subjects) at least
140 mmHg and at least 5 % at most 100 mmHg. Similarly, at least 5 % of reference
diastolic blood pressures have to be at least 100 mmHg, at least 20 % at least
85 mmHg and at least 5 % at most 60 mmHg.
Age Distribution Requirements
The ESH-IP protocol requires all subjects to be at least 25 years of age. The AAMI/
ISO standard defines two types of studies based on age. The first is for an adult/
adolescent population defined simply as on persons over the age of 12. The alter-
native population is a combined adult/paediatric population where 35 subjects
must be between the ages of 3 and 12; the remainder (minimum 50) must be over
the age of 12.
Sex Distribution Requirements
Both the ESH-IP protocol and the AAMI/ISO standard are at ad idem requiring a mini-
mum of 30 % (stated as 10/33 in the ESH-IP protocol) male and 30 % female subjects.
Arm Circumference and Cuff Requirements
The ESH-IP protocol does not specify requirements for arm circumference distribu-
tion. The appropriate cuff, as defined by the manufacturer for the respective arm
circumference, must be used.
In the AAMI/ISO standard, where the device has a single cuff, at least 40 %
(minimum 34) of arm circumferences must be in the upper half of the cuff range
with 20 % (minimum 17) in the uppermost quarter of the cuff range and at least
40 % must be in the lower half of the cuff range with 20 % in the lowest quarter of
the cuff range. Where “n” cuffs are supplied (n > 1), each must be tested in at least
1/2n subjects.
Intra-subject Blood Pressure Variability
In the AAMI/ANSI/ISO standard, comparisons, where control determinations dif-

fer by more than 12 mmHg SBP or 8 mmHg DBP, are excluded. Where simultane-
ous comparisons are used, all measurements from the relevant subjects are excluded.
Where sequential same-arm comparisons are used, a single pair of measurements
can be excluded in up to 10 % of subjects, with extra subjects being added to make
up the 255 measurements. Where simultaneous opposite-arm comparisons are used,
subjects are also excluded if their lateral difference is more than 15 mmHg SBP or
10 mmHg DBP.
No determinations are excluded using the ESH-IP protocol. Allowance for high
variability, based on the analysis of data from previous studies, is included in the
passing criteria.
Control Pressures
In both the AAMI/ISO standard and the ESH-IP protocol, the mean observer pres-
sures, where they differ by no more than 4 mmHg, are used as control measure-
ments and are retaken if they differ by more than 4 mmHg.
In the ESH-IP protocol, the nearer control measurement (of those taken either
side of the test measurement) to the test measurement is used.
In the AAMI/ISO standard, the control measurement used is dependent on the

method used. For simultaneous same arm comparisons, there is just one control
measurement. For sequential same-arm comparisons, the mean of the control mea-
surements taken either side of the test measurement is used. For simultaneous
opposite-arm comparisons, the control measurements are used but, in calculating
the errors, a lateral difference (the mean left-arm control measurement subtracted
from the mean right-arm control measurements) is added to the left arm
measurements.
Validation in Special Groups
The AAMI/ISO protocol describes procedures for supplementary validations where

a device is intended to be used in an exercise stress-testing environment, in neonatal
and infant populations or in pregnant (including pre-eclamptic) patient
populations.
Sphygmomanometers have been validated in pregnancy (including normotensive
pregnancy, non-proteinuric hypertension in pregnancy and pre-eclampsia), chil-
dren, children and adolescence, the elderly, the obese, Black women, in the supine
position, before, during and after haemodialysis, in end-stage renal disease, and in
Parkinson’s disease [29].
Where a device is intended for use in a specific population, it should be validated
in that population. Devices intended for clinical use should be validated in at least
three special-group populations. Validation protocols should provide clear instruc-
tions on validation in these groups.
Validation in subjects with arrhythmias continues to be elusive and research is
needed to establish a reliable and effective method to solve this ongoing problem.
Device Equivalence
Manufacturers of blood pressure measuring devices that have been previously vali-
dated successfully for accuracy may make modifications to a device, which do not
affect its measurement accuracy and should not require further validation [30].
These “modifications” tend to fall into three categories: (1) Manufacturers provide
a “family” of devices around the same measuring technology, differing only in the
“extras” provided; (2) Manufacturers produce a device in different languages; (3)
OEM manufacturers provide devices to several OBL manufacturers using the same
measuring technology.
Equivalence is a scientific comparison of an applicant device against a device
which has undergone, and passed, a formal validation. All features are compared.
Critical features, upon which measurement is dependent, should not differ and
include: the algorithm for oscillometric measurements, the algorithm for auscultatory
measurements, artefact and error detection, microphones, the pressure transducer, the
cuff and bladder, the inflation mechanism and the deflation mechanism.
Differences are permitted in items not critical to blood pressure measurement,
which include: the model name and number, the device casing, the display layout,
any carrying or mounting facilities, software other than the pressure detection algo-
rithm, memory capacity and the number of stored measurements, printing facilities,
communication facilities and power supply.
Manufacturers are obliged to provide sufficient evidence to prove equivalence.
Since the procedure was first described in 2006, there have been regularity
changes that have had an impact on how the procedure must be performed. In par-
ticular, IEC 80601-2-30:2009 requires that all devices include rated pressure ranges
and technical alarm conditions (measurements outside the rated range that are
deemed technical errors). This ruling does not affect algorithms relating to the
detection of blood pressure, but it does impact how the detected pressures are
treated, as those that outside the rated range must be treated as error readings.
Therefore, it is essential that these conditions are considered in equivalence checks.
It is necessary to record that some equivalence procedures performed by the dabl
Educational Trust have recently approved devices in which there may have been
differences in pressure transducers and/or cuffs, [29] whereas it is an essential
requirement of the equivalence process that the transducers or cuffs are themselves
proved to be equivalent.
Validation Quality
In a critical review of 69 studies carried out using the ESH-IP 2002 protocol [20],
23 (33.3 %) were found to have protocol violations, with eight (11.6 %) of these
having major violations [25]. Given that ease of compliance was a major consider-
ation in the design of this protocol, it is reasonable to hypothesise that validations
according to other protocols contain at least the same rate of violations. Indeed, it is
not hard to find validations according to AAMI/ISO protocols not showing Criterion
2 results. Validations according to the BHS protocol rarely carry out the first three
phases and recruitment violations are common.
This raises serious questions about the quality of peer review of validation stud-
ies. In theory, these reviews should be straightforward, essentially ensuring that the
studies follow a checklist of requirements. The approval of devices where the pro-
tocol has not been followed or where there is inadequate detail is incorrect. Where
details are omitted, it is not possible to know whether this was inadvertent or delib-
erate. This leads to further problems if the papers are not recognised subsequently
as sufficient evidence of accuracy.
One of the difficulties in ensuring compliance is the concept that “minor viola-
tions” are acceptable. For instance, in the ESH-IP 2010 protocol, a fifth subject
outside the ideal range or a maximum or minimum pressure requirement being shy
of the mark. The problem is that protocols already include the statistically allowable
deviations and, while in certain circumstances, minor violations might not affect the
results, in others they will. Therefore, they are often “justified by the results”. The
corollary of this is that the violation will only be corrected if they cannot be “justi-
fied by the results”. This, of course, is simply a form of bias.
The ESH-IP 2010 protocol [24] provides for strict requirements and reporting.
Many of the studies have carried out using the dabl Educational Trust ESH-IP 2010
Online Service [29], which guarantees protocol adherence. Future protocols should
provide a strict report format or checklist and, perhaps, this should be supplied
along with papers when being sent for peer review.
Validation Centres
In 2010, Turner highlighted a major weakness of the current validation process,

namely reliance on peer-reviewed publications alone without formal certification of
the centres performing validation studies, as is common practice with other mea-
surement systems [31]. He called for formal accreditation of laboratories. The pro-
cess would be overseen by independent agencies, such as the United Kingdom
Accreditation Service, a not-for-profit organisation funded by accredited laborato-
ries, which is answerable to the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in
Paris, France, the peak laboratory in the international measurement framework of
cooperating national and commercial laboratories that provide reference standards
and traceable calibration for all scientific, industrial and trade measurements
worldwide.
In 2010, O’Brien and Stergiou, in an article entitled ‘Who will bell the cat?’
noted that “This process of accreditation is complex and presumably costly. The
technicians, nurses and doctors involved in validation must receive specialised
training; the test measurement system must be calibrated traceably, according to an
international standard [32]; the laboratory must be shown to operate a quality system
conforming to international standards [33] and accredited laboratories would be
required to participate in inter-laboratory comparisons.” These authors went on:
“The process detailed by Turner raises important questions that need to be consid-
ered carefully. Will the proposed accreditation process lead to more BP measuring
devices being validated or could it have the effect of making the accreditation of
validation laboratories so unworkable and expensive as to be counter-productive?
How can the process be implemented taking into consideration the fact that BP
device validation studies have previously been considered akin to research projects
that have been conducted on a voluntary basis? How much will the proposed pro-
cess add to the cost of device validation and who will pay?” [22].
The BHS has established a system for training and for accrediting laboratories
for device validation by ensuring that certain minimum criteria apply [34].
The issues raised by Turner need to be considered and integrated into the device
validation procedure. A creditable accreditation procedure is fundamental to ensur-
ing confidence in the quality of validation studies. Ideally, there should be no direct
links between validation centres and manufacturers. Direct employment of investi-

gators by manufacturers introduces an unhealthy relationship whereby investigators
may be reluctant to fail a device, or to allow the results of failures to be published,
for fear of loss of future business.
Manufacturers requiring validation on a device should approach an independent
authority who would allocate the validation to an accredited centre that would remain
blind to the manufacturer until the study was completed. If a device was already on
the market, the independent authority would always publish the results. If the device
was validated prior to release, the manufacturers would be provided with the results
first and, in the event the device failed, be provided with the opportunity to fix the
problem and to have it validated again prior to release. Manufacturers who endeav-
our to produce only high-quality validated devices should not be penalised by the
publication of failed validations when they do not supply those devices for use.
Practical Aspects of Validation
Blinding Process
It is critical that, in all validations, observers are blinded to each-other’s readings. A

method of blinding was described in relation to observer training in the 1990 BHS
protocol [15], the 1993 BHS protocol [17] and the 2002 ESH-IP [20]. These descrip-
tions, with accompanying diagrams, show the importance of separating observers
by means of partitions. The descriptions in these papers refer to observer training;
an adaptation of the method, for use during the validation procedure, is described in
the appendix at the foot of this chapter.
The Sphygmocorder
Though the sphygmocorder was first described 20 years ago [35] and has had a
number of updated descriptions incorporating changes in technology [36, 37], it
never gained any popularity in device validation. The most recent version has under-
gone several modifications and is currently being subjected to rigorous testing. With
endorsement from organisations, such as the IEEE [38], it is hoped that its use will
eventually become the norm in sphygmomanometer validation.
The fundamental principal behind the sphygmocorder is the ability to record
both the audio and barometric parameters during a blood pressure measurement,
which enables replaying as often as required, a facility that is particularly useful
with low Korotkov sounds, especially between K4 and K5. As the records can be
reassessed, by independent arbitrators, bias can be effectively removed. The require-
ment to retake measurements due to observer differences is also removed.
Both audio and barometric waveforms can be shown visually together, thereby
greatly assisting accurate measurement. The technique also ensures a complete and
comprehensive record of the study.
The setting required for a study using the sphygmocorder is far simpler. As the
sphygmocorder effectively replaces the observers, there is no need for the observers
to be present at the time of the recording and there is no need for separate booths. In
the pneumatic system, the sphygmocorder replaces all of the mercury manometers
with the air-hose connected appropriately. In the auscultatory system, the diaphragm
section, containing a microphone, is connected to the sphygmomanometer and
headphones replace the stethoscope headsets.
Observers can review the measurements later, replaying them, as required, to
ensure they are recorded accurately. Where observers differ, an independent arbitra-
tor can also assess the measurements. Other features are also possible, such as ran-
domising the recordings so that measurements from the same subject are separated
from each other and including a random sample of the measurements twice, to
reduce bias and to provide reliability and consistency checks.
The use of the sphygmocorder minimises observer error, which subsequently
minimises the consideration of this error in the passing criteria which become more
stringent as a consequence. This in turn can ensure that devices are validated even-
tually to the highest standards possible.
Manufacturer Compliance
While many manufacturers prioritise device validation in the development of new

devices, there are several who make no effort at all in this regard. Regularity require-
ments ensuring the safety of a device can be assumed by consumers to include their
validity. Validation is an expensive process adding to the cost of development and
therefore on the cost of a device to consumers.
Even the term “manufacturer” is confusing and can refer to sole manufacturers,
contract manufacturers, original design manufacturers, original equipment manu-
facturers, regulatory manufacturers, own brand labellers and even distributers. The
confusion is compounded by the use of device brands and trademarks that are often
difficult to distinguish from manufacturers. Own brand labellers frequently source
devices from different original equipment manufacturers. Indeed, the actual maker
of a device does not always appear in any of the manuals and the role of the manu-
facturer shown may be no more than to source devices and provide the makers with
labelling decal details.
Many of these devices are sold without any validations and may have labels
familiar to the target consumers and with which the consumers assume quality. It is
therefore important that a manufacturer grading system is developed. This is desir-
able for consumers so that they are provided with evidence-based information on
the devices they are considering to purchase. It is also important for compliant man-
ufacturers that their brands are associated with approved devices.
Consumer Awareness
Availability of Information at Present
It is now expected that all information is provided on-line. It is the first and, for
most, the only place consumers seek information. While other sources, such a pro-
fessional recommendation, also play a factor, consumers are fully aware that these
are more limited. However, on-line information also brings with it the issue of vol-
ume and dispersion.
Sites, such as www.dableducational.org [29], provide information on the accu-
racy of hundreds of blood pressure devices. However, information on the devices
themselves must be sought elsewhere. Manufacturers provide this information, but
the quality varies considerably. On-line retail sources provide pricing information,
some also with details on the devices. Naturally much of this information is pro-
vided with an advertising agenda, rather than from a purely objective perspective.
While professional organisations can afford to research possible options, it is
difficult, particularly for home consumers, and the amount of information can be
more bewildering than informative. It is likely that many give up on this process
entirely and simply seek advice from the local outlet, where the concept of whether
or not a device is validated is unlikely to have penetrated.
Where a consumer seeks information about a device that has not been validated,
there is no trigger to alert the consumer. There are hundreds non-validated devices
available and consumers can easily spend considerable time researching devices,
particularly in non-English sites, without ever coming across accuracy or validation
requirements.
Requirements for On-line Information
For on-line information to be successful, and useful, there must be a single site, which
provides comprehensive information on devices currently available. This must include
information on the validity of each device, in particular it should state when a device
has not been validated independently—this is not available anywhere at present.
The information should include a set of device features and an ability to compare
a number of selected devices. The countries where the devices are available should
also be provided. At the very least, consumers should be able to compare a device
on sale at their local supplier on an independent site and check its validity.
Full manufacturer details for each device should be provided along with statis-
tics, for each manufacturer, that provides information to the user on the number and
percentage of its devices that are validated.
The site should be provided in languages other than English and should be written
in simple sentences. This not only makes it easier to understand by all readers, but
also makes it more suitable for accurate translation by on-line translation services.
Apps
Apps can provide a facility for accessing information in a manner more suitable for
mobile phones. Other features can be added, such as scanning a bar code to access
the information. However, there are two major drawbacks with apps. The first is that
separate versions have to be written for each operating system and the second is that
there are so many apps available users have become very selective in downloading
only those apps that they expect to use regularly. Given that BP monitor purchase
decisions are irregular events, it is unlikely that users will want to download an app.
Therefore, a well-written mobile-friendly website is probably the most effective
approach.
Increasing Awareness
The accuracy of blood pressure devices (and many other medical devices), which
was once the responsibility of hospitals and health care professionals, is now a mat-
ter of considerable concern for home users of measuring devices and presents chal-
lenges to the medical community that have not yet been acknowledged.
There are several consumer factors to consider. Concerns of health issues in
general can vary from obsession to obliviousness. Knowledge of diagnosed ill-
nesses can range from minimal to total trust in a practitioner. Access to on-line
information can range from none to efficient and, the ability to use the information
supplied can vary considerably. The ability to understand information presented,
both medical and technological, can be influenced by the language used and the
understanding of terminology. Age and mental ability correlate strongly with all of
these and, of course, location, education and financial circumstances can be con-
founding factors.
The quality of the information itself can be difficult to assess. Misinformation
and advertising can often mislead. Different regulatory and organisational approval
markings are not always clear as to what exactly is approved. Even the best scien-
tific validation studies have an element of chance and are not always correct.
One simple method of increasing awareness is to establish a single mark of
approval, showing that a device has been validated to an agreed standard that is
acceptable to the main standard organisations and hypertension societies. This mark
of approval can then be advertised, not only on the web but also in clinics, pharma-
cies and any outlet selling blood pressure monitors and on the media, particularly,
for instance, on World Hypertension Day. Regardless of the complexity and diver-
sity of the consumers, devices and information, the fundamental message of whether
or not a device has been proven to be accurate can be conveyed with a simple uni-
versal mark of approval.
Device Reliability
Validation invariably occurs at the beginning of a new line of production. None of the
current protocols makes any reference to reliability; in other words, for how long the
device is expected to work. In essence, the validation applies indefinitely. For moni-
tors used in the home, this is perhaps not unreasonable, as their frequency of use is
likely to be low in comparison to failure tests such as required by IEC 60601-1 [39].
Technological advances tend towards disposability and devices are no longer
serviced and are destined to a short shelf life, being discontinued after a relatively
short time and usually without notice to consumers.
Devices used in clinic settings however, especially ABPM monitors, are often
used for well over a decade. However, these generally require regular return for
maintenance and calibration, which provides protection against loss of accuracy.
Moreover, devices that are supplied for long periods may undergo difficulties in the
acquisition of certain electronic parts that are no longer produced and alternative
replacements may require software changes. Such changes are effectively device
changes that are not always publicised by manufacturers. This issue was identified
as far back as the 1993 BHS protocol: “When manufacturers incorporate modifica-
tions into externally identical or indistinguishable versions of a device, this should
be indicated clearly by a specific device number and full details concerning how the
device differs from earlier versions should be provided. In particular, the probable
effect of all such modifications on the performance and accuracy of the device
should be stated. Updated and modified devices must be subjected to full indepen-
dent validation” [17]. Without data, it is difficult to justify or eliminate the need for
re-validation or to determine when such a re-evaluation should occur.
However, it is reasonable to impose a limit on a device for equivalence purposes.
Firstly, it is likely that the family of devices based on a particular technology is devel-
oped within a short time-frame, either together or in the immediate aftermath of a
successful validation. Secondly, it is unlikely that the same technologies are used in
new devices developed after a number of years. Thirdly, the incorporation of new
technologies should be encouraged and manufacturers should not use older technolo-
gies merely to enable a device to be validated by equivalence. Nevertheless, there is
a special case where devices are identical except for the branding and it clearly does
not make sense to approve a device under one brand but not under another. It there-
fore seems reasonable to allow a device to be available for equivalence for 4 years
from the date of approval of a full validation, except in the case where the applicant
device is identical to the validated device, where there would be no limit.
Protocol Harmonisation
Ng identifies differences between the ISO [13] and ESH-IP [24] protocols in refer-
ence devices and methods, sample size, blood pressure levels and distribution, arm
circumference and cuff sizes, procedures for recording and pairing measurements,
criteria for excluding/handling subjects with high BP fluctuations, accuracy criteria

and statistical methods and provisions for special populations and circumstances
that need to be resolved in order to develop a harmonised protocol [28]. He also
notes that provisions for monitors that require patient-specific calibration, as
required by many of the newer measurement techniques, are not catered for at all in
any protocol and provides reasoned analysis showing how aspects from both proto-
cols could form the basis for harmonisation.
At present, both the differences in the protocols and in their recognition make it
difficult and unnecessarily expensive for manufacturers to achieve compliance.
Fundamentally, the aim of all the protocols is identical. They all include some com-
promise in order to balance an unworkable ideal and a practical solution.
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, there was little data available. Indeed, the concept
of standard validation protocols was revolutionary. Therefore, the idea of two pro-
tocols with different but statistically valid approaches was, scientifically, the correct
and best approach. However, the concept of reconciliation was always the intention
[40]. Yet, more ideas needed to be tested. The BHS protocol essentially evolved into
the ESH-IP protocols and the AAMI standards also evolved. While, on one hand,
they appear to have become more divergent in these changes, in reality they have
complemented each other refining different compromises. The very fact that they
have evolved, based on data and reports on studies that have used them, is a recogni-
tion that they are not perfect.
There is also now substantial data available to test protocols and upon which to
generate models for Monte-Carlo simulation of new protocols [41]. It is time, there-
fore, for the experts behind each of the protocols to use the substantial experience,
knowledge and data gained to develop a joint protocol that will not only serve the
validation of blood pressure monitors, but a basis upon which protocols for the vali-
dation of other medical devices can be based.
The Future
Despite improvements in technology, the standard method of blood pressure mea-

surement has essentially changed little in over a century. The vast majority of
devices require a cuff to occlude either a brachial or radial artery. Non-occlusive
methods of measuring blood pressure, such as pulse wave velocity [42], applanation
tonometry [43], and photoplethysmography [44], have been described for some
time. With the drive to develop new wearable devices, it is inevitable that new tech-
nologies for blood pressure measurement will also be developed.
One of the challenges in the future will be the development of a suitable “gold
standard”. The current auscultation method is flawed, but has become the reference
standard for diagnosis and treatment. As technologies improve and as more is learnt
about the reasons for differences between central aortic pressure and brachial pres-
sure, the use of this method as a reference will become harder to justify. Even with
algorithms to modify results from new technologies to align with current reference
methods, there will come a time when it will be clear that this will not be correct.
Conclusion
The validation of blood pressure monitors has come a long way since the inception
of standard protocols in the late 1980s. The information gained has provided a plat-
form upon which a unified protocol can now be developed at a time where techno-
logical development is at a stage to allow passing criteria to be based on medical
considerations only. Such a protocol can also serve as a template upon which proto-
cols for the validation of other medical devices can also be based.
It is also incumbent on the medical profession to ensure that this information is
provided to all consumers, from home users to hospital procurement decision mak-
ers, and also to providers. It is essential to increase awareness of the importance of
using validated devices and to provide an easily identifiable means of checking
whether or not a device is validated to a recognised standard.
Blood pressure monitoring at home or using ABPM is now accepted as manda-
tory for the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. Remote expert assessment and
self-regulation of treatment may become more commonplace in order to optimise
efficacy, to minimise side-effects, and to reduce the effect of geographic location on
the access to quality management of hypertension.
Underpinning all of this is the need for accurate measurement. All stakeholders,
manufacturers, suppliers, medical professionals, validation investigators, regulatory
authorities and consumers must appreciate the importance of accurate devices and
the need for a methodology that is practical and robust to ensure that accuracy. As
we enter an age of measurement of many cardiovascular parameters, the time has
surely come to consolidate experience, knowledge and technology to make the most
important haemodynamic measurement—blood pressure—accurate and reliable,
thereby not only benefitting the millions of patients world-wide who suffer from
hypertension, but also establishing a process for the evaluation of other measuring
technologies.
Appendix: Observer Blinding During Validation Procedure
This appendix provides a generalised description of the observer blinding procedure

required during validation. It is an adaptation of the method described for observer
training in the 1990 BHS protocol [15], the 1993 BHS protocol [17] and the 2002
ESH-IP [20].
Observer Isolation
The observers and supervisor are seated at a bench fitted with partitions so that each
is isolated from each other in a “booth”. It must not be possible for an observer to
have any indication of any blood pressure measurement other than by viewing his/
her mercury column and listening with his/her own headset.
Booth Contents
The only objects in the observer booths are a mercury column (or other reference
device), a stethoscope headset, two pens (one spare) and prepared forms to write
down the observed measurements.
The supervisor booth will have space for both the supervisor and the subject. It
will contain a mercury column (or other reference device), a full stethoscope, cuffs,
an inflation bulb, the test device, two pens (one spare) and prepared forms.
The Pneumatic System
For sequential same-arm measurements and simultaneous opposite-arm measure-

ments, all of the mercury columns and inflation bulb and a facility to connect a cuff
are appropriate to the subject. This will not be a cuff supplied with the test device.
For simultaneous same-arm measurements, all of the mercury columns are con-
nected to the device pneumatic system. The cuff used will be the appropriate cuff
for the subject as supplied with the test device.
The system must be closed, and regardless of whether inflation and deflation are
controlled by a bulb or by the test device, the system must be calibrated to test for
air leaks and for stability.
The Auscultatory System
All of the stethoscope headsets must be connected to the one diaphragm. The
lengths of tubing to each of the observer headsets must be the same. The system
must be tested to ensure that Korotkov sounds are audible clearly on each headset.
Subject Forms
For the ESH-IP, supervisors must use the Subject Form as published. A similar form
should be prepared, containing spaces for all subject details required, including
observer measurements, for validations carried out according to the AAMI/ANSI/
ISO standard.
Observer forms must contain a space for the subject number, spaces for the mea-
surements and possible repeat measurements. For example, for the ESH-IP proto-
col, observers will record measurements A, 1, 3, 5 and 7; for the AAMI/ANSI/ISO
standard with simultaneous same-arm measurements, observers will record an entry
measurement and measurements 1, 2 and 3.
Procedure for Each Subject
After each observer reading, the supervisor checks the observers’ readings and, if
they differ by at most 4 mmHg for both SBP and DBP, the supervisor simply states
“OK” and continues. If not, the supervisor simply states “Repeat measurement n”,
n being the number of the respective measurement. If there are three consecutive
repeat measurement or mmm repeat measurements on the same subject, the supervi-
sor simply states “OK” but the subject is excluded.
When the all measurements have been completed on the subject, the supervisor
collects the forms and enters the observer measurements on the supervisor form.
The forms are stapled together, in the order of Supervisor, Observer 1 and Observer
2. After entry into a computer, they are stored as evidence.
References
1. O’Brien E, Fitzgerald D. The history of indirect blood pressure measurement. In: O’Brien E,
O’Malley K, Birkenhager WH, Reid JL, editors. Blood pressure measurement. Handbook of
hypertension. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1991. p. 1–54.
2. Fitzgerald D, O’Callaghan W, O’Malley K, O’Brien E. Inaccuracy of the London School of
Hygiene Sphygmomanometer. Br Med J. 1982;284:18–9.
3. O’Brien E, Mee F, Atkins N, O’Malley K. Inaccuracy of the Hawksley random-zero sphygmo-
manometer. Lancet. 1990;336:1465–8.
4. Fitzgerald D, O’Callaghan WG, McQuaid R, O’Malley K, O’Brien E. Accuracy and reliability
of two ambulatory blood pressure recorders: Remler M 2000 and cardiodyne sphygmology. Br
Heart J. 1982;48:572–9.
5. O’Brien E, Mee F, Atkins N, O’Malley K. Keep blood pressure Down. WHICH? Magazine.
August 1989. p. 372–5.
6. O’Brien E, Mee F, Atkins N, O’Malley K. Inaccuracy of seven popular sphygmomanometers
for home-measurement of blood pressure. J Hypertens. 1990;8:621–34.
7. O’Brien E, O’Malley K, Sheridan J. The need for a standardized protocol for validating nonin-
vasive ambulatory blood pressure measuring devices. J Hypertens. 1989;7 (suppl 3):S19–20.
8. American National Standards Institute, Association for the Advancement of Medical
Instrumentation. ANSI/AAMI SP10-1987, Electronic or automated sphygmomanometers.
Arlington: AAMI; 1987.
Instrumentation. ANSI/AAMI SP10-1992, electronic or automated sphygmomanometers.
Arlington: AAMI; 1993.
10. American National Standards Institute, ANSI/AAMI SP10-1992/A1, Association for the
Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. American National Standard. Electronic or auto-
mated sphygmomanometers. Arlington: AAMI; 1996.
Instrumentation. ANSI/AAMI SP10-2002 & SP10-2002/A1, Manual, electronic or automated
sphygmomanometers. Arlington: AAMI; 2003.
12. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, American National Standards
Institute, International Organization for Standardization. AAMI/ANSI/ISO 81060-1:2007/
(R)2013, Non-invasive sphygmomanometers—Part 1: Requirements and test methods for non-
automated measurement type. Geneva: AAMI; 2007.
Instrumentation, International Electrotechnical Commission. ANSI/AAMI/IEC 80601-2-
30:2009 & A1:2013, Medical electrical equipment—Part 2-30: Particular requirements for
basic safety and essential performance of automated type non-invasive sphygmomanometers
and Amendment 1. Geneva: IEC Central Office; 2009.
14. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, American National Standards
Institute, International Organization for Standardization. AAMI/ANSI/ISO 81060-2:2013,
non-invasive sphygmomanometers—Part 2: Clinical investigation of automated measurement
type. Geneva: AAMI; 2013.
15. O’Brien E, Petrie L, Littler WA, et al. British Hypertension Protocol: Evaluation of automated
and semi-automated blood pressure measuring devices with special reference to ambulatory
systems. J Hypertens. 1990;8:607–19.
16. Atkins N, O’Brien E, Mee F, O’Malley K. The relative accuracy of simultaneous same arm,
simultaneous opposite arm and sequential same arm measurements in the validation of auto-
mated blood pressure measuring devices. J Hum Hypertens. 1990;4:647–9.
17. O’Brien E, Petrie J, Littler WA, et al. The British Hypertension Society Protocol for the evalu-
ation of blood pressure measuring devices. J Hypertens. 1993;11 (suppl 2):S43–63.
18. O’Brien E, Mee F, Atkins N, O’Malley K, Tan S. Training and assessment of observers for
blood pressure measurement in hypertension research. J Hum Hypertens. 1991;5:7–10.
19. Jamieson M, Petrie J, O'Brien E, Padfield P, Littler WA, De Swiet M. Blood Pressure
Measurement. London: Video for the British Hypertension Society, distributed by British
Medical Journal Publications; 1989.
20. O’Brien E, Pickering T, Asmar R, on behalf of the Working Group on Blood Pressure
Monitoring of the European Society of Hypertension, et al. International protocol for valida-
tion of blood pressure measuring devices in adults. Blood Press Monit. 2002;7:3–17.
21. O’Brien E, Atkins N. Validation and reliability of blood pressure monitors. In: White W, editor.
Blood pressure monitoring in cardiovascular medicine and therapeutics. Totowa: Humana;
2007. p. 97–132.
22. O’Brien E, Stergiou G. Who will bell the cat? A call for a new approach for validating blood
pressure measuring devices. J Hypertens. 2010;28:2378–81.
23. Gerin W, Schwartz AR, Schwartz JE, et al. Limitations of current validation protocols for
home blood pressure monitors for individual patients. Blood Press Monit. 2002;7:313–8.
24. O’Brien E, Atkins N, Stergiou G, on behalf of the Working Group on Blood Pressure
Monitoring of the European Society of Hypertension, et al. European Society of Hypertension
International Protocol for the validation of blood pressure measuring devices in adults: 2010
revision. Blood Press Monit. 2010;15:23–38.
25. Stergiou G, Karpettas N, Atkins N, O’Brien E. European Society of Hypertension International
Protocol for the validation of blood pressure monitors: A critical review of its application and
rationale for revision. Blood Press Monit. 2010;15:39–48.
26. Keary L, Atkins N, O’Brien E. Terminal digit preference and heaping in blood pressure mea-
surement. J Hum Hypertens. 1998;12:787–8.
27. Stergiou GS, Karpettas N, Atkins N, O’Brien E. Impact of applying the more stringent valida-
tion criteria of the revised European Society of Hypertension International Protocol 2010 on
earlier validation studies. Blood Press Monit. 2011;16:67–73.
28. Ng KG. Clinical validation protocols for noninvasive blood pressure monitors and their recog-
nition by regulatory authorities and professional organizations: rationale and considerations
for a single unified protocol or standard. Blood Press Monit. 2013;18(5):282–9. doi:10.1097/
MBP.0b013e3283624b3b.
29. dabl Educational Trust [Internet]. Dublin: dabl Educational Trust; 2006 [Updated 2015 Feb 19;
Cited 2015 Mar 9] Available from: www.dableducational.org.
30. Atkins N, O’Brien E. The dabl®Educational Trust device equivalence procedure. Blood Press
Monit. 2007;12:245–9.
31. Turner MJ. Can we trust automatic sphygmomanometer validations? J Hypertens. 2010;
28:2353–6.
32. International Organization for Standardization, International Electrotechnical Commission.

ISO/IEC 17025:2005, General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration
laboratories. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO; 2005.
33. International Organization for Standardization, International Electrotechnical Commission.
ISO/IEC 9001:2008, Quality management systems—requirements. Geneva, Switzerland:
ISO; 2008.
34. Caulfield M, Heagerty T, Ian Wilkinson I, et al on behalf of the BHS Strategic Review Group.
British Hypertension Society Strategic Review 2010-2016 [Internet]. Leicester, UK: BHS;
2009. 20 p. [Cited 2015 Mar 19] Available from: www.bhsoc.org/pdfs/BHS%20Strategic%20
Review%202009.pdf.
35. O’Brien E, Atkins N, Mee F, Coyle D, Syed S. A new audio-visual technique for recording
blood pressure in research: the Sphygmocorder. J Hypertens. 1995;13:1734–7.
36. Atkins N, O’Brien E, Wesseling KH, Guelen I. Increasing observer objectivity with audio-
visual technology: the Sphygmocorder. Blood Press Monit. 1997;2:269–72.
37. Lee J, Park D, Oh H, Kim I, Shen D, Chee Y. Digital recording system of sphygmomanome-
try. Blood Press Monit. 2009;14(2):77–81. doi:10.1097/MBP.0b013e3283262f45.
38. IEEE Xplore Digital Library. P1708/D02, Aug 2013—IEEE Draft Standard for Wearable
Cuffless Blood Pressure Measuring Devices [Internet]. New York: Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers [Cited 2015 Mar 12] Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/
login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6626346&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2FielD%2F
6626344%2F6626345%2F06626346
39. International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 60601-1, Medical electrical equipment—
Part 1: General requirements for basic safety and essential performance. 3rd ed. Geneva,
Switzerland: IEC Central Office; 2005.
40. O’Brien E, Atkins N. A comparison of the BHS and AAMI protocols for validating blood
pressure measuring devices: can the two be reconciled? J Hypertens. 1994;12:1089–94.
41. Metropolis N, Ulam S. The Monte Carlo method. J Am Stat Assoc. 1949;44:335–41.
doi:10.2307/2280232.
42. Lu W, Li H, Tao S, et al. Research on the main elements influencing blood pressure measure-
ment by pulse wave velocity. Front Med Biol Eng. 1992;4(3):189–99.
43. Siebenhofer A, Kemp C, Sutton A, Williams B. The reproducibility of central aortic blood
pressure measurements in healthy subjects using applanation tonometry and sphygmocar-
diography. J Hum Hypertens. 1999;13(9):625–9.
44. Laurent C, Jönsson B, Vegfors M, Lindberg LG. Non-invasive measurement of systolic blood
pressure on the arm utilizing photoplethysmography: development of the methodology. Med
Biol Eng Comput. 2005;43:131–5.
Part II
Concepts in the Circadian Variation
of Cardiovascular Disease
Chapter 6
Circadian and Cyclic Environmental
Determinants of Blood Pressure Patterning
and Implications for Therapeutic
Interventions
Michael H. Smolensky, Francesco Portaluppi, and Ramón C. Hermida
Abbreviations
ABPM Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

ACE Angiotensin converting enzyme
ACEIs Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor medications
ACTH Adrenocorticotropic hormone
ANG II Angiotensin II
ANP Atrial natriuretic peptide
ANS Autonomic nervous system
ARBs Angiotensin receptor blocker medications
AT1 receptor Angiotensin type-1 receptor
BP Blood pressure
BTCT Bedtime chronotherapy: full dose of one or more hypertension
medications ingested at bedtime
CCBs Calcium-channel blocker medications
cGMP Cyclic guanosine monophosphate
CGRP Calcitonin gene-related peptide
Cl Chloride
M.H. Smolensky, Ph.D. (*)

Department of Biomedical Engineering, Cockrell School of Engineering, The University of
Texas at Austin, 107 W. Dean Keaton St., Austin, TX 78712-0238, USA
URL: http://[email protected]
F. Portaluppi, M.D., Ph.D.
Hypertension Center, S. Anna University Hospital, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
R.C. Hermida, Ph.D.
Bioengineering and Chronobiology Laboratories, Atlantic Research Center for Information
and Communication Technologies (AtlantTIC), University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-22771-9_6
106 M.H. Smolensky et al.
CMTT Conventional morning time therapy: full dose of one or more

hypertension medications ingested upon morning awakening
CO Cardiac output
CRH Corticotropin-releasing hormone
CV Cardiovascular
DBP Diastolic blood pressure
EEG Electroencephalography
ET-1 Endothelin 1
FMD Brachial artery flow-mediated endothelium-dependent vasodilatation
GFR Glomerular filtration rate
h Hour
HOPE Heart outcomes prevention evaluation trial
HPAA Hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis
HPTA Hypothalamic–pituitary–thyroid axis
HR Hazard ratio
ipRGC Intrinsic photoreceptive retinal ganglion cells
K Potassium
MAPEC trial Monitorización Ambulatoria para Predicción de Eventos
Cardiovasculares (English: Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring
for prediction of cardiovascular events)
min Minutes
MTCT Morning-time conventional therapy
Na Sodium
NO Nitric oxide
NREM Non-rapid eye movement sleep
PRA Plasma renin activity
RAAS Renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system
REM Rapid eye movement sleep
SBP Systolic blood pressure
SCN Suprachiasmatic nuclei
s Seconds
SNS Sympathetic nervous system
TPR Vascular total peripheral resistance
TRH Thyrotropin-releasing hormone
TSH Thyroid stimulating hormone
Ultradian Oscillations with period less than 20 h
Introduction
The systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) 24 h pattern typical of diur-
nally active normotensive and uncomplicated hypertensive persons is characterized
by: (1) striking morning-time BP rise, (2) two daytime peaks—the first 2–3 h after
awakening and the second early evening, (3) small mid-afternoon nadir, and (4)
10–20 % decline during sleep relative to the daytime mean, with greater
6 Circadian and Cyclic Environmental Determinants of Blood Pressure Patterning… 107
nyctohemeral variation in SBP than DBP [1]. Such BP temporal variation also is
substantiated, although often of diminished amplitude, in recumbent normotensive
and hypertensive individuals [2, 3] and males and females with fixed heart rate [4].
The importance of cyclic 24 h environmental factors, such as temperature and noise,
plus behavioral factors, such as food, liquid, salt, and stimulant consumption, pos-
ture, mental stress, and physical activity, is well established [5–9]; nonetheless,
there is substantial evidence that various biological rhythms also play a critical role
(Table 6.1). This chapter addresses the contribution of innate circadian determinants
Table 6.1 Contribution of exogenous environmental 24 h cycles and innate circadian rhythms to
the typical nyctohemeral blood pressure pattern of most normotensive and uncomplicated
hypertensive persons
Exogenous day–night cycles
• Light: bright daytime/dark nighttime
• Sound: noisy daytime/quiet nighttime
• Posture: erect daytime/supine nighttime
• Physical activity and exertion: high daytime/low or nil nighttime
• Arousal, mental, and emotional stress: high daytime/nil nighttime
• Eating behavior: primarily daytime/none or nil nighttime
• Salt and water consumption: primarily daytime/none or nil nighttime
• Caffeine and other stimulant consumption: daytime/none or nil nighttime
Endogenous circadian rhythms
• Plasma melatonin concentration: nil or none daytime/elevated nighttime
• SNSa: dominant daytime/suppressed, except during REM sleep, nighttime
• Vagal tone: reduced daytime/dominant nighttime
• Plasma active noradrenaline and adrenaline concentration: elevation before morning
awakening and peaking late morning or afternoon/nighttime trough
• Vasoconstriction: predominates daytime/vasodilatation predominates nighttime
• Vascular TPRa: increased markedly on morning awakening/decreased early in nighttime sleep,
but increased there after during sleep
• α2 and β2-adrengeric receptors: up-regulated morning/normal or down-regulated afternoon and
nighttime
• Baroreflex response: up-regulated morning/down-regulated nighttime
• HRa and COa: elevated during morning and daytime/reduced during nighttime sleep
• Peripheral capillary and arteriovenous-anastomoses blood flow: enhanced before and on
nighttime sleep onset/reduced on morning-time sleep offset
• Plasma cortisol: highest in morning/lowest or nil nighttime
• RAASa: activated during middle to late nighttime sleep span/down-regulated late evening and
early sleep
• PRAa and ACE activitya and Ang IIa, and aldosterone concentration: significantly elevated late
sleep and morning/reduced evening and early sleep
• GFRa and NAa, Ka, Cla, and H2Oa diuresis: elevated daytime, peaking in afternoon/depressed
nighttime
• ANPa and CGRPa plasma concentrations: highest during nighttime sleep/lowest afternoon or
early evening
(continued)

• Plasma NOa concentration: lowest on morning awakening/highest early evening
• Plasma ET-1a concentration: first peak on morning awakening and second peak 12 h later/
lowest early evening
• BPa regulating-natriuresis mechanism: down-regulated daytime/up-regulated nighttime
a
SNS sympathetic nervous system, TPR total peripheral resistance, HR heart rate, CO cardiac out-
put, RAAS renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system, ACE angiotensin converting enzyme, GFR glo-
merular filtration rate, ANG II angiotensin II, Na sodium, K potassium, Cl chloride, H2Owater,
ANP atrial natriuretic peptide, CGRP calcitonin gene-related peptide, NO nitric oxide, ET-1 endo-
thelin 1, BP blood pressure
to the BP day/night pattern of diurnally active normotensive and uncomplicated

hypertensive human beings through presentation of a broad array of relevant
research findings as well as recently completed circadian rhythm-based hypertension-
treatment outcomes trials.
Overview of Biological Time-Keeping
Master and Peripheral Circadian Clocks
Given the subject matter, a brief introduction to the mechanisms of biological

time-keeping is central to appreciating the materials subsequentially presented.
Circadian rhythms in pressor and all other biological processes are generated and
orchestrated by a self-oscillating master brain clock, the suprachiasmatic nuclei
(SCN) of the hypothalamus [10, 11]. The clock mechanism in the SCN and periph-
eral oscillators is similar; it consists of a network of transcriptional–translational
feedback loops that drive rhythmic, i.e., ∼24 h, expression patterns of the core
clock components—clock genes such as Clock, Bmal, Per, and Cry—whose pro-
tein products generate and regulate cellular circadian rhythms of all tissues,
organs, and systems. Because the inherited period of the SCN and peripheral
oscillators differs somewhat from exactly 24.0 h, external time cues are required
to synchronize it for efficient functioning. The primary environmental time cue is
the 24 h light/day cycle. Environmental time information in the form of the onset
(sunset) and offset (sunrise) of darkness is sensed by intrinsic non-rod/non-cone
ganglion cells (ipRGC) of the retinae and conveyed via the retinohypothalamic
neural pathway first to the SCN and thereafter via the paraventricular nucleus,
hindbrain, spinal cord, and superior cervical ganglion pathways to β- and
α-receptors within the pineal gland to initiate melatonin synthesis [12].
Accordingly, the period of the SCN and subservient peripheral clocks, and the
circadian rhythms they drive, is synchronized, i.e., set and reset from one day to
the next, to 24.0 h, and additionally, the phasing (peak and trough) of these
circadian oscillators and the rhythms they generate is correctly timed to support
optimal biological efficiency during daytime wakefulness and activity and rest
and repair during nighttime sleep.
Pineal Gland and Melatonin
The short-half-life molecule melatonin, the so-called hormone of darkness, plays a

central role in biological time-keeping. Its synthesis and circulation take place only
during the nighttime dark span; thus, in humans plasma and tissue melatonin concen-
tration peaks during nocturnal sleep, while it is essentially undetectable during the
daytime [12]. Normal daytime and artificial nighttime light, especially of the blue spec-
trum, inhibits melatonin synthesis. The period and phasing of the melatonin synthesis
circadian rhythm of the pinealocytes are synchronized to external time by the onset,
duration, and cessation of environmental darkness, and the circulation of melatonin, in
turn, synchronizes the period and phasing of the other 24 h bodily rhythms [10].
The melatonin 24 h rhythm, itself, appears to play a role in the observed BP day/
night variation via its direct effects on the arterial wall [13], cardiomyocytes [14],
baroreflex set point [15], and sympathetic nervous system (SNS) through modula-
tion in the adrenal medulla of the catecholamine synthesis circadian rhythm [16].
Moreover, bedtime melatonin supplementation reduces human BP, particularly
sleep-time BP [15, 17]. Such observations are consistent with the contention that the
BP day/night variation is endogenous in origin, even though it is often masked by
the more dominant external influences [18], especially those of physical and mental
activity [19] as clearly demonstrated by studies of rotating shift workers [20].
Wake/Sleep Circadian Rhythm
The wake/sleep cycle, the most evident circadian rhythm of life, is an important endog-
enous determinant of the BP nyctohemeral variation. The wake/sleep cycle, which is
controlled by a multitude of basic sensory, motor, autonomic, endocrine, and cerebral
24 h rhythms [21], derives from the alternating-in-time dominance of mutually inhibi-
tory actions of arousal/activating systems—cholinergic, serotonergic, and histaminer-
gic nuclear groups of the rostral pons, midbrain, and posterior hypothalamus, and
cholinergic neurons of the basal forebrain—and hypnogenic/deactivating systems—
those of the medial preoptic-anterior hypothalamic region and adjacent basal forebrain,
medial thalamus, and medulla plus the pineal gland via melatonergic mechanisms.
Circadian change in autonomic nervous system (ANS) tone plays an essential mecha-
nistic role, and it also mediates the impact of the sleep and wake states on cardiac and
vascular 24 h rhythms [22]. Melatonin, serotonin, arginine vasopressin, vasoactive
intestinal peptide, somatotropin, insulin, and steroid hormones and their biologi-
cally active metabolites are associated with nighttime sleep induction, while
corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH), adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), thyro-

tropin-releasing hormone (TRH), endogenous opioids, and prostaglandin E2 are associ-
ated with morning arousal [23]. The nyctohemeral alteration of these constituents is
surely reflected in the phasic oscillations of cardiovascular (CV) function and status.
Most biologically active substances, e.g., hormones, peptides, and neurotransmitters,
among others, exhibit significant circadian variability that is superimposed on feedback
control systems. Secretion of these substances is typically episodic, i.e., as high fre-
quency pulses, and “gated” by mechanisms directly coupled to sleep or the pacemaker
SCN clock [24]. Thus, it is not surprising that BP also exhibits short period (ultradian)
oscillations in association with sleep staging [25]. BP is lowest during deepest (stages
3/4) sleep and highest, although not to the level when fully awake, during less deep
(stages 1/2 and REM) sleep. Sleep-time BP ultradian oscillations also may be mediated
through temporal patterns of respiration [26]. After sleep onset and during light NREM
sleep, breathing tends to be periodic with only sporadic occurrence of central apneas.
Oscillations in breathing occur every 20–30 s in association with synchronous fluctua-
tions in cortical EEG activity, BP, heart rate, and oxygen saturation. During deep NREM
sleep, breathing is more regular and BP and heart rate decline. During REM sleep,
breathing and heart rate are more erratic with irregularly expressed central apneas or
hypopneas lasting 20–30 s that typically coincide with bursts of REM and BP spikes as
great as 30–40 mmHg, often beyond the threshold of normotension [25, 26].
In part, the BP nocturnal decline is the consequence of blood volume redistribu-
tion associated with the normal late night decrease of core and brain temperature
that gates sleep onset [27, 28]. The core body temperature circadian rhythm, gov-
erned by the SCN master clock, peaks in the late afternoon/early evening, descends
slightly ~20:00 h and more markedly ~35 min before sleep onset, attains its nadir
1–2 h before morning arousal when sleep tends to be deepest, and rises thereafter
[28]. The late evening and sleep-time body temperature fall results from activation
of physiologic heat loss mechanisms mediated by reduced SNS outflow, and aug-
mented by recumbency, that increases peripheral vasodilatation by 30–40 % just
before sleep commences and as much as 80 % during sleep [27]. This results in
enhanced capillary blood flow to the proximal (trunk and limb) skin and especially
the arteriovenous-anastomoses of the distal glabrous (hand, fingers, feet, toes, ear)
skin, the latter thought to be mediated, at least in part, by the melatonin circadian
rhythm [27, 28]. The circadian rhythm-dependent change in peripheral blood flow
plus associated fluid shift to extracellular compartments result in sleep-time reduc-
tion of plasma volume, as documented in non-human primate studies [29].
BP rises markedly in the morning upon awakening, although the morning rise
usually commences beforehand in association with the high prevalence of less deep
stages and, additionally, the redistribution of blood volume from the distal and
proximal skin to the central arterial circulation mediated by the SCN-orchestrated
circadian rise in core body temperature related to the physiology of morning arousal
[27, 28, 30]. Deep sleep density, which is greatest during the first part of the night,
is correlated with BP rapid decline. REM sleep and brief episodes of arousal, gener-
ally in response to external stimuli, are more common during the last half of the
sleep span and trigger spurts of BP elevations. When 24 h-recorded intra-arterial BP
data of a large group of normal subjects were individually aligned to the exact time
of waking, it became evident that the BP morning rise commences some hours
before the termination of sleep. Thus, it is highly implausible that the BP morning
rise results from morning arousal, alone [31].
Neural, Neuroendocrine, and Endocrine Systems
Autonomic Nervous System
SNS tone dominates during the daytime wake span, while vagal tone dominates during
the nighttime sleep span [32–34]. Plasma norepinephrine and epinephrine plus urinary
catecholamine concentrations are greatest during the initial span of diurnal activity, i.e.,
morning to early afternoon, when SBP and DBP attain near peak or peak values and
lowest during nocturnal sleep when SBP and DBP are least [35, 36]. The temporal
relationship between the 24 h alteration in plasma dopamine and norepinephrine/epi-
nephrine concentrations is strong, suggesting dopaminergic modulation of the circa-
dian rhythm of SNS activity [36, 37]. In human beings, catecholamine sulfates are
biologically inactive, and in normotensive recumbent persons the circadian pattern is
opposite that of biologically active free catecholamines [38]: plasma noradrenaline and
adrenaline sulphates rise to peak levels early during the nighttime sleep span, and
plasma-free noradrenaline and adrenaline rapidly increase before morning awakening.
Environmental cycles, especially the one of light and darkness, in conjunction
with the activity/sleep circadian rhythm, significantly influence catecholamine con-
centration [39]. The day/night change in plasma norepinephrine and metabolite
3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylglycol, but not epinephrine, is strongly affected by
activity, arousal, posture, and food consumption [36, 39, 40]. Nonetheless, noctur-
nal decline in norepinephrine is observed even in sleep-deprived individuals, sug-
gesting the inherent 24 h variation in norepinephrine secretion is controlled by an
endogenous circadian clock [41].
The ANS nyctohemeral variation, together with the day-night pattern in physical
activity, mental and emotional stress, and posture, plays a prominent role in the BP 24 h
profile of both normotensive and uncomplicated hypertension [4–9]. In most normoten-
sive subjects the sleep-time heart rate decreases by 18 beats/min, cardiac output by 29 %,
stroke volume by 7 %, and vascular total peripheral resistance (TPR) although declining
early in sleep increases by 22 % compared to average daytime values [42]. Comparable
changes are observed in uncomplicated essential dipper hypertensive subjects [43].
Renin–Angiotensin–Aldosterone System
The renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) modulates BP through various

mechanisms—body sodium (Na) and water (H2O), SNS, and vasomotor tone bal-
ance. Renal blood flow reduction induces renal juxtaglomerular cells to release the
enzyme renin. Liver-derived angiotensinogen is converted by renin to angiotensin I,

which in turn is converted by lung tissue-derived angiotensin-converting (ACE)
enzyme to angiotensin II (ANG II). ANG II elevates BP by signaling aldosterone
release from the adrenal cortex, which acts to increase renal Na and H2O reabsorp-
tion, stimulate SNS activity, and initiate blood vessel vasoconstriction.
Circadian rhythms of prorenin, plasma renin activity (PRA) and serum ACE
activity, plasma ANG II and aldosterone concentration, plus tissue angiotensin type-1
(AT1) receptor expression contribute strongly to the BP day/night oscillation in both
normotensive and uncomplicated hypertensive conditions, and for some of the vari-
ables even under conditions of long-term recumbence [6, 44–51]. The RAAS acti-
vates during the night, i.e., mid-sleep span, with highest and lowest PRA and ANG II
concentration found in the morning and late evening, i.e., at the commencement of
the wake and sleep span, respectively. However, this temporal patterning persists in
the absence of the wake/sleep cycle, i.e., in sleep-deprived subjects, although gener-
ally with reduced amplitude [52]. Some investigators have failed to detect PRA cir-
cadian patterning [53–55], finding instead an ultradian periodicity of ~100 min
strongly correlated with sleep staging—PRA declining during REM sleep and peak-
ing during deep and light sleep transitions. SNS and dopaminergic mechanisms
appear to be important modulators of the PRA, ANG II, and aldosterone circadian
rhythms [56]. The PRA circadian rhythm determines the magnitude of response to
external challenge, explaining why the exercise-induced PRA response is markedly
greater in the afternoon at 16:00 h than middle of the night at 04:00 h [57]. Plasma
aldosterone 24 h variation is predominantly regulated by the ACTH circadian rhythm
that peaks between the middle and late portion of sleep [24]; although, during the
wake span aldosterone is modulated mainly by the renin-angiotensin system [58].
ACE circadian rhythmicity has been demonstrated in both healthy normotensive
and uncomplicated essential hypertensive individuals studied under a controlled
meal-time and activity/rest routine. Two Italian studies [48, 49] reported a late after-
noon rather than the expected morning peak, while a third Japanese study reported
a late nighttime sleep/early daytime activity peak (06:00–09:00 h) [50], both in nor-
motensive and essential hypertensive subjects. Inconsistency in the circadian time
of peak ACE activity between studies could represent differences during the 24 h in
meal composition and liquid consumption and their timings, subject activity and
posture patterning, and blood sampling paradigm. Moreover, in the two Italian
studies [48, 49], absence of the early morning peak in ACE activity might be indica-
tive of a circadian rhythm of ACE turnover: during sleep when ANG II generation
is maximum, ACE consumption is maximum, and circulating ACE level is reduced,
and during the daytime when ANG II generation is minimal, ACE consumption is
minimal, and circulating ACE level is elevated. Finally, it is of interest that circadian
rhythmicity in SCN AT1-receptor expression has been demonstrated in laboratory
animals with peak expression early during the nocturnal activity span and lowest
expression during the middle to late rest span [51]. This finding implicates central
clock modulation of the BP 24 h variation [51] and further suggests the possibility
of AT1-expression circadian rhythmicity in other tissues.
Hypothalamic–Pituitary–Adrenal Axis
Adrenocortical hormones, in general, mediate electrolyte, extracellular fluid, and

plasma volume balance through effects on epithelial, smooth muscle, and cardiac
cells [59]. They and their active metabolites also modulate energy and other
processes of adipose, liver, kidney, and vascular tissue; they also play a role in ath-
erogenesis, vascular homeostasis, and vascular remodeling following intra-vascular
injury or ischemia [60, 61]. Additionally, they are involved in the elevated vascular
risk induced by long-term stress [62]. Several studies suggest the late sleep/morning-
time marked rise in glucocorticoids may up-regulate at the commencement of the
diurnal activity span both α2 and β2-adrenergic receptor expression in heart, blood
vessel, and other tissues, which may explain the greater morning-time effects of
certain adrenergic agonist and antagonist agents as well as marked SNS-driven
increase in morning heart rate and BP [63–65].
The master SCN oscillator drives the ACTH circadian rhythm, and this along
with circadian SCN-mediated SNS activity gives rise to cortisol 24 h periodicity
[24]; plasma ACTH concentration peaks during the latter span of sleep, and cortisol
adrenocortical synthesis and circulation is highest just prior to or upon waking and
lowest early during sleep [24]. The sensitivity of the adrenal cortex to both endog-
enously produced and exogenously administered ACTH, itself, is circadian-time
dependent [24], explaining in part the enhanced secretion of cortisol in response to
stressful stimuli in the morning [66]. The ACTH and ACTH-dependent 24 h oscil-
lation of cortisol contributes to the nyctohemeral variation in cardiac output and
SBP, but without effect upon blood vessel peripheral resistance [59, 67]. The BP
24 h pattern is disrupted, especially BP sleep-time decline, in Cushing’s syndrome
and also Addison’s disease, in which the adrenocortical-derived circadian rhythms
of cortisol and aldosterone are abnormal or absent, thereby implicating the signifi-
cance of hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis (HPAA) periodicity in the BP day/
night variation under normal conditions [56, 68].
Hypothalamic–Pituitary–Thyroid Axis
Plasma thyroid stimulation hormone (TSH) concentration exhibits circadian varia-

tion, rising during the afternoon and peaking after midnight [24]. The hypothalamic–
pituitary-thyroid axis (HPTA) exerts effects on the CV system at multiple levels,
including direct positive inotropic and cronotropic actions on the myocardium plus
stimulation of tissue metabolic rate and positive modulation of the agonistic sensi-
tivity of heart tissue ß-adrenergic receptors [69]. Surprisingly, there have been few
studies of the exact role of the HPTA nyctohemeral cycle on BP day/night variation.
Evidence of its effects is based on clinical observations of persons with abnormal
thyroid states—increased vascular resistance, often depressed systolic function, left
ventricular diastolic dysfunction at rest, systolic and diastolic dysfunction on effort,
endothelial dysfunction, arterial wall thickness, atherosclerotic injury [69–71], plus
altered BP regulation and 24 h non-dipping patterning [72].
Opioid, Vasoactive peptide, and Endothelial Factors
Opioid Factors
Various opioid peptides and receptors are present in the central nervous system and
peripheral neural elements, some of which exert CV system effects. In normoten-
sive and spontaneously hypertensive rats, both free and cryptic metenkephalin heart
tissue concentration exhibits circadian rhythmicity [73]. In humans, plasma
ß-endorphins (but not metenkephalin) also are circadian rhythmic [74], as is the
binding of ligand to opiate receptors [75]. Involvement of both the sympathetic and
parasympathetic nervous systems in the actions of these peptides on CV function is
established; although little is known to date about underlying mechanisms in
humans. In man, endogenous opioids modulate central nervous system BP control,
particularly its nocturnal decline [76]. ∂-Opioid receptors, in particular, are sus-
pected of playing a role in BP nocturnal decline through suppression of the SNS and
HPAA [77, 78] and the phase (peak and trough) relationships of the respective cir-
cadian rhythms.
Vasoactive Peptide Elements
Both atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)
are circadian rhythmic [79, 80], and both exert regulatory control of the 24 h BP
pattern. ANP, a 28 amino acid polypeptide, suppresses PRA, ANG II, aldosterone,
and catecholamine concentrations; increases Na excretion and plasma and urinary
cGMP levels; and shifts the renal pressure-natriuresis mechanism so Na balance
during sleep can take place at lower arterial pressures. ANP is principally involved
in short-term electrolyte balance and BP control, while the RAAS primarily exerts
long-term BP control [81]. Thus, ANP acts to reduce vascular TPR and as a conse-
quence arterial BP. Peak ANP concentration occurs between 23:00 and 04:00 h and
coincides approximately with the nadir of the PRA and aldosterone circadian
rhythms of diurnally active normotensive and essential hypertensive persons, with
the ANP peak-to-trough 24 h variation that is independent of posture amounting to
~10 pmol/L [79, 81, 82]. Blunting of the nocturnal BP decline, e.g., in chronic renal
and congestive heart failure patients, is paralleled by concomitant alteration of the
ANP circadian rhythm, both before and after treatment [83–85].
CGRP is a 37 amino-acid peptide involved in various metabolic and behavioral
functions [86]. CGRP-containing fibers exist throughout the CV system, particularly
within the coronary arteries, sinoatrial and atrioventricular nodes, and papillary heart
muscle fibers [87]. CGRP blood levels are most likely representative of peptide spill-
over from nerve terminals that promote vasodilatation. A circadian rhythm in plasma
CGRP has been demonstrated in both normotension and uncomplicated hypertension
[80, 88, 89]. The RAAS modulates plasma CGRP secretion, either directly through
vasopressor effect on peripheral blood vessels or indirectly through neurohumoral

mechanisms that modulate vascular tone and thus BP [90–92]. Intravenous CGRP infu-
sion in pharmacological doses decreases mean BP and increases heart rate in humans
[93, 94]. CGRP also plays a role in response to postural and vasomotor changes; plasma
CGRP levels rapidly rise, as do those of norepinephrine and aldosterone, in healthy
subjects after assuming an upright position or following low-dose ANG II infusion [91].
Endothelial Factors
Circadian rhythms of the endothelial vasodilator and vasoconstrictor factors of nitric

oxide (NO) and endothelin 1 (ET-1) modulate vascular tone and BP. In diurnally
active healthy individuals, vasodilator NO concentration is lowest around the transi-
tion between the sleep and wake span and highest 12 h later [95–97]. Accordingly,
brachial artery flow-mediated endothelium-dependent vasodilatation (FMD) is least
in the early morning and most elevated in the late afternoon and evening. The FMD
circadian rhythm is substantiated in both men and pre-menopausal women, although
based on the results of a single investigation not in menopausal women [98]. The
vasoconstrictor ET-1 exhibits 12 h variability, with two peaks of equal magnitude,
one in the morning at the beginning of the wake span and the other early evening [97].
Renal Hemodynamics
Circadian rhythms with afternoon to early evening peak times of renal blood flow,
glomerular filtration rate (GFR), urine volume, and urinary excretions of Na, potas-
sium (K), and chloride (Cl) are well-known and persist independent of meal timings,
activity level, sleep, and posture [99, 100]. Renal blood flow, vascular resistance, and
GFR decline at night, although the decrease of urine flow observed in non-elderly
persons is much more pronounced than expected, suggesting circadian rhythmicity
with nighttime peak of tubular reabsorption perhaps mediated by intrarenal ANG II
and also vasopressin, whose circadian rhythm also peaks during sleep [101–103].
Significant correlation is detectable at night between BP and Na and K excretion
when the balance between Na-retaining and Na-sparing mechanisms favors natriure-
sis. However, the correlation is masked during waking by dominating Na-retaining
factors [100]. The circadian rhythm of renal Na and K handling appears to be driven
by the circadian rhythm of aldosterone. Dopamine and the renal kallikrein–kinin
system also play a role in the daily variation of H2O and Na handling, as suggested
by the close timing of the peak and trough among the circadian rhythms of urinary
dopamine, Na, kinin, kallikrein, and H2O excretion [104, 105]. The circadian rhythm
of ANP that peaks early during sleep also modulates the urinary Na excretion 24 h
rhythm [106]. Urinary excretion of kinin, kallikrein, and prostaglandin E is circadian
rhythmic, being highest in the afternoon and lowest overnight, both in recumbent and
non-recumbent healthy volunteers [105, 107]. The day/night alteration of urinary

kallikrein and plasma aldosterone concentration is strongly and positively correlated,
suggesting the circadian rhythm of aldosterone drives the circadian rhythm of urinary
kallikrein excretion.
Circadian BP Profile of Different Hypertensive Conditions
Pathologic and other disturbances of the ANS, renal hemodynamics, and vasoactive
neurohumoral, peptide, opioid, and endothelial circadian rhythms that play a role in the
regulation of blood volume and central and peripheral vascular tone are clearly involved
in the genesis of altered BP 24 h patterning. As reviewed elsewhere [23], attenuated or
reversed nocturnal decline in BP is common in many medical conditions, for example:
orthostatic autonomic failure, Shy–Drager syndrome, vascular and Alzheimer-type
dementia, cerebral atrophy, CV disease, ischemic arterial disease after carotid endarter-
ectomy, neurogenic hypertension, fatal familial insomnia, diabetes, catecholamine-pro-
ducing tumors, exogenous glucocorticoid administration, Cushing’s and mineral
corticoid excess syndromes, Addison’s disease, pseudohypoparathyroidism, sleep
apnea, normotensive and hypertensive asthma, chronic renal failure, severe hyperten-
sion, Na-sensitive essential hypertension, gestational hypertension, toxemia of preg-
nancy, essential hypertension with left ventricular hypertrophy, renal, liver, and cardiac
transplantation related to immunosuppressive medication, congestive heart failure, and
recombinant human erythropoietin therapy. Absence of the normal nocturnal BP decline
appears to carry a higher CV and cerebral risk by prolonging the time beyond diurnal
waking when the elevated BP load is exerted on target tissues and organs; the average
nighttime BP level and magnitude of the nocturnal BP fall are significantly correlated
with target organ—cardiac, cerebral, and renal—tissue damage [23].
Evidence of BP Circadian Rhythm Endogenousity:

Hypertension Medication Trials
Bedtime vs. Morning-Time Hypertension Therapy: Differential

Effects on Asleep and Awake BP and BP Dipping
The peak time of the individual nervous system, endocrine, endothelial, peptide,
renal hemodynamic, and other circadian rhythm determinants of the nyctohemeral
BP pattern typical of most normotensive and uncomplicated essential hypertensive
persons occurs between the last hours of nighttime sleep and initial hours of day-
time wakefulness. Clinical trials (Table 6.2) clearly document the BP-lowering
effects of conventional long-acting hypertension medications vary, often exten-
sively, according to treatment time [108]. When such medications, especially those
that directly or indirectly modulate the SNS and RAAS or their vasomotor effects,
Table 6.2 Ingestion-time awakening vs. bedtime-dependent differences in effect of BP-lowering medications (mmHg from baseline) on awake and asleep
SBP/DBP means and sleep-time relative decline of diurnally active hypertension patientse
Treatment-time effect on
Treatment-time reduction in Treatment-time reduction in sleep-time relative SBP/
awake SBP/DBP mean asleep SBP/DBP mean DBP decline
Medication Dose, mg No. of patients Awakening Rx Bedtime Rx Awakening Rx Bedtime Rx Awakening Rx Bedtime Rx
ACEIs
Ramipril 5 115 −10.1/−6.9 −10.5/−9.0 −4.5/−4.1 −13.5/−11.5* −3.3/−1.8 3.4/4.9*
Spirapril 6 165 −9.9/−8.0 −8.5/−5.7 −5.7/−4.6 −12.8/−8.6* −2.5/−2.7 4.1/4.5*
ARBs
Valsartan 160 90 −17.0/−11.1 −12.0/−9.8 −15.9/−10.8 −17.9/−13.3 0.2/1.3 5.4/6.3*
Valsartan 160 100a −12.8/−6.6 −13.0/−8.5 −10.9/−5.5 −20.5/−11.1* −1.0/−0.3 6.6/5.4*
Valsartan 160 200b −13.1/−8.3 −12.6/−9.3 −12.9/−8.1 −21.1/−13.9* 0.4/0.9 7.2/7.1*
Olmesartan 20 133 −14.5/−12.1 −13.3/−9.6 −11.2/−8.7 −15.2/−11.5‡ −1.3/−1.4 2.9/4.6*
Olmesartan 40 72 −17.1/−10.1 −16.3/−11.5 −12.6/−8.2 −17.9/−12.5‡ −1.6/−0.2 3.0/3.8*
Telmisartan 80 215 −11.7/−8.8 −11.3/−8.2 −8.3/−6.4 −13.8/−9.7* −1.6/−1.0 3.1/3.9*
CCBs
Amlodipine 5 194 −10.2/−7.7 −11.8/−7.2 −9.6/−5.5 −11.2/−6.7 0.1/−1.6 0.2/0.7‡
Nifedipine GITS 30 238 −9.4/−6.3 −12.8/−7.7‡ −7.5/−5.1 −12.8/−7.8* −0.7/−0.2 1.0/1.5‡
α-Blocker
Doxazosin GITS 4 39c −2.9/−3.7 −6.0/−5.4 0.7/−1.3 −8.2/−6.5† −2.3/−2.4 1.9/1.9‡
Doxazosin GITS 4 52d −3.4/−2.9 −5.9/−4.4 0.1/−0.5 −4.9/−5.3‡ −2.3/−2.4 1.7/1.5‡
(continued)
6 Circadian and Cyclic Environmental Determinants of Blood Pressure Patterning…
117
118

Treatment-time effect on
Treatment-time reduction in Treatment-time reduction in sleep-time relative SBP/
awake SBP/DBP mean asleep SBP/DBP mean DBP decline
Medication Dose, mg No. of patients Awakening Rx Bedtime Rx Awakening Rx Bedtime Rx Awakening Rx Bedtime Rx
β-Blocker
Nebivolol 5 173 −14.7/−12.4 −13.4/−10.9 −7.9/−7.4 −10.2/−8.1 −3.6/−3.0 −1.2/−1.4‡
Diuretic
Torasemide 5 113 −7.3/−3.7 −15.6/−9.9* −4.3/−2.5 −12.5/−8.0* −1.6/−0.7 −1.3/−0.2
Combination Rx
Valsartan/amlodipine 160/5 203 −18.3/−14.5 −22.6/−12.7 −14.4/−10.1 −28.1/−14.7* −1.3/−2.1 5.5/5.2*
Valsartan/ 160/12.5 204 −17.4/−11.5 −16.7/−11.4 −16.0/−12.0 −20.1/−13.6‡ 0.5/2.4 3.9/4.7*
hydrochlorothiazide
a
Elderly patients (≥60 years of age)
b
Non-dipper patients, i.e., sleep-time relative SBP decline <10 %
c
Doxazosin monotherapy
d
Doxazosin in combination with other hypertension medications
e
Table modified from [107]. All studies were conducted by one of the authors (R.C. Hermida) utilizing a prospective, randomized, open label, blinded endpoint
(PROBE) design involving grade 1 or 2 essential hypertension (2306 in total) participants. 48 h ABPM and wrist actigraphy were applied at baseline before
and again after 12-weeks of timed treatment to accurately derive the awake and asleep SBP/DBP means plus sleep-time relative BP decline ([awake BP mean—
asleep BP mean]/awake BP mean x 100), index of extent of BP dipping during nighttime sleep relative to level diurnal waking
*
P < .001, †P < .01, ‡P < .05: Statistical significance of comparison of the between treatment-times effects on BP
M.H. Smolensky et al.
i.e., angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor block-

ers (ARBs), calcium-channel blockers (CCBs), α-blockers, and ß-blockers, are
ingested alone or in combination at bedtime rather than morning, reduction of the
asleep SBP and DBP means is vastly enhanced as is the sleep-time relative BP
decline, thereby greatly improving the BP 24 h profile toward normal. Such findings
indicate features of the innate pressor-affecting circadian rhythms are of greater
importance than previous appreciated as determinants of the BP 24 h pattern and,
therefore, management of hypertension.
Bedtime vs. Morning-Time Hypertension Medication Outcomes

Trials: Differential Reduction of Vascular Risk
Several investigations, among them the HOPE [109, 110] and MAPEC [111] trials,
have found a bedtime treatment strategy entailing the full daily dose of one or more
conventional long-acting hypertension medications affords better 24 h BP control
and greater protection against nonfatal and fatal stroke, cardiac, and other CV inci-
dents of hypertensive persons than the traditional morning-time strategy.
The MAPEC study constitutes the first prospective trial expressly designed and
conducted to completion to test the hypothesis that so-called bedtime chronother-
apy (BTCT: full dose at bedtime of one or more hypertension medications) exerts
better 24 h BP control and vascular risk reduction than conventional morning time
therapy (CMTT) [111]. A total of 3344 regular clinical patients with baseline SBP
and DBP, according to ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) threshold criteria, rang-
ing from normotension to sustained hypertension, were randomized to CMTT or
BTCT and followed for a median duration of 5.6 years. At baseline and at least
annually thereafter, ambulatory BP and physical activity (wrist actigraphy) were
assessed simultaneously for 48 h to accurately derive the awake and asleep SBP and
DBP means. As expected (Table 6.2) patients randomized to BTCT, in comparison
to ones randomized to CMTT, exhibited significantly lower mean asleep BP, greater
sleep-time relative BP decline, lesser prevalence of non-dipping (34 % vs. 62 %;
P < .001), and higher prevalence of controlled ambulatory BP (62 % vs. 53 %,
P < .001) [112]. Even more important, BTCT, relative to CMTT, better reduced vas-
cular risk—both total CV and major CV events (composite of CV deaths, myocar-
dial infarctions, and ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes), the respective adjusted
statistically significant (P < .001) hazard ratio (HR) being .39 (.29–.51) and .33
(.19–.55) [112]. The greater incidence of CV events of those randomized to CMTT
was independent of the class of BP-lowering single or multiple therapies prescribed.
On the other hand, maximum reduction of CV events was attained by the BTCT,
relative to CMTT, when it consisted of or included an ARB (HR = .29 [.17–.51];
P < .001) or CCB (HR = .46 [.31–.69]; P < .001), and lowest HR of CV events was
achieved with a BTCT that entailed an ARB, alone or in combination with other
classes of hypertension medications [113]. Another notable finding of the MAPEC
study [114], and recently verified by a meta-analysis of 9 different cohorts [115], is
that the ABPM-derived asleep SBP mean, relative to all the other characteristics
and parameters of the BP 24 h profile, most strongly predicts CV risk. Analyses of
changes in ambulatory BP that was assessed at least annually during the 5.6-year
median follow-up of the MAPEC trial revealed a 17 % reduction in CV risk per
each 5-mmHg decrease in the asleep SBP mean (P < 0.001), by far best achieved
with the BTCT approach, independent of change in any other ambulatory BP
parameter [114]. The findings were similar also for the higher vascular risk patients,
mostly non-dipper, chronic kidney disease [116], type 2 diabetes [117], and resis-
tant hypertensive [118] cohorts. It is hypothesized that the pharmacokinetic and
pharmacodynamic behavior of conventionally formulated hypertension medica-
tions when ingested at bedtime, as opposed to morning, better aligns with the circa-
dian stage of elevated activity of the ANS, endocrine, endothelial, renal
hemodynamic, and other circadian rhythm determinants of the nyctohemeral BP
pattern and, assumedly, vascular risk, particularly when BP is abnormal during
sleep. The findings of the MAPEC trial showing greatly reduced vascular risk when
hypertension medications are optimally timed to the BP circadian determinants
have been recently substantiated by a meta-analysis of data of all evening and bed-
time treatment outcome trials thus far reported [119, 120].
Mechanisms Underlying the Advantage of Bedtime

Chronotherapy
A possible unitary explanation of the ingestion-time differences in effects upon the

BP 24 h pattern may entail the classical pressure-natriuresis mechanism [121].
Under usual circumstances, BP is normally lowest at night as is Na excretion.
However, in acute and chronic situations when Na intake is excessive or its daytime
excretion hampered, BP is adjusted by the pressure-natriuresis mechanism during
nighttime sleep to an elevated level as a compensatory response, thereby resulting
in abnormal non-dipping 24 h patterning [122]. This is the reason why Na-sensitive
hypertensives—patients prone to retain Na to such a degree that BP is significantly
increased—tend to be non-dippers. The pressure-natriuresis mechanism and rela-
tionship are modulated during the daytime by upright posture and activity, such that
it is mainly during the nighttime when Na sensitivity, which is present to varying
extent among individuals, most strongly exerts its corrective effects, thus inducing
the non-dipping BP patterning. Hence, BP regulation is not constant throughout day
and night; on the contrary, it is modulated not only according to the staging of
numerous circadian factors and different pathophysiological conditions, but the
pharmacological properties of prescribed hypertension medications and circadian
time of their ingestion [123]. A modification as simple and inexpensive as switching
the ingestion time from morning to evening or bedtime (in diurnally active patients)
of one or more hypertension medications may be the only action necessary to
achieve proper control of nighttime SBP and DBP, the functional effect being
exactly as dietary K supplementation and/or NA restriction, which are known to

restore normal dipping [6, 122]. This simple treatment intervention could enhance
the effect of therapy not only on sleep-time BP, but also on wake-time BP once an
efficient nocturnal excretion of Na is achieved. As a result, the entire circadian BP
pattern may be reset to a lower mean level and to a “more normal” day-night varia-
tion, simply because natriuresis is enhanced more during the night—the time-of-
day for diurnally active persons when it can be most efficient. As discussed in this
review, circadian Na excretion patterns also involve multiple, mainly neurohumoral,
control mechanisms, such that sleep-time Na retention may entail different underly-
ing pathophysiologic mechanisms. Nonetheless, the pressure-natriuresis mecha-
nism ultimately dominates, due to its infinite gain [121]. Based on the
pressure-natriuresis circadian variation, it is possible to explain the remodeling of
the BP 24 h pattern of hypertensive patients of differing etiopathophysiologies
through the proper administration time of BP-lowering medications.
Discussion and Conclusion
Day/night environmental cycles of temperature and noise; nyctohemeral behav-

ioral patterns of food, liquid, and stimulant consumption, posture, mental stress,
and physical activity; and innate circadian rhythms in wakefulness/sleep and auto-
nomic nervous, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal,
renal hemodynamic, vasoactive peptide, endothelial, and opioid systems are key
determinants of the BP 24 h pattern. The current perspective is external environ-
mental and behavioral influences are mostly, if not entirely, responsible for the
observed BP 24 h variation of most normotensive and uncomplicated hypertensive
persons; nonetheless, as shown here it has a clear genetic basis as substantiated by
the large number of determinant endogenous circadian periodicities (Table 6.1) that
are orchestrated by the master SCN and peripheral biological time-keeping system.
Moreover, that the BP day/night pattern is remodeled with loss of its nocturnal
decline in a variety of pathological conditions in which sleep and activity show
minor or no alteration constitutes additional evidence of its inherent endogenous-
ity. Finally, studies comparing the BP-lowering and vascular risk sparing effects of
BTCT, which entails the ingestion of the full daily dose of one or more conventional
long-acting medication(s) approximately 4–8 h prior to the peak time of the SNS,
RAAS, and many of the other identified key circadian determinants of the BP 24 h
profile, vs. CMTT, which entails the ingestion of medication(s) at or just after the
peak time of these determinants, indicate the endogenous circadian components are
of much greater importance than previously appreciated. These and other circadian
rhythm findings constitute the rationale for the recently proposed guideline recom-
mendations for the management of adult hypertensive patients, including the clini-
cal application of ABPM to diagnose abnormal daytime and sleep-time BP, estimate
CV risk, and assess attainment of therapeutic goals [124].
References
1. Hermida RC, Fernández JR, Ayala DE, Artemio A, Smolensky MH. Circadian rhythm of the
double (rate-pressure) product in healthy normotensive young adults. Chronobiol Int.
2001;18:477–89.
2. Reinberg A, Ghata J, Halberg F, Gervais P, Abulker C, Dupont J, et al. Rhythmes circadiens
du pouls, de la pression areterielle, des excretions urinaires en 17-hydroxycorticosteroides,
catecholamines et potassium chez l’hommé adulte sain, actif et au repos. Ann Endocrinol
(Paris). 1970;31:277–87.
3. Tuck ML, Stern N, Sowers JR. Enhanced 24-hour norepinephrine and renin secretion in
young patients with essential hypertension: relation with the circadian pattern of arterial
blood pressure. Am J Cardiol. 1985;55:112–5.
4. Davies AB, Gould BA, Cashman PM, Raftery EB. Circadian rhythm of blood pressure in
patients dependent on ventricular demand pacemakers. Br Heart J. 1984;52:93–8.
5. James GD, Pickering TG. The influence of behavioral factors on the daily variation of blood
pressure. Am J Hypertens. 1993;6(6 Pt 2):170S–3.
6. Sica DA. What are the influences of salt, potassium, the sympathetic nervous system, and the
renin-angiotensin system on the circadian variation in blood pressure? Blood Press Monit.
1999;4 Suppl 2:S9–16.
7. Kario K, Schwartz JE, Pickering TG. Ambulatory physical activity as a determinant of diur-
nal blood pressure variation. Hypertension. 1999;34(4 Pt 1):685–91.
8. Hermida RC, Calvo C, Ayala DE, Mojón A, López JE. Relationship between physical activity
and blood pressure in dipper and nondipper hypertensive patients. J Hypertens. 2002;20:
1097–104.
9. Guessous I, Pruijm M, Ponte B, Ackermann D, Ehret G, Ansermot N, et al. Associations of
ambulatory blood pressure with urinary caffeine and caffeine metabolite excretions.
Hypertension. 2015;65:691–6.
10. Reppert SM, Weaver DR. Coordination of circadian timing in mammals. Nature. 2002;418:
935e41.
11. Albrecht U. Timing to perfection: the biology of central and peripheral clocks. Neuron.
2012;74:246e60.
12. Arendt J. The pineal gland, circadian rhythms and photoperiodism. In: Redfern P, Lemmer B,
editors. Physiology and pharmacology of biological rhythms, Berlin: Springer; Handbook
Exp Pharmacol, vol. 125. 1997. p. 375–414.
13. Ekmekcioglu C, Thalhammer T, Humpeler S, Mehrabi MR, Glogar HD, Hölzenbein T, et al.
The melatonin receptor subtype MT2 is present in the human cardiovascular system. J Pineal
Res. 2003;35:40–4.
14. Peliciari-Garcia RA, Zanquetta MM, Andrade-Silva J, Gomes DA, Barreto-Chaves ML,
Cipolla-Neto J. Expression of circadian clock and melatonin receptors within cultured rat
cardiomyocytes. Chronobiol Int. 2011;28:21–30.
15. Kitajima T, Kanbayashi T, Saitoh Y, Ogawa Y, Sugiyama T, Kaneko Y, et al. The effects of
oral melatonin on the autonomic function in healthy subjects. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci.
2001;55:299–300.
16. Kachi T, Banerji TK, Quay WB. Quantitative cytological analysis of functional changes in
adrenomedullary chromaffin cells in normal, sham-operated, and pinealectomized rats in
relation to time of day: I. Nucleolar size. J Pineal Res. 1984;1:31–49.
17. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Fernández JR, Artemio M, Smolensky MH, Fabbian F, et al.
Administration-time-differences in effects of hypertension medications on ambulatory blood
pressure regulation. Chronobiol Int. 2013;30:280–314.
18. Portaluppi F, Waterhouse J, Minors D. The rhythms of blood pressure in humans. Exogenous
and endogenous components and implications for diagnosis and treatment. Ann N Y Acad
Sci. 1996;783:1–9.
19. Clark LA, Denby L, Pregibon D, Harshfield GA, Pickering TG, Blank S, et al. A quantitative
analysis of the effects of activity and time of day on the diurnal variations of blood pressure.
J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:671–81.
20. Sundberg S, Kohvakka A, Gordin A. Rapid reversal of circadian blood pressure rhythm in
shift workers. J Hypertens. 1988;6:393–6.
21. McGinty D, Szymusiak R. Neurobiology of sleep. In: Saunders NA, Sullivan CE, editors.
Sleep and Breathing. 2nd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1994. p. 1–26.
22. Smolensky MH, Tatar SE, Bergman SA, Losman JG, Barnard CN, Dacso CC, et al. Circadian
rhythmic aspects of cardiovascular function. A review by chronobiologic statistical methods.
Chronobiologia. 1976;3:337–71.
23. Fabbian F, Smolensky MH, Tiseo R, Pala M, Manfredini R, Portaluppi F. Dipper and non-
dipper blood pressure 24-hour patterns: circadian rhythm-dependent physiologic and patho-
physiologic mechanisms. Chronobiol Int. 2013;30:17–30.
24. Haus E. Chronobiology in the endocrine system. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2007;59:985–1014.
25. Coccagna G, Mantovani M, Brignani F, Manzini A, Lugaresi E. Laboratory note. Arterial
pressure changes during spontaneous sleep in man. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol.
1971;31:277–81.
26. Phillipson EA. Control of breathing during sleep. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1978;118:909–39.
27. Van Someren E. More than a marker: Interaction between the circadian regulation of tem-
perature and sleep, age-related changes, and treatment possibilities. Chronobiol Int.
2000;17:313–54.
28. Krauchi K. The human sleep-wake cycle reconsidered from a thermoregulatory point of
view. Physiol Behav. 2007;90:236–45.
29. Talan MI, Engel BT, Kawate R. Overnight increases in haematocrit: additional evidence for
a nocturnal fall in plasma volume. Acta Physiol Scand. 1992;144:473–6.
30. Krauchi K, Cajochen C, Wirz-Justice A. Waking up properly: is there a role of thermoregula-
tion in sleep inertia? J Sleep Res. 2004;13:121–7.
31. Suzuki Y, Kuwajima I, Mitani K, Miyao M, Uno A, Matsushita S, et al. The relation between
blood pressure variation and daily physical activity in early morning surge in blood pressure.
Nippon Ronen Igakkai Zasshi. 1993;30:841–8.
32. Furlan R, Guzzetti S, Crivellaro W, Dassi S, Tinelli M, Baselli G, et al. Continuous 24-hour
assessment of the neural regulation of systemic arterial pressure and RR variabilities in
ambulant subjects. Circulation. 1990;81:537–47.
33. Somers VK, Dyken ME, Mark AL, Abboud FM. Sympathetic-nerve activity during sleep in
normal subjects. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:303–7.
34. van de Borne P, Nguyen H, Biston P, Linkowski P, Degaute JP. Effects of wake and sleep
stages on the 24-h autonomic control of blood pressure and heart rate in recumbent men. Am
J Physiol. 1994;266(2 Pt 2):H548–54.
35. Lakatua DJ, Haus E, Halberg F, Halberg E, Wendt HW, Sackett-Lundeen LL, et al. Circadian
characteristics of urinary epinephrine and norepinephrine from healthy young women in
Japan and U.S.A. Chronobiol Int. 1986;3:189–95.
36. Linsell CR, Lightman SL, Mullen PE, Brown MJ, Causon RC. Circadian rhythms of epi-
nephrine and norepinephrine in man. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1985;60:1210–5.
37. Sowers JR, Vlachakis N. Circadian variation in plasma dopamine levels in man. J Endocrinol
Invest. 1984;7:341–5.
38. Kuchel O, Buu NT. Circadian variations of free and sulfoconjugated catecholamines in nor-
mal subjects. Endocr Res. 1985;11:17–25.
39. Yoshida T, Bray GA. Effects of food and light on norepinephrine turnover. Am J Physiol.
1988;254(5 Pt 2):R821–7.
40. Kafka MS, Benedito MA, Roth RH, Steele LK, Wolfe WW, Catravas GN. Circadian rhythms
in catecholamine metabolites and cyclic nucleotide production. Chronobiol Int.
1986;3:101–15.
41. Candito M, Pringuey D, Jacomet Y, Souetre E, Salvati E, Ardisson JL, et al. Circadian rhythm
in plasma noradrenaline of healthy sleep-deprived subjects. Chronobiol Int. 1992;9:444–7.
42. Veerman DP, Imholz BP, Wieling W, Wesseling KH, van Montfrans GA. Circadian profile of
systemic hemodynamics. Hypertension. 1995;26:55–9.
43. Mori H. Circadian variation of haemodynamics in patients with essential hypertension.
J Hum Hypertens. 1990;4:384–9.
44. Gordon RD, Wolfe LK, Island DP, Liddle GW. A diurnal rhythm in plasma renin activity in
man. J Clin Invest. 1966;45:1587–92.
45. Katz FH, Romfh P, Smith JA. Diurnal variation of plasma aldosterone, cortisol and renin
activity in supine man. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1975;40:125–34.
46. Liebau H, Manitius J. Diurnal and daily variations of PRA, plasma catecholamines and blood
pressure in normotensive and hypertensive man. Contrib Nephrol. 1982;30:57–63.
47. Kool MJ, Wijnen JA, Derkx FH, Struijker Boudier HA, Van Bortel LM. Diurnal variation in
prorenin in relation to other humoral factors and hemodynamics. Am J Hypertens.
1994;7:723–30.
48. Veglio F, Pietrandrea R, Ossola M, Vignani A, Angeli A. Circadian rhythm of the angiotensin
converting enzyme (ACE) concentration in serum of healthy adult subjects. Chronobiologia.
1987;14:21–5.
49. Cugini P, Letizia C, Scavo D. The circadian rhythmicity of serum angiotensin converting
enzyme; phase relation with the circadian cycle of plasma rennin and aldosterone.
Chronobiologia. 1988;15:229–32.
50. Gotoh M. Clinical significance of serum angiotensin I-converting enzyme in essential hyper-
tension. Nihon Naibunpi Gakkai Zasshi. 1985;61:1341–57.
51. Li H, Sun NL, Wang J, Liu AJ, Su DF. Circadian expression of clock genes and angiotensin
II type 1 receptors in suprachiasmatic nuclei of sinoaortic-denervated rats. Acta Pharmacol
Sin. 2007;28:484–92.
52. Stumpe KO, Kolloch R, Vetter H, Gramann W, Kruck F, Ressel C, et al. Acute and long-term
studies of the mechanisms of action of beta-blocking drugs in lowering blood pressure. Am
J Med. 1976;60:853–65.
53. Lightman SL, James VH, Linsell C, Mullen PE, Peart WS, Sever PS. Studies of diurnal
changes in plasma renin activity, and plasma noradrenaline, aldosterone and cortisol concen-
trations in man. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 1981;14:213–23.
54. Brandenberger G, Follenius M, Muzet A, Ehrhart J, Schieber JP. Ultradian oscillations in
plasma renin activity: their relationships to meals and sleep stages. J Clin Endocrinol Metab.
1985;61:280–4.
55. Brandenberge G, Follenius M, Simon C, Ehrhart J, Libert JP. Nocturnal oscillations in plasma
renin activity and REM-NREM sleep cycles in humans: a common regulatory mechanism?
Sleep. 1988;11:242–50.
56. Nicholls MG, Espiner EA, Ikram H, Maslowski AH, Hamilton EJ, Bones PJ. Hormone and
blood pressure relationships in primary aldosteronism. Clin Exp Hypertens A.
1984;6:1441–58.
57. Stephenson LA, Kolka MA, Francesconi R, Gonzalez RR. Circadian variations in plasma
renin activity, catecholamines and aldosterone during exercise in women. Eur J Appl Physiol.
1989;58:756–64.
58. Richards AM, Nicholls MG, Espiner EA, Ikram H, Cullens M, Hinton D. Diurnal patterns of
blood pressure, heart rate and vasoactive hormones in normal man. Clin Exp Hypertens A.
1986;8:153–66.
59. Connell JM, Whitworth JA, Davies DL, Lever AF, Richards AM, Fraser R. Effects of ACTH
and cortisol administration on blood pressure, electrolyte metabolism, atrial natriuretic pep-
tide and renal function in normal man. J Hypertens. 1987;5:425–33.
60. Walker BR. Glucocorticoids and cardiovascular disease. Eur J Endocrinol.
2007;157:545–59.
61. Schnackenberg CG, Costell MH, Krosky DJ, Cui J, Wu CW, Hong VS, et al. Chronic
inhibition of 11 β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 activity decreases hypertension,
insulin resistance, and hypertriglyceridemia in metabolic syndrome. Biomed Res Int.
2013;2013:427640.
62. Girod JP, Brotman DJ. Does altered glucocorticoid homeostasis increase cardiovascular risk?
Cardiovasc Res. 2004;64:217–26.
63. Tan KS, McFarlane LC, Lipworth BJ. Effects of oral and inhaled corticosteroid on lympho-
cyte beta2-adrenoceptor function in asthmatic patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1997;44:565–8.
64. Hamamdzic D, Duzic E, Sherlock JD, Lanier SM. Regulation of alpha 2-adrenergic receptor
expression and signaling in pancreatic beta-cells. Am J Physiol. 1995;269(1 Pt 1):E162–71.
65. Langner B, Lemmer B. Circadian changes in the pharmacokinetics and cardiovascular effects
of oral propranolol in healthy subjects. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1988;33:619–24.
66. Engeland WC, Byrnes GJ, Gann DS. The pituitary-adrenocortical response to hemorrhage
depends on the time of day. Endocrinology. 1982;110:1856–60.
67. Whitworth JA, Saines D, Thatcher R, Butkus A, Scoggins BA. Blood pressure and metabolic
effects of ACTH in normotensive and hypertensive man. Clin Exp Hypertens A.
1983;5:501–22.
68. Zelinka T, Strauch B, Pecen L, Widimský Jr J. Diurnal blood pressure variation in pheochromo-
cytoma, primary aldosteronism and Cushing's syndrome. J Hum Hypertens. 2004;18:107–11.
69. Biondi B, Klein I. Hypothyroidism as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Endocrine.
2004;24:1–13.
70. Dagre AG, Lekakis JP, Papaioannou TG, Papamichael CM, Koutras DA, Stamatelopoulos
SF, et al. Arterial stiffness is increased in subjects with hypothyroidism. Int J Cardiol.
2005;103:1–6.
71. Streeten DH, Anderson Jr GH, Howland T, Chiang R, Smulyan H. Effects of thyroid function
on blood pressure. Recognition of hypothyroid hypertension. Hypertension. 1988;11:78–83.
72. Kanbay M, Turgut F, Uyar ME, Akcay A, Covic A. Causes and mechanisms of nondipping
hypertension. Clin Exp Hypertens. 2008;30:585–97.
73. Dumont M, Ouellette M, Brakier-Gingras L, Lemaire S. Circadian regulation of the biosyn-
thesis of cardiac Met-enkephalin and precursors in normotensive and spontaneously hyper-
tensive rats. Life Sci. 1991;48:1895–902.
74. Shanks MF, Clement-Jones V, Linsell CJ, Mullen PE, Rees LH, Besser GM. A study of
24-hour profiles of plasma met-enkephalin in man. Brain Res. 1981;212:403–9.
75. Wirz-Justice A, Tobler I, Kafka MS, Naber D, Marangos PJ, Borbely AA, et al. Sleep depri-
vation: effects on circadian rhythms of rat brain neurotransmitter receptors. Psychiatry Res.
1981;5:67–76.
76. Rubin P, Blaschke TF, Guilleminault C. Effect of naloxone, a specific opioid inhibitor, on
blood pressure fall during sleep. Circulation. 1981;63:117–21.
77. degli Uberti EC, Salvadori S, Trasforini G, Margutti A, Ambrosio MR, Rossi R, et al. Effect
of deltorphin on pituitary-adrenal response to insulin-induced hypoglycemia and ovine
corticotropin-releasing hormone in healthy man. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1992;75:370–4.
78. degli Uberti EC, Ambrosio MR, Vergnani L, Portaluppi F, Bondanelli M, Trasforini G et al.
Stress-induced activation of sympathetic nervous system is attenuated by the selective ∂-opi-
oid receptor agonist deltorphin in healthy man. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1993;77:1490–4.
79. Portaluppi F, Montanari L, Bagni B. degli Uberti E, Trasforini G, Margutti A. Circadian
rhythms of atrial natriuretic peptide, blood pressure and heart rate in normal subjects.
Cardiology. 1989;76:428–32.
80. de los Santos ET, Mazzaferri EL. Calcitonin gene-related peptide: 24-hour profile and
responses to volume contraction and expansion in normal men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab.
1991;72:1031–5.
81. Portaluppi F, Vergnani L. degli Uberti EC. Atrial natriuretic peptide and circadian blood pres-
sure regulation: clues from a chronobiological approach. Chronobiol Int. 1993;10:176–89.
82. Portaluppi F, Bagni B. degli Uberti E, Montanari L, Cavallini R, Trasforini G, et al. Circadian
rhythms of atrial natriuretic peptide, renin, aldosterone, cortisol, blood pressure and heart rate
in normal and hypertensive subjects. J Hypertens. 1990;8:85–95.
83. Portaluppi F, Montanari L, Ferlini M, Vergnani L, D'Ambrosi A, Cavallini AR, et al.
Consistent changes in the circadian rhythms of blood pressure and atrial natriuretic peptide in
congestive heart failure. Chronobiol Int. 1991;8:432–9.
84. Portaluppi F, Montanari L, Vergnani L, Tarroni G, Cavallini AR, Gilli P, et al. Loss of noctur-
nal increase in plasma concentration of atrial natriuretic peptide in hypertensive chronic renal
failure. Cardiology. 1992;80:312–23.
85. Portaluppi F, Montanari L, Ferlini M, Vergnani L, Bagni B. degli Uberti EC. Differences in
blood pressure regulation of congestive heart failure, before and after treatment, correlate with
changes in the circulating pattern of atrial natriuretic peptide. Eur Heart J. 1992;13:990–6.
86. Girgis SI, Macdonald DW, Stevenson JC, Bevis PJ, Lynch C, Wimalawansa SJ, et al.
Calcitonin gene-related peptide: potent vasodilator and major product of calcitonin gene.
Lancet. 1985;2:14–6.
87. Uddman R, Edvinsson L, Ekblad E, Hakanson R, Sundler F. Calcitonin gene-related peptide
(CGRP): perivascular distribution and vasodilatory effects. Regul Pept. 1986;15:1–23.
88. Trasforini G, Margutti A, Portaluppi F, Menegatti M, Ambrosio MR, Bagni B, et al. Circadian
profile of plasma calcitonin gene-related peptide in healthy man. J Clin Endocrinol Metab.
1991;73:945–51.
89. Portaluppi F, Trasforini G, Margutti A, Vergnani L, Ambrosio MR, Rossi R, et al. Circadian
rhythm of calcitonin gene-related peptide in uncomplicated essential hypertension.
J Hypertens. 1992;10:1227–34.
90. Itabashi A, Kashiwabara H, Shibuya M, Tanaka, K, Masaoka H, Katayama S, et al. The inter-
action of calcitonin gene-related peptide with angiotensin II on blood pressure and renin
release. J Hypertens. 1988;Suppl 6(4):S418–20.
91. Portaluppi F, Vergnani L, Margutti A, Ambrosio MR, Bondanelli M, Trasforini G, et al.
Modulatory effect of the renin-angiotensin system on the plasma levels of calcitonin gene-
related peptide in normal man. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1993;77:816–20.
92. Trasforin G, Margutti A, Vergnani L, Ambrosio MR, Valentini A, Rossi R, et al. Evidence that
enhancement of cholinergic tone increases basal plasma levels of calcitonin gene-related
peptide in normal man. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1994;78:763–6.
93. Gnaedinger MP, Uehlinger DE, Weidmann P, Sha SG, Muff R, Born W, et al. Distinct hemo-
dynamic and renal effects of calcitonin gene-related peptide and calcitonin in men. Am
J Physiol. 1989;257(6 Pt 1):E848–54.
94. Gennari C, Nami R, Agnusdei D, Bianchini C, Pavese G. Acute cardiovascular and renal
effects of human calcitonin gene-related peptide. Am J Hypertens. 1989;2(2 Pt 2):45S–9.
95. Otto ME, Svatikova A, Barretto RB, Santos S, Hoffmann M, Khandheria B, et al. Early morn-
ing attenuation of endothelial function in healthy humans. Circulation. 2004;109:2507–10.
96. Al Mheid I, Corrigan F, Shirazi F, Veledar E, Li Q, Alexander WR, et al. Circadian variation
in vascular function and regenerative capacity in healthy humans. J Am Heart Assoc. 2014;3,
e000845.
97. Elherik K, Khan F, McLaren M, Kennedy G, Belch JJ. Circadian variation in vascular tone
and endothelial cell function in normal males. Clin Sci (Lond). 2002;102:547–52.
98. Walters JF, Hampton SM, Deanfield JE, Donald AE, Skene DJ, Ferns GA. Circadian variation
in endothelial function is attenuated in postmenopausal women. Maturitas. 2006;54:294–303.
99. Kawasaki T, Ueno M, Uezono K, Kawano Y, Abe I, Kawazoe N, et al. The renin-angiotensin-
aldosterone system and circadian rhythm of urine variables in normotensive and hypertensive
subjects. Jpn Circ J. 1984;48:168–72.
100. Staessen JA, Birkenhager W, Bulpitt CJ, Fagard R, Fletcher AE, Lijnen P, et al. The relation-
ship between blood pressure and sodium and potassium excretion during the day and at night.
J Hypertens. 1993;11:443–7.
101. Sirota JH, Baldwin DS, Villareal H. Diurnal variations of renal function in man. J Clin Invest.
1950;29:187–92.
102. Rittig S, Knudsen UB, Nørgaard JP, Pedersen EB, Djurhuus JC. Abnormal diurnal rhythm of
plasma vasopressin and urinary output in patients with enuresis. Am J Physiol. 1989;
256(4 Pt 2):F664–71.
103. Fukuda M, Urushihara M, Wakamatsu T, Oikawa T, Kobori H. Proximal tubular angioten-
sinogen in renal biopsy suggests nondipper BP rhythm accompanied by enhanced tubular
sodium reabsorption. J Hypertens. 2012;30:1453–9.
104. Kawano Y, Kawasaki T, Kawazoe N, Abe I, Uezono K, Ueno M, et al. Circadian variations
of urinary dopamine, norepinephrine, epinephrine and sodium in normotensive and hyperten-
sive subjects. Nephron. 1990;55:277–82.
105. Ueno M, Kawasaki T, Uezono K, Omae T, Matsuoka M. Relationship of urinary kallikrein
excretion to renal water and sodium excretion. Metabolism. 1983;32:433–7.
106. Janssen WM, de Zeeuw D, van der Hem GK, de Jong PE. Atrial natriuretic factor influences
renal diurnal rhythm in essential hypertension. Hypertension. 1992;20:80–4.
107. Abe K, Sato M, Kasai Y, Haruyama T, Sato K, Miyazaki S, et al. circadian variation in the
excretion of urinary kinin, kallikrein and prostaglandin E in normal volunteers. Jpn Circ
J. 1981;45:1098–103.
108. Smolensky MH, Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Portaluppi F. Ingestion-time differences in medica-
tion effects: Rationale for hypertension chronotherapy to reduce cardiovascular risk and ini-
tial proof-of-concept evidence. Curr Pharm Des. 2015;21:773–90.
109. The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. Effects of angiotensin-
converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. N Engl
J Med. 2000;342:145–53.
110. Svensson P, de Faire U, Sleight P, Yusuf S, Ostergren J. Comparative effects of ramipril on
ambulatory and office blood pressures: a HOPE Substudy. Hypertension. 2001;38:E28–32.
111. Hermida RC. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in the prediction of cardiovascular
events and effects of chronotherapy: rationale and design of the MAPEC study. Chronobiol
Int. 2007;24:749–75.
112. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Mojón A, Fernández JR. Influence of circadian time of hypertension
treatment on cardiovascular risk: Results of the MAPEC study. Chronobiol Int.
2010;27:1629–51.
113. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Mojón A, Fernández JR. Cardiovascular risk of essential hyperten-
sion: influence of class, number, and treatment-time regimen of hypertension medications.
Chronobiol Int. 2013;30:315–27.
114. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Mojón A, Fernández JR. Decreasing sleep-time blood pressure
determined by ambulatory monitoring reduces cardiovascular risk. J Am Coll Cardiol.
2011;58:1165–73.
115. Investigators ABC-H, Roush GC, Fagard RH, Salles GF, Pierdomenico SD. Reboldi G, et al.
Prognostic impact from clinic, daytime, and night-time systolic blood pressure in nine
cohorts of 13,844 patients with hypertension. J Hypertens. 2014;32:2332–40.
116. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Mojón A, Fernández JR. Bedtime dosing of antihypertensive medi-
cations reduces cardiovascular risk in CKD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011;22:2313–21.
117. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Mojón A, Fernández JR. Influence of time of day of blood pressure-
lowering treatment on cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes.
Diabetes Care. 2011;34:1270–6.
118. Ayala DE, Hermida RC, Mojón A, Fernández JR. Cardiovascular risk of resistant hyperten-
sion: Dependence on treatment-time regimen of blood pressure-lowering medications.
119. Zhao P, Xu P, Wan C, Wang Z. Evening versus morning dosing regimen drug therapy for
hypertension. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;10, CD004184.
120. Roush GC, Fapohunda J, Kostis JB. Evening dosing of antihypertensive therapy to reduce
cardiovascular events: a third type of evidence based on a systematic review and meta-
analysis of randomized trials. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2014;16:561–8.
121. Guyton AC. Arterial pressure and hypertension. In: Guyton AC, editor. Circulatory physiol-
ogy. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders; 1980. p. 44–88.
122. Portaluppi F, Smolensky MH. Perspectives on the chronotherapy of hypertension based on
the results of the MAPEC study. Chronobiol Int. 2010;27:1652–67.
123. Fezeu L, Bankir L, Hansel B, Guerrot D. Differential circadian pattern of water and Na excre-
tion rates in the metabolic syndrome. Chronobiol Int. 2014;31:861–7.
124. Hermida R, Smolensky MH, Ayala DE, Fabbian F, Haus E, Fernández JR, et al. Ambulatory
blood pressure guidelines for the diagnosis of hypertension and assessment of cardiovascular
risk and attainment of treatment goals of adult human beings. Chronobiol Int. 2013;30:1–56.
Chapter 7
Blood Pressure Variability as Elusive
Harbinger of Adverse Health Outcomes
Kei Asayama, Fang-Fei Wei, Azusa Hara, Tine W. Hansen,

Yan Li, and Jan A. Staessen
Introduction
Blood pressure variability includes short-term, circadian, and long-term c omponents.

Assessment of blood pressure variability requires multiple readings obtained within
a single or several visits, by conventional office, home or 24-h ambulatory blood
pressure monitoring, or by beat-to-beat recordings. Factors that impact visit-to-visit
K. Asayama, M.D., Ph.D.

Studies Coordinating Centre, Research Unit Hypertension and Cardiovascular Epidemiology,
KU Leuven Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leuven,
Kapucijnenvoer 35, Box 7001, Leuven 3000, Belgium
Department of Planning for Drug Development and Clinical Evaluation, Tohoku University
Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Sendai, Japan
Department of Hygiene and Public Health, Teikyo University School of Medicine,
Tokyo, Japan
F.-F. Wei, M.D.
Center for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials and Center for Vascular Evaluations,
Shanghai Institute of Hypertension, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Hypertension, Ruijin
Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
A. Hara, Ph.D.
T.W. Hansen, M.D., Ph.D.
The Steno Diabetes Center, Gentofte and Research Center for Prevention and Health,
Copenhagen, Denmark

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-22771-9_7
130 K. Asayama et al.
and diurnal blood pressure variability include ethnicity [1], sex [2, 3], age [2, 3],
hypertension [3], body mass index [2, 3], use of β-blockers [3, 4], a history of car-
diovascular disease [2, 5], renal dysfunction [5], diabetes mellitus [2], a sedentary
lifestyle [5], and socioeconomic position [6].
Current indexes of blood pressure variability raise methodological issues related
to their poor reproducibility, their interdependence, and their association with the
level of blood pressure. Besides methodological problems, the prognostic signifi-
cance of blood pressure variability remains controversial. Some studies reported
associations among end-organ damage [7–9], cardiovascular events [4, 10–15], or
mortality [5] with blood pressure variability, whereas others failed to find any asso-
ciation or found variability to be inferior to the level of blood pressure [3, 16, 17].
Several publications proposing that the magnitude of the morning blood pressure
surge predicted stroke [18], in particular cerebral hemorrhage [19], or cardiovascular
endpoints [20] remained unconfirmed in recently published large-scale o bservational
studies [21–23].
Methodological Issues
Association Between Level and Variability of Blood Pressure
A major problem in many reports is that they assessed target organ damage or the
incidence of events as a function of blood pressure variability indexes that are highly
dependent on blood pressure level. In the early 1970s, Clement and coworkers
assessed blood pressure variability from the standard deviation (SD) and the coef-
ficient of variation (CV) of blood pressure measurements obtained every 5 min for
3 h in 70 untreated hypertensive patients [24]. Sympathetic activity correlated with
the level and standard deviation (SD) of blood pressure, but not with the coefficient
of variability (CV), a measure of variability that is less dependent on level than the
SD [24]. In the 1980s, Mancia and coworker analyzed 24-h continuous intra-arterial
recordings and showed that SD correlated positively with blood pressure level and
fell with antihypertensive drug treatment, whereas CV was independent of level
irrespective of drug intervention [25]. Notwithstanding these initial findings, the
Y. Li, M.D., Ph.D.

Center for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials and Center for Vascular Evaluations,
Shanghai Institute of Hypertension, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Hypertension, Ruijin
Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
J.A. Staessen, M.D., Ph.D. (*)
VitaK Research and Development, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
7 Blood Pressure Variability as Elusive Harbinger... 131
same group used SD rather than CV to estimate the association of blood pressure
variability and target organ damage on the incidence of cardiovascular complications
[26, 27], and many investigators continue using the SD as the index of blood
pressure variability.
Other measures of variability, such as weighted SD [28], the difference between
the maximum minus minimum blood pressure level (MMD), and average real
variability (ARV) [29], also remain highly dependent on blood pressure level. The
weighted SD is the mean of day and night SD values weighted for the number of
hours covered by these two periods during ambulatory monitoring. ARV is
calculated using the following formula:
n -1
1
ARV = åw ´　 BPk +1 - BP　k
åwk
k
k =1

where n is the number of blood pressure readings, k ranges from 1 to n−1, and wk is
the time interval between BPk and BPk + 1. ARV therefore accounts for the order of the
measurements and weighs each value according to the measurement interval (Fig. 7.1).
More recently, Rothwell and colleagues proposed blood pressure variability
independent of the mean (VIM) as a new index [4, 11]. VIM [4, 11] is the within-
subject SD divided by the within-subject mean blood pressure level to the power x
and multiplied by the population mean blood pressure level to the power x. The
power x is obtained by fitting a curve through a plot of SD against mean blood
pressure level, using the model SD = a × meanx, where x is derived by nonlinear
regression. The correlation of VIM with the other indexes of blood pressure
variability is high [30], but VIM does not correlate with the blood pressure level
[4, 11]. VIM therefore allows assessing association of outcome with blood pressure
variability with little confounding by blood pressure level [4, 11]. Meanwhile, VIM
is tied to the population being examined and cannot be compared across the
population because VIM is derived from the distribution of the blood pressure
values in each population.
Systolic Blood Pressure (mm Hg)
140 140
120 120
SD=10 SD=10
100 ARV=2.22 100 ARV=20
Time Time
Fig. 7.1 Derivation of the ARV from blood pressure recordings. The ARV averages the absolute
differences between consecutive readings and thereby accounts for the order of the blood pressure
readings. For distinct blood pressure signals, SD can be the same, whereas ARV is not. ARV
denotes average real variability. Reproduced with permission from Hansen TW et al. [17]
I nconsistent Definitions and Poor Reproducibility

of Variability Indexes
The morning surge in blood pressure is a good example to highlight how i nconsistent
definitions and poor reproducibility limit the clinical applicability of indexes of
blood pressure variability. In 2003, Kario and colleagues introduced two definitions
of the morning surge in blood pressure [18]. The sleep-trough morning surge is the
difference between the morning pressure (the average blood pressure during the 2 h
after awaking) and the lowest night-time blood pressure (the average of the lowest
pressure and the readings immediately preceding and following the lowest value).
The pre-awaking morning surge is the difference between the morning blood
pressure (the average blood pressure during the 2 h after waking up) and the
pre-awakening blood pressure (the average blood pressure during the 2 h before
waking up). Other investigators redefined the pre-awakening morning surge as the
blood pressure differences over 1-h intervals prior and after awakening or as the
blood pressure difference between all readings during sleep and those obtained over
2 h after awakening [31]. Several investigators reported that an exaggerated m orning
surge predicted outcome [18–20]. However, using a variety of definitions of a single
index of blood pressure variability induces confusion and raises the suspicion that
definitions were revised to serve the hypothesis to be proven.
In 2008, Wizner and colleagues analyzed the substudy [32] on ambulatory blood
pressure monitoring to the Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) trial [33].
Patients underwent 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring twice before
randomization at a 1-month interval and once in 10 months after randomization to
double-blind placebo [32]. In 173 patients with repeat recordings within 33 days
(median), the short-term repeatability coefficients, expressed as percentages of
maximal variation, ranged from 35 to 41 % for the day-time and night-time blood
pressure, but from 52 to 75 % for the sleep-trough and the pre-awakening morning
surge, higher values represent worse reproducibility. In 219 patients with repeat
recordings within 10 months (median), the corresponding long-term estimates
ranged from 45 % to 64 % and from 76 % to 83 %, respectively. In categorical
analyses of the short-term repeatability of the sleep-trough morning surge and the
pre-awakening morning surge, using the 75th percentile as arbitrary cut-off, surging
status changed in 28.0 % and 26.8 % of patients (κ-statistic, ≤0.33). In the long-term,
these proportions were 32.0 % and 32.0 %, respectively (κ-statistic, ≤0.20). The
κ-statistic indicating moderate reproducibility is 0.4. Stergiou and associates
confirmed the poor intra-individual reproducibility of the blood pressure surge in
the morning after sleep and in the evening after siesta [31]. Using the four defini-
tions described above [18, 31], the κ-statistics were consistently less than 0.20 [31].
The poor reproducibility of the morning surge and per extension blood pressure
variability in general can be ascribed to several factors. Within individuals, blood
pressure levels differ between rapid-eye-movement (REM) sleep and non-REM
sleep. REM sleep is accompanied by neural sympathetic and electroencephalographic
activity similar to that when awake, with distinct cardiovascular effects. In contrast,
non-REM sleep is characterized by a suppression in neural sympathetic activity,
resulting in a decrease in blood pressure [34]. Ambient temperature and season

influence blood pressure levels during sleep and day-time. Cold conditions result in
higher surges in the morning blood pressure, later sleep stage transition, and delayed
sympathetic activation [35]. The position of the cuff relative to the heart level
introduces variability, in particular during sleep, when subjects cannot consciously
control body position. Methods of awakening, such as using an alarm clock or
natural awakening, affect blood pressure rising at awakening. For patients on
antihypertensive drugs, the times of dosing (e.g., morning vs. evening) and the
duration of action of the drugs administered influence blood pressure level and the
diurnal blood pressure variability, including the magnitude of the morning surge.
Recent Evidence on Blood Pressure Variability
Morning Blood Pressure Surge
Kario and coworkers studied stroke prognosis in 519 patients with hypertension on
office measurement (63.6 % women; mean age, 72.5 years) [18]. They assessed
silent cerebral infarction by magnetic resonance imaging. For analysis, patients
were dichotomized according to the 90th percentile of the sleep-trough distribution
(≥55 mmHg). During an average follow-up of 41 months (range, 1–68 months), 44
patients experienced a stroke, of whom two had a silent stroke. The 53 patients in
the top tenth of the sleep-trough morning surge distribution, compared with the 466
remaining patients, had a higher baseline prevalence of multiple infarcts (57 % vs.
33 %; P = 0.001) and a higher stroke incidence (19 % vs. 7.3 %, P = 0.004) than the
466 remaining patients [18]. The top-ten patients were also older (77 vs. 72 years),
had higher office (171 vs. 163 mmHg) and 24-h (143 vs. 138 mmHg) systolic blood
pressures, and were followed for a longer period (41 vs. 37 months) [18]. Because
of these disparities, 46 patients with exaggerated morning surge were matched with
145 control patients for age and 24-h systolic blood pressure. After matching, the
relative risk of stroke in the morning surge compared with the control group was
2.71 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.05–7.21; P = 0.047) [18].
Studies published shortly after this seminal report [18] were not confirmatory
[19, 20]. Among 1430 Japanese recruited in the framework of the Ohasama
population study, the pre-awakening morning surge in systolic blood pressure
marginally predicted cerebral hemorrhage (hazard ratio [HR] per 1−SD increase
[+13.8 mmHg], 1.34; CI, 0.95–1.89), whereas the prognostic value for ischemic
stroke was far from significant (HR, 0.97; CI, 0.79–1.19). Gosse and colleagues
[20] recorded 31 cardiovascular events among 507 White hypertensive patients with
a mean follow-up of 92 months [20]. With adjustments applied for age and 24-h
systolic blood pressure, the risk of cardiovascular events was not associated with the
pre-awakening systolic blood pressure, calculated as the difference of the first
systolic blood pressure after standing up minus the last supine systolic blood
pressure at awakening. For each 1-mm Hg increase, the estimate of relative risk
amounted to 3.3 % (95 % CI, 0.8–5.8 %) [20].
Verdecchia and colleagues [22] investigated the relation between the day–night
blood pressure dip and the early morning surge in a cohort of 3012 initially untreated
subjects with essential hypertension [22]. The day-to-night reduction in systolic
blood pressure showed a direct association (P < 0.0001) with the sleep-trough
(r = 0.56) and the pre-awakening (r = 0.55) morning surge in systolic blood pressure
[22]. Over a mean follow-up period of 8.4 years, 220 patients died and 268
experienced a cardiovascular event. A blunted sleep-trough (≤19.5 mmHg; the
lowest quartile) and pre-awakening (≤9.5 mmHg) blood pressure surge were both
associated with an excess risk of events (HRs, 1.66 [CI, 1.14–2.42] and 1.71 [CI,
1.12–2.71], respectively). However, neither patients with a high sleep-trough
(>36.0 mmHg; the highest quartile) nor those with a high pre-awakening
(>27.5 mmHg) systolic blood pressure had an increased risk of death or a
cardiovascular complication.
Li and colleagues analyzed the International Database on Ambulatory blood
pressure monitoring in relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes (IDACO) [21].
This resource included 12 randomly recruited population cohorts with follow-up
of both fatal and nonfatal outcomes [21]. During a median follow-up of
11.4 years, 785 deaths and 611 fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events occurred
in 5645 IDACO participants (mean age, 53.0 years; 54.0 % women) [21]. While
accounting for covariables and the night-to-day ratio of systolic blood pressure,
the HR expressing the risk of all-cause mortality in the top tenth of the
sleep-trough morning surge distribution (≥37.0 mmHg) compared with the
remainder of the study population was 1.32 (CI, 1.09–1.59; Fig. 7.2). For car-
diovascular and noncardiovascular mortality, the corresponding HRs were 1.18
(CI, 0.87–1.61) and 1.42 (CI, 1.11–1.80), respectively; for all cardiovascular,
cardiac, coronary, and cerebrovascular events, the HRs amounted to 1.30 (CI,
1.06–1.60; Fig. 7.2), 1.52 (CI, 1.15–2.00), 1.45 (CI, 1.04–2.03), and 0.95 (CI,
0.68–1.32), respectively. Analyses of the risk associated with the top tenth of
the distribution of the pre-awakening systolic morning surge (≥28.0 mmHg)
generated similar results (Fig. 7.2). Furthermore, the risk of death or a major
cardiovascular event in the 50th percentile group of the sleep-trough morning
surge was over 35 % lower (P < 0.01; Fig. 7.2) than the average risk in the
whole study population [21].
In the Pressioni Arteriose Monitorate E Loro Associazioni (PAMELA) study,
Bombelli and colleagues [23] analyzed ambulatory blood pressure data of 2011
people. Cardiovascular mortality showed a positive relation with the sleep-trough
morning surge in unadjusted analyses (HR, 1.3; CI, 1.1–1.6), which disappeared
after adjustment for covariables (HR, 0.9; CI, 0.7–1.1). Cardiovascular mortality,
irrespective of adjustment, was unrelated to the pre-awakening morning surge
(P ≥ 0.12). Along similar lines, in this Italian population study [23], there were no
differences in the risks of total and cardiovascular mortality when the bottom and
top tenths of the distributions of the sleep-trough and pre-awakening morning surge
were compared (P ≥ 0.39).
a b
1.8 1.8
All-Cause Mortality All Cardiovascular Events
1.6 1.6
Adjusted Hazard Ratio (95% CI)
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
No. of No. of
0.4 Deaths 94 80 71 67 53 72 74 75 84 115 0.4 Events 73 55 54 49 40 50 64 57 71 98
Rate 16 14 12 12 9 13 12 13 15 21 Rate 13 10 10 9 7 9 11 10 13 19
-5 5 15 25 35 45 50 -5 5 15 25 35 45 50
Sleep-Trough Morning Surge (mm Hg)
c d
1.8 1.8
All-Cause Mortality All Cardiovascular Events
1.6 1.6
Adjusted Hazard Ratio (95% CI)
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
No. of
Deaths 120 79 73 76 80 76 67 57 65 92 No. of
0.4 Rate 21 14 13 13 14 13 12 10 11 16 0.4 Events 92 58 58 53 49 63 51 47 53 87
Rate 17 11 11 9 9 11 9 8 9 16
-10 0 10 20 30 35 -10 0 10 20 30 35
Pre-Awakening Morning Surge (mm Hg)
Fig. 7.2 Multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (95 % CIs) for all-cause mortality (a, c) and for all
fatal combined with nonfatal cardiovascular events (b, d) by ethnic- and sex-specific deciles of the
sleep-trough (A and B) and the pre-awakening (c, d) morning surge in systolic blood pressure in
5645 participants. The hazard ratios express the risk in deciles compared with the average risk in
the whole study population and were adjusted for cohort, sex, age, body mass index, smoking and
drinking, serum cholesterol, history of cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, antihypertensive
drug treatment, 24-h systolic blood pressure, and the systolic night-to-day blood pressure ratio.
The number of events and incidence rates (events per 1000 person–years) are also given for each
decile. CI denotes confidence interval. Reproduced with permission from Li Y et al. [21]
Diurnal Blood Pressure Variability
Diurnal blood pressure variability encompasses the day-to-night changes in the

blood pressure level and reading-to-reading blood pressure variability in 24-h
ambulatory blood pressure recordings. In 1988, O’Brien reported for the first time
that an abnormal circadian blood pressure profile with decreased night-time dipping
had a more frequent history of stroke [36]. Subsequent studies of populations
[37–40] and hypertensive cohorts [41–47] usually corroborated that an elevated
nocturnal blood pressure is a harbinger of an unfavorable outcome. In spite of the

apparent concordance between these previously published large-scale outcome
studies [37–47], several potential limitations required further clarification of the
prognostic accuracy of the day-time versus the night-time ambulatory blood
pressure. Many studies considered only fatal outcomes [37, 38, 45, 46] or did not
have the power to study cause-specific cardiovascular endpoints [37, 38, 40, 44].
Investigators dichotomized the night-to-day blood pressure ratio or applied widely
different definitions of dipping status or of the day-time and night-time intervals.
The IDACO consortium therefore assessed the prognostic accuracy of day versus
night ambulatory blood pressure in 7458 people enrolled in prospective population
studies in Europe, China, and Uruguay [48]. Median follow-up was 9.6 years.
Adjusted for day-time blood pressure, confounders, and cardiovascular risk factors,
night-time blood pressure predicted (P < 0.01) total (n = 983) cardiovascular
(n = 387) and noncardiovascular (n = 560) mortality [48]. Conversely, adjusted for
night-time blood pressure and other covariables, day-time blood pressure predicted
only noncardiovascular mortality (P < 0.05), with lower blood pressure levels being
associated with increased risk. Both day-time and night-time blood pressure consis-
tently predicted (P < 0.05) all cardiovascular events (n = 943) and stroke (n = 420)
[48]. Adjusted for night-time blood pressure, day-time blood pressure lost prognos-
tic significance for cardiac events (n = 525; P ≥ 0.07). Adjusted for 24-h blood pres-
sure, the night-to-day blood pressure ratio predicted mortality, but not fatal combined
with nonfatal events. Participants with a systolic night-to-day blood pressure ratio
value of ≥1 were older, at higher risk of death, and died at an older age than those
whose night-to-day ratio was normal (≥0.80 to <0.90) [48].
In contrast to commonly held views, the IDACO analysis showed that day-time
blood pressure adjusted for night-time blood pressure predicted fatal combined with
nonfatal cardiovascular events, except in treated patients, in whom antihypertensive
drugs probably reduced blood pressure during the day, but not at night [48]. The
increased mortality in patients with higher night-time than day-time blood pressure
probably indicated reverse causality. The IDACO findings confirmed that both day-
time and night-time blood pressure hold valuable prognostic information [48]. They
supported the conclusion that recording blood pressure during the whole day should
be the standard in clinical practice. A 2014 IDACO publication [49] highlighted that
identification of truly low-risk white coat hypertension requires setting thresholds
simultaneously to 24-h, day-time, and night-time blood pressures. In line with the
2007 report [48], Fan and colleagues also demonstrated that isolated nocturnal
hypertension predicted cardiovascular outcome even in patients who are normoten-
sive on office or on ambulatory day-time blood pressure measurement [50].
Reading-to-Reading Blood Pressure Variability
Hansen and colleagues also assessed blood pressure variability from the SD and
ARV (Fig. 7.3) in 24-h ambulatory recordings in the IDACO population [17].
Higher diastolic ARV in 24-h ambulatory blood pressure recordings predicted
a b
10 10
17
15
13 9
9
11
10-Year Risk of Composite CV Events, %
9 13
8 7 8 11
9
7
7 7 5
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
np=8938 ne=1049 np=8938 ne=1049

2 Parv=0.03 Pbp<0.001 2 Parv=0.04 Pbp<0.001
100 110 120 130 140 150 60 70 80 90

Blood Pressure (mm Hg)
c d
10 10
150
9 9
10-Year Risk of Composite CV Events, %
89
8 8
7 7
133
6 6
79
123 5
5
73
114
4 4
67
105
3 3 60
np=8938 ne=1049 np=8938 ne=1049

2 Parv=0.03 Pbp<0.001 2 Parv=0.04 Pbp<0.001
7 9 11 13 15 17 5 7 9 11 13
Average Real Variability (mm Hg)
Fig. 7.3 Ten-year absolute risk of combined cardiovascular events in relation to 24-h blood
pressure (a, b) at different levels of systolic and diastolic ARV24 and in relation to ARV24 (c, d) at
different levels of 24-h systolic and diastolic blood pressure. The analyses were standardized to the
distributions (mean or ratio) of cohort, sex, age, 24-h heart rate, body mass index, smoking and
drinking, serum cholesterol, history of cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and treatment
with antihypertensive drugs. In panels a and b, the risk functions span the 5th–95th percentile
interval of the 24-h blood pressure and correspond to the 5th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 95th percentiles
of ARV24. In panels c and d, the risk functions span the 5th–95th percentile interval of ARV24 and
correspond to the 5th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 95th percentiles of the 24-h blood pressure. P-values
are for the independent effect of ARV24 (Parv) and 24-h blood pressure (Pbp). np and ne indicate the
number of participants at risk and the number of events. ARV24 denotes average real variability
over 24 h. Reproduced with permission from Hansen TW et al. [17]
(P ≤ 0.03) total (HR, 1.13; CI, 1.07–1.19) and cardiovascular (HR, 1.21; CI, 1.12–
1.31) mortality and all types of fatal combined with nonfatal endpoints (HR, ≥1.07)
with the exception of cardiac and coronary events (HR, ≤1.02; P ≥ 0.58). Similarly,
higher systolic ARV in 24-h ambulatory recordings predicted (P < 0.05) total (HR,
1.11; CI, 1.04–1.18) and cardiovascular (HR, 1.17; CI, 1.07–1.28) mortality and all
fatal c ombined with nonfatal endpoints (HR, ≥1.07), with the exception of cardiac
and coronary events (HR, ≤1.03; P ≥ 0.54). SD predicted only total and c ardiovascular
mortality. The incremental cardiovascular risk explained by adding ARV to models
already including 24-h ambulatory blood pressure level and other covariables was
less than 1 %. This report established that reading-to-reading blood pressure
variability is an independent risk factor, significant in a statistical but not in a clinically
meaningful manner. It highlighted that the level of the 24-h blood pressure remains the
primary blood pressure-related risk factor to account for in clinical practice [17].
Palatini and associates analyzed 7112 untreated hypertensive participants (43.8 %
women; mean age, 50.8 years) with day-time and night-time ambulatory blood
pressure enrolled in 6 prospective cohorts [51]. During a median of 5.5 years of
follow-up, 130 fatal and 455 nonfatal cardiovascular events occurred. In a

multivariable-adjusted Cox model, the SD of the night-time systolic blood pressure
predicted cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.48; CI, 1.20–1.84) and morbidity (HR,
1.83; CI, 1.17–2.86), whereas SD of day-time systolic blood pressure did not
(P ≥ 0.096). They proposed as optimal cutoff limits for the night-time SD 12.2 mmHg
systolic and 7.9 mmHg diastolic. Participants above these arbitrary thresholds had a
41–132 % higher risk of a composite cardiovascular endpoint than those below these
cut-off limits (P ≤ 0.028). As outlined above, SD as an index of blood pressure
variability is closely correlated with blood pressure level. The authors stated that they
obtained similar results if they used CV instead of SD, but did not show the data [51].
ithin-Visit and Between-Visit Blood Pressure Variability

W
in a Prospective Study
In a randomly recruited Flemish population sample (n = 2944; 50.7 % women; mean

age, 44.9 years), highly trained observers measured blood pressure five times
consecutively at each of two home visits and recorded the incidence of adverse
health outcomes in relation to the variability of systolic blood pressure at enrolment
[3]. Schutte and colleagues computed VIM, MMD, and ARV for within-visit
variability (WVV), between-visit variability, and overall—within-visit combined
with between-visit—variability. Over a median follow-up of 12 years, 401 deaths
occurred and 311 participants experienced a fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular event.
Overall (ten readings over two visits), systolic blood pressure variability averaged
(SD) 5.45 (2.82) units for VIM, 15.9 (8.4) mm Hg for MMD, and 4.08 (2.05) mmHg
for ARV. In multivariable-adjusted analyses, overall and within- and between-visit
blood pressure variability did not predict total or cardiovascular mortality or the
composite of any fatal plus nonfatal cardiovascular endpoint. For instance, the HRs
for all cardiovascular events combined in relation to overall variability as captured

by VIM, MMD, and ARV were 1.05 (CI, 0.96–1.15), 1.06 (CI, 0.96–1.16), and 1.08
(CI, 0.98–1.19), respectively. By contrast, mean systolic blood pressure level was a
significant predictor of all endpoints under study, independent of blood pressure
variability [3]. These findings suggest that, in the general population, within-subject
blood pressure variability does not have any prognostic significance over and
beyond systolic blood pressure level [3].
ithin-Visit and Between-Visit Blood Pressure Variability

W
in Syst-Eur
Results from randomized clinical trials constitute the strongest evidence for the role
and reversibility of any cardiovascular risk factor. In the Syst-Eur trial, Hara and
colleagues investigated whether systolic blood pressure variability determines
prognosis over and beyond level. Using a double-blind design, 4695 patients
(≥60 years) with isolated systolic hypertension (160–219/<95 mmHg) were
randomly allocated to active treatment or matching placebo. Active treatment
consisted of nitrendipine (10–40 mg/day) with possible addition of enalapril

(5–20 mg/day) and/or hydrochlorothiazide (12.5–25.0 mg/day) [52, 53]. They
assessed whether on-treatment systolic blood pressure level, visit-to-visit VIM, or
WVV predicted total (n = 286) or cardiovascular (n = 150) mortality or cardiovascular
(n = 347), cerebrovascular (n = 133), or cardiac (n = 217) endpoints [54].
Before randomization, patients of the placebo and active-treatment groups had
similar characteristics. Of 4695 participants, 3138 (66.8 %) were women. Age
averaged 70.2 years and blood pressure 173.8 mmHg systolic and 85.5 mmHg
diastolic. Assessed during the run-in period, visit-to-visit blood pressure variability,
as captured by SD (mean, 6.4 mmHg), CV (3.65), MMD (12.1 mmHg), and ARV
(7.2 mmHg), increased across fourths of the distribution of systolic blood pressure
before randomization (P < 0.0001). WVV (mean, 3.4 mmHg) during the run-in
period also increased with higher systolic blood pressure (P < 0.0001), whereas
VIM (6.3 units) did not increase with higher run-in systolic blood pressure
(P = 0.084) [54]. In all 4695 patients, the correlation coefficients of VIM with
systolic blood pressure level were 0.01 (P = 0.59) during the run-in period and -0.01
(P = 0.75) during follow-up after randomization.
At 2 years (median follow-up), active treatment lowered systolic blood pressure
by 10.5 mmHg (P < 0.0001) more than placebo, whereas the between-group differ-
ences in blood pressure variability were not significant, averaging 0.29 units
(P = 0.20) for VIM and 0.07 mmHg (P = 0.47) for WVV (Fig. 7.4) [54]. Active treat-
ment reduced (P ≤ 0.048) cardiovascular (-28 %), cerebrovascular (-40 %), and car-
diac (-24 %) endpoints. In analyses dichotomized by the median, patients with low
vs. high VIM had similar event rates (P ≥ 0.14). Low vs. high WVV was not associ-
ated with event rates (P ≥ 0.095), except for total and cardiovascular mortality on
active treatment, which were higher with low WVV (P ≤ 0.0003). In multivariable-
a
180
Systolic Blood Pressure (mm Hg)

Placebo
2297 Active
P<0.0001
170
2182
2398
1905
1261 832 543
160
150 2269
2033
1371 875 587
140
b
12
11
P =0.10
10
VIM (units)
c
5.0
Within-Visit Variability (mm Hg)
4.5
P =0.15
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
0 1/2 1 2 3 4
Follow-up (years)
Fig. 7.4 Systolic blood pressure level (a), VIM (b), and within-visit variability (c) at randomization
and during follow-up. Values at randomization and at annual intervals during follow-up were derived
from at least six blood pressure readings, two at each of three consecutive visits. The blood pressure
level at 6 months is the average of four blood pressure readings at two consecutive visits. The com-
putation of variability requires at least three visits. Variability is therefore not plotted at 6 months. P
values indicate the significance of the average between-group difference throughout follow-up. VIM
denotes variability independent of the mean. Reproduced with permission from Hara A et al. [54]
adjusted Cox models, systolic blood pressure level predicted all endpoints
(P ≤ 0.0043), whereas VIM did not predict any adverse outcome (P ≥ 0.058). Except
for an inverse association with total mortality (P = 0.042), WVV was not predictive
(P ≥ 0.15). Sensitivity analyses, from which the investigators excluded blood pres-
sure readings within 6 months after randomization, 6 months prior to an event, or
both, were confirmatory [54]. The double-blind placebo-controlled Syst-Eur trial

irrefutably demonstrated that blood-pressure lowering treatment reduces cardiovas-
cular complications by decreasing systolic blood pressure level but not systolic vari-
ability and that higher systolic blood pressure level predicted risk without material
contribution of variability.
Variability of Self-Measured Home Blood Pressure
Blood pressure variability as captured by self-measurement at home has been

assessed for a predictor of target organ damage or cardiovascular complications.
Ushigome and colleagues showed significant correlations between macroalbumin-
uria in type-2 diabetes mellitus and the CV of home blood pressure [55]. On the
basis of multivariable-adjusted linear regression analysis including blood pressure
level, the same group recently reported that pulse wave velocity was significantly
correlated with the SD of three consecutive measurements on one occasion in the
morning (P = 0.016) or evening (P = 0.0099), but not with the SD of day-to-day
home blood pressure (P ≥ 0.78) [56]. Nishimura and coworkers showed that
low-estimated glomerular filtration rate was significantly associated with the SD of
home blood pressure [57]. Researchers have been placing expectations on home
blood pressure variability as a biomarker for chronic kidney disease [58]. However,
as, reported by Okada and colleagues, SD, CV, and ARV of self-measured home
blood pressure did not predict the progression of chronic kidney disease [59].
The prognostic significance of self-measured home blood pressure variability
was first assessed in the Ohasama population, using the within-participant SD of the
morning systolic blood pressure over 26 days (median) [60]. In multivariable-adjusted
Cox models also including blood pressure level, the SD was associated with higher
risk of total mortality (HR per 1−SD increase of within-participant SD, 1.18; CI,
1.07–1.31), cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.20; CI, 1.02–1.40), non-cardiovascular
mortality (HR, 1.18; CI, 1.04–1.34), stroke mortality (HR, 1.38; CI, 1.12–1.72), but
not cardiac mortality (HR, 1.02; CI, 0.89–1.29). The association of blood pressure
variability with non-cardiovascular mortality was difficult to interpret, but might
reflect reverse causality; subclinical disease leading to greater variability. The
Finn-Home investigators assessed the day-to-day variability of the self-measured
systolic blood pressure in the morning. The within-participant SD over 7 days
predicted total mortality and cardiovascular events [14]. The HRs expressing the
incremental risk for a 1−SD increment in variability (3.93 mmHg) were 1.17 (CI,
1.00–1.30; P = 0.03) and 1.21 (CI, 1.08–1.40; P = 0.006), respectively [14]. Day-to-day
variability in the evening systolic blood pressure was not predictive (P≥0.11) [14].
Asayama and colleagues explored whether fatal and nonfatal outcomes were
associated with the new indexes of blood pressure variability, VIM, ARV, and
MMD, derived from the self-measured home blood pressure [61]. They analyzed
mortality and stroke risk in 2421 Ohasama residents after excluding high-risk par-
ticipants with a history of stroke. Participants were asked to record their self-measured
home blood pressure for 4 weeks after at least 2 min of rest in the morning within
1 h after awakening and, if applicable, before taking their blood pressure-lowering
medications. Participants also obtained the recordings in the evening just before
going to bed. Over a median follow-up of 12.0 years, 412 participants died, 139 of
cardiovascular causes and 223 had a stroke. In multivariable-adjusted Cox models
including morning systolic pressure, VIM and ARV predicted total and c ardiovascular
mortality in all participants (P ≤ 0.044), while VIM predicted cardiovascular
mortality in treated (P = 0.014), but not in untreated (P = 0.23) participants. Morning
MMD did not predict any endpoint (P ≥ 0.085). In models already including evening
systolic pressure, only VIM predicted cardiovascular mortality in all and in untreated
participants (P ≤ 0.046). When we calculated multivariable-adjusted 10-year risk of
cardiovascular mortality and stroke incidence in relation to the mean level and VIM
(Fig. 7.5 in all of the participants), both morning and evening systolic blood p ressure
were consistent predictors (P ≤ 0.032) with the exception of cardiovascular m ortality
in treated participants for morning systolic pressure (P = 0.082). Being on
antihypertensive drug treatment seemed to be the main driver of the significant
Fig. 7.5 Absolute 10-year risk of cardiovascular mortality (a) and stroke incidence (b) in relation
to the mean level of systolic blood pressure measured at home in the morning in 2421 participants.
The analyses were standardized to the distributions (mean or ratio) of sex, age, body mass index,
heart rate, smoking and drinking, total cholesterol, diabetes mellitus, history of cardiovascular
diseases, and treatment with antihypertensive drugs. Four continuous lines represent the risk inde-
pendently associated with VIM equal to 3, 6, 9, and 12 units. P values are for the independent
effect of SBP (PSBP) and VIM (PVIM). np and ne indicate the number of participants at risk and the
number of events. Reproduced with permission from Asayama K et al. [61]
a ssociations between cardiovascular mortality and blood pressure variability [61],

whereas the new indexes of blood pressure variability, VIM, derived from
self-measured home blood pressure did not incrementally predict outcome over and
beyond mean systolic pressure.
Beat-to-Beat Blood Pressure Variability
Beat-to-beat recordings allow capturing blood pressure variability, even over short
time intervals [62]. In 256 untreated Chinese patients referred to a hypertension
clinic, Wei and colleagues assessed the association of target organ with VIM, MMD,
and ARV, determined from 10-min beat-to-beat, 24-h ambulatory, and 7-day home
blood pressure recordings [62]. Effect sizes (standardized β) were computed using
multivariable regression models. In beat-to-beat recordings, left ventricular mass
index (n = 128) was not (P ≥ 0.18) associated with systolic blood pressure level, but
increased with all three systolic variability indices (+2.97–3.53 g/m [2]; P < 0.04).
The urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio increased (P ≤ 0.03) with systolic blood
pressure level (+1.14–1.17 mg/mmol, according to the model) and MMD (+1.18 mg/
mmol); and aortic pulse wave velocity increased with systolic blood pressure level
(+0.69 m/s; P < 0.001). In 24-h recordings, all three indexes of organ damage
increased (P < 0.03) with systolic blood pressure level, whereas the associations
with systolic blood pressure variability were nonsignificant (P ≥ 0.15) except for an
increase in aortic pulse wave velocity (P < 0.05) with VIM (+0.16 m/s) and MMD
(+0.17 m/s). In home blood pressure recordings, the urinary albumin-to-creatinine
ratio (+1.27–1.30 mg/mmol) and aortic pulse wave velocity (+0.36–0.40 m/s)
increased (P < 0.05) with systolic blood pressure level, whereas all associations of
target organ damage with the variability indexes were nonsignificant (P ≥ 0.07). In
summary, while accounting for systolic blood pressure level, associations of target
organ damage with systolic blood pressure variability were readily detectable in
beat-to-beat recordings, least noticeable in home recordings, with 24-h ambulatory
monitoring being informative only for aortic pulse wave velocity [62].
Conclusions
Recent publications [4, 11–13] reviewed elsewhere [63, 64] suggested that clinicians
might reduce stroke incidence more by targeting systolic blood pressure variability
along with level, preferentially using calcium-channel blockers [4, 11–13, 65],
which might result in less blood pressure variability than other antihypertensive
drugs classes. These recommendations, not endorsed by current guidelines [66],
largely originated from observational population studies [5, 51, 67], or cohort
analyses that enrolled high-risk patients with hypertension [4, 11], diabetes mellitus
[55–57, 68, 69], a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack [11], or renal failure
[59, 70–73]. Other methodological issues that might have confounded the issue are
categorization of continuous variability measures for risk prediction [5, 11], the
application of variability indexes that are dependent on blood pressure level [5, 11],
and the limitation of endpoints to mortality. While addressing these issues in the
aforementioned population studies [3, 17], one was never able to identify blood
pressure variability as a clinically meaningful cardiovascular risk factor. In particu-
lar, the recent evidence demonstrates that the morning surge is only a weak predic-
tor of cardiovascular risk, attaining significance only in the top tenth of the
distribution in studies with large sample size [19–23]. As Bombelli and coworkers
concluded, the morning surge “appears to be an epiphenomenon of 24-hour blood
pressure variability,” and that the morning surge represents only a tiny part of the
whole-day blood pressure variability [23].
Although this does not preclude that blood pressure variability remains a target
in clinical research, in particular if captured by beat-to-beat recordings [62], the
current large international population studies do not support blood pressure
variability as a prime target in the management of hypertension. The analysis of the
Syst-Eur randomized clinical trial [54], in line with current recommendations, is
strong evidence supporting the idea that blood pressure level, not variability, remains
center-fold in the primary and secondary prevention of blood pressure-related
cardiovascular complications. Blood pressure variability currently remains a

research tool that needs further prospective studies with hard endpoints to define
potential application, where it might be of use in daily clinical practice.
References
1. White WB. Diagnostic evaluation: ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in clinical hyperten-

sion management. J Am Soc Hypertens. 2014;8:939–41.
2. de la Sierra A, Redon J, Banegas JR, Segura J, Parati G, Gorostidi M, de la Cruz JJ, Sobrino J,
Llisterri JL, Alonso J, Vinyoles E, Pallarés V, Sarria A, Aranda P, Ruilope LM, Spanish Society
of Hypertension Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring Registry Investigators. Prevalence
and factors associated with circadian blood pressure patterns in hypertensive patients.
3. Schutte R, Thijs L, Liu Y, Asayama K, Jin Y, Odili AN, Gu YM, Kuznetsova T, Jacobs L,
Staessen JA. Within-subject blood pressure level—not variability - predicts fatal and nonfatal
outcomes in a general population. Hypertension. 2012;60:1138–47.
4. Rothwell PM, Howard SC, Dolan E, Dobson JE, Dahlöf B, Poulter NR, Sever PS, on behalf of
the ASCOT-BPLA and MRC Trial Investigators. Effects of β blockers and calcium-channel
blockers on within-individual variability in blood pressure and risk of stroke. Lancet Neurol.
2010;9:469–80.
5. Muntner P, Shimbo D, Tonelli M, Reynolds K, Arnett DK, Oparil S. The relationship between
visit-to-visit variability in systolic blood pressure and all-cause mortality in general popula-
tion. Findings from NHANES III, 1988 to 1994. Hypertension. 2011;57:160–6.
6. Hickson DA, Diez Roux AV, Wyatt SB, Gebreab SY, Ogedegbe G, Sarpong DF, Taylor HA,
Wofford MR. Socioeconomic position is positively associated with blood pressure dipping
among African-American adults : the Jackson Heart Study. Am J Hypertens. 2011;24:1015–21.
7. Parati G, Pomidossi G, Albini F, Malaspina D, Mancia G. Relationship of 24-hour blood pres-
sure mean and variability to severity of target-organ damage in hypertension. J Hypertens.
1987;5:93–8.
8. Tatasciore A, Renda G, Zimarino M, Soccio M, Bilo G, Parati G, Schillaci G, De Caterina

R. Awake systolic blood pressure variability correlates with target-organ damage in hyperten-
sive subjects. Hypertension. 2007;50:325–32.
9. Matsui Y, Ishikawa J, Eguchi K, Shibasaki S, Shimada S, Kario K. Maximum value of home
blood pressure: a novel indocator of target organ damage in hypertension. Hypertension.
2011;57:1087–93.
10. Kikuya M, Hozawa A, Ohokubo T, Tsuji I, Michimata M, Matsubara M, Ota M, Nagai K,
Araki T, Satoh H, Ito S, Hisamichi S, Imai Y. Prognostic significance of blood pressure and
heart rate variabilities. The Ohasama Study. Hypertension. 2000;36:901–6.
11. Rothwell PM, Howard SC, Dolan E, O’Brien E, Dobson JE, Dahlöf B, Sever PS, Poulter
NR. Prognostic significance of visit-to-visit variability, maximum systolic blood pressure, and
episodic hypertension. Lancet. 2010;375:895–905.
12. Rothwell PM. Limitations of the usual blood-pressure hypothesis and importance of variability,
instability, and episodic hypertension. Lancet. 2010;375:938–48.
13. Webb AJS, Fischer U, Mehta Z, Rothwell PM. Effects of antihypertensive-drug class on
interindividual variation in blood pressure and risk of stroke : a systematic review and meta-
analysis. Lancet. 2010;375:906–15.
measured blood pressure and heart rate. The Finn-Home study. Hypertension. 2012;59:212–8.
15. Shimbo D, Newman JD, Aragaki AK, LaMonte MJ, Bavry AA, Allison M, Manson JE,
Wassertheil-Smoller S. Association between annual visit-to-visit blood pressure variability
and stroke in postmenopausal women. Data from the Women’s Health Initiative. Hypertension.
2012;60:625–30.
16. Pierdomenico SD, Lapenna D, Di Tommaso R, Di Carlo S, Esposito AL, Di Mascio R, Ballone
E, Cuccurullo F, Mezzetti A. Blood pressure variability and cardiovascular risk in treated
hypertensive patients. Am J Hypertens. 2006;19:991–7.
17. Hansen TW, Thijs L, Li Y, Boggia J, Kikuya M, Björklund-Bodegård K, Richart T, Ohkubo T,
Jeppesen J, Pedersen CT, Dolan E, Kuznetsova T, Stolarz-Skrzypek K, Tikhonoff V, Malyutina
S, Casiglia E, Nikitin Y, Lind L, Sandoya E, Kawecka-Jaszcz K, Imai Y, Wang J, Ibsen H,
O’Brien E, Staessen JA, for the International Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure in
Relation to Cardiovascular Outcome Investigators. Prognostic value of reading-to-reading
blood pressure variability over 24 hours in 8938 subjects from 11 populations. Hypertension.
2010;55:1049–57.
18. Kario K, Pickering TG, Umeda Y, Hoshide S, Hoshide Y, Morinari M, Murata M, Kuroda T,
Schwartz JE, Shimada K. Morning surge in blood pressure as predictor of silent and clinical cere-
brovascular disease in elderly hypertensives: a prospective study. Circulation. 2003;107:1401–6.
19. Metoki H, Ohkubo T, Asayama K, Obara T, Hashimoto J, Totsune K, Hoshi H, Satoh H, Imai
K. Prognostic significance for stroke of a morning pressor surge and a nocturnal blood pressure
decline: The Ohasama Study. Hypertension. 2006;47:149–54.
20. Gosse P, Lasserre R, Minifie C, Lemetayer P, Clementy J. Blood pressure surge on rising.
J Hypertens. 2004;22:1113–8.
21. Li Y, Thijs L, Hansen TW, Kikuya M, Boggia J, Richart T, Metoki H, Ohkubo T, Pedersen CT,
Kuznetsova T, Stolarz-Skrzypek K, Tikhonoff V, Malyutina S, Casiglia E, Nikitin Y, Sandoya
E, Kawecka-Jaszcz K, Ibsen H, Imai Y, Wang J, Staessen JA, for International Database on
Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcome Investigators. Prognostic
value of the morning blood pressure surge in 5645 subjects from 8 populations. Hypertension.
2010;55:1040–8.
22. Verdecchia P, Angeli F, Mazzotta G, Garofoli M, Ramundo E, Gentile G, Ambrosio G, Reboldi
G. Day-night dip and early-morning surge in blood pressure in hypertension: prognostic
implications. Hypertension. 2014;60:34–42.
23. Bombelli M, Fodri D, Toso E, Macchiarulo M, Cairo M, Facchetti R, Dell’Oro R, Grassi G,
Mancia G. Relationship among morning blood pressure surge, 24-hour blood pressure
variability, and cardiovascular outcomes in a white population. Hypertension.

2014;64:943–50.
24. Clement DL, Mussche MM, Vanhoutte G, Pannier R. Is blood pressure variability related to
activity of the sympathetic system? Clin Sci. 1979;57:217s–9.
25. Mancia G, Ferrari A, Gregorini L, Parati G, Pomidossi G, Bertinieri G, Grassi G, Zanchetti
A. Blood pressure variability in man : its relation to high blood pressure, age and baroreflex
sensitivity. Clin Sci (Lond). 1980;59 Suppl 6:401s–4.
26. Parati G, Pomidossi G, Casadei R, Groppelli A, Trazzi S, Di Rienzo M, Mancia G. Role of
heart rate variability in the production of blood pressure variability in man. J Hypertens.
1987;5:557–60.
27. Frattola A, Parati G, Cuspidi C, Albini F, Mancia G. Prognostic value of 24-hour blood
pressure variability. J Hypertens. 1993;11:1133–7.
28. Bilo G, Giglio A, Styczkiewicz K, Caldara G, Maronati A, Kawecka-Jaszcz K, Mancia G,
Parati G. A new method for assessing 24-h blood pressure variability after excluding the
contribution of nocturnal blood pressure fall. J Hypertens. 2007;25:2058–66.
29. Mena L, Pintos S, Queipo NV, Aizpúrua JA, Maestre G, Sulbarán T. A reliable index for the
prognostic significance of blood pressure variability. J Hypertens. 2005;23:505–11.
30. Levitan EB, Kaciroti N, Oparil S, Julius S, Muntner P. Relationships between metrics of visit-
to-visit variability of blood pressure. J Hum Hypertens. 2013;27(10):589–93.
31. Stergiou GS, Mastorantonakis SE, Roussias LG. Intraindividual reproducibility of blood
pressure surge upon rising after nighttime sleep and siesta. Hypertens Res.

2014;31:1859–64.
32. Wizner B, Dechering DG, Thijs L, Atkins N, Fagard R, O’Brien E, de Leeuw PW, Parati G,
Palatini P, Clement D, Grodzicki T, Kario K, Staessen JA. Short-term and long-term
reproducibility of the morning blood pressure in older patients with isolated systolic

hypertension. J Hypertens. 2008;26:1328–35.
33. Staessen JA, Fagard R, Thijs L, Celis H, Arabidze GG, Birkenhager WH, Bulpitt CJ, de Leeuw
PW, Dollery CT, Fletcher AE, Forette F, Leonetti G, Nachev C, O’Brien ET, Rosenfeld J,
Rodicio JL, Tuomilehto J, Zanchetti A, for the Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur)
Trial Investigators. Randomised double-blind comparison of placebo and active treatment for
older patients with isolated systolic hypertension [correction published in Lancet 1997, vol-
ume 350, November 29, p 1636]. Lancet. 1997;350:757–64.
34. Wolk R, Gami AS, Garcia-Touchard A, Somers VK. Sleep and cardiovascular disease. Curr
Probl Cardiol. 2005;30:625–62.
35. Kuo TB, Hong CH, Hsieh IT, Lee GS, Yang CC. Effects of cold exposure on autonomic
changes during the last rapid eye movement sleep transition and morning blood pressure surge
in humans. Sleep Med. 2014;15:986–97.
36. O’Brien E, Sheridan J, O’Malley K. Dippers and non-dippers. Lancet. 1988;2:397.
37. Ohkubo T, Hozawa A, Yamaguchi J, Kikuya M, Ohmori K, Michimata M, Matsubara M,
Hashimoto J, Hoshi H, Araki T, Tsuji I, Satoh H, Hisamichi S, Imai Y. Prognostic significance
of the nocturnal decline in blood pressure in individuals with and without high 24-h blood
pressure : the Ohasama study. J Hypertens. 2002;20:2183–9.
38. Hansen TW, Jeppesen J, Rasmussen F, Ibsen H, Torp-Pedersen C. Ambulatory blood pressure
monitoring and mortality : a population-based study. Hypertension. 2005;45:499–504.
39. Ingelsson E, Björklund K, Lind L, Ärnlöv J, Sundström J. Diurnal blood pressure pattern and
risk of congestive heart failure. JAMA. 2006;295:2859–66.
40. Mancia G, Facchetti R, Bombelli M, Grassi G, Sega R. Long-term risk of mortality associated
with selective and combined elevation in office, home, and ambulatory blood pressure.
41. Verdecchia P, Porcellati C, Schillaci G, Borgioni C, Ciucci A, Battistelli M, Guerrieri M,
Gatteschi C, Zampi I, Santucci A, Santucci C, Reboldi G. Ambulatory blood pressure. An inde-
pendent predictor of prognosis in essential hypertension. Hypertension. 1994;24:793–801.
42. Staessen JA. Thijs L, Fagard R, O’Brien ET, Clement D, de Leeuw PW, Mancia G, Nachev C,
Palatini P, Parati G, Tuomilehto J, Webster J, for the Systolic Hypertension in Europe Trial
Investigators. Predicting cardiovascular risk using conventional vs ambulatory blood pressure
in older patients with systolic hypertension. JAMA. 1999;282:539–46.
43. Kario K, Pickering TG, Matsuo T, Hoshide S, Schwartz JE, Shimada K. Stroke prognosis and
abnormal nocturnal blood pressure falls in older hypertensives. Hypertension. 2001;38:852–7.
44. Clement DL, De Buyzere ML, De Bacquer DA, de Leeuw PW, Duprez DA, Fagard RH,
Gheeraert PJ, Missault LH, Braun JJ, Six RO, Van der Niepen P, O’Brien E, for the Office
versus Ambulatory Pressure Study investigators. Prognostic value of ambulatory blood-
pressure recordings in patients with treated hypertension. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2407–15.
45. Dolan E, Stanton A, Thijs L, Hinedi K, Atkins N, McClory S, Den Hond E, McCormack P,
Staessen JA, O’Brien E. Superiority of ambulatory over clinic blood pressure measurement in
predicting mortality. The Dublin Outcome Study. Hypertension. 2005;46:156–61.
46. Ben-Dov IZ, Kark JD, Ben-Ishay D, Mekler J, Ben-Arie L, Bursztyn M. Predictors of all-cause
mortality in clinical ambulatory monitoring. Unique aspects of blood pressue during sleep.
Hypertension. 2007;167(19):2116–21.
47. Schwartz GL, Bailey KR, Mosley T, Knopman DS, Jack Jr CR, Canzanello VJ, Turner
ST. Association of ambulatory blood pressure with ischemic brain injury. Hypertension.
2007;49:1228–34.
48. Boggia J, Li Y, Thijs L, Hansen TW, Kikuya M, Björklund-Bodegård K, Richart T, Ohkubo T,
Kuznetsova T, Torp-Pedersen C, Lind L, Ibsen H, Imai Y, Wang JG, Sandoya E, O’Brien E,
Staessen JA, on behalf of the International Database on Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring
in relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes (IDACO) investigators. Prognostic accuracy of day
versus night ambulatory blood pressure : a cohort study. Lancet. 2007;370:1219–29.
49. Asayama K, Thijs L, Li Y, Gu YM, Hara A, Liu YP, Zhang Z, Wei FF, Lujambio I, Mena LJ,
Boggia J, Hansen TW, Björklund-Bodegård K, Nomura K, Ohkubo T, Jeppesen J, Torp-
Pedersen C, Dolan E, Stolarz-Skrzypek K, Malyutina S, Casiglia E, Nikitin Y, Lind L, Luzardo
L, Kawecka-Jaszcz K, Sandoya E, Filipovský J, Maestre GE, Wang J, Imai Y, Franklin SS,
O’Brien E, Staessen JA, on behalf of the Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in relation to
Cardiovascular Outcomes (IDACO) Investigators. Setting thresholds to varying blood pressure
monitoring intervals differentially affects risk estimates associated with white-coat and masked
hypertension in the population. Hypertension. 2014;64:935–42.
50. Fan HQ, Li Y, Thijs L, Hansen TW, Boggia J, Kikuya M, Björklund-Bodegård K, Richart T,
Ohkubo T, Jeppesen J, Torp-Pedersen C, Dolan E, Kuznetsova T, Stolarz-Skrzypek K, Tikhonoff
V, Malyutina S, Casiglia E, Nikitin Y, Lind L, Sandoya E, Kawecka-Jaszcz K, Imai Y, Ibsen H,
O’Brien E, Wang J, Staessen JA. Prognostic value of isolated nocturnal h ypertension on ambu-
latory measurement in 8711 subjects from 10 populations. J Hypertens. 2010;28:2036–45.
51. Palatini P, Reboldi G, Beilin LJ, Casiglia E, Eguchi K, Imai Y, Kario K, Ohkubo T, Pierdomenico
SD, Schwartz JE, Wing L, Verdecchia P. Added predictive value of night-time blood pressure
variability for cardiovascular events and mortality: the Ambulatory Blood Pressure–
International study. Hypertension. 2014;64:487–93.
52. Staessen JA, Byttebier G, Buntinx F, Celis H, O’Brien ET, Fagard R. for the Ambulatory
Blood Pressure Monitoring and Treatment of Hypertension Investigators. Antihypertensive
treatment based on conventional or ambulatory blood pressure measurement. A randomized
controlled trial. JAMA. 1997;278:1065–72.
53. Staessen JA, Thijs L, Birkenhäger WH, Bulpitt CJ, Fagard R, on behalf of the Syst-Eur
Investigators. Update on the Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial. Hypertension.
1999;33:1476–9.
54. Hara A, Thijs L, Asayama K, Jacobs L, Wang JG, Staessen JA. Randomised double-blind
comparison of placebo and active drugs for effects on risks associated with blood pressure
variability in the Systolic Hypertension in Europe trial. PLoS One. 2014;9, e103169.
55. Ushigome E, Fukui M, Hamaguchi M, Senmaru T, Sakabe K, Tanaka M, Yamazaki M,
Hasegawa G, Nakamura N. The coefficient variation of home blood pressure is a novel factor
associated with macroalbuminuria in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Hypertens Res.
2011;34:1271–5.
56. Fukui M, Ushigome E, Tanaka M, Hamaguchi M, Tanaka T, Atsuta H, Ohnishi M, Oda Y, Hasegawa
G, Nakamura N. Home blood pressure variability on one occasion is a novel factor associated with
arterial stiffness in patients with type 2 diabetes. Hypertens Res. 2013;36:219–25.
57. Nishimura M, Kato Y, Tanaka T, Todo R, Tone A, Yamada K, Ootani S, Kawabe Y, Yoshizumi
H, Hoshiyama Y. Significance of estimating the glomerular filtration rate for the management
of hypertension in type 2 diabetes with microalbuminuria. Hypertens Res. 2013;36:705–10.
58. Romero MJ. Home blood pressure variability: a new target to monitor in chronic kidney dis-
ease patients with low eGFR? Hypertens Res. 2013;36:673–5.
59. Okada T, Matsumoto H, Nagaoka Y, Nakao T. Association of home blood pressure variability
with progression of chronic kidney disease. Blood Press Monit. 2012;17:1–7.
60. Kikuya M, Ohkubo T, Metoki H, Asayama K, Hara H, Obara T, Inoue R, Hoshi H, Hashimoto
J, Totsune K, Satoh H, Imai K. Day-by-day variability of blood pressure and heart rate at home
as a novel predictor of prognosis. The Ohasama study. Hypertension. 2008;52:1045–50.
61. Asayama K, Kikuya M, Schutte R, Thijs L, Hosaka M, Satoh M, Obara T, Inoue R, Metoki H,
Hoshi H, Ohkubo T, Staessen JA, Imai Y. Home blood pressure variability as cardiovascular
risk factor in the population of Ohasama. Hypertension. 2013;61:61–9.
62. Wei FF, Li Y, Xi TY, Ding FH, Wang JG, Staessen JA. Beat-to-beat, reading-to-reading, and
day-to-day blood pressure variability in relation to organ damage in untreated Chinese.
63. Parati G, Ochoa JE, Lombardi C, Bilo G. Assessment and management of blood-pressure
variability. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2013;10:143–55.
64. Muntner P, Levitan EB. Visit-to-visit variability of blood pressure: current knowledge and
future research directions. Blood Press Monit. 2013;18:232–8.
65. Webb AJS, Wilson M, Lovett N, Paul N, Fischer U, Rothwell PM. Response of day-to-day
home blood pressure variability by antihypertensive drug class after transient ischemic attack
or nondisabling stroke. Stroke. 2014;45:2967–73.
66. Mancia G, Fagard R, Narkiewicz K, Redón J, Zanchetti A, Böhm M, Christiaens T, Cifkova R,
De Backer G, Dominiczak A, Galderisi M, Grobbee DE, Jaarsma T, Kirchhof P, Kjeldsen SE,
Laurent S, Manolis AJ, Nilsson PM, Ruilope LM, Schmieder RE, Sirnes PA, Sleight P,
Viigimaa M, Waeber B, Zannad F. 2013 ESH/ESC Guidelines for the management of arterial
hypertension: The Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European
Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart
J. 2013;34:2159–219.
67. Grove JS, Reed DM, Yano K, Hwang LJ. Variability in systolic blood pressure — a risk factor
for coronary heart disease ? Am J Epidemiol. 1997;145:771–6.
68. Hsieh YT, Tu ST, Cho TJ, Chang SJ, Chen JF, Hsieh MC. Visit-to-visit variability in blood
pressure strongly predicts all-cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes : a 5.5-year
prospective analysis. Eur J Clin Invest. 2012;42:245–53.
69. Kilpatrick ES, Rigby AS, Atkin SL. The role of blood pressure variability in the development
of nephropathy in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2010;33:2442–7.
70. Tozawa M, Iseki K, Yoshi S, Fujiyama K. Blood pressure variability as an adverse prognostic
risk factor in end-stage renal disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1999;14:1976–81.
71. Brunelli SM, Thadhani RI, Lynch KE, Ankers ED, Joffe MM, Boston R, Chang Y, Feldman
HI. Association between long-term blood pressure variability and mortality among incident
hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2008;52:716–26.
72. Rossignol P, Cridlig J, Lehert P, Kessler M, Zannad F. Visit-to-visit variability is a strong
variability is a strong predictor of cardiovascular events in hemodialysis : insights from
FOSIDIAL. Hypertension. 2012;60:339–46.
73. McMullan CJ, Lambers Heerspink HJ, Parving HH, Dwyer JP, Forman JP, de Zeeuw D.
Visit-to-visit variability in blood pressure and kidney and cardiovascular outcomes in patients
with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy: a post hoc analysis from the RENAAL study and the
Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial. Am J Kidney Dis. 2014;64:714–22.
Chapter 8
Physiologic Control of the Circadian
Variability in Blood Pressure
Michel Burnier, Olivier Bonny, and Gregoire Wuerzner
Introduction
Many biological or physiological processes follow a rhythm with a period length

which may vary from a fraction of seconds to hours, days, or even seasons [1]. Such
rhythmic variations have been described in a vast range of organisms from bacteria
to humans [1]. Blood pressure (BP) is a physiological parameter with a high short
term variability, but also a well-recognized circadian rhythm with a period length of
about 24 h [2, 3]. Indeed continuous measurements of BP have shown that BP rises
in the early morning upon awakening, fluctuates during the day depending on men-
tal and physical activities [4], and decreases by 10–15 % during the night while
sleeping [3]. A second peak in BP is often seen early in the evening. For many
decades, the circadian rhythm of BP has largely been ignored by physicians mainly
because BP was measured almost uniquely during medical terms and not outside the
physician’s office. With the development of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring
(ABPM) in the 1980s, more information were gathered on the circadian variations
of BP and it became apparent that patients exhibited a variety of patterns in night-
time BP leading to the concept of dippers with a normal fall in night-time BP (10–
15 %), non-dippers with no decrease in BP at night (<10 %), extreme dippers with
a fall in BP greater than 20 % at night, and reverse dippers with an increase in BP at
night [5, 6]. In recent years, the clinical interest for the circadian rhythm of BP has
grown rapidly with the recognition that the onset of adverse cardiovascular events
M. Burnier, M.D. (*) • G. Wuerzner, M.D.

Department of Medicine, Service of Nephrology and Hypertension, Centre Hospitalier
Universitaire Vaudois, Rue du Bugnon 17, Lausanne 1011, Switzerland
O. Bonny, M.D., Ph.D.
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Universite de Lausanne,
Lausanne, Switzerland

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-22771-9_8
150 M. Burnier et al.
demonstrates a circadian pattern which follows quite closely that of BP [7].

Moreover, patients with a blunted or absent circadian rhythm, and in particular
those with no dipping at night, are at higher risk of developing cardiovascular, cere-
bral, or renal complications probably because of a pressure overload during sleep
leading to long-term organ dysfunction [8–13]. At last, recent data has suggested
that an antihypertensive therapy restoring or maintaining a normal circadian rhythm
of BP might be associated with a better control of BP and lesser complications of
hypertension. This latter observation is the basis of the concept of chronotherapy in
hypertension which has gain a great clinical interest recently [14–16].
The circadian variations of blood pressure are under the influence of numerous
physiological and biological factors originating from various organs including the
brain, the heart, the kidney, and the neuro-endocrine system. Moreover, environ-
mental factors such as light, temperature, and even air pollution affect the day–night
cycle of BP. The purpose of the present article is to review the physiological deter-
minants of the circadian rhythm of BP and how these factors may be modulated
clinically in order to maintain a normal circadian rhythm.
Central and Peripheral Clocks and the Circadian Rhythm

of Blood Pressure
Classically, circadian variations of BP were explained primarily by the existence of

a unique circadian pacemaker located in the suprachiasmatic nucleus of the hypo-
thalamus and coordinating all overt rhythms in the body including blood pressure
and heart rate. This view has changed considerably with the discovery that circadian
clocks are operative not only centrally (master clock), but also in peripheral tissues
and cells where they create a network of peripheral clocks controlling physiological
processes [17, 18].
The daily light/dark cycle is the major factor affecting the master clock which
then transmit synchronizing signals to clocks located in peripheral tissues [19]. As
far as BP rhythm is concerned, evidence has accumulated to suggest that cardiac,
vascular, and renal tissues possess local clocks which have similarities to the central
clock and may contribute to the circadian variations in BP [20–23]. Metabolic
cycles may also contribute to the BP rhythm [24].
At the molecular levels, the central and peripheral clock systems are composed
of interconnected feedback loops of gene transcription and translation factors in
which the heterodimeric CLOCK/BMAL1 transcription factor complex activates
the transcription of repressor clock genes such as the Period genes (Per1 and Per2)
and Cryptochrome genes (Cry1 and Cry2). The products of these genes in turn
inhibit CLOCK/BMAL1 transcriptional activity, thereby reducing their own tran-
scription [19] (Fig. 8.1). These core clock components regulate a large number of
output genes, either directly or by driving the rhythmic expression of downstream
transcription factors, such as albumin D-site-binding protein (DBP), hepatic
leukemia factor (HLF), and thyrotroph embryonic factor (TEF), three members of
8 Physiologic Control of the Circadian Variability in Blood Pressure 151
Fig. 8.1 Schematic representation of the impact of Bmal1 and Cry1/Cry2 on the circadian variations
in blood pressure in mice. (a) Normal situation, (b) Bmal1 knockout mice, (c) Cry1/Cry2 knockout
mice. (a) Normal situation. For explanations see text. (b) Impact of Bmal1 knockout. Note that the
circadian rhythm disappears and BP decreases. (c) Impact of dual Cry1/Cry2 knockout. Note that
the circadian rhythm disappears and BP increases
the proline- and acidic amino acid-rich basic leucine zipper (PAR bZip) protein
family [25]. The majority of studies having assessed the impact of central and
peripheral clock systems on the circadian variability of BP have been conducted in
genetically engineered mice. Interestingly, in many knock-out mice the single or
multiple deletions of clock genes or of their downstream transcription factors have
been associated with either a decrease or an increase in BP, but a rather preserved
circadian rhythm. However, recent studies have reported a complete disruption of
the BP circadian rhythm in Bmal1 knockout and Cry1/Cry2 double knockout mice
animals, indicating that genetic components of the circadian system are crucial in
the maintenance of a diurnal BP rhythm [26, 27]. More recently, evidence has pub-
lished suggesting that clock gene expression in smooth muscle and not in the brain
is involved in maintaining a norma BP circadian rhythm [28]. Moreover, several
factors such as salt [29], angiotensin II [30], and catecholamines [26], which also
contribute to the circadian rhythm of BP as will be discussed below, have been
reported to modulate the expression of clock genes. These results therefore suggest
that the central and peripheral clock systems are determinant to maintain circadian
variations of BP, but there are definitively other external factors that affect the BP
rhythm beyond the central and tissue clocks.
Sleep/Activity Cycle and Circadian Variations of Blood

Pressure
As mentioned earlier, the sleep/activity cycle is one of the main determinants of the
circadian variations of BP in humans. In fact, many factors explain the reduction of
BP associated with sleep. This includes not only the reduction in physical activity,
but also the change in body position (supine vs. standing), the reduction in mental
stress and activity, and a lower activity of neuro-endocrine systems such as the auto-
nomic nervous system. The reduction in physical activity is a well-recognized factor
contributing to the decrease in night-time BP [4]. Indeed, physical activity is not
only a determinant of BP variability during daytime accounting for 20–60 % of
daytime variability, it is also a major factor affecting the reduction of BP during
night-time as demonstrated recently using new techniques to evaluate physical
activity such as actimeters [31, 32]. Thus, blunted or absent reductions of night-time
BP have been reported in subjects physically active at night such as subjects work-
ing during the night or doing night shifts [33, 34]. Interestingly, an increased physi-
cal activity during daytime has been associated with a greater dipping of BP at
night, an effect which has been attributed to a greater reduction in sympathetic tone
during the night [31, 35]. Of note, physical activity appears to affect essentially the
changes in night-time systolic BP and to a much lesser degree diastolic BP.
Beyond the lack of nocturnal physical activity, the quality of sleep per se has an
important impact on the changes in BP measured during the night. In fact, the
definition of the dipping of BP at night is highly dependent on the quality of sleep.
The apparently poor reproducibility of the dipping pattern has been attributed in
part to the impact of BP measuring devices on sleep quality [36]. Thus, when the
dipping of BP at night was assessed on several occasions using short-term or long-
term repeated ambulatory BP monitoring, about 20–40 % of patients classified as
non-dippers actually changed category and became dippers on the second assess-
ment [37–39]. The interference of monitoring devices with sleep is certainly con-
tributing to this poor reproducibility, but many other factors may play a role as will
be discussed below.
A lack of physiological decrease in night-time BP is a hallmark of patients with
sleep disturbances such as sleep apnea. Normally during sleep, there is an inhibition
of cardiovascular sympathetic tone resulting in a reduction in heart rate and BP [40].
In patients with obstructive sleep apnea, oxygen desaturation and carbon dioxide
retention cause a peripheral vasoconstriction and a rise in systolic BP at the end of
the apnea. When a new respiratory cycle starts with the resolution of the airway
obstruction, there is an increase in venous return and cardiac output on a back-
ground of peripheral vascular vasoconstriction leading to marked increases in BP
[41]. The elevated BP and sympathetic activity with each apneic event contribute to
the lack of fall in night-time BP in patients with sleep apnea. Among the other fac-
tors that contribute to the development of a high BP at night and consequently
hypertension in patients with sleep apnea, one must also cite an elevated muscle
tone and micro-arousals [41].
Interestingly, the increased sympathetic nerve activity occurring during the night
in patients with obstructive sleep apnea persists during daytime because of the acti-
vation of chemoreceptors, a decrease in baroreceptor reflex sensitivity, and endothe-
lial dysfunction [42–46]. In addition to these cardiovascular factors, the stimulation
of hormonal systems such as the rennin–angiotensin system, aldosterone, or endo-
thelin appears to participate in the increase in night-time BP observed in patients
with sleep apnea syndrome [47]. A summary of the pathophysiological link between
obstructive sleep apnea and night-time BP and hypertension is presented in Fig. 8.2.
Neuro-hormonal Factors and the Circadian Rhythm of Blood

Pressure
Most if not all hormonal systems are characterized by a certain rhythmicity of their
secretion during the 24 h of a day. Neuro-hormonal systems have a well-known
influence on blood pressure control mediated by direct vascular effects, but also by
metabolic and renal effects such as the regulation of renal sodium and water bal-
ance. Hence, the day/night profile of neuro-hormonal systems may have an impact
on the circadian variations of BP. The diurnal variations in plasma renin activity,
aldosterone, angiotensin II, cortisol, ACTH, and melatonin have been well-studied
in healthy subjects investigated in standard conditions, but also after sleep depriva-
tion or shifts in sleeping hours. The goal of these studies was not only to
Fig. 8.2 Schematic representation of the pathophysiological link between obstructive sleep apnea
and an altered circadian rhythm of blood pressure leading to a high cardiovascular risk
characterize the 24 h profile of each of these hormones, but also to assess the precise
role of sleep on the 24 h profile variations [48, 49]. Today, it is well established that
plasma renin activity and plasma aldosterone and cortisol levels peak in the early
morning upon awakening and decrease progressively during the day. Yet the factors
contributing to the diurnal variations of these hormones appear to differ between the
rennin–angiotensin–aldosterone system and the adrenocorticotrophic system.
Indeed, whereas the former is essentially linked to the changes in sleep processes
[48], the variations in plasma cortisol and ACTH are independent of sleep and
appear to be modulated primarily by a circadian rhythmicity [49]. Other hormonal
systems such as endothelin, atrial natriuretic peptide, or brain natriuretic peptide
have been investigated as well and were found to follow a certain rhythm with dif-
ferences between day and night concentrations. However, it seems that the circadian
variations of these hormones are more prominent in disease states such as hyperten-
sion, chronic kidney disease, or obstructive sleep apnea than in normal healthy sub-
jects [47, 50, 51]. Whether these systems participate in the generation of a circadian
rhythm of BP is not clear and it may well be that most of these hormonal systems,
with the exception of cortisol, rather follow the sleep/activity cycle of BP than
determine a circadian rhythm of BP.
Among all neuro-endocrine systems, the sympathetic nervous system appears to

be one of the main determinants of the circadian rhythm of BP. Both plasma epi-
nephrine and norepinephrine follow a diurnal rhythm in humans, but once again it
appears that the circadian variations in epinephrine and norepinephrine cannot be
explained by a single controlling influence, the variations in norepinephrine being
tightly linked to changes in posture and sleep [52], whereas the variations in plasma
epinephrine appear to be under the control of a central oscillator [53]. The activity
of the sympathetic nervous system increases markedly in the early morning and
then fluctuates depending on posture, physical activity, and mental stress. The activ-
ity of sympathetic nervous system has been associated with the circadian variations
in vascular tone [54] and the early morning rise in sympathetic tone has been related
to the early morning BP surge, which is one of the factors implicated in the increased
incidence of cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, sudden death, stroke)
observed in the early morning hours of the day [55–57].
Thus, taken together, the data available so far suggest that some of the neuro-
hormonal systems such as the sympathetic nervous system or cortisol have a clear
circadian rhythm, which appears to be independent of the sleep/activity cycle and
may therefore influence directly the circadian rhythm of BP. As far as other hor-
monal systems are concerned, the variability of their day/night plasma concentra-
tions appears to be a consequence of the circadian variations in sleeping and active
periods rather than a cause of the circadian rhythm of blood pressure.
Sodium Balance and the Circadian Rhythm of Blood Pressure
The renal excretion of water, sodium, and other solutes has also been shown to
follow a circadian pattern with higher excretion rates during daytime than during
night-time [58]. Recently, Firsov et al. have also demonstrated in mice that renal
sodium excretion follows a circadian rhythm and that this rhythm is under the influ-
ence of circadian clocks [59]. Their data suggest that the circadian clock affects BP,
at least in part, by exerting dynamic control over renal sodium handling. The same
authors found that many major parameters of kidney function, including tubular
reabsorption and secretion, exhibit strong circadian oscillations that might contribute
to the circadian variations in BP [60].
One of the first observations relating sodium excretion and the dipping pattern
of BP was made by Uzu et al. in a small group of 42 patients with essential hyper-
tension characterized for their salt sensitivity [61]. In this study, the authors first
show that the fall in BP during the night is blunted in salt-sensitive patients and that
sodium restriction using a low sodium diet can shift the circadian rhythm of blood
pressure from a non-dipper to a dipper pattern [61]. In a subgroup of the same
patients, the administration of a thiazide diuretic, which induced a negative sodium
balance, also reversed the non-dipping pattern of night-time BP [62]. We assessed
whether the night-time BP and the dipping are associated with the circadian pat-
tern of sodium excretion in 325 individuals of African descent from 73 families.
Fig. 8.3 Schematic representation of the effect of a reduced renal capacity to excrete sodium on
night-time blood pressure according to the pressure–natriuresis relationship
In each subject, ambulatory BP and daytime and night-time urinary electrolyte

excretion were measured simultaneously. In this study, we found indeed that the
capacity to excrete sodium during daytime was a significant determinant of noctur-
nal BP and dipping [63]. Moreover, these data provide some insights on the lack of
reproducibility of the dipping pattern in individuals. Indeed, if the night-time dip
is influenced by urinary sodium excretion during the day, the decrease in night-
time blood pressure will depend on the daytime sodium intake which may vary
considerably from day to day. Hence, dietary factors will directly influence the
reproducibility of the dipping profile of an individual. Taken together these find-
ings indicated that the ability to excrete sodium during the day is an important
determinant of night-time blood pressure as well as of the dipping pattern at least in
the normotensive and hypertensive population and particularly among salt-sensitive
hypertensive patients.
Later on, the impact of renal function on the night/day ratio of blood pressure
and urinary water and electrolyte excretion was investigated. Interestingly, Fukuda
et al. found that in patients with renal diseases and a reduced renal function, the
lower the glomerular filtration the higher the day/night ratio of blood pressure, uri-
nary sodium excretion, and urinary protein excretion [64]. In this population, the
night/day ratio increases mainly in order to eliminate sodium and osmoles rather
than water [65]. These data emphasize the importance of glomerular filtration,
which affects the capacity to excrete sodium as a determinant of night-time
BP. These observations have been summarized in a hypothesis paper of the renal
mechanisms of the dipping pattern of BP [66]. According to this hypothesis, the
increase in night-time blood pressure represents the classical pressure–natriuresis
Night-time Blood Pressure

110
(% of daytime averages)
100
90
80
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time after Sleep (hour)
Tertiles 1st 2st 3st
Fig. 8.4 Duration until nocturnal mean arterial pressure begins to fall to <90 % of daytime in
patients with chronic kidney disease divided into three tertiles according to creatinine clearance
(tertile 1 had the highest clearance and tertile 3 the lowest)—From reference [67])
phenomenon whereby sodium balance is maintained in patients with a limited

capacity to excrete salt (Fig. 8.3). In line with this hypothesis, additional observations
were made indicating that patients with renal dysfunction require a longer duration
until BP falls during the night and that a delayed decrease in night-time BP can be
considered as a marker of excessive sodium retention [67, 68] (Fig. 8.4).
Yet, whether these renal mechanisms account for the non-dipping pattern fre-
quently observed in an unselected population has not been conclusively demon-
strated so far. Nevertheless, renal sodium retention is a clinical characteristic of
several disease conditions associated with a blunted or absence of fall in BP during
the night. As shown in Table 8.1, a non-dipping profile of 24-h BP has been reported
in several clinical conditions. These include secondary forms of hypertension such
as malignant hypertension, primary hyperaldosteronism, Cushing syndrome, or
pheochromocytoma [69, 70]. A blunted decrease in night-time blood pressure has
also been described in patients with a reduced renal function such as patients with
diabetic and nondiabetic nephropathies, congestive heart failure, organ transplanta-
tion, or elderly patients [69]. At last, drugs like cyclosporin and non-steroidal anti-
inflammatory agents have been shown to increase night-time blood pressure and to
blunt the nocturnal dip [69]. These various clinical conditions share a common
feature: they are all associated with a reduced capacity of excreting sodium either
because of a reduction in glomerular filtration rate (primary or secondary) or
because of an increased tubular sodium reabsorption as observed in primary
hyperaldosteronism or following the administration of drugs such as NSAIDs,
COX-2 inhibitors.
Table 8.1 Diseases Malignant hypertension

associated with an increased
Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome
renal reabsorption of sodium
and impaired decrease in Pheochromocytoma
blood pressure during the Toxemia of pregnancy
night (non-dipping) Cushing’s syndrome
Diabetes (type 1 and 2)
Chronic kidney disease
Renal and cardiac transplantation
Congestive heart failure
Elderly patients with a reduced
glomerular filtration
Drugs such as non-steroidal
anti-inflammatory agents or
calcineurin inhibitors
Overall, these data tend to confirm that sodium intake, and in particular the
capacity to excrete salt, is an important determinant of the physiological control of
the circadian variations in BP in humans.
Metabolic and Environmental Factors Contributing

to the Circadian Variations in Blood Pressure
The impact of sodium intake and excretion on the diurnal variations of BP actually
points out the potential roles of the feeding/fast cycle and of the metabolic processes
on BP variability [71]. Indeed, depending on the time of food intake, the time-
pattern of sodium excretion may vary from day to day or between populations.
Moreover, the involvement of gastrointestinal hormones and metabolic factors may
vary. The role of the feeding/fasting cycle on BP variability has retained relatively
little attention so far. In rats, studies have shown that restricted feeding resulted in
an essentially complete loss of coupling of cardiovascular variability to the light
cycle. Instead, rats showed increased BP and heart rate and behavioral activity asso-
ciated with the availability of food [72]. This is not entirely surprising as changes in
feeding regimens can profoundly alter the circadian rhythms of body temperature,
hormone release, behavioral activity, and peptide levels in the brain [72]. Yet similar
observations have not been done in all species and whether the feeding schedule
indeed plays a role in variations of BP during day- and night-time remains unclear.
Nonetheless, it is clear that several hormonal factors regulating the metabolism such
as leptin, adiponectin, insulin, and glucagon follow a circadian rhythm that appears
to be independent of plasma glucose concentrations and hence centrally mediated
[73, 74]. Whether the circadian production of these metabolic hormones affects BP
directly is uncertain. However, disruption of the normal rhythm of some of these
hormones has been associated with the development of obesity and metabolic syn-
drome, which in turn may lead to hypertension and an abnormal dipping of BP dur-
ing the night.
Interestingly, some specific components of the nutrition may have an impact on
BP and its diurnal rhythm. Thus, in a recent cross-sectional study, a high reported
caffeine intake was associated with a lower prevalence of hypertension only in non-
smokers [75]. In a subsequent analysis of the same subjects, it appeared that caffeine
induced a more pronounced reduction in night-time BP than daytime, thus reinforc-
ing the dipping pattern [76]. It is also worth noting that the benefits of caffeine
consumption on BP are probably mediated by the renal properties of caffeine
metabolites on adenosine receptors, which induce a diuresis and natriuresis. This
observation reemphasizes the role of the kidney in the regulation of the circadian
pattern of BP.
The circadian variations of BP blood pressure are also influenced by the environ-
ment, which induces short-term as well as long-term fluctuations of BP. Thus
beyond the light cycle, BP variability is modulated by the external temperature, the
altitude and latitude, and the air quality. Studies focusing on external temperature
and weather conditions have clearly shown a seasonality of diurnal BP changes and
the complexity of the interactions between weather and BP [77, 78]. A more recent
study conducted in 1897 patients referred to a hypertension unit using simultane-
ously a device that enables to monitor personal-level environmental temperature
and a 24-h ambulatory BP monitor has actually reported that temperature not only
modulates the seasonal variations of BP, but also the everyday BP rhythm, Thus, the
authors found that air temperature measured at personal level negatively affects
daytime systolic BP, whereas seasonality mainly affects night-time SBP and morn-
ing BP surge [79]. These data indicate that external temperature can modify the
variability of BP during the day and the night and thereby modulate the circadian
rhythm of BP.
Air pollution has been associated with BP in several studies and positive associa-
tions between particulate matter and BP have been reported [80, 81]. Recently, we
have analyzed the association of exposure to particulate matter with aerodynamic
diameters <10 μm (PM10) on the day of examination and ≤7 days before with
ambulatory blood pressure and with sodium excretion in 359 adults from the gen-
eral population using multiple linear regression [82]. We found that short-term
exposure to PM10 was significantly associated with higher night-time SBP, DBP,
and a blunted nocturnal SBP dipping in adults from the general population. The
mechanism whereby air pollution increases BP appears to be linked to an increase
in renal sodium reabsorption by the proximal, and interestingly, the sodium reab-
sorption precedes the increase in night-time BP. Unfortunately, this study investi-
gated only the short-term effects of air pollution on BP and the real impact on a
long-term exposure to air pollution remains to be investigated. In any case, air pol-
lution has been clearly associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events
and reduction in air pollution may be associated with a reduced incidence of com-
plications associated with hypertension.
Conclusions
The physiological control of the circadian variations of BP is very complex and

involved many apparently redundant systems. Yet experimental studies on the clock
control systems have revealed that the day/night variations in BP are very well
preserved and maintained throughout species. The recognition of the various factors
that can modulate or blunt the circadian rhythm of BP, and in particular abolish the
night-time fall in BP leading to a non-dipping pattern, is of high clinical relevance.
Indeed, some of these factors can be corrected, for example, by treating sleep apnea
or by reducing salt intake leading to a recovery of the normal circadian rhythm of
BP. Moreover, a great interest for chronotherapy has emerged in recent years. This
therapeutic approach emphasizes the need to maintain or restore a normal day/night
rhythm of BP by prescribing drugs not only in the morning, but also in the evening.
At last, the first evidence suggesting that patients with normal circadian variations in
BP may develop less cardiovascular and renal complications may be strong incentive
to pay more attention to the physiological factors involved in the circadian variability
of BP.
References
1. Gachon F, Nagoshi E, Brown SA, Ripperger J, Schibler U. The mammalian circadian timing
system: from gene expression to physiology. Chromosoma. 2004;113(3):103–12.
2. Agarwal R. Regulation of circadian blood pressure: from mice to astronauts. Curr Opin
Nephrol Hypertens. 2010;19(1):51–8.
3. Millar-Craig MW, Bishop CN, Raftery EB. Circadian variation of blood-pressure. Lancet.
1978;1(8068):795–7.
4. Clark LA, Denby L, Pregibon D, et al. A quantitative analysis of the effects of activity and time
of day on the diurnal variations of blood pressure. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(7):671–81.
5. Burnier M, Wuerzner G. What is the hypertension “phenotype”? Curr Cardiovasc Risk Rep
2015;9(9).
6. Routledge F, McFetridge-Durdle J. Nondipping blood pressure patterns among individuals
with essential hypertension: a review of the literature. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs.
2007;6(1):9–26.
7. Weber MA. The 24-hour blood pressure pattern: does it have implications for morbidity and
mortality? Am J Cardiol. 2002;89(2A):27A–33.
8. Cuspidi C, Macca G, Sampieri L, et al. Target organ damage and non-dipping pattern defined
by two sessions of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in recently diagnosed essential
hypertensive patients. J Hypertens. 2001;19(9):1539–45.
cerebrovascular damage in extreme dippers. Hypertension. 1996;27(1):130–5.
10. Lurbe E, Redon J, Kesani A, et al. Increase in nocturnal blood pressure and progression to
microalbuminuria in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(11):797–805.
11. Davidson MB, Hix JK, Vidt DG, Brotman DJ. Association of impaired diurnal blood pressure
variation with a subsequent decline in glomerular filtration rate. Arch Intern Med.
2006;166(8):846–52.
12. Cuspidi C, Sala C, Valerio C, Negri F, Mancia G. Nocturnal hypertension and organ damage in
dippers and nondippers. Am J Hypertens. 2012;25(8):869–75.
13. Routledge FS, McFetridge-Durdle JA, Dean CR. Night-time blood pressure patterns and target
organ damage: a review. Can J Cardiol. 2007;23(2):132–8.
14. Stranges PM, Drew AM, Rafferty P, Shuster JE, Brooks AD. Treatment of hypertension with
chronotherapy: is it time of drug administration? Ann Pharmacother. 2015;49(3):323–34.
15. Carter BL, Chrischilles EA, Rosenthal G, Gryzlak BM, Eisenstein EL, Vander Weg
MW. Efficacy and safety of nighttime dosing of antihypertensives: review of the literature and
design of a pragmatic clinical trial. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2014;16(2):115–21.
16. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Smolensky MH, et al. Chronotherapy improves blood pressure con-
trol and reduces vascular risk in CKD. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2013;9(6):358–68.
17. Reppert SM, Weaver DR. Coordination of circadian timing in mammals. Nature.
2002;418(6901):935–41.
18. Schibler U, Sassone-Corsi P. A web of circadian pacemakers. Cell. 2002;111(7):919–22.
19. Lowrey PL, Takahashi JS. Mammalian circadian biology: elucidating genome-wide levels of
temporal organization. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2004;5:407–41.
20. Tokonami N, Mordasini D, Pradervand S, et al. Local renal circadian clocks control fluid-
electrolyte homeostasis and BP. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014;25(7):1430–9.
21. Young ME. The circadian clock within the heart: potential influence on myocardial gene
expression, metabolism, and function. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2006;290(1):H1–16.
22. McNamara P, Seo SB, Rudic RD, Sehgal A, Chakravarti D, FitzGerald GA. Regulation of
CLOCK and MOP4 by nuclear hormone receptors in the vasculature: a humoral mechanism to
reset a peripheral clock. Cell. 2001;105(7):877–89.
23. Takeda N, Maemura K. Circadian clock and cardiovascular disease. J Cardiol.
2011;57(3):249–56.
24. Cui H, Kohsaka A, Waki H, Bhuiyan ME, Gouraud SS, Maeda M. Metabolic cycles are linked
to the cardiovascular diurnal rhythm in rats with essential hypertension. PLoS One. 2011;6(2),
e17339.
25. Gachon F. Physiological function of PARbZip circadian clock-controlled transcription factors.
Ann Med. 2007;39(8):562–71.
26. Curtis AM, Cheng Y, Kapoor S, Reilly D, Price TS, Fitzgerald GA. Circadian variation of
blood pressure and the vascular response to asynchronous stress. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
2007;104(9):3450–5.
27. Masuki S, Todo T, Nakano Y, Okamura H, Nose H. Reduced alpha-adrenoceptor responsive-
ness and enhanced baroreflex sensitivity in Cry-deficient mice lacking a biological clock.
J Physiol. 2005;566(Pt 1):213–24.
28. Xie Z, Su W, Liu S, et al. Smooth-muscle BMAL1 participates in blood pressure circadian
rhythm regulation. J Clin Invest. 2015;125(1):324–36.
29. Mohri T, Emoto N, Nonaka H, et al. Alterations of circadian expressions of clock genes in
Dahl salt-sensitive rats fed a high-salt diet. Hypertension. 2003;42(2):189–94.
30. Herichova I, Soltesova D, Szantoova K, et al. Effect of angiotensin II on rhythmic per2 expres-
sion in the suprachiasmatic nucleus and heart and daily rhythm of activity in Wistar rats. Regul
Pept. 2013;187:49–56.
31. Wuerzner G, Bochud M, Zweiacker C, Tremblay S, Pruijm M, Burnier M. Step count is associ-
ated with lower nighttime systolic blood pressure and increased dipping. Am J Hypertens.
2013;26(4):527–34.
32. Agarwal R, Light RP. Physical activity is a determinant of circadian blood pressure variation
in chronic kidney disease. Am J Nephrol. 2010;31(1):15–23.
33. Yamasaki F, Schwartz JE, Gerber LM, Warren K, Pickering TG. Impact of shift work and race/
ethnicity on the diurnal rhythm of blood pressure and catecholamines. Hypertension.
1998;32(3):417–23.
34. Su TC, Lin LY, Baker D, et al. Elevated blood pressure, decreased heart rate variability and
incomplete blood pressure recovery after a 12-hour night shift work. J Occup Health.
2008;50(5):380–6.
35. Ling C, Diaz KM, Kretzschmar J, et al. Chronic aerobic exercise improves blood pressure dip-
ping status in African American nondippers. Blood Press Monit. 2014;19(6):353–8.
36. Hinderliter AL, Routledge FS, Blumenthal JA, et al. Reproducibility of blood pressure dip-
ping: relation to day-to-day variability in sleep quality. J Am Soc Hypertens.
2013;7(6):432–9.
37. Cuspidi C, Meani S, Valerio C, et al. Reproducibility of dipping/nondipping pattern in
untreated essential hypertensive patients: impact of sex and age. Blood Press Monit.
2007;12(2):101–6.
38. Omboni S, Parati G, Palatini P, et al. Reproducibility and clinical value of nocturnal hypoten-
sion: prospective evidence from the SAMPLE study. Study on Ambulatory Monitoring of
Pressure and Lisinopril Evaluation. J Hypertens. 1998;16(6):733–8.
39. Hernandez-del Rey R, Martin-Baranera M, Sobrino J, et al. Reproducibility of the circadian
blood pressure pattern in 24-h versus 48-h recordings: the Spanish Ambulatory Blood Pressure
Monitoring Registry. J Hypertens. 2007;25(12):2406–12.
40. Somers VK, Dyken ME, Mark AL, Abboud FM. Sympathetic-nerve activity during sleep in
normal subjects. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(5):303–7.
41. Baguet JP, Narkiewicz K, Mallion JM. Update on Hypertension Management: obstructive
sleep apnea and hypertension. J Hypertens. 2006;24(1):205–8.
42. Hedner JA, Wilcox I, Laks L, Grunstein RR, Sullivan CE. A specific and potent pressor effect
of hypoxia in patients with sleep apnea. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1992;146(5 Pt 1):1240–5.
43. Narkiewicz K, Montano N, Cogliati C, van de Borne PJ, Dyken ME, Somers VK. Altered
cardiovascular variability in obstructive sleep apnea. Circulation. 1998;98(11):1071–7.
44. Narkiewicz K, van de Borne PJ, Pesek CA, Dyken ME, Montano N, Somers VK. Selective
potentiation of peripheral chemoreflex sensitivity in obstructive sleep apnea. Circulation.
1999;99(9):1183–9.
45. Carlson JT, Hedner JA, Sellgren J, Elam M, Wallin BG. Depressed baroreflex sensitivity in
patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1996;154(5):1490–6.
46. Phillips BG, Narkiewicz K, Pesek CA, Haynes WG, Dyken ME, Somers VK. Effects of
obstructive sleep apnea on endothelin-1 and blood pressure. J Hypertens. 1999;17(1):61–6.
47. Moller DS, Lind P, Strunge B, Pedersen EB. Abnormal vasoactive hormones and 24-hour
blood pressure in obstructive sleep apnea. Am J Hypertens. 2003;16(4):274–80.
48. Brandenberger G, Follenius M, Goichot B, et al. Twenty-four-hour profiles of plasma renin
activity in relation to the sleep-wake cycle. J Hypertens. 1994;12(3):277–83.
49. Charloux A, Gronfier C, Lonsdorfer-Wolf E, Piquard F, Brandenberger G. Aldosterone release
during the sleep-wake cycle in humans. Am J Physiol. 1999;276(1 Pt 1):E43–9.
50. Dhaun N, Moorhouse R, MacIntyre IM, et al. Diurnal variation in blood pressure and arterial stiff-
ness in chronic kidney disease: the role of endothelin-1. Hypertension. 2014;64(2):296–304.
51. Jensen LW, Pedersen EB. Nocturnal blood pressure and relation to vasoactive hormones and
renal function in hypertension and chronic renal failure. Blood Press. 1997;6(6):332–42.
52. Dodt C, Breckling U, Derad I, Fehm HL, Born J. Plasma epinephrine and norepinephrine
concentrations of healthy humans associated with nighttime sleep and morning arousal.
Hypertension. 1997;30(1):71–6.
53. Linsell CR, Lightman SL, Mullen PE, Brown MJ, Causon RC. Circadian rhythms of epineph-
rine and norepinephrine in man. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1985;60(6):1210–5.
54. Panza JA, Epstein SE, Quyyumi AA. Circadian variation in vascular tone and its relation to
alpha-sympathetic vasoconstrictor activity. N Engl J Med. 1991;325(14):986–90.
55. Muller JE, Stone PH, Turi ZG, et al. Circadian variation in the frequency of onset of acute
myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1985;313(21):1315–22.
56. Muller JE, Ludmer PL, Willich SN, et al. Circadian variation in the frequency of sudden car-
diac death. Circulation. 1987;75(1):131–8.
57. Marler JR, Price TR, Clark GL, et al. Morning increase in onset of ischemic stroke. Stroke.
1989;20(4):473–6.
58. Staessen JA, Birkenhager W, Bulpitt CJ, et al. The relationship between blood pressure and
sodium and potassium excretion during the day and at night. J Hypertens. 1993;11(4):443–7.
59. Nikolaeva S, Pradervand S, Centeno G, et al. The circadian clock modulates renal sodium
handling. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;23(6):1019–26.
60. Firsov D, Tokonami N, Bonny O. Role of the renal circadian timing system in maintaining
water and electrolytes homeostasis. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2012;349(1):51–5.
61. Uzu T, Ishikawa K, Fujii T, Nakamura S, Inenaga T, Kimura G. Sodium restriction shifts
circadian rhythm of blood pressure from nondipper to dipper in essential hypertension.
Circulation. 1997;96(6):1859–62.
62. Uzu T, Kimura G. Diuretics shift circadian rhythm of blood pressure from nondipper to dipper
in essential hypertension. Circulation. 1999;100(15):1635–8.
63. Bankir L, Bochud M, Maillard M, Bovet P, Gabriel A, Burnier M. Nighttime blood pressure
and nocturnal dipping are associated with daytime urinary sodium excretion in African
subjects. Hypertension. 2008;51(4):891–8.
64. Fukuda M, Munemura M, Usami T, et al. Nocturnal blood pressure is elevated with natriuresis
and proteinuria as renal function deteriorates in nephropathy. Kidney Int. 2004;65(2):621–5.
65. Fukuda M, Motokawa M, Miyagi S, et al. Polynocturia in chronic kidney disease is related to
natriuresis rather than to water diuresis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2006;21(8):2172–7.
66. Fukuda M, Goto N, Kimura G. Hypothesis on renal mechanism of non-dipper pattern of circa-
dian blood pressure rhythm. Med Hypotheses. 2006;67(4):802–6.
67. Fukuda M, Mizuno M, Yamanaka T, et al. Patients with renal dysfunction require a longer
duration until blood pressure dips during the night. Hypertension. 2008;52(6):1155–60.
68. Fukuda M, Uzu T, Kimura G. Duration until nighttime blood pressure fall indicates excess
sodium retention. Chronobiol Int. 2012;29(10):1412–7.
69. Burnier M, Coltamai L, Maillard M, Bochud M. Renal sodium handling and nighttime blood
pressure. Semin Nephrol. 2007;27(5):565–71.
70. Uzu T, Nishimura M, Fujii T, et al. Changes in the circadian rhythm of blood pressure in pri-
mary aldosteronism in response to dietary sodium restriction and adrenalectomy. J Hypertens.
1998;16(12 Pt 1):1745–8.
71. Beard TC, Blizzard L, O’Brien DJ, Dwyer T. Association between blood pressure and dietary
factors in the dietary and nutritional survey of British adults. Arch Intern Med.
1997;157(2):234–8.
72. van den Buuse M. Circadian rhythms of blood pressure and heart rate in conscious rats: effects
of light cycle shift and timed feeding. Physiol Behav. 1999;68(1-2):9–15.
73. Jauch-Chara K, Hallschmid M, Schmid SM, et al. Plasma glucagon decreases during night-time
sleep in Type 1 diabetic patients and healthy control subjects. Diabet Med. 2007;24(6):684–7.
74. Merl V, Peters A, Oltmanns KM, et al. Preserved circadian rhythm of serum insulin concentra-
tion at low plasma glucose during fasting in lean and overweight humans. Metabolism.
2004;53(11):1449–53.
75. Guessous I, Dobrinas M, Kutalik Z, et al. Caffeine intake and CYP1A2 variants associated
with high caffeine intake protect non-smokers from hypertension. Hum Mol Genet.
2012;21(14):3283–92.
76. Guessous I, Pruijm M, Ponte B, et al. Associations of ambulatory blood pressure with urinary
caffeine and caffeine metabolite excretions. Hypertension. 2015;65(3):691–6.
77. Modesti PA. Season, temperature and blood pressure: a complex interaction. Eur J Intern Med.
2013;24(7):604–7.
78. Morabito M, Crisci A, Orlandini S, Maracchi G, Gensini GF, Modesti PA. A synoptic approach
to weather conditions discloses a relationship with ambulatory blood pressure in hyperten-
sives. Am J Hypertens. 2008;21(7):748–52.
79. Modesti PA, Morabito M, Massetti L, et al. Seasonal blood pressure changes: an independent
relationship with temperature and daylight hours. Hypertension. 2013;61(4):908–14.
80. Brook RD. Why physicians who treat hypertension should know more about air pollution.
J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2007;9(8):629–35.
81. Brook RD, Urch B, Dvonch JT, et al. Insights into the mechanisms and mediators of the effects
of air pollution exposure on blood pressure and vascular function in healthy humans.
Hypertension. 2009;54(3):659–67.
82. Tsai DH, Riediker M, Wuerzner G, et al. Short-term increase in particulate matter blunts noc-
turnal blood pressure dipping and daytime urinary sodium excretion. Hypertension.
2012;60(4):1061–9.
Chapter 9
Prognostic Value of Ambulatory Blood
Pressure Monitoring
Fabio Angeli and Paolo Verdecchia
Introduction
Ambulatory monitoring provides a direct record of blood pressure (BP) throughout

the whole day in patients engaged in their usual activities [1]. Frequent readings
during wakefulness and sleep enable clinicians to obtain a more precise estimation
of a patient’s BP, to assess BP levels in the outpatient setting, and to study BP vari-
ability and circadian BP profile [1].
Ambulatory BP measurements have high reproducibility, avoid the transient rise
in BP in response to a medical environment, and show a remarkable clinical value
in assessing the extent of cardiovascular damage and prognosis [1–3]. Furthermore,
the evidence that ambulatory BP monitoring gives information over and above con-
ventional BP measurement has been growing steadily over the past 25 years and the
rationale for its use in clinical practice is soundly based.
We aimed to specifically address the evidence provided in this regard by cross-
sectional and longitudinal studies. We also critically discussed the available data
supporting the concept that not only 24-h average BP values, but also specific BP
patterns occurring within the 24 h may have clinical relevance.
To this purpose, we searched for clinical studies using research Methodology
Filters [4]. The following research terms were used: “BP determination,” “hyper-
tension,” “masked hypertension,” “white coat hypertension,” “BP monitoring,
F. Angeli, M.D.
Division of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Pathophysiology,
Hospital “S.M. della Misericordia”, Perugia, Italy
P. Verdecchia, M.D. (*)
Department of Internal Medicine, Hospital of Assisi,
Via Valentin Muller 1, Assisi 06081, Italy

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-22771-9_9
166 F. Angeli and P. Verdecchia
ambulatory,” and “prognosis.” We also checked the reference list of identified

articles and previous systematic reviews to find other relevant studies.
Office and Ambulatory Blood Pressure
Office-based BP readings are limited in the amount of information they provide, as

they represent a single snapshot in time. Conversely, BP readings recorded at pre-
defined intervals throughout the 24 h portray a better picture of BP fluctuations [5].
Thus, ambulatory BP is superior to clinic BP to reflect the true pattern of BP during
usual daily life. Average ambulatory BP levels generally show a weak association
with office BP values taken by a doctor or a nurse. For example, by plotting office
BP versus the average daytime ambulatory BP in a large population of patients
with office hypertension, for any given value of office BP, the observed ambulatory
BP may vary considerably from the predicted value by linear regression equation
(Fig. 9.1).
From a practical standpoint, the combined use of office and ambulatory BP iden-
tifies four different clinical categories of untreated subjects [6, 7]:
1. Subjects who are normotensive by clinic BP and hypertensive by ambulatory BP
(masked hypertension; Fig. 9.2, upper left panel).
Fig. 9.1 Relation between office and ambulatory systolic blood pressure in untreated hypertensive
subjects enrolled in the “Progetto Ipertensione Umbria monitoraggio Ambulatoriale” (PIUMA)
study. For any given value of office BP, the observed ambulatory BP varies considerably from the
predicted value by linear regression equation. BP blood pressure
9 Prognostic Value of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring 167
Fig. 9.2 Untreated hypertensive subjects enrolled in the “Progetto Ipertensione Umbria monitor-
aggio Ambulatoriale” (PIUMA) classified into 4 groups according to office (<140 or ≥140 mmHg)
and day-time ambulatory (<135 or ≥135 mmHg) systolic blood pressure levels. BP blood
pressure
2. Subjects hypertensive by both methods (true hypertension; Fig. 9.2, upper right
panel).
3. Subjects normotensive by both methods (true normotension; Fig. 9.2, lower left
panel).
4. Subjects who are hypertensive based on office BP and normotensive by ambula-
tory BP (white coat hypertension, or isolated office hypertension; Fig. 9.2, lower
right panel).
Notably, for both masked hypertension and white coat hypertension, the defini-
tion should be preferentially restricted to untreated patients. In treated patients, the
office-ambulatory BP discrepancy might be conditioned by a different drop in one
vs. the other pressure (because of the time of drug administration, the duration of
the effect, and other reasons) and patients may have had originally a sustained rather
than a white coat or masked hypertension condition.
Masked Hypertension
The phenomenon of masked hypertension (also referred to as “reverse white coat

hypertension” or “white coat normotension”) is defined as a clinical condition in
which a patient’s office BP level is normal (<140/90 mmHg), but ambulatory BP
readings are in the hypertensive range (for instance; ambulatory daytime BP
≥135/85 mmHg).
This condition underlines the concept that hypertension may not be detected in
these subjects on the grounds of traditional BP measurement. Reactivity to daily life
stressors and some behavioral factors can selectively influence the phenomenon of
masked hypertension. As depicted in a recent algorithm [6] proposed for the identi-
fication and management of subjects with masked hypertension (Fig. 9.3), several
factors may be involved as potential determinants of masked hypertension [6]. They
include pre-hypertension or high-normal BP, smoking status, regular alcohol con-
sumption, male sex, diabetes, obesity, contraceptive use in women, sedentary hab-
its, and exposure to high environmental stress [6].
Fig. 9.3 Suggested algorithm for evaluating and treating masked hypertension. MH masked
hypertension, ABP ambulatory blood pressure, ABPM ambulatory blood pressure monitoring
According to recent observations from cross-sectional studies, prevalence of

masked hypertension ranges between 8 and 38 % [8]. Such variability has been
attributed to different patient characteristics, populations studied, and different defi-
nitions of masked hypertension. Indeed, some studies were conducted in the general
population, other in referred subjects with normotension, other in untreated or
treated hypertensive patients, and other in elderly people, or specifically in men [6].
Individuals with masked hypertension present a higher prevalence of organ dam-
age, particularly metabolic risk factors, left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, increased
carotid intima-media thickness, and impaired large artery distensibility when
compared with subjects with a normal BP level both inside and outside the clinic or
office [9].
Moreover, outcome studies have documented that masked hypertension increases
cardiovascular risk, which appears to be comparable to that found in patients with
concomitant in-office and out-of-office hypertension [6]. Available evidences show
that subjects with masked hypertension have a 1.5–3-fold higher risk of major car-
diovascular disease than those with normotension, and their risk is not different
from that of patients with sustained hypertension [6, 8].
Some systematic overviews [6, 10, 11] evaluated the prognostic impact of
masked hypertension. In this regard, the most recent meta-analysis [6] including 8
cohort studies (Table 9.1) reported quantitative data for cardiovascular prognosis. It
showed that the risk of major cardiovascular disease was higher in subjects with
masked hypertension than in the normotensive subjects regardless of the definition
of masked hypertension based on self-measured BP (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.13; 95 %
confidence interval [CI]: 1.35–3.35; p = 0.001) or 24-h ambulatory BP (HR: 2.00; 95
% CI: 1.54–2.60; p < 0.001) [6].
The high prevalence of masked hypertension remarks the priority of measuring
out-of-office BP in a consistent proportion of people with apparently normal or
well-controlled office BP. Nevertheless, the optimal strategy for detecting this con-
dition is not yet clear and it is virtually impossible to screen for masked hyperten-
sion the totality of the general population [12]. Thus, it appears reasonable to restrict
screening to those individuals at increased risk for cardiovascular complications
Table 9.1 Clinical studies that addressed the adverse prognostic impact of masked hypertension
Study Selection criteria MH detected by
Bjorklund et al. [114] 70-year-old men ABPM
Bobrie et al. [115] Age ≥60 years Home BP
Fagard et al. [116] Age ≥60 years ABPM
Hansen et al. [39] Population sample aged 41–72 years ABPM
Ohkubo et al. [117] Population sample aged ≥40 years ABPM
Mancia et al. [118] Population sample aged 25–74 years ABPM
Mancia et al. [118] Population sample aged 25–74 years Home BP
Pierdomenico et al. [17] Age: 60 years (mean) ABPM
ABPM ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, BP blood pressure
(including patients with kidney disease or diabetes) and with potentially high pre-
screen probability of masked hypertension (Fig. 9.3) [6].
Finally, since the cardiovascular risk in masked hypertension seems to be equiva-
lent to that in sustained hypertension, it is reasonable that people with masked
hypertension should undergo lifestyle changes and antihypertensive drug therapy
targeted on out-of office BP [5, 6, 13] (Fig. 9.3).
White coat hypertension, also referred to as isolated office hypertension, is gener-

ally defined as a persistently elevated office BP (≥140/90 mmHg) with concomitant
normal BP outside the office (<130–135/85 mmHg for daytime BP) [1].
Despite a large number of studies, it’s not easy to give an unequivocal definition
of white coat hypertension based on results of 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring.
While the usual definition of elevated office BP is out of discussion (≥140 mmHg
for systolic and/or 90 mmHg for diastolic BP) [1–3], the upper reference limits of
ambulatory BP used to define white coat hypertension differed across the available
studies. The definition was based on both systolic and diastolic values in some stud-
ies and solely on diastolic values in others; some studies used the average ambula-
tory BP during the day and other used the average 24-h ambulatory BP [7, 8].
Such differences might seem clinically unimportant, but the prevalence of white
coat hypertension and of the associated cardiac target-organ damage increased
markedly when moving from more restrictive (lower) to more liberal (higher) limits
of ambulatory BP normalcy over a relatively narrow range [14]. For example, the
prevalence of LV hypertrophy, virtually absent below 120 mmHg and very low
below 130 mmHg (6 %) for systolic BP, increases to 10.5 % when the limit was set
to a more liberal value (140 mmHg) [14].
In addition, modest swings over a narrow range of presumably normal or nearly
normal ambulatory BP may result in remarkable differences in the predicted cardio-
vascular risk [8, 15–18].
In some reports from our group [8, 15, 16], the subset with white coat hyperten-
sion was subdivided into two groups with low ambulatory BP values (average day-
time ambulatory BP <130/80 mmHg) or values intermediate (between 130/80 and
131/86 mmHg in women or 136/87 mmHg in men). The differences in event-free
survival between the normotensive group and the group with white coat hyperten-
sion defined restrictively were not significant, whereas the differences between the
normotensive group and the white coat hypertension group defined more liberally
were significant [8, 15, 16].
These data suggest that a daytime ambulatory BP <130 mmHg systolic and <80
mmHg diastolic may be defined “optimal” to identify individuals with white coat
hypertension and low cardiovascular risk (i.e., risk not dissimilar from that of clini-
cally normotensive subjects). To add further insight into the long-term clinical rel-
evance of white coat hypertension, an International Collaborative Study examined
individual data from 4 prospective cohort studies from the United States, Italy, and
Japan [19]. In this study, 4,406 initially untreated subjects with essential hyperten-
sion and 1,549 healthy normotensive controls were followed for a median of 5.4
years [19]. Using the same restrictive ambulatory limits for the definition of white
coat hypertension (average awake ambulatory BP <130/80 mmHg), the adjusted HR
for stroke was 1.15 (95 % CI: 0.61–2.16) in the white coat hypertension group
(p = 0.66) and 2.01 (95 % CI: 1.31–3.08) in the ambulatory hypertension group
(p = 0.001) compared with the normotensive group. However, the incidence of
stroke tended to increase in the white coat hypertension group in the long run, and
the corresponding hazard curve crossed that of the ambulatory hypertension group
by the ninth year of follow-up [19]. These data raised the hypothesis, to be tested in
future studies, that white coat hypertension might not be a fully benign condition on
the long-term, being a sort of intermediate condition between normotension and
established hypertension [20–25].
Although controversy still exists regarding the prognostic impact of this condi-
tion, current evidence suggests a treatment based on lifestyle measures in the low-
risk stratum of subjects with white coat hypertension under the conditions of
restricted definition (daytime ambulatory BP <130/80 mmHg), absence of important
comorbid conditions and target organ damage, and adequate follow-up [20–25].
Surrogate Outcome Markers
Surrogate outcome markers may provide a significant contribution to early diagno-

sis and outcome prediction in hypertension. They are useful noninvasive tools for
designing and evaluating therapeutic programs and are increasingly employed as
predictive endpoints for treatment [26].
In this context, the association between office BP and hypertensive target organ
damage (TOD) usually is relatively poor. Conversely, the closer correlation between
TOD and ambulatory BP is well-established regardless of whether the damage is
quantified in the heart (LV hypertrophy or dysfunction), in the kidney (microalbu-
minuria or overt proteinuria), in the brain (cerebral lacunae or white matter lesions
as identified by nuclear magnetic resonance), or in the small and large arteries [27].
Left Ventricular Hypertrophy
In the earlier studies by Drayer et al. [28] and Devereux et al. [29], ambulatory BP
correlated more closely with LV mass than did office BP. Subsequently, several stud-
ies confirmed these results and actually there is a general consensus regarding the
closer correlation between LV mass and ambulatory over clinic BP (Fig. 9.4)
[30–32].
Fig. 9.4 Association between average 24-h systolic blood pressure and left ventricular mass in
untreated hypertensive subjects enrolled in the “Progetto Ipertensione Umbria Monitoraggio
Ambulatoriale” (PIUMA) study. BP blood pressure
More recent data have also provided evidence that serial changes in LV mass
show a closer association with the changes in ambulatory BP than with those in
clinic BP [33].
In this context, the Study on Ambulatory Monitoring of Pressure and Lisinopril
Administration (SAMPLE) evaluated whether in hypertensive patients with a
marked echocardiographic LV hypertrophy regression of hypertrophy by a 12-month
treatment was more closely related to reduction in 24-h average than in office BP
[34]. Treatment consistently reduced office BP, 24-h average BP, and LV mass
index. The reductions in office and 24-h BP showed a limited relationship to each
other, while only the latter, but not the former, showed a significant relationship
with the degree of the LV hypertrophy regression [34].
More recently, a report from the Progetto Ipertensione Umbria Monitoraggio
Ambulatoriale (PIUMA) study [33] demonstrated that the changes in LV mass dur-
ing BP-lowering treatment was significantly associated with the changes in 24-h
systolic BP (r = 0.40), diastolic BP (r = 0.33), and pulse pressure (r = 0.35). Weaker
associations were found with the changes in clinic BP (r = 0.32, 0.31 and 0.16,
respectively). When 24-h systolic BP and 24-h diastolic BP were forced into the
same model, only 24-h systolic BP achieved significance. Similarly, when 24-h sys-
tolic BP and 24-h pulse pressure were included into the same model as covariates,
only 24-h systolic BP was associated to statistical significance [33].
Other Organ Damages
A large number of studies have investigated whether, on a cross-sectional basis,

other organ damages accompanying hypertension are more closely related to ambu-
latory than to office BP. Microalbuminuria and albumin excretion rate are better
predicted by ambulatory BP than by office BP [35].
The European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis (ELSA) [34] demonstrated
that either the number of plaques or the size of the thickening was more closely
related to 24-h average systolic BP and ambulatory pulse pressure than to the cor-
responding office values. Indeed, 24-h average systolic BP or pulse pressure values
were only second to age in their correlation with carotid artery wall status, their
importance being also greater than that seen for serum cholesterol and other compo-
nents of the lipid profile [34].
Similarly, Asmar et al. found a closer association of arterial distensibility by
carotid-femoral pulse velocity with ambulatory BP than with office BP [36].
Taken together, these data provide substantial evidence that the adverse effects of
hypertension are related to the average ambulatory BP level to which target organs
have been exposed over time and that the more accurate prognostic value of ambula-
tory over clinic BP is partially due to a more strict association with hypertension-
related organ damage.
Ambulatory Blood Pressure Components
Historically, average 24-h, daytime (awake), and night-time (asleep) BP values have
been the principal components of the ambulatory BP profile to be investigated as
prognostic markers [5, 37]. However, new statistical techniques and the ability to
handle large volumes of data with computer-assisted analysis have led to studies
that described different aspects of ambulatory readings and several information pro-
vided by ambulatory BP monitoring [2, 3].
A new language emerged, with such terms as “nocturnal BP dipping,” “morning
surge in BP,” “ambulatory pulse pressure,” “ambulatory arterial stiffness index
(AASI),” “average heart rate and heart rate period,” “BP variability and variability-
ratios,” and “BP load” [1, 5, 37]. Health professionals have thus to adjust and incor-
porate this new knowledge into their clinical practice.
Average Blood Pressure
One of the first studies that addressed the prognostic value of ambulatory BP in a
general population sample was the Ohasama study [38]. In this Japanese population
(1542 subjects, 565 men and 977 women, aged ≥40 years), the association between
BP levels and mortality was more distinctive for the 24-h ambulatory BP than it was
for the office BP. Specifically, when both 24-h and office BP values were included
in a multivariable Cox model, only the systolic ambulatory BP was related signifi-
cantly to the increased risk of cardiovascular mortality [38].
Similar results were also observed in a Danish general population cohort [39]. A
recent meta-analysis of 7,030 subjects [40] showed that average day-time ambula-
tory BP was superior to office BP in predicting cardiovascular events. In multivariate-
adjusted continuous analyses, both office and ambulatory BP predicted cardiovascular
outcome. However, in fully adjusted models, including both office and ambulatory
BP, office BP lost its predictive value, whereas systolic day-time ambulatory BP
retained their prognostic significance.
More recently, measurement of night-time BP proved to yield additional prog-
nostic data in terms of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events. In the Dublin
Outcome Study [41], a large observational registry of subjects who underwent
ambulatory BP before treatment, after correction for several confounders, ambula-
tory BP was superior to office BP for prediction of cardiovascular mortality and
night-time ambulatory BP was the most potent ambulatory BP component for pre-
diction of outcome [41].
A cohort study of 7458 patients in six countries from Europe, Asia, and South
America [42] found that both day-time and night-time BP predicted all cardiovas-
cular events. Nevertheless, night-time BP, adjusted for day-time BP, independently
predicted total, cardiovascular, and non-cardiovascular mortality [42].
In elderly subjects with isolated systolic hypertension [43], ambulatory systolic
BP was a significantly better predictor of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events
than conventional BP measurement. During follow-up, 98 patients developed a
major cardiovascular event and after adjustment for age, sex, office BP, active treat-
ment, previous events, cigarette smoking, and residence in the western Europe, the
average night-time systolic BP was a significant predictor of total, cardiac, and cere-
brovascular future events, whereas the average daytime BP did not yield statistical
significance [43]. In this study, for every 10 mmHg increase in night-time systolic
BP, the hazard rate for cardiovascular events was 1.20 (95 % CI: 1.08–1.35), while
those for cardiac and cerebrovascular events were 1.16 (95 % CI: 1.02–1.33) and
1.31 (95 % CI: 1.06–1.62), respectively [43].
Notably, the interpretation of these averages in clinical practice is obviously
dependent on the definition of normalcy. Although reference values for average
ambulatory BP are still uncertain for the paucity of data allowing a shared definition
dividing up normotension from hypertension, currently accepted limits of normalcy
for average ambulatory BP based on several population-based data banks and longi-
tudinal studies in hypertension are reported in Table 9.2 [1].
Table 9.2 Recommended Limits of normalcy Value

limits of normalcy for
Average 24-h <130/80 mmHg
ambulatory blood pressure
Average day-time <135/85 mmHg (optimal:
<130/80 mmHg)
Average night-time <120/70 mmHg
Day–Night Blood Pressure Changes
Intra-arterial studies with beat-to-beat recording in ambulant subjects showed that,

in normotensive individuals, BP is characterized by a circadian pattern, with values
tending to peak during the day-time hours and then falling to a nadir at night [44,
45]. In this context, 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring appears to be a valid tool to
investigate the diurnal BP changes associated with the sleep–wake cycle, because it
has been demonstrated that intra-arterial 24-h BP profile is similar in the absence
and in the presence of concomitant noninvasive BP monitoring [46].
Several studies addressed the issue of the prognostic value of night-time BP and
day–night BP changes, particularly in individuals whose nocturnal BP remains ele-
vated [47]. Typically, “non-dippers” are defined by a reduction in BP by less than a
given percentage from day to night, and the subjects out of this definition are clas-
sified as “dippers.” The threshold values for classification ranged from 10 % to 10/5
mmHg, up to 0 % (i.e., no reduction in BP from day to night or a higher BP during
night than during day) [48].
Several reports from independent centers showed that prevalence of LV hyper-
trophy [49], cerebrovascular disease [50, 51], and microalbuminuria [52] was higher
among subjects with blunted or abolished fall in BP from day to night than individu-
als with normal day–night BP difference.
Furthermore, day–night BP changes significantly refined cardiovascular risk
stratification above office BP and other traditional risk markers [53, 54].
Yamamoto et al. [55] demonstrated that the degree of ambulatory BP reduction
from day to night at the baseline assessment was significantly (p < 0.01) smaller in
the group with subsequent cerebrovascular events than in the group with no future
events. In older patients with isolated systolic hypertension, the Syst-Eur study
found that cardiovascular risk increased with a higher night:day ratio of systolic BP
(i.e., in patients more likely to be non-dippers) independent of the average 24-h BP
[43]. Similarly, Ohkubo et al [56] showed an increased cardiovascular mortality in
“non-dippers” (relative risk [RR]: 2.56, p = 0.02) and “reverse-dippers” (RR: 3.69,
p = 0.004) in comparison with “dippers.”
Nevertheless, it is important to mention that night-time BP may lose its prognos-
tic significance in hypertensive subjects with significant sleep disturbances during
overnight monitoring, which may occur for the compressive, tactile, and sonorous
stimuli produced by repeated cuff inflations [57].
Recent findings from our group supported this hypothesis, suggesting that the
prognostic impact of day–night BP changes should be investigated including the
perceived quantity of sleep as effect modifier in outcome analyses [57]. Specifically,
we followed 2934 initially untreated hypertensive subjects and we assessed the per-
ceived quantity of sleep during overnight BP monitoring [57]. Overall, 58.7, 27.7,
9.7, and 4.0 % of subjects reported a sleep duration perceived as usual (group A), <2
h less than usual (group B), 2–4 h less than usual (group C), and >4 h less than usual
(group D). Daytime BP did not differ across the groups (all p not significant). Night-
time BP increased from group A to D (124/75, 126/76, 128/77, and 129/79 mmHg,
respectively; all p for trend <0.01). Over a median follow-up period of 7 years, there
were 356 major cardiovascular events and 176 all-cause deaths. Incidence of total
cardiovascular events and deaths was higher in the subjects with a night/day ratio in
systolic BP >10 % compared with those with a greater day–night BP drop in the
group with perceived sleep duration as usual or <2 h less than usual (both p < 0.01),
not in the group with duration of sleep ≥2 h less than usual (all p not significant).
Notably, in a Cox model, the independent prognostic value of night-time BP for
total cardiovascular end points and all-cause mortality disappeared in the subjects
with perceived sleep deprivation ≥2 h.
Blood Pressure Variability
BP is characterized by marked fluctuations occurring within a 24-h period. Rather

than representing “background noise,” or a phenomenon occurring at random, these
variations are thought to be the result of complex interactions between extrinsic
environmental and behavioral factors and intrinsic cardiovascular regulatory mech-
anisms [58].
Although the adverse cardiovascular consequences of hypertension are thought
to depend largely on mean BP values, the hypothesis that increased short-term BP
variability may contribute to a worse prognosis in hypertensive patients received a
great deal of attention.
Ambulatory BP variability is generally estimated by computing the standard
deviation (SD) of the mean systolic and diastolic BP values over a 24-h period or,
more appropriately, day-time and night-time periods separately in order to exclude
the day–night BP dip from the estimate of this kind of variability. However, other
estimates, including weighted standard deviation and coefficient of variation, have
been proposed in the last years [59–61].
Importantly, prospective studies have provided evidence that an increase in BP
variability within 24-h independently predicts progression of subclinical organ
damage, cardiovascular events, and cardiovascular mortality [62–64]. Overall, these
evidences support the concept that the adverse cardiovascular consequences of high
BP depend on BP variability as well as on mean BP [62–64].
Of particular interest are the findings of a 2007 analysis of the PIUMA study
[64]. In this study, BP variability was estimated by the SD of daytime or night-time
systolic and diastolic BP. A BP variability ≤ or > the group median (12.7/10.4
mmHg for day-time systolic and diastolic BP and 10.8/8.9 mmHg for night-time
systolic and diastolic BP) identified subjects at low or high BP variability. During
follow-up, there were 167 new cardiac and 122 new cerebrovascular events. The
rate of cardiac events (×100 person–years) was higher (all p < 0.05) in the subjects
with high than in those with low BP variability (day-time systolic BP: 1.45 vs. 0.72,
day-time diastolic BP: 1.29 vs. 0.91; night-time systolic BP: 1.58 vs. 0.62; nigh-
time diastolic BP: 1.32 vs. 0.85). The rate of cerebrovascular events was also higher
(all p < 0.05) in the subjects with high than in those with low BP variability [64].
In a multivariate analysis, after adjustment for several confounders, a high night-time

systolic BP variability was associated with a 51 % (p = 0.024) excess risk of cardiac
events. The relation of day-time BP variability to cardiac events and that of day-
time and night-time BP variability to cerebrovascular events lost significance in the
multivariate analysis [64].
More recently, these findings have been examined in a large multinational coop-
erative database including 7,112 untreated hypertensive patients enrolled in 6 pro-
spective studies [65]. In a multivariable Cox model, night-time BP variability (as
estimated by SD) was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality, cardiovascu-
lar mortality, and cardiovascular events. In contrast, day-time BP variability was not
an independent predictor of outcomes in any model. In fully adjusted models, a
night-time systolic BP SD ≥ 12.2 mmHg was associated with a 41 % greater risk of
cardiovascular events, a 55 % greater risk of cardiovascular death, and a 59 %
increased risk of all-cause mortality compared with an SD < 12.2 mmHg. The cor-
responding values for a diastolic BP SD of ≥7.9 mmHg were 48 %, 132 %, and 77
%, respectively. The addition of night-time BP variability to fully adjusted models
had a significant impact on risk reclassification and integrated discrimination for all
outcomes (relative integrated discrimination improvement for systolic BP variabil-
ity: 9 % cardiovascular events, 14.5 % all-cause death, 8.5 % cardiovascular death;
for diastolic BP variability: 10 % cardiovascular events, 19.1 % all-cause death, 23
% cardiovascular death, all P < 0.01).
Pulse Pressure
Age-related increases in BP are mainly attributable to an increase in systolic BP

with a parallel steadiness, or slight decrease in diastolic BP [66]. This leads to a
widening in pulse pressure. Stiffening of large arteries and decreased arterial com-
pliance are recognized key features of aging, which largely account for the changes
in pulse pressure occurring from 50 years of age onwards [66].
Because pulse pressure is strongly affected by the alerting reaction evoked by the
clinical visit [67], it has been suggested that 24-h ambulatory pulse pressure may
better reflect “true” pulse pressure during normal daily life.
A significant association has been noted in several studies between pulse
pressure and subsequent rate of cardiovascular morbid events, and such association
was in part independent from the effects of systolic and diastolic BP [68–75]. In this
context, some analyses of the PIUMA study elucidated the independent prognostic
value of ambulatory pulse pressure [73, 74]. The first report included 2,010 initially
untreated and uncomplicated subjects with essential hypertension (mean age, 51.7
years; 52 % men) [74]. All subjects underwent baseline procedures including 24-h
noninvasive ambulatory BP monitoring and the mean duration of follow-up was 3.8
years (range, 0–11 years). In the three tertiles of the distribution of average 24-h
pulse pressure (Fig. 9.5, right panel), the rate of total cardiovascular events was
1.19, 1.81, and 4.92, respectively (log-rank test, p < 0.01). Similar results were
Fig. 9.5 Progressive increase in total cardiovascular events from the first to the third tertile of the
distribution of office (left) and ambulatory (right) pulse pressure
obtained for office pulse pressure (Fig. 9.5, left panel). However, after controlling
for several independent risk markers including white coat hypertension and non-
dipper status, we found that ambulatory pulse pressure was associated with the big-
gest reduction in the −2 log likelihood statistics for cardiovascular morbidity
(p < 0.05 versus office pulse pressure). For any given level of office pulse pressure,
cardiovascular morbidity and mortality markedly increased with average 24-h
ambulatory pulse pressure.
In a subsequent study, we demonstrated that in subjects with hypertension,
ambulatory mean BP and pulse pressure exert a different predictive effect on cardiac
and cerebrovascular outcome [73]. While pulse pressure was the dominant predictor
of cardiac events, mean BP was the major independent predictor of cerebrovascular
events [73]. Specifically, after adjustment for age, sex, diabetes, serum cholesterol,
and cigarette smoking (all p < 0.01), for each 10 mmHg increase in 24-h pulse pres-
sure, there was an independent 35 % increase in the risk of cardiac events (95 % CI:
17–55 %). Twenty-four-hour mean BP was not a significant predictor of cardiac
events after controlling for pulse pressure. Conversely, for every 10 mmHg increase
in 24-h mean BP, the risk of cerebrovascular events increased by 42 % (95 % CI:
19–69 %), and 24-h pulse pressure did not yield significance after controlling for
24-h mean BP.
Early Morning Blood Pressure Surge
It is well-known that a marked diurnal variation exists in the time of onset of cardio-
vascular events, with a peak in early morning [76, 77]. BP also exhibits a similar
diurnal variation, with a decrease during sleep and a surge in the morning [76, 77].
Dynamic diurnal variations in pressor stress from a nadir in the night to a peak in
the morning (the morning surge in BP) have attracted attention as trigger for cardio-
vascular events.
In the last few years, the following two different estimates of the morning surge
in BP proved prognostic significance [78, 79]: (1) the sleep-trough morning BP
surge computed as the difference between the average BP during the 2 h following
awakening and the lowest night-time BP (i.e., the average of the lowest BP and the
two readings immediately preceding and after the lowest value); and (2) the pre-
awakening morning BP surge as the difference between the average BP during the
2 h after awakening and the average BP during the 2 h before awakening (Fig. 9.6).
In a population of 519 older hypertensive subjects from Japan who contributed
44 stroke events, during an average follow-up of 41 months, a higher morning BP
rise (sleep-through morning surge ≥55 mmHg) was associated with stroke risk
independently of ambulatory BP, nocturnal BP falls, and silent cerebral infarct
(p = 0.008) [78].
More recently, an analysis by the International Database of Ambulatory Blood
Pressure in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcome (IDACO) demonstrated that the
morning surge above the 90th percentile (sleep-through morning surge ≥37 mmHg)
significantly and independently predicted cardiovascular outcome and might con-
tribute to risk stratification by ambulatory BP monitoring [79].
In contrast, a recent analysis of the PIUMA study [53] showed that a greater
morning BP surge, either expressed as sleep-trough or pre-awakening surge, did not
predict a greater cardiovascular risk in a large sample of 3012 subjects with hyper-
tension. Unexpectedly, in a multivariable Cox model (after adjustment for several
predictive covariates, including age, sex, diabetes mellitus, cigarette smoking, total
cholesterol, LV hypertrophy, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and average 24-h
systolic BP), a blunted sleep trough (≤19.5 mmHg) and pre-awakening (≤9.5
mmHg) BP surge were associated with an excess risk of events (HR: 1.66, 95 % CI:
1.14–2.42, and HR: 1.71, 95 % CI: 1.12–2.71, respectively). These findings were
explained by the evidence that the day–night reduction in systolic BP showed a
direct association with the sleep trough (r = 0.564; p < 0.0001) and the pre-awakening
(r = 0.554; p < 0.0001) systolic BP surge: the greater the day–night dip, the greater
the morning BP surge and vice versa [53] (Fig. 9.6).
Heart Rate
Epidemiological evidences demonstrate that heart rate correlates with cardiovascu-

lar morbidity [80]. However, much less is known about the independent prognostic
value of ambulatory heart rate in hypertensive patients. Only data from three main
longitudinal studies underlined the prognostic importance of elevated ambulatory
heart rate for cardiovascular events.
The first report was an analysis of the PIUMA study published in 1998 [81].
In a subset of 1,942 initially untreated and uncomplicated subjects with essential
Fig. 9.6 Different estimates of the morning blood pressure surge. The figure also suggests that
day–night reduction in systolic blood pressure may be directly associated with the sleep trough or
the pre-awakening systolic blood pressure surge (see text for details). BP blood pressure
hypertension, a blunted reduction of heart rate from day to night during the baseline
examination was associated to an increased risk of death [81]. In a multivariable
model, after adjustment for age, diabetes, and average 24-h systolic BP (all p < 0.01),
for each 10 % less reduction in the heart rate from day to night the RR of mortality
was 1.30 (95 % CI: 1.02–1.65, p = 0.04) [81].
Similar results have been obtained by Ben-Dov and coworkers [82] in a large
sample of 3,957 patients and by the IDACO investigators [83]. Hansen and cowork-
ers demonstrated that the night:day heart rate ratio predicted total and
non-cardiovascular mortality, while day-time heart rate did not predict mortality or
any fatal combined with nonfatal event [83].
Newer Measures
In the last few years, other summary measures have been proposed for describing
different aspects of ambulatory readings. They include novel advanced techniques
for the estimation of BP variability, ambulatory arterial stiffness index (AASI), and
BP load.
Nevertheless, controversy exists as to which components have independent prog-

nostic significance over and beyond average ambulatory BP [5].
Novel Indices of Blood Pressure Variability
Ambulatory BP variability is traditionally assessed from the SD of BP measure-

ments. However, other advanced indices have been proposed. Calculation of the
“weighted” SD of the 24-h mean value (computed as the average of the day-time
and night-time BP SD, each weighted for the duration of the respective day or night
period) has been analyzed as a method of excluding day-to-night BP changes from
the quantification of overall 24-h SD, without discarding either daytime or night-
time values [84].
Average real variability (ARV) is computed as the average of the absolute differ-
ences between consecutive BP measurements [85, 86].
Some investigators also proposed maximum minus minimum blood pressure
(MMD) as alternative index of BP variability [87].
Variability of BP independent of the mean (VIM) [88] is calculated as the SD
divided by the mean to the power x and multiplied by the population mean to the power
x. The power x is obtained by fitting a curve through a plot of SD against mean, using
the model SD = a × meanx, where x was derived by nonlinear regression analysis.
Finally, Gavish et al. [89] suggested a variability ratio as an alternative index of
BP variability for risk stratification in elderly patients with slower heart rate.
Some of these parameters have been shown to be better predictors of organ dam-
age and cardiovascular risk than the conventional 24-h SD of BP [58, 90].
Nevertheless, computation of these indices appears somewhat complicated for
routine clinical practice, requires ad-hoc software, and can be affected by artifacts
during ambulatory BP monitoring recording.
Furthermore, it is not clear whether the addition of these novel indices improves
risk stratification after adjustment for traditional risk factors and 24-h average BP
levels [5].
Ambulatory Arterial Stiffness Index
This parameter has been conceived as novel index of vascular stiffness. Computing
the slope of diastolic on systolic pressure from 24-h ambulatory recordings, the
AASI is defined as 1 minus this regression slope [91].
Dolan and coworkers demonstrated that AASI predicts cardiovascular mortality
in hypertensive patients and provides prognostic information complementary to
pulse pressure, independent of mean arterial pressure [92].
However, AASI seems to be not independently related to other widely accepted
measures of arterial compliance (such as pulse wave velocity [93]) and it is signifi-
cantly influenced by nocturnal BP reduction [94]. Moreover, it has been shown to
predict stroke and cardiovascular death, but not cardiac death, in a number of inde-
pendent populations [92, 95, 96].
Blood Pressure Load
As originally defined [97, 98], BP load is the percentage of BP>140/90 mmHg by

day and >120/80 mmHg at night. More recently, BP load has been computed as the
percentage of ambulatory BP readings above threshold values of 135/85 mmHg for
day-time and 120/70 mmHg for night-time BP or as the percentage area under the
BP curve above these set limits [1]. Some studies have reported significant associa-
tions between BP load, end-organ damage, and cardiovascular events [98, 99],
whereas others failed to demonstrate the ability of BP load to refine the risk of
developing target organ damage and cardiovascular disease [100, 101].
Interpretation of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring:

A Pragmatic Approach
The clinical use of ambulatory BP monitoring in individual subjects to optimize

their management is not so simple and immediate and measurements should be
interpreted carefully. Moreover, there is no consensus on the summary measures
that should be used in clinical decision making.
Interpretation of ambulatory BP monitoring in individual patients to optimize
their management must be kept simple and clinicians should concentrate on ambu-
latory components which proved to substantially refine risk profiling over and
beyond the BP level.
In such a context, the addition of ambulatory pulse pressure, dipping status, and
SD of night-time BP variability to models of long-term outcomes improves risk
stratification after accounting for the impact of average ambulatory BP levels.
To this purpose, we developed some algorithms for the clinical use of ambulatory
BP monitoring [5, 20–25, 37] and suggested the acronym “Ambulatory Does
Prediction Valid” (ADPV) [102]:
• Average ambulatory BP
• Dipping pattern
• Pulse pressure
• Variability of night-time systolic BP
Figure 9.7 shows an algorithm that may be used to refine cardiovascular risk
stratification and guide treatment strategies [102]. As recommended by current
Guidelines [1–3, 103], office BP (or home BP if available) is the first line proce-
dure to identify subjects who could be candidate for commencing drug treatment.
In the subjects with increased office BP, 24-h ambulatory BP identifies low-risk
individuals with normal or optimal values of daytime ambulatory BP (i.e., white
coat hypertension). These subjects are generally suitable for lifestyle measures
without antihypertensive drug treatment. However, indications from current guide-
lines should remain mandatory in subjects with associated risk factors or target
organ damage [1–3, 104].
In the context of a high clinical suspicion of masked hypertension, ambulatory
BP monitoring may be useful to identify subjects with hypertension undetected on
the grounds of usual methods. Since the cardiovascular outcome in masked hyper-
tension is equivalent to that in sustained hypertension, subjects with masked hyper-
tension should undergo lifestyle changes and antihypertensive drug therapy targeted
on ambulatory BP levels [6].
In subjects with elevated daytime BP (i.e., ambulatory hypertension), one (or
more) of the following conditions identifies high-risk individuals, regardless of
Fig. 9.7 Algorithm for interpretation of ambulatory blood pressure measurements in untreated
hypertensive subjects. BP blood pressure, ABPM ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, PP pulse
pressure, TOD target organ damage
office BP values (office hypertension or masked hypertension): a non-dipping

status, an increased 24-h pulse pressure, or a high night-time systolic BP variability.
In these subjects, drug treatment is highly recommended [102].
Conclusion and Perspectives
The main advantage of 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring relies in the high number of
readings obtained in an outpatient setting, which results in a closer estimate of the
“true” BP [105, 106]. Ambulatory BP monitoring appears to be most useful when
the diagnosis of hypertension is uncertain, to detect masked hypertension or white
coat hypertension, to evaluate patients who are apparently resistant to treatment,
and to assess symptomatic episodes of hypotension or hypertension (Table 9.3).
However, a policy of offering 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring to all patients with
hypertension, particularly if untreated, is generating growing attention. The National
Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) was the first to state unequivocally
that 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring should be offered to all people with elevated
office BP [107]. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), an indepen-
dent panel of experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine recently suggested
to offer 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring to all subjects with elevated office BP at
screening and to offer antihypertensive treatment solely to subjects with elevated
ambulatory BP, not to those with white coat hypertension [108].
The position of USPSTF and NICE is shared, in principle, by a recent Position
Paper of the European Society of Hypertension. The paper states that an accurate
diagnosis of white coat hypertension “can best be achieved by performing 24-hour
ambulatory BP monitoring and/or home BP monitoring in all patients with uncom-
Table 9.3 Generally Clinical indications

accepted indications for
Suspected white coat hypertension
ambulatory blood pressure
monitoring Suspected masked hypertension
High risk of future cardiovascular events
Identifying abnormal blood pressure
patterns
Daytime hypertension
Suspected nocturnal hypertension or no
night-time reduction in BP
Increased blood pressure variability
Increased pulse pressure
Assessment of treatment (and titration of
antihypertensive treatment)
Assessing hypertension in the elderly
Identifying ambulatory hypotension
Suspected orthostatic hypotension
Endocrine hypertension
plicated, stage 1 and 2 essential hypertension before prescribing antihypertensive

drug therapy” [1].
However, at least three areas in the field of ambulatory BP monitoring require
specific studies in the field. First, it remains to be proved that tailoring treatment on
the basis of ambulatory BP provides a better cardiovascular protection than tradi-
tional treatment based on office BP. This would require a large, multinational, ran-
domized, outcome-based study that, unfortunately, is unlikely to be ever planned
and conducted because of its magnitude and expense [109]. Only a few studies have
addressed the prognostic value of in-treatment ambulatory BP [22, 105, 106, 110–
112]. For instance, in the PIUMA study [110] only 27 % of subjects achieved office
BP control, defined as BP <140/90 mmHg, and 37 % of subjects achieved ambula-
tory BP control, defined as daytime BP <135/85 mmHg. Ambulatory BP control
significantly predicted a lesser risk for subsequent cardiovascular disease, whereas
office BP control did not. Similarly, in the Office Versus Ambulatory blood pressure
(OvA) study [111], higher mean values for 24-h BP were independent risk factors
for new cardiovascular events.
Secondly, the “dipper”/”non-dipper” classification has been criticized because it
implies an arbitrary dichotomization of a continuous variable. It is also unclear
whether systolic and diastolic BP should be considered separately, or together, in
the definition of day–night BP changes [113]. Outcome studies are thus needed to
derive universally accepted outcome-driven thresholds of normalcy for day–night
BP changes.
Finally, randomized intervention studies are also needed in persons with white
coat hypertension in order to compare a regimen based on lifestyle measures versus
a standard based on office BP. Again, such a trial is unlikely to be ever performed
because of its complexity and cost.
Conflict of Interest None of the authors of this study has financial or other reasons that could
lead to a conflict of interest.
References
1. O’Brien E, Parati G, Stergiou G, et al. European society of hypertension position paper on

ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. J Hypertens. 2013;31:1731–68.
2. Mancia G, Fagard R, Narkiewicz K, et al. 2013 ESH/ESC guidelines for the management of
arterial hypertension: the Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the
European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).
Eur Heart J. 2013;34:2159–219.
3. James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, et al. 2014 Evidence-Based Guideline for the Management of
High Blood Pressure in Adults: Report From the Panel Members Appointed to the Eighth
Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA. 2014;311(5):507–20.
4. Haynes RB, Wilczynski N, McKibbon KA, Walker CJ, Sinclair JC. Developing optimal
search strategies for detecting clinically sound studies in MEDLINE. J Am Med Inform
Assoc. 1994;1(6):447–58.
5. Angeli F, Reboldi G, Verdecchia P. Interpretation of ambulatory blood pressure profile: a
prognostic approach for clinical practice. J Hypertens. 2015;33:454–7.
6. Angeli F, Reboldi G, Verdecchia P. Masked hypertension: evaluation, prognosis, and treat-

ment. Am J Hypertens. 2010;23:941–8.
7. Angeli F, Verdecchia P, Gattobigio R, Sardone M, Reboldi G. White-coat hypertension in
adults. Blood Press Monit. 2005;10:301–5.
8. Verdecchia P, Angeli F, Gattobigio R, et al. The clinical significance of white-coat and
masked hypertension. Blood Press Monit. 2007;12:387–9.
9. Kawano Y, Horio T, Matayoshi T, Kamide K. Masked hypertension: subtypes and target
organ damage. Clin Exp Hypertens. 2008;30:289–96.
10. Bobrie G, Clerson P, Menard J, Postel-Vinay N, Chatellier G, Plouin PF. Masked hyperten-
sion: a systematic review. J Hypertens. 2008;26:1715–25.
11. Fagard RH, Cornelissen VA. Incidence of cardiovascular events in white-coat, masked and
sustained hypertension versus true normotension: a meta-analysis. J Hypertens.
2007;25:2193–8.
12. Papadopoulos DP, Makris TK. Masked hypertension definition, impact, outcomes: a critical
review. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2007;9:956–63.
13. Angeli F, Verdecchia P, Poltronieri C, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in the
elderly: features and perspectives. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2014;24:1052–6.
14. Verdecchia P, Schillaci G, Boldrini F, Zampi I, Porcellati C. Variability between current defi-
nitions of ‘normal’ ambulatory blood pressure. Implications in the assessment of white coat
hypertension. Hypertension. 1992;20:555–62.
predictor of prognosis in essential hypertension. Hypertension. 1994;24:793–801.
16. Verdecchia P, Schillaci G, Borgioni C, Ciucci A, Porcellati C. White-coat hypertension.
Lancet. 1996;348:1444–5. author reply 1445-6.
17. Pierdomenico SD, Lapenna D, Bucci A, et al. Cardiovascular outcome in treated hyperten-
sive patients with responder, masked, false resistant, and true resistant hypertension. Am
J Hypertens. 2005;18:1422–8.
18. Kario K, Shimada K, Schwartz JE, Matsuo T, Hoshide S, Pickering TG. Silent and clinically
overt stroke in older Japanese subjects with white-coat and sustained hypertension. J Am Coll
Cardiol. 2001;38:238–45.
19. Verdecchia P, Reboldi GP, Angeli F, et al. Short- and long-term incidence of stroke in white-
coat hypertension. Hypertension. 2005;45:203–8.
20. Angeli F, Reboldi G, Repaci S, Garofoli M, Casavecchia M, Ambrosio G, Verdecchia
P. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in clinical practice. G Ital Cardiol (Rome).
2008;9:402–7.
21. Verdecchia P, Angeli F. How can we use the results of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring
in clinical practice? Hypertension. 2005;46:25–6.
22. Verdecchia P, Angeli F, Cavallini C. Ambulatory blood pressure for cardiovascular risk strati-
fication. Circulation. 2007;115:2091–3.
23. Verdecchia P, Angeli F, Gattobigio R. Clinical usefulness of ambulatory blood pressure moni-
toring. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004;15 Suppl 1:S30–3.
24. Verdecchia P, Angeli F, Gattobigio R, Porcellati C. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring
and prognosis in the management of essential hypertension. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther.
2003;1:79–89.
25. Verdecchia P, Angeli F, Staessen JA. Compared with whom? Addressing the prognostic value
of ambulatory blood pressure categories. Hypertension. 2006;47:820–1.
26. Verdecchia P, Angeli F, Achilli P, et al. Echocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy in
hypertension: marker for future events or mediator of events? Curr Opin Cardiol.
2007;22:329–34.
27. Mancia G, Parati G. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and organ damage. Hypertension.
2000;36:894–900.
28. Drayer JI, Weber MA, DeYoung JL. BP as a determinant of cardiac left ventricular muscle
mass. Arch Intern Med. 1983;143:90–2.
29. Devereux RB, Pickering TG, Harshfield GA, et al. Left ventricular hypertrophy in patients
with hypertension: importance of blood pressure response to regularly recurring stress.
Circulation. 1983;68:470–6.
30. Verdecchia P, Schillaci G, Boldrini F, et al. Risk stratification of left ventricular hypertrophy
in systemic hypertension using noninvasive ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Am
J Cardiol. 1990;66:583–90.
31. Moulopoulos SD, Stamatelopoulos SF, Zakopoulos NA, et al. Effect of 24-hour blood pres-
sure and heart rate variations on left ventricular hypertrophy and dilatation in essential hyper-
tension. Am Heart J. 1990;119:1147–52.
32. Fagard R, Staessen J, Thijs L, Amery A. Multiple standardized clinic blood pressures may
predict left ventricular mass as well as ambulatory monitoring. A metaanalysis of compara-
tive studies. Am J Hypertens. 1995;8:533–40.
33. Verdecchia P, Angeli F, Gattobigio R, Guerrieri M, Benemio G, Porcellati C. Does the reduc-
tion in systolic blood pressure alone explain the regression of left ventricular hypertrophy?
J Hum Hypertens. 2004;18 Suppl 2:S23–8.
34. Mancia G, Zanchetti A, Agabiti-Rosei E, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure is superior to
clinic blood pressure in predicting treatment-induced regression of left ventricular hypertro-
phy. SAMPLE Study Group. Study on Ambulatory Monitoring of Blood Pressure and
Lisinopril Evaluation. Circulation. 1997;95:1464–70.
35. Reboldi G, Gentile G, Angeli F, Verdecchia P. Microalbuminuria and hypertension. Minerva
Med. 2005;96:261–75.
36. Asmar RG, Brunel PC, Pannier BM, Lacolley PJ, Safar ME. Arterial distensibility and ambu-
latory blood pressure monitoring in essential hypertension. Am J Cardiol.
1988;61:1066–70.
37. Reboldi G, Angeli F, Verdecchia P. Interpretation of ambulatory blood pressure profile for
risk stratification: keep it simple. Hypertension. 2014;63:913–4.
38. Ohkubo T, Imai Y, Tsuji I, et al. Prediction of mortality by ambulatory blood pressure moni-
toring versus screening blood pressure measurements: a pilot study in Ohasama. J Hypertens.
1997;15:357–64.
39. Hansen TW, Jeppesen J, Rasmussen S, Ibsen H, Torp-Pedersen C. Ambulatory blood pres-
sure monitoring and risk of cardiovascular disease: a population based study. Am J Hypertens.
2006;19:243–50.
40. Hansen TW, Kikuya M, Thijs L, et al. Prognostic superiority of daytime ambulatory over
conventional blood pressure in four populations: a meta-analysis of 7,030 individuals.
J Hypertens. 2007;25:1554–64.
41. Dolan E, Stanton A, Thijs L, et al. Superiority of ambulatory over clinic blood pressure mea-
surement in predicting mortality: the Dublin outcome study. Hypertension.
2005;46:156–61.
42. Boggia J, Li Y, Thijs L, et al. Prognostic accuracy of day versus night ambulatory blood pres-
sure: a cohort study. Lancet. 2007;370:1219–29.
43. Staessen JA, Thijs L, Fagard R, et al. Predicting cardiovascular risk using conventional vs
ambulatory blood pressure in older patients with systolic hypertension. Systolic Hypertension
in Europe Trial Investigators. JAMA. 1999;282:539–46.
44. Littler WA, West MJ, Honour AJ, Sleight P. The variability of arterial pressure. Am Heart
J. 1978;95:180–6.
45. Mancia G, Ferrari A, Gregorini L, Parati G, Pomidossi G, Bertinieri G, et al. Blood pressure
and heart rate variabilities in normotensive and hypertensive human beings. Circ Res.
1983;53:96–104.
46. Parati G, Pomidossi G, Casadei R, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring does not
interfere with the haemodynamic effects of sleep. J Hypertens Suppl. 1985;3:S107–9.
47. Fagard RH, Staessen JA, Thijs L. Prediction of cardiac structure and function by repeated
clinic and ambulatory blood pressure. Hypertension. 1997;29:22–9.
48. Pickering TG. How should the diurnal changes of blood pressure be expressed? Am
J Hypertens. 1995;8:681–2.
49. Verdecchia P, Schillaci G, Guerrieri M, et al. Circadian blood pressure changes and left ven-
tricular hypertrophy in essential hypertension. Circulation. 1990;81:528–36.
cerebrovascular damage in extreme dippers. Hypertension. 1996;27:130–5.
52. Bianchi S, Bigazzi R, Baldari G, Sgherri G, Campese VM. Diurnal variations of blood pres-
sure and microalbuminuria in essential hypertension. Am J Hypertens. 1994;7:23–9.
53. Verdecchia P, Angeli F, Mazzotta G, et al. Day-night dip and early-morning surge in blood
pressure in hypertension: prognostic implications. Hypertension. 2012;60:34–42.
54. Verdecchia P, Angeli F, Borgioni C, et al. Prognostic value of circadian blood pressure
changes in relation to differing measures of day and night. J Am Soc Hypertens.
2008;2:88–96.
55. Yamamoto Y, Akiguchi I, Oiwa K, Hayashi M, Kimura J. Adverse effect of nighttime blood
pressure on the outcome of lacunar infarct patients. Stroke. 1998;29:570–6.
56. Ohkubo T, Imai Y, Tsuji I, et al. Relation between nocturnal decline in blood pressure and
mortality. The Ohasama Study. Am J Hypertens. 1997;10:1201–7.
57. Verdecchia P, Angeli F, Borgioni C, Gattobigio R, Reboldi G. Ambulatory blood pressure and
cardiovascular outcome in relation to perceived sleep deprivation. Hypertension.
2007;49:777–83.
58. Parati G, Ochoa JE, Lombardi C, Bilo G. Assessment and management of blood-pressure
variability. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2013;10:143–55.
59. Mancia G. Short- and long-term blood pressure variability: present and future. Hypertension.
2012;60:512–7.
60. Zakopoulos NA, Tsivgoulis G, Barlas G, et al. Impact of the time rate of blood pressure varia-
tion on left ventricular mass. J Hypertens. 2006;24:2071–7.
61. Zakopoulos NA, Toumanidis ST, Barlas GJ, et al. A pressure-time index’ for assessing the
severity of essential hypertension. J Hypertens. 1999;17:1387–93.
62. Mancia G, Bombelli M, Facchetti R, et al. Long-term prognostic value of blood pressure
variability in the general population: results of the Pressioni Arteriose Monitorate e Loro
Associazioni Study. Hypertension. 2007;49:1265–70.
63. Hansen TW, Thijs L, Li Y, et al. Prognostic value of reading-to-reading blood pressure vari-
ability over 24 hours in 8938 subjects from 11 populations. Hypertension.
2010;55:1049–57.
64. Verdecchia P, Angeli F, Gattobigio R, Rapicetta C, Reboldi G. Impact of blood pressure vari-
ability on cardiac and cerebrovascular complications in hypertension. Am J Hypertens.
2007;20:154–61.
65. Palatini P, Reboldi G, Beilin LJ, et al. Added predictive value of night-time blood pressure
variability for cardiovascular events and mortality: the Ambulatory Blood Pressure-
International Study. Hypertension. 2014;64:487–93.
66. Verdecchia P, Angeli F. Does brachial pulse pressure predict coronary events? Adv Cardiol.
2007;44:150–9.
on patient’s blood pressure and heart rate. Lancet. 1983;2:695–8.
68. Dyer AR, Stamler J, Shekelle RB, et al. Pulse pressure-III. Prognostic significance in four
Chicago epidemiologic studies. J Chronic Dis. 1982;35:283–94.
69. Madhavan S, Ooi WL, Cohen H, Alderman MH. Relation of pulse pressure and blood pres-
sure reduction to the incidence of myocardial infarction. Hypertension. 1994;23:395–401.
70. Benetos A, Safar M, Rudnichi A, et al. Pulse pressure: a predictor of long-term cardiovascu-
lar mortality in a French male population. Hypertension. 1997;30:1410–5.
71. Franklin SS, Khan SA, Wong ND, Larson MG, Levy D. Is pulse pressure useful in predicting
risk for coronary heart Disease? The Framingham heart study. Circulation.
1999;100:354–60.
72. Angeli F, Angeli E, Ambrosio G, et al. Neutrophil count and ambulatory pulse pressure as
predictors of cardiovascular adverse events in postmenopausal women with hypertension.
Am J Hypertens. 2011;24:591–8.
73. Verdecchia P, Schillaci G, Reboldi G, Franklin SS, Porcellati C. Different prognostic impact
of 24-hour mean blood pressure and pulse pressure on stroke and coronary artery disease in
essential hypertension. Circulation. 2001;103:2579–84.
74. Verdecchia P, Schillaci G, Borgioni C, Ciucci A, Pede S, Porcellati C. Ambulatory pulse pres-
sure: a potent predictor of total cardiovascular risk in hypertension. Hypertension.
1998;32:983–8.
75. Verdecchia P, Angeli F, Taddei S. At the beginning of stiffening: endothelial dysfunction
meets “pulsology”. Hypertension. 2006;48:541–2.
76. Willich SN, Levy D, Rocco MB, Tofler GH, Stone PH, Muller JE. Circadian variation in the
incidence of sudden cardiac death in the Framingham Heart Study population. Am J Cardiol.
1987;60:801–6.
77. Muller JE, Stone PH, Turi ZG, et al. Circadian variation in the frequency of onset of acute
myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1985;313:1315–22.
78. Kario K, Pickering TG, Umeda Y, et al. Morning surge in blood pressure as a predictor of
silent and clinical cerebrovascular disease in elderly hypertensives: a prospective study.
Circulation. 2003;107:1401–6.
79. Li Y, Thijs L, Hansen TW, et al. Prognostic value of the morning blood pressure surge in 5645
subjects from 8 populations. Hypertension. 2010;55:1040–8.
80. Goldberg RJ, Larson M, Levy D. Factors associated with survival to 75 years of age in
middle-aged men and women. The Framingham Study. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:505–9.
81. Verdecchia P, Schillaci G, Borgioni C, et al. Adverse prognostic value of a blunted circadian
rhythm of heart rate in essential hypertension. J Hypertens. 1998;16:1335–43.
82. Ben-Dov IZ, Kark JD, Ben-Ishay D, Mekler J, Ben-Arie L, Bursztyn M. Blunted heart rate
dip during sleep and all-cause mortality. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:2116–21.
83. Hansen TW, Thijs L, Boggia J, et al. Prognostic value of ambulatory heart rate revisited in
6928 subjects from 6 populations. Hypertension. 2008;52:229–35.
84. Bilo G, Giglio A, Styczkiewicz K, et al. A new method for assessing 24-h blood pressure
variability after excluding the contribution of nocturnal blood pressure fall. J Hypertens.
2007;25:2058–66.
85. Mena L, Pintos S, Queipo NV, Aizpurua JA, Maestre G, Sulbaran T. A reliable index for the
prognostic significance of blood pressure variability. J Hypertens. 2005;23:505–11.
86. Parati G, Rizzoni D. Assessing the prognostic relevance of blood pressure variability: dis-
crepant information from different indices. J Hypertens. 2005;23:483–6.
87. Masugata H, Senda S, Murao K, et al. Visit-to-visit variability in blood pressure over a 1-year
period is a marker of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction in treated hypertensive patients.
Hypertens Res. 2011;34:846–50.
88. Rothwell PM, Howard SC, Dolan E, et al. Prognostic significance of visit-to-visit variability,
maximum systolic blood pressure, and episodic hypertension. Lancet. 2010;375:895–905.
89. Gavish B, Bursztyn M. Blood pressure and heart period variability ratios derived from 24-h
ambulatory measurements are predictors of all-cause mortality. J Hypertens.
2015;33:491–8.
90. Asayama K, Schutte R, Li Y, Hansen TW, Staessen JA. Blood pressure variability in risk
stratification: What does it add? Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2014;41:1–8.
91. Dolan E, Li Y, Thijs L, et al. Ambulatory arterial stiffness index: rationale and methodology.
Blood Press Monit. 2006;11:103–5.
92. Dolan E, Thijs L, Li Y, et al. Ambulatory arterial stiffness index as a predictor of cardiovas-
cular mortality in the Dublin Outcome Study. Hypertension. 2006;47:365–70.
93. Angeli F, Reboldi G, Verdecchia P. More than a REASON to use arterial stiffness as risk
marker and therapeutic target in hypertension. Hypertens Res. 2011;34:445–7.
94. Baumann M, Dan L, Nurnberger J, Heemann U, Witzke O. Association of ambulatory arterial
stiffness index and brachial pulse pressure is restricted to dippers. J Hypertens.
2008;26:210–4.
95. Hansen TW, Staessen JA, Torp-Pedersen C, et al. Ambulatory arterial stiffness index predicts
stroke in a general population. J Hypertens. 2006;24:2247–53.
96. Kikuya M, Staessen JA, Ohkubo T, et al. Ambulatory arterial stiffness index and 24-hour
ambulatory pulse pressure as predictors of mortality in Ohasama, Japan. Stroke.
2007;38:1161–6.
97. Zachariah PK, Sheps SG, Ilstrup DM, et al. Blood pressure load—a better determinant of
hypertension. Mayo Clinic Proc. 1988;63:1085–91.
nant of cardiac function in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Am Heart
J. 1989;118:782–95.
99. Andrade SS, Serro-Azul JB, Nussbacher A, et al. Daytime systolic blood pressure load and
previous stroke predict cardiovascular events in treated octogenarians with hypertension.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58:2232–4.
100. Liu M, Li Y, Wei FF, Zhang L, Han JL, Wang JG. Is blood pressure load associated, indepen-
dently of blood pressure level, with target organ damage? J Hypertens. 2013;31:1812–8.
101. Parati G, Liu X, Ochoa JE. What matters is not only how often but also how much blood
pressure rises. Limitations of blood pressure load. J Hypertens. 2013;31:1776–9.
102. Angeli F, Reboldi G, Poltronieri C, et al. Clinical utility of ambulatory blood pressure moni-
toring in the management of hypertension. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2014;12:623–34.
103. Parati G, Stergiou G, O’Brien E, et al. European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines
for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. J Hypertens. 2014;32:1359–66.
104. Verdecchia P, Angeli F. [The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on the
Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the weapons are
ready]. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2003;56:843–7.
105. Verdecchia P, Angeli F, Mazzotta G, Gentile G, Reboldi G. Home Blood Pressure
Measurements Will Not Replace 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring.
Hypertension. 2009.
106. Verdecchia P, Angeli F, Mazzotta G, Gentile G, Reboldi G. Home blood pressure measure-
ments will or will not replace 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurement. Hypertension.
2009.
107. National Clinical Guideline Centre. Hypertension: The Clinical Management of Primary
Hypertension in Adults: Update of Clinical Guidelines 18 and 34 London; London: Royal
College of Physicians; 2011.
intervals: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med.
2015;162:192–204.
109. Mancia G, Verdecchia P. Clinical value of ambulatory blood pressure – evidence and limits.
Circ Res. 2015;116(6):1034–45.
110. Verdecchia P, Reboldi G, Porcellati C, et al. Risk of cardiovascular disease in relation to
achieved office and ambulatory blood pressure control in treated hypertensive subjects. J Am
Coll Cardiol. 2002;39:878–85.
111. Clement DL, De Buyzere ML, De Bacquer DA, et al. Prognostic value of ambulatory blood-
pressure recordings in patients with treated hypertension. N Engl J Med.
2003;348:2407–15.
113. Schillaci G, Battista F, Pucci G. Nocturnal blood pressure dipping: systolic, diastolic or both?
J Hypertens. 2014;32:699–700.
114. Bjorklund K, Lind L, Zethelius B, Andren LH. Isolated ambulatory hypertension predicts
cardiovascular morbidity in elderly men. Circulation. 2003;107:1297–302.
115. Bobrie G, Chatellier G, Genes N, et al. Cardiovascular prognosis of “masked hypertension”
detected by blood pressure self-measurement in elderly treated hypertensive patients. JAMA.
2004;291:1342–9.
116. Fagard RH, Van Den Broeke C, De Cort P. Prognostic significance of blood pressure mea-
sured in the office, at home and during ambulatory monitoring in older patients in general
practice. J Hum Hypertens. 2005;19:801–7.
the Ohasama study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:508–15.
118. Mancia G, Facchetti R, Bombelli M, Grassi G, Sega R. Long-term risk of mortality associ-
ated with selective and combined elevation in office, home, and ambulatory blood pressure.
Chapter 10
Ambulatory Blood Pressure and Stroke
Philip B. Gorelick, Muhammad U. Farooq, and Jiangyong Min
Introduction
Raised blood pressure is the most important modifiable risk factor for stroke and has
been referred to by some experts as the ‘crown jewel’ of stroke prevention [1–4]. Stroke,
one of the most modifiable noncommunicable diseases, is well-suited for prevention as
it has a high prevalence of disease, proven therapies to reduce stroke risk, a high fre-
quency of disability, a substantial economic burden, and a number of modifiable risk
factors [1]. In relation to the latter point, hypertension serves as the major nexus for
stroke prevention. Stroke ranks as the second leading cause of death in the world and the
fifth leading cause of death in the United States. Worldwide, there are an estimated 16
million first strokes and 5.7 million stroke deaths [5]. Furthermore, the annual absolute
number of strokes, stroke survivors, related deaths, and disability-adjusted life years lost
are on the rise; there has been a call to action to prevent and treat modifiable risks for
cardiovascular disease such as hypertension [5]. Low- and middle-income countries are
especially vulnerable to stroke occurrence and have been affected disproportionately.
Given the importance of elevated blood pressure in stroke causality, accurate mea-
surement of blood pressure is critical [6–12]. Although ambulatory blood pressure
monitoring (ABPM) may not be available in clinical practice in many places in the
P.B. Gorelick, M.D., M.P.H. (*)

Mercy Health Hauenstein Neurosciences,
220 Cherry Street SE Room H 3037, Grand Rapids, MI 49503, USA
Department Translational Science & Molecular Medicine, Michigan State University,
College of Human Medicine, Grand Rapids, MI, USA
M.U. Farooq, M.D. • J. Min, M.D., Ph.D.
Division of Stroke and Vascular Neurology, Mercy Health Hauenstein Neurosciences,
200 Jefferson Street SE, Grand Rapids, MI, USA
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-22771-9_10
194 P.B. Gorelick et al.
world, it has been noted that additional costs associated with ABPM are counterbal-
anced by cost savings according to better targeted treatment [13]. Furthermore, use of
ABPM to determine the presence of raised blood pressure is becoming or will become
standard practice in developed countries around the globe. ABPM serves as the most
accurate means to measure blood pressure, and as discussed in this textbook, may be
useful in the evaluation of blood pressure variability, white coat hypertension, noctur-
nal hypertension, drug-resistant hypertension, efficacy of drug treatment over a 24-h
time period, symptomatic hypotension, episodic hypertension, and masked hyperten-
sion. As we will soon explore in more detail, ABPM provides insights into stroke risk
determination and targeted blood pressure management.
In this chapter, we review the following topics: background information regard-
ing the relationship of hypertension to stroke, select studies from the authors’ files
on ABPM and stroke risk and how ABPM may inform management of blood pres-
sure for stroke prevention and treatment, first and recurrent stroke prevention guide-
lines in the United States and the status of integration of ABPM into stroke risk
assessment and blood pressure management.
Background Information: The Relationship of Hypertension

to Stroke
In a review of major overviews of prospective cohort studies and meta-analysis

of more than 40 randomized controlled trials of blood pressure lowering includ-
ing over 188,000 persons and 6800 stroke events, Lawes and colleagues reported
the following main findings: (1) In cohort studies, for each 10 mmHg lower sys-
tolic blood pressure (SBP), there was a decrease in stroke risk of about one third
in persons aged 60–79 years; (2) The association was continuous down to at least
blood pressure levels of 115/75 mmHg and across sexes, regions, stroke sub-
types, and for stroke mortality and nonfatal stroke events; (3) The proportional
association was age-dependent, but held true even among those who were 80
years of age; (4) In randomized controlled trials, a 10 mmHg reduction of SBP
was associated with stroke risk reduction of about 1/3 (subjects were about 70
years of age when an event occurred); and (5) The benefit of blood pressure low-
ering was greater for larger blood pressure reductions; however, relative benefits
were similar according to the type of blood pressure lowering medication, base-
line blood pressure level, and past history of cardiovascular disease [14].
Furthermore, based on a meta-analysis of individual patient data, blood pressure
lowering provides similar relative protection at all levels of baseline cardiovas-
cular risk; however, there is greater absolute risk reduction as baseline risk
increases [15]. The main findings from the Lawes and colleagues study are
summarized in Table 10.1.
Besides a substantial observational epidemiological database of studies linking
hypertension to stroke and numerous clinical trials that show the benefit of blood
10 Ambulatory Blood Pressure and Stroke 195
Table 10.1 Main findings from epidemiological observational studies and randomized controlled
trials on the relationship of stroke and blood pressure [14]
Observational studies
1. For each 10 mmHg lower SBP equates to approximately 1/3 less stroke in 60–79 year olds
2. The association is continuous down to at least blood pressure levels of 115/75 mmHg and
holds across sexes, regions, stroke subtypes, for stroke mortality and nonfatal stroke events,
and by age up to 80 years
Randomized controlled trials
1. A 10 mmHg SBP reduction was associated with a 1/3 reduction of stroke (mean age of
participants at the time of event: approximately 70 years)
2. Larger blood pressure sreductions were associated with greater reduction of stroke
3. The association held for baseline blood pressure level, type of antihypertensive medication,
and cardiovascular risk profile
pressure reduction on stroke incidence or recurrence, population attributable risk

(PAR) calculations place hypertension as the single factor explaining the highest
percentage of stroke risk. Estimates of the percentage of stroke explained by hyper-
tension are in the 25 % to almost 50 % range [16, 17]. In the INTERSTROKE Study
whereby participants from 22 countries from different geographic regions were
enrolled in a large case–control study, it was shown that ten risk factors were associ-
ated with 90 % of stroke risk [18]. In this study, the PAR for hypertension in relation
to stroke was 34.6 %. Overall, the relative risk or estimate of relative risk of hyper-
tension for stroke is in the 3–8 range [19].
During the past decades, we have witnessed a major public health advance—a
substantial decline in stroke mortality in the United States. An American Heart
Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) expert panel concluded that
the decline in stroke mortality was attributable to a combination of interventions
and programs to reduce stroke risk. Furthermore, the panelists concluded that a key
factor in the reduction of the stroke mortality over time was control of blood
pressure [20].
Whereas all forms of raised blood pressure place one at risk for stroke, SBP has
become a main target for stroke and cardiovascular disease prevention. SBP gener-
ally rises with age, whereas diastolic blood pressure increases until about age 50–55
years and falls thereafter when cardiovascular risk begins to heighten. As most per-
sons with high blood pressure are 50 years of age or older, the importance of SBP
as a cause of stroke and other cardiovascular disease is emphasized [21].
Blood pressure control in the United States has improved substantially over time
[20]. It is now estimated that up to almost two thirds of persons with high blood
pressure have blood pressure at or below the 140/90 mmHg level [21]. Despite this
fact, blood pressure control in a number of past clinical trials of recurrent stroke
prevention has fallen short of the mark [22, 23, 24]. In contradistinction, concerted
efforts to control blood pressure and related risk factors in more recent recurrent
stroke prevention clinical trials have yielded substantial benefits in relation to stroke
reduction [25–27].
Table 10.2 Epidemiological basics of hypertension in relation to stroke and hypertension

alone in the United States [19, 28]
Population attributable risk: ~25–50 %
Relative risk or estimate of relative risk: 3–8
Prevalence of hypertension in the United States: ~29 %
Lifetime risk of developing hypertension for individuals normotensive at age 55 years: 90 %
Prevalence of hypertension among persons ≥65 years: >2/3
Table 10.2 summarizes epidemiological facts about hypertension in relation to

stroke and facts about hypertension in the United States [19, 28].
Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring and Stroke: Review

of Select Studies
Blood pressure measurement outside the outpatient office or hospital setting may
include self-monitoring and ABPM. In the former case, the patient uses a blood
pressure measurement devise and chooses to take and record their blood pressure at
various times during the day. In the latter case, an ambulatory blood pressure moni-
tor is deployed and blood pressure is automatically measured and recorded at set
time intervals. Home or self-monitoring of blood pressure is reviewed in detail in
this textbook in Chap. 2 and ABPM in Chap. 4. As a prelude to our discussion of
ABPM and stroke, we first discuss select studies from the authors’ files on blood
pressure variability and stroke based on non-ABPM measures. We have chosen to
emphasize blood pressure variability as it may have a substantial impact on stroke
risk and brain morphology and function.
Studies of Blood Pressure Variability According to Non-

ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring Measures
The concept that blood pressure variability measurements add information

about stroke risk has been available since at least the early 1990s based on
observations by the Swedish Trial in Old Patients (STOP) investigators that
blood pressure lowering therapy decreased stroke risk more than expected com-
pared to mean blood pressure lowering alone [29]. Interest in the topic was
substantially rekindled and studied by Rothwell and colleagues in a series of
publications in 2010 [30–33]. The Rothwell and colleagues’ studies and review
may be summarized as follows: (1) visit-to-visit SBP variability, beyond mean
blood pressure, independently predicts stroke; (2) independent of mean SBP,
calcium-channel blockers and diuretics, drugs that reduce visit-to-visit blood
pressure variability provide the best stroke prevention, whereas non-selective
beta blockers are least effective; and (3) visit-to-visit blood pressure variability
accounts for the difference in treatment effect for stroke prevention in select
clinical trials [29].
Therefore, in relation to stroke prevention, Rothwell and colleagues make a
substantial argument that drugs that reduce blood pressure variability may be more
beneficial than those that do not [30–33]. Instability or variation of blood pressure
is not well-tolerated by the brain [34]. Consequences of long-term blood pressure
variability may include brain atrophy, subcortical ischemic lesions, and cognitive
impairment. Rothwell and colleagues replicated key prior findings in an observa-
tional study of home blood pressure monitoring, which showed that after transient
ischemic attack or minor stroke, calcium channel blockers and diuretics decreased
blood pressure variability and maximum home SBP [35]. The results were largely
driven by improvement of morning blood pressure readings. Limitations of the
Rothwell and colleagues conclusions are discussed elsewhere by Carlberg and
Lindholm [29].
Table 10.3 summarizes additional select studies relating to blood pressure vari-
ability and non-ABPM measures [36–42].
Table 10.3 Select stroke study results on non-ABPM and blood pressure variability
Study Results
Acute/Subacute stroke
1. Harper et al. [36] There is a marked fall in blood pressure in the first week after acute
stroke (22/12 mmHg [SBP/DBP]) and a similar pattern if patients
were treated with blood pressure-lowering agents
2. Kang et al. [37] Variability of blood pressure (not average blood pressure) is
associated with poorer functional ischemic stroke outcome at 3
months
3. Ko et al. [38] Blood pressure variability measures are associated with hemorrhagic
transformation independent of mean SBP in ischemic stroke patients
Nonacute/subacute stroke
1. Yadav et al. [39] In a genome-wide analysis of blood pressure variability, the NLGN1
locus is significantly associated with blood pressure variability but
not ischemic stroke or its subtypes
2. Fukuhara et al. [40] White-coat, masked, and sustained hypertension are associated with
carotid artery stenosis in a Japanese population
3. Nagai et al. [41] Exaggerated visit-to-visit blood pressure fluctuations are indicators
of carotid artery atherosclerosis and stiffness independent of average
blood pressure
4. Cuffe et al. [42] Single measurements of ‘normal’ or ‘low’ blood pressure
underestimate the prevalence of hypertension in transient ischemic
attack and minor stroke patients
DBP diastolic blood pressure, SBP systolic blood pressure
Studies of ABPM and Stroke
Interest in circadian patterns of blood pressure variation has led to the study of daytime
and night time variations in blood pressure. For example, at most individuals experi-
ence a dip in blood pressure by about 10–20 % which may be followed by a morning
surge of blood pressure between the hours of 6 AM and 12 noon [43]. The morning
surge has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events such as
stroke. A number of factors may contribute to the morning surge of blood pressure and
include sympathetic nervous system and renin–angiotensin system activity, increases
in platelet aggregation, plasminogen activator inhibition, mechanical flow abnormali-
ties, ubiquitin–proteasome system, oxidative stress, plasma cortisol, older age, African-
American race/ethnicity, and other factors [43]. In addition, external stimuli may
underlie blood pressure surges. Previously, we reported cold weather-induced brain
hemorrhage and hypothesized that a sudden surge in blood pressure induced by
extreme cold weather could trigger intraparenchymal brain hemorrhage [44].
In relation to blood pressure regulation, it has been observed that night time may
be a high risk period for ischemic brain injury, but an opportunity for interventional
blood pressure management [45]. Night time is a period when normal blood pres-
sure dipping, non-dipping, or extreme (exaggerated) blood pressure dipping may
occur. Non-dipping and extreme dipping of blood pressure have been linked to
ischemic brain injury. It has been shown, for example, that the frequency of white
matter lesions on MRI head study may be more common in persons who have ele-
vated nocturnal blood pressure on ABPM [46]. By targeting the underlying mecha-
nism (e.g., sympathetic nervous system, renin–angiotensin system) with properly
timed (evening) and appropriate type of antihypertensive, one may be able to avert
such brain injury [47, 48].
When considering nighttime blood pressure, one must take into account sleep
disturbances such as sleep-disordered breathing. For example, in one study short
sleep duration was associated with incident stroke in hypertensive persons with
silent cerebral infarcts [49]. Treatment of an emerging risk for stroke obstructive
sleep apnea (OSA), with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), may lead to
better blood pressure control, especially when there is resistant hypertension [50].
One should keep in mind that certain groups of patients may be at a higher risk
of blood pressure variability. Long-term blood pressure variability may be exagger-
ated in Blacks, diabetics, and those with cardiovascular disease [51].
A number of ABPM studies that relate specifically to stroke or stroke surrogate
markers will now be discussed. Substantial interest in blood pressure and stroke in
Asia has led to a number of ABPM studies originating from these regions. Kario and
colleagues have been leaders in the field. We now review key select studies or
reviews on ABPM and stroke from this investigative group who studied elderly
Japanese persons with hypertension, some of whom were enrolled in the Jichi
Medical School ABPM Study.
Key findings from the Kario and colleagues’ studies of ABPM are summarized [52–61]:
(1) Japanese patients with hypertension who are extreme dippers at nighttime may be at
higher risk of silent cerebral infarcts and clinical strokes during sleep due to either hypo-
tension during night time hours or an exaggerated morning blood pressure surge, whereas
reverse dipping may heighten risk of intracranial hemorrhage; (2) among hypertensive
patients, hyperinsulinemia is associated with lacunar-type silent cerebral infarcts in the
subcortical white matter, and hemostatic abnormalities are associated with multiple
silent cerebral infarcts, especially those observed in the basal ganglia; (3) a higher morn-
ing blood pressure surge is associated with stroke risk independent of ambulatory and
nocturnal falls in blood pressure, and the morning surge of blood pressure is associated
with alpha-adrenergic activity and advanced silent hypertensive brain disease; (4) sleep
pulse pressure and awake mean blood pressure are predictors of stroke after adjusting for
stroke events; (5) hypertension in the morning is the strongest predictor of future stroke
events; (6) in the International Collaborative Study of Prognostic Utility of ABPM, the
amount of blood pressure dipping was a significant inverse predictor of stroke but not of
cardiac events; (7) high-sensitivity C-reactive protein is associated with clinical stroke in
addition to silent cerebral infarcts in elderly persons with hypertension; (8) the degree of
morning blood pressure surge is associated with an increase of morning platelet aggrega-
tion activity; and (9) After adjustment for 24-h SBP, prothrombin fragments 1 + 2 are
positively associated with white matter hyperintensities.
We now review findings from additional ABPM studies of stroke. Nakamura,
Oita, and Yamaguchi utilized a portable blood pressure monitor in 81 patients with
chronic ischemic cerebrovascular disease and classified the subjects into two
groups according to levels of diurnal and nocturnal blood pressure [62]. The main
finding was that nocturnal blood pressure dipping in patients treated with blood
pressure lowering medication might accelerate the risk of ischemic brain disease.
Tomii and colleagues analyzed 24-h ABPM in 104 acute ischemic stroke patients
on the second and eighth hospital days to assess global outcome according to the
modified Rankin Scale score at 3 months [63]. Overall, mean values of systolic
and diastolic blood pressure, pulse pressure, and heart rate based on the first
ABPM determination and heart rate based on the second ABPM determination
were inversely associated with functional independence and mean values of sys-
tolic and diastolic blood pressure on the first determination of ABPM and mean
heart rate on the second ABPM determination were positively associated with
poor global outcome.
In a case–control study, Zhang and colleagues enrolled 76 patients with transient
ischemic attack or minor stroke and 82 controls from a normal population to deter-
mine whether circadian blood pressure differed when using 24-h ABPM and short-
term measurement of heart rate variability [64]. As might be expected, a history of
hypertension was more common among cases than controls (72.4 % vs. 48.8 %);
however, circadian blood pressure patterns and heart rate variability were similarly
distributed among patients and controls. Thus, the main findings of no differences
between cases and controls for circadian blood pressure patterns were contrary to
other studies of acute or subacute stroke patients.
Klarenbeek and colleagues carried out 24-h ABPM in 122 first-ever lacunar
stroke patients to determine possible associations between ABPM and total burden
of cerebral small vessel disease on brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [65].
Markers of cerebral small vessel disease on MRI included asymptomatic lacunar
infarcts, white matter lesions, cerebral microbleeds, and enlarged perivascular
spaces. The authors reported that after adjustment for age and sex, higher 24-h
systolic and diastolic ABPM measures at night or daytime were significantly associated
with an increasing burden of cerebral small vessel disease.
Finally, based on 24-h ABPM results, Aznaouridis and colleagues explored the
predictive value of an Ambulatory Systolic-Diastolic Pressure Regression Index
(ASDPRI) from meta-analyses of seven longitudinal studies [66]. The predictive
value of the ASDPRI was determined for future outcome events including cardio-
vascular ones, stroke, and all-cause mortality. An increase of 1 standard deviation of
the ASDPRI was associated with an adjusted increase of risk of total cardiovascular
events and stroke by 15 % and 30 %, respectively. Furthermore, the ASDPRI was a
better predictor of stroke than total cardiovascular events, and furthermore, it pre-
dicted stroke better in non-hypertensives than hypertensives.
Table 10.4 summarizes key findings from additional select studies on stroke and
ABPM [67–73].
There is a growing literature in relation to cognition, white matter lesions and
other subcortical small vessel cerebrovascular disease, and ABPM, which is beyond
the scope of this chapter. For further information on this topic, the reader is referred
to several authoritative references [74, 75].
Table 10.4 Additional select studies of stroke and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring
Author Results
1. Ohkubo et al. [67] In the Ohasama study, ABPM is linearly associated with stroke risk,
is more robust in predicting stroke than screening blood pressure,
and daytime blood pressure better predicts stroke risk than nighttime
blood pressure
2. Verdecchia et al. 24-h pulse pressure is the main predictor of cardiac events, whereas
[68] 24-h mean blood pressure is the main predictor of cerebrovascular
events
3. Stergiou et al. [69] Abrupt change in physical activity may be a major determinant of
the 2-peak diurnal variation of blood pressure and may act as a
trigger factor for stroke
4. Vemmos et al. [70] Different factors (see parentheses) correlate with higher 24-h blood
pressure by stroke subtype: large artery atherosclerosis (history of
hypertension, stroke severity); cardioembolic stroke (history of
hypertension, stroke severity, hemorrhagic transformation, and brain
edema); lacunar infarction (history of hypertension [but coronary
artery disease with lower 24-h blood pressure]); infarct of
undetermined cause (history of hypertension, stroke severity); and
intracerebral hemorrhage (history of hypertension, cerebral edema)
5. Inoue et al. [71] In the Ohasama study, 24-h systolic ambulatory blood pressure is the
primary measure to importance for determining risk
6. Li et al. [72] In the International Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure in
relation to cardiovascular outcome, morning blood pressure surge
above the 90th percentile predicts most types of cardiovascular events
7. Skalidi et al. [73] In a time-rate model for 24-h ABPM in acute stroke, increased
systolic blood pressure values are associated with formation of
brain edema
First and Recurrent Stroke Prevention Guidelines

and Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring
AHA/ASA First Stroke Prevention Guidelines
In the 2014 AHA/ASA guidance statement on primary stroke prevention, the fol-
lowing pertinent acknowledgements about blood pressure are discussed: (1) intra-
individual variability of blood pressure may confer risk of stroke beyond mean
blood pressure determination alone; (2) calcium channel blockers may be benefi-
cial to reduce blood pressure variability, but such is not observed with beta block-
ers; and (3) measurement of nocturnal blood pressure (e.g., reverse or extreme
dipping) and the ratio of nighttime to daytime blood pressure may provide useful
information beyond mean 24-h blood pressure determination [28]. Furthermore,
additional study is called for about possible stroke risk reduction by reduction of
intra-individual blood pressure variability and nocturnal blood pressure [28].
Table 10.5 lists key 2014 AHA/ASA guideline recommendations for management
of blood pressure to prevent a first stroke [28].
AHA/ASA Recurrent Stroke Prevention Guidelines
The 2014 AHA/ASA guideline on prevention of recurrent stroke is silent on the

issue of ABPM [76]. However, the document does refer to blood pressure manage-
ment in the AHA/ASA first stroke prevention guidance statement [28].
Table 10.6 lists key 2014 AHA/ASA guideline recommendations for managing
blood pressure to prevent recurrent stroke [76].
Table 10.5 Key guideline recommendations for management of blood pressure to prevent a first
stroke according to the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association [28]
1. Regular blood pressure screeninga
2. Appropriate treatment including lifestyle modification and pharmacological treatmenta
3. Annual screening of blood pressure and lifestyle modification for those with pre-hypertension
(systolic blood pressure = 120–139 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure = 80–89 mmHg)a
4. Blood pressure target for those with hypertension: <140/90 mmHga
5. It is more important to reach the blood pressure target (see 4 above) than is the choice of a
specific blood pressure-lowering agent. Treatment should be individualized based on patient
characteristics and tolerance to medicationa
6. Self-measurement of blood pressure improves controla
a
Class I, level of evidence A
Table 10.6 Key guideline recommendations for management of blood pressure to prevent a
recurrent stroke according to the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association [76]
1. Initiate blood pressure therapy after the first several days, if blood pressure is ≥140 mmHg
systolic or ≥90 mmHg diastolica
2. Administration of blood pressure lowering therapy is of uncertain value, if blood pressure is
<140 mmHg systolic and <90 mmHg diastolicb
3. Resumption of blood pressure lowering therapy is indicated beyond the first several days of
acute strokec
4. Blood pressure targets: it is reasonable to achieve the following goal: <140/90 mmHgd; and a
systolic blood pressure <130 mmHg for patients with a recent lacunar infarctione
5. Lifestyle modifications are reasonable (e.g., salt restriction, weight loss, diet rich in fruits and
vegetables, low-fat dairy products, regular aerobic exercise, and limited alcohol use)f
6. The optimal blood pressure lowering drug regimen is uncertain; however, diuretics or a
combination of diuretics and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor is deemed usefulc
a
Class I, level of evidence B
b
Class IIb, level of evidence C
c
Class I, level of evidence A
d
Class IIa, level of evidence B
e
Class IIb, level of evidence B
f
Class IIa, level of evidence C
Conclusion
Raised blood pressure is the most important modifiable risk factor for stroke.
Accurate measurement of blood pressure is important. ABPM has been shown to
be the best method to confirm elevated office blood pressure measurements and
is considered to be a cost-effective approach. Raised systolic ambulatory blood
pressure has been consistently and significantly associated with an increased risk
of stroke. These findings and others have led the US Preventive Services Task
Force to recommend ABPM as the reference standard for confirmation of the
diagnosis of hypertension in a draft document on high blood pressure screening
in adults [77].
As discussed in this chapter, ABPM is associated with or predicts a number
of stroke-related structural brain changes such as white matter lesions and cere-
bral small vessel disease burden, silent strokes, hemorrhagic transformation of
acute ischemic stroke and other acute brain changes, and functional alterations
including poorer global outcome after acute stroke and cognitive impairment
and is a major risk predictor for stroke beyond standard blood pressure mea-
sures. ABPM has an important future in stroke prevention, informing stroke
prevention and treatment guidelines, and in future stroke prevention and treatment
research.
References
1. Gorelick PB, Farooq MU, Min J. Population-based approaches for reducing stroke risk. Expert
Rev Cardiovasc Ther (early online, 1–8 (2014). 10.1586/14779072.2015.987128. Accessed 29
November 2014 from informahealth.com.
2. Gorelick PB, Goldstein L, Ovbiagele B. New guidelines to reduce risk of atherosclerotic car-
diovascular disease. Implications for stroke prevention in 2014. Stroke. 2014;45:945–7.
3. Gorelick PB, Farooq MU. Stroke: an emphasis on guidelines. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14(1):2–3.
4. Gorelick PB. Blood pressure and the prevention of cognitive impairment. JAMA Neurol.
2014;71:1211–3.
5. Feigin VL, Forouzanfar MH, Krishnamurthi R, et al. Global and regional burden of stroke dur-
ing 1990-2010: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet.
2014;383:245–55.
6. Pickering TG, Shimbo D, Haas D. Ambulatory blood-pressure monitoring. N Engl J Med.
2006;354:2368–74.
7. Weir MR. In the clinic: hypertension. Ann Intern Med. 2014;2:ITC2–14.
10. Pickering TG, White WB, on behalf of the American Society of Hypertension Writing Group.
ASH Position Article: when and how to use self (home) and ambulatory blood pressure moni-
toring. J Am Soc Hypertens. 2010;4:56–61.
11. Powers BJ, Olsen MK, Smith VA, Woolson RF, Bosworth HB, Oddone EZ. Measuring blood
pressure for decision making and quality reporting: where and how many measures? Ann
Intern Med. 2011;154:781–8.
12. Pickering TG, Miller NH, Ogedegbe G, Krakoff LR, Artinian NT, Goff D. Call to action on use
and reimbursement for home blood pressure monitoring: executive summary. A joint scientific
statement from the American Heart Association, American Society of Hypertension, and
Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association. J Clin Hypertens. 2008;10:467–86.
13. Lovibond K, Jowett S, Barton P, Caufiled M, Heneghan C, Hobbs FDR, et al. Cost-effectiveness
of options for the diagnosis of high blood pressure in primary care: a modelling study. Lancet.
2011;378:1219–30.
14. Lawes CMM, Bennett DA, Feigin VL, Rogers A. Blood pressure and stroke. An overview of
published reviews. Stroke. 2004;35:1024–33.
15. The Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Blood pressure-lowering
treatment based on cardiovascular risk: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet.
2014;384:591–8.
16. Gorelick PB. Stroke prevention. An opportunity for efficient utilization of health care resources
during the coming decade. Stroke. 1994;25:220–4.
17. Gorelick PB. The future of stroke prevention by risk factor modification. In: Fisher M (ed).
Handbook of clinical neurology; 94 (3rd series) Stroke Part III. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2009;
p. 1262–76
18. O’Donnell MJ, Xavier D, Lui L, et al. Risk factors for ischemic and intracerebral hemorrhagic
stroke in 22 countries (the INTERSTROKE study): a case-control study. Lancet.
2010;376:112–23.
19. Goldstein LB, Bushnell CD, Adams RJ, et al. Guidelines for the primary prevention of stroke.
A guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American
Stroke Association. Stroke. 2011;42:517–84.
20. Lackland DT, Roccella EJ, Deutsch AF, et al. Factors influencing the decline in stroke mortal-
ity. A statement from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke.
2014;45:315–53.
21. More Americans getting high blood pressure under control: CDC. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/
medlineplus/news/fullstory_144572.html (accessed 2/19/14).
22. Gorelick PB. Burden of stroke and risk factors. In: Bornstein NM, editor. Stroke. Practical
Guide for Clinicians. Basel: Karger; 2009. p. 9–23.
23. Towfighi A, Markovic D, Ovbiagele B. Consistency of blood pressure control after ischemic
stroke. Stroke. 2014;45:1313–7.
24. Ruland S, Raman R, Chaturvedi S, Leurgans S, Gorelick PB. Awareness, treatment and control
of vascular risk factors in African Americans with stroke. Neurology. 2003;60:64–8.
25. The SPS3 Study Group. Blood-pressure targets in patients with recent lacunar stroke: the SPS3
randomized trial. Lancet. 2013;382:507–15.
26. Progress Collaborative Group. Randomized trial of a perindopril-based blood-pressure-
lowering regimen among 6105 individuals with previous stroke or transient ischemic attack.
Lancet. 2001;358:1033–41.
27. Chimowitz MI, Lynn MJ, Derdeyn CP, Turan TN, Fiorella D, Lande BF, et al. Stenting versus
aggressive medical therapy for intracranial arterial stenosis. N Engl J Med.
2011;365:993–1003.
28. Meschia JF, Bushnell C, Boden-Albala B, Braun LT, Bravata DM, Chaturvedi S, et al.
Guidelines for the primary prevention of stroke. A statement for healthcare professionals from
the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2014;45. Accessed 29
October 2014. doi:10.1161/STR.0000000000000046/-/DCI.
29. Carlberg B, Lindholm LH. Stroke and blood-pressure variation: new permutations on an old
theme. Lancet. 2010;375:867–9.
30. Rothwell PM. Limitations of the usual blood-pressure hypothesis and importance of variabil-
ity, instability, and episodic hypertension. Lancet. 2010;375:938–48.
31. Rothwell PM, Howard SC, Dolan E, O’Brien E, Dobson JE, Dahlof B, Sever PS, Poulter
NR. Prognostic significance of visit-to-visit variability, maximum systolic blood pressure, and
episodic hypertension. Lancet. 2010;375:895–905.
32. Webb AJS, Fischer U, Mehta Z, Rothwell PM. Effects of anti-hypertensive-drug class on inter-
individual variation in blood pressure and risk of stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Lancet. 2010;375:905–15.
33. Rothwell PM, Howard SC, Dolan E, et al. Effects of beta blockers and calcium-channel block-
ers on within-individual variability in blood pressure and risk of stroke. Lancet Neurol.
2010;9:469–80.
34. Gorelick PB. Reducing blood pressure variability to prevent stroke? Lancet Neurol.
2010;9:448–9.
35. Webb AJS, Wilson M, Lovett N, Paul N, Fischer U, Rothwell PM. Response of day-to-day
home blood pressure variability by antihypertensive drug class after transient ischemic attack
or nondisabling stroke. Stroke. 2014;45:2967–73.
36. Harper G, Castleden CM, Potter JF. Factors affecting changes in blood pressure after acute
stroke. Stroke. 1994;25:1726–9.
37. Kang J, Ko Y, Park JH, et al. Effect of blood pressure on 3-month functional outcome in the
subacute stage of ischemic stroke. Neurology. 2012;79:2018–24.
38. Ko Y, Park JH, Yang H, et al. The significance of blood pressure variability for the develop-
ment of hemorrhagic transformation in acute ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2010;41:2512–8.
39. Yadav S, Cotlarciuc I, Munroe PB, et al. Genome-wide analysis of blood pressure variability
and ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2013;44:2703–9.
40. Fukuhara M, Arima H, Ninomiya T, et al. White-coat and masked hypertension are associated
with carotid atherosclerosis in a general population. The Hisayama Study. Stroke.
2013;44:1512–7.
41. Nagai M, Hoshide S, Ishikawa J, Shimada K, Kario K. Visit-to-visit blood pressure variations:
new independent determinants for carotid artery measures in the elderly at high risk of cardio-
vascular disease. J Am Soc Hypertens. 2011;5:184–92.
42. Cuffe RL, Howard SC, Algra A, Warlow CP, Rothwell PM. Medium-term variability of blood
pressure and potential underdiagnosis of hypertension in patients with previous transient isch-
emic attack of minor stroke. Stroke. 2006;37:2776–83.
43. Patel PV, Wong JL, Aroroa R. The morning blood pressure surge: therapeutic implications.
J Clin Hypertens. 2008;10:140–5.
44. Caplan LR, Neely S, Gorelick PB. Cold-related intracerebral hemorrhage. Arch Neurol.
1984;41:227.
45. White WB. The riskiest time of the brain. Could the nighttime be the right time for interven-
tion? Hypertension. 2007;49:1215–6.
46. Schwartz GL, Bailey KR, Mosley T, et al. Association of ambulatory blood pressure with
ischemic brain injury. Hypertension. 2007;49:1228–34.
47. Kario K, White WB. Early morning hypertension: what does it contribute to overall cardiovas-
cular risk assessment? J Am Soc Hypertens. 2008;2:397–402.
48. Kario K. Proposal of RAS-diuretic vs. RAS-calcium antagonist strategies in high-risk hyper-
tension: insight from the 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure profile and central pressure. J Am
Soc Hypertens. 2010;4:215–8.
49. Eguchi K, Hoshide S, Ishikawa S, Shimada K, Kario K. Short sleep duration is an independent
predictor of stroke events in elderly hypertensive patients. J Am Soc Hypertens.
2010;4:255–62.
50. Martinez-Garcia M-A, Capote F, Campos-Rodriguez F, et al. Effect of CPAP on blood pres-
sure in patients with obstructive sleep apnea and resistant hypertension. The HIPARCO ran-
domized clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;310:2407–15.
51. Berenson GS, Chen W, DasMahapatra P, et al. Stimulus response of blood pressure in black
and white young individuals helps explain racial divergence in adult cardiovascular disease:
The Bogalusa Heart Study. J Am Soc Hypertens. 2011;5:230–8.
52. Kario K, Pickering TG, Matsuo T, Hoshide S, Schwartz JE, Shimada K. Stroke prognosis and
abnormal nocturnal blood pressure falls in older hypertensives. Hypertension.
2001;38:852–7.
53. Kario K, Matsuo T, Kobayashi H, Hoshide S, Shimada K. Hyperinsulinemia and hemostatic
abnormalities are associated with silent lacunar cerebral infarcts in elderly hypertensive sub-
jects. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37:871–7.
and clinical cerebrovascular disease in elderly hypertensives. Circulation. 2003;107:1401–6.
55. Kario K, Pickering TG, Hoshide S, et al. Morning blood pressure surge and hypertensive cere-
brovascular disease: role of the alpha adrenergic sympathetic nervous system. Am J Hypertens.
2004;17:668–75.
56. Kario K, Ishikawa J, Eguchi K, et al. Sleep pulse pressure and awake mean pressure as inde-
pendent predictors for stroke in older hypertensive patients. Am J Hypertens.
2004;17:439–45.
57. Kario K, Ishikawa J, Pickering TG, et al. Morning hypertension: the strongest independent risk
factor for stroke in elderly hypertensive patients. Hypertens Res. 2006;29:581–7.
58. Pickering T, Schwartz J, Verdecchia P, et al. Prediction of strokes versus cardiac events by
ambulatory monitoring of blood pressure: results from an international database. Blood Press
Monit. 2007;12:397–9.
59. Ishikawa J, Tamura Y, Hoshide S, et al. Low-grade inflammation is a risk factor for clinical
stroke events in addition to silent cerebral infarcts in Japanese older hypertensives: the Jichi
Medical School ABPM Study, wave 1. Stroke. 2007;38:911–7.
60. Kario K, Yano Y, Matsuo T, Hoshide S, Asada Y, Shimada K. Morning blood pressure surge,
morning platelet aggregation, and silent cerebral infarction in older Japanese hypertensive
patients. J Hypertens. 2011;29:2433–9.
61. Nagai M, Hoshide S, Kario K. Association of prothrombotic status with markers of cerebral
small vessel disease in elderly hypertensive patients. Am J Hypertens. 2012;25:1088–94.
62. Nakamura K, Oita J, Yamaguchi T. Nocturnal blood pressure dip in stroke survivors. A pilot
study. Stroke. 1995;26:1373–8.
63. Tomii Y, Toyoda K, Suzuki R, et al. Effects of 24-hour blood pressure and heart rate recorded
with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring on recovery from acute ischemic stroke. Stroke.
2011;42:3511–7.
64. Zhang WW, Cadilhac DA, Churilov L, Donnan GA, O’Callaghan C, Dewey HM. Does abnor-
mal circadian blood pressure pattern really matter in patients with transient ischemic attack or
minor stroke? Stroke. 2014;45:865–7.
65. Klarenbeek P, van Oostenbrugge RJ, Rouhl RPW, Knottnerus ILH, Staals J. Ambulatory blood
pressure in patients with lacunar stroke. Association with total MRI burden of cerebral small
vessel disease. Stroke. 2013;44:2995–9.
66. Aznaouridis K, Vlachopoulos C, Protogerou A, Stefanadis C. Ambulatory systolic-diastolic
pressure regression index as a predictor of clinical events. A meta-analysis of longitudinal
studies. Stroke. 2012;43:733–9.
67. Ohkubo T, Hozawa A, Nagai K, et al. Prediction of stroke by ambulatory blood pressure moni-
toring versus screening blood pressure measurements in a general population: the Ohasama
study. J Hypertens. 2000;18:847–54.
68. Verdecchia P, Schillaci G, Reboldi G, Franklin SS, Porcellati C. Different prognostic impact of
24-hour mean blood pressure and pulse pressure on stroke and coronary artery disease in
essential hypertension. Circulation. 2001;103:2579–84.
69. Stergiou GS, Vemmos KN, Pliarchopoulou KM, Synetos AG, Roussias LG, Mountokalakis
TD. Parallel morning and evening surge in stroke onset, blood pressure, and physical activity.
Stroke. 2002;33:1480–6.
70. Vemmos KN, Spengos K, Tsivgoulis G, et al. Factors influencing acute blood pressure values
in stroke subtypes. J Hum Hypertens. 2004;18:253–9.
71. Inoue R, Ohkubo T, Kikuya M, et al. Stroke risk in systolic and combined systolic and diastolic
hypertension determined using ambulatory blood pressure. The Ohasama study. Am
J Hypertens. 2007;20:1125–31.
72. Li Y, Thijs L, Hansen TW, et al. Prognostic value of the morning blood pressure surge in 5645
subjects from 8 populations. Hypertension. 2010;55:1040–8.
73. Skalidi SJ, Manios ED, Stamatelopoulos KS, et al. Brain edema formation is associated with
the time rate of blood pressure variation in acute stroke patients. Blood Press Monit.
2013;18:203–7.
74. White WB, Wolfson L, Wakefield DB, et al. Average daily blood pressure, not office blood
pressure, is associated with progression of cerebrovascular disease and cognitive decline in
older people. Circulation. 2011;124:2312–9.
75. Mok V, Gorelick PB, Chen C. Risk factors as possible targets of prevention of small vessel
disease. In: Pantoni L, Gorelick PB, editors. Cerebral small vessel disease. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; 2014. p. 311–22.
76. Kernan WN, Ovbiagele B, Black HR, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of stroke in patients
with stroke and transient ischemic attack. A guideline for healthcare professionals from the
American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2014;45:2160–236.
77. US Preventive Services Task Force. Draft recommendation statement: high blood pressure in
adults: screening. http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org?Page/Document/
RecommendationStatementDraft/hypertension-in-adults-screening-and-home-
monitoring#Pod2. Accessed 27 December 2014
Part III
Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring
in Special Populations
Chapter 11
in Older Persons
Vinay Gulati and William B. White
Introduction
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) has facilitated a comprehensive

understanding of the physiology of blood pressure (BP) variation in older people.
Management of hypertension has undergone important changes with the increasing
acceptance of ABPM, a practice supported by extensive clinical and epidemiologi-
cal research. As discussed in several chapters in this book, the utility of ABPM
includes detection of white coat and masked hypertension, determination of noctur-
nal dipping patterns, and management of blood pressure control in subjects on com-
plex antihypertensive drug regimens [1]. Geriatric patients comprise a distinct
subgroup and may derive unique benefits with the use of ABPM.
Magnitude of the Problem
The prevalence of hypertension increases markedly with age. More than 50 % of

people aged 60–69 years and about 75 % of people more than 70 years of age are
reported to have hypertension [2]. The prevalence may be as high as 90 % in people
older than 80 years [3]. Normotensive people at 55–65 years of age who survive to
age 80–85 have approximately 90 % lifetime risk of developing hypertension as
V. Gulati, M.D.
Division of Cardiology, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT, USA

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-22771-9_11
210 V. Gulati and W.B. White
reported by the Framingham heart Study [4]. The presence of isolated systolic
hypertension (ISH) with an increase in pulse pressure is commonly seen from mid-
dle age onwards [5]. Treatment of hypertension in the elderly has shown significant
cardiac and cerebrovascular benefits as reported in several studies including the
Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP), the Systolic Hypertension in
China (Syst-China) trial, the Systolic Hypertension in Europe trial (Syst-Eur), and
the Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial (HYVET) (the latter study in patients
>80 years of age) [6–9].
Most of the studies have used office BP to detect hypertension. However, ABPM
reflects actual BP values more reliably than office BP readings in the elderly [10].
Using ABPM to detect hypertension may alter the prevalence since white coat
hypertension is more commonly reported in older individuals. A cross-sectional
study conducted among 1047 individuals 60 years and older in Spain reported
68.8 % hypertensive patients based on clinical BP (≥140/90 mmHg or current BP
medication use) and 62.1 % based on 24-h ABPM (≥130/80 mmHg or current BP
medication use) [11]. Even though regular aerobic activity is known to decrease
systolic and diastolic BP values, a rising trend of BP is observed in the elderly
regardless of the level of physical activity. A recent study by Maselli et al. in sub-
jects >65 years old who exercised regularly showed an increase in the mean 24-h BP
and an increase in the prevalence of hypertension detected by ABPM from 50 to
65 % over a period of 3.5 years [12].
Changing Cardiovascular Physiology with Advancing Age
Many physiological changes occur as age advances. Increased stiffness of the arteries
leads to reduction in the compliance causing increase in pulse pressure. Increased
afterload due to less compliant aorta results in generation of higher systolic pressure
and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) [13]. Cardiac Output declines with ageing.
Left ventricular hypertrophy leads to diastolic dysfunction with reduction in left
ventricular filling. Decrease in renal plasma flow stimulates the renin–angiotensin
system promoting renal tubular sodium and water retention and increase in BP [14].
Sodium sensitivity increases with age [15]. Reduction in the beta-2 receptors and
interplay of renin–angiotensin system, sympathetic nervous system, natriuretic
factors, and endothelial dysfunction increase peripheral resistance. This, along
with higher pulse pressure, leads to isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). The fre-
quency of ISH varies in individuals due to complex interaction of these factors.
Isolated systolic hypertension is more common in patients over the age of 60, and
systolic blood pressure (SBP) is a better predictor of cardiovascular risk when
compared to diastolic blood pressure (DBP) [16]. Decrease in the baroreceptor and
chemoreceptor reactivity, decreased responsiveness to beta-adrenergic receptor
stimulation, and decline in sodium conservation predispose older individuals to
orthostatic and postprandial hypotension [17].
11 Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Older Persons 211
Ausculatory Gap
Clinical assessment of systolic BP in older individuals can be confounded by an auscul-

tatory gap. It is the disappearance of the korotkoff sounds between the systolic BP and
diastolic BP. Auscultatory gap is associated with increased arterial stiffness and carotid
atherosclerosis, which is more commonly seen in older population and may be a sur-
rogate marker of cardiovascular morbidity [18]. Not recognizing an auscultatory gap
can result in an underestimation of systolic BP or an overestimation of diastolic BP.
Pseudohypertension
Pseudohypertension is more common in the elderly and should be suspected in

patients with persistently elevated blood pressure measurements who develop hypo-
tensive symptoms on drug therapy [19]. It is a result of increased arterial wall stiffness
from advanced arteriosclerosis. The noninvasively measured BP is overestimated, as
the BP cuff is unable to measure the true intraluminal BP. The prevalence of pseudo-
hypertension in the elderly is very variable, ranging from 1.7 to as high as 70 % with
most of the studies having difference in the selection of individuals studied [20].
Osler’s sign may be used to screen potential patients with pseudohypertension, though
it lacks reliability and has poor predictive value. The sign is positive if the brachial or
radial artery is still palpable after the BP cuff has been inflated over systolic pressure.
Among the 3387 persons older than 59 years screened for the Systolic Hypertension
in the Elderly Program (SHEP) study, Osler maneuver was present in only 7.2 % sub-
jects, most of them being men, hypertensive, and with a history of stroke [21]. The
Osler maneuver may be positive in one third of hospitalized elderly patients [22].
Contrasting Ambulatory BP Monitoring to Home BP

Measurement
Both ambulatory and home BP play a complementary role in guiding clinical deci-
sions towards management of hypertension [23]. A comparable degree of association
between markers of hypertensive end organ damage such as left ventricular hypertro-
phy, albuminuria, and carotid intimal-medial thickness is seen with home BP and 24-h
BP [24]. However, ambulatory BP monitoring is superior to home BP monitoring due
to the number of readings that can be obtained throughout a 24-h period, including
times of sleep and physical activities. It reflects various aspects of BP profile that may
go undetected by other types of BP measurements such as circadian BP variability, the
morning surge of BP, and nocturnal dipping [25]. Compared to clinic (or office) BP,
both ambulatory and home BP have shown to be a better predictor of future CV events
[26]. The PAMELA study showed incremental increase in cardiovascular mortality
with a rise in ambulatory BP, followed by home BP and then office BP [27].
What Are Normal Values of ABPM in the Elderly?
Defining normal values for ABPM in the very old population is complex as it involves
both daytime and nighttime measurements with paucity of studies including popula-
tion with extremes of age. Current recommendations for ambulatory BP measure-
ments in adults provide values derived from outcome-driven thresholds [28]. The
International Database of Ambulatory blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular
Outcome (IDACO) performed 24-h ABP monitoring in 5682 participants with mean
age 59 years. In multivariate analyses, ABP thresholds were determined yielding
10-year cardiovascular risks similar to those associated with optimal (120/80 mmHg),
normal (130/85 mmHg), and high (140/90 mmHg) blood pressure on office measure-
ment. Over a median period of 9.7 years, systolic/diastolic thresholds for ambulatory
hypertension were 131.0/79.4 mmHg, 138.2/86.4 mmHg, and 119.5/70.8 mmHg for
24 h, daytime, and nighttime, respectively [29].
Ambulatory BP normality studied in random population aged 65–74 years of age
in Italy reported upper limit of normality for 24-h average BP (calculated as the
value corresponding to 140/90 mmHg clinic BP) of about 120 mmHg systolic and
76 mmHg diastolic [30].
It is unclear if these threshold values are applicable across the whole age range. In
a cross-sectional study of community-dwelling elderly subjects, 24-h ambulatory
blood pressure monitoring was performed in 75 “young elderly,” aged 60–79 years,
and 81 “old elderly” aged 80 years and older. Mean conventional blood pressure,
daytime blood pressure and night-time blood pressure were found to be 149/81 mmHg,
138/82 mmHg, and 119/69 mmHg, respectively, in the “young elderly” and
162/82 mmHg, 147/83 mmHg, and 133/71 mmHg, respectively, in the “old elderly”
(p < 0.01 for SBP). The night:day SBP ratio was significantly higher in the ‘old’
elderly compared with the ‘young’ elderly (0.90 vs. 0.86, respectively; p < 0.01). The
study showed age-related rise in SBP associated with advanced old age [31].
Current consensus values for ambulatory BP measurements in adults propose
reference threshold of 135/85 mmHg for daytime, 120/70 mmHg for nighttime, and
130/80 mmHg for 24-h SBP/DBP means for diagnosis of hypertension [32, 33].
However, whether these values hold good for elderly population of 65 years of age
and above is still an unresolved matter.
Reproducibility of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurements
Ambulatory blood pressure (BP) measurements have superior reproducibility com-

pared to repeated clinic (or office) BP measurements in short- and long-term studies
[34]. This has been observed in a number of trials that focused on younger middle-
aged population [35]. Campbell et al. studied the reproducibility of clinic and ambu-
latory BP in a population between the ages of 75 and 90 years (mean = 82 years)
with the subjects getting BP measured 2 years apart under similar conditions [36].
There were minimal mean changes in office, 24-h, and awake and sleep mean BP
values between baseline and 2 years later. However, the standard deviation of the
differences (SDDs) between visits was higher for office BP compared with the 24-h
BP (17.8/9.0 mmHg vs. 11.7/5.9 mmHg, p < 0.01 for both systolic and diastolic BP).
The SDD for 24-h BP was also lower than the SDDs for the awake and sleep BP
(p < 0.05) (Table 11.1). The limits of agreement for the clinic systolic BP were larger
Table 11.1 Clinic and ambulatory blood pressures at two study periods in older persons (n = 72)
Initial Changes P-value Standard
BP study Two-year between between deviation of Repeatability
parameter (mean study study study the coefficient
(mmHg) BP) (mean BP) periods periods differences (RC)
Clinic 136 136 0.02 0.990 17.8* 35.5*
systolic
Clinic 71 68 −2.9 0.008 9.0* 18.0*
diastolic
Clinic PP 65 68 2.9 0.080 14 28
24 h 130 131 1.1 0.433 11.7 23.3
systolic
24 h 66 67 0.2 0.814 6.0 12.0
diastolic
24 h PP 63 64 0.92 0.270 7.1 14.2
Awake 132 132 0.5 0.754 12.7** 25.5**
systolic
Awake 68 68 0.04 0.956 6.4** 12.8**
diastolic
Awake PP 63 64 0.50 0.599 8.0 16.0
Sleep 122 125 3.2 0.052 13.7** 27.5**
systolic
Sleep 60 60 0.72 0.441 7.8 15.6
diastolic
Sleep PP 62 64 2.5 0.016 8.7 17.4
Pre-awake 126 129 4.3 0.036 16.7 33.4
systolic
Pre-awake 62 63 1.6 0.191 9.9 19.9
diastolic
Pre-awake 64 66 2.7 0.065 12.0 24
PP
Post-awake 134 138 4.3 0.066 19.4 38.9
systolic
Post-awake 72 71 −0.44 0.726 10.4 20.9
diastolic
Post-awake 62 67 4.7 0.011 15.4 30.8
PP
Adapted from Campbell et al. [36] with permission
PP pulse pressure, bolded typeface are significant p-values
*p < 0.01 compared to clinic BP; **p < 0.05 compared to 24-h BP
Fig. 11.1 Limits of agreement for the office systolic BP in a very elderly cohort taken 2 years
apart (a) and for systolic BP taken by 24-h BP monitoring (b) using the methods of Bland–Altman
(Adapted from Campbell et al. [36] with permission)
than for the 24-h ambulatory systolic BP in this population. The upper and lower
limits of agreement in systolic BPs were 35.5 and −35.5 mmHg for the clinic pres-
sure and 24.5 mmHg and -22.3 mmHg for the 24-h BPs, respectively (Fig. 11.1).
Due to the improved reproducibility of ambulatory BP (versus office BP) in older
people, the sample size required in clinical trials will be much smaller if 24-h BP is
the primary efficacy end point rather than the office BP [37]. Table 11.2 shows
sample size calculations for a very elderly population being evaluated in a clinical
interventional trial across a variety of estimated mean effects [36]. As shown in the
Table, a much larger study population would be required to detect an effect of an
intervention on clinic BP versus systolic BP or pulse pressure using 24-h BP.
Table 11.2 Sample size estimation based on utility of clinic and ambulatory BP components in a
clinical trial of very elderly subjects
Number of subjects required per group for systolic BP (SBP) change from baseline
Effect size for SBP Early
(mmHg) Clinic BP 24 h SBP Awake SBP Sleep SBP morning SBP
3 553 239 281 327 656
4 311 135 158 184 370
5 199 86 101 118 236
7 102 44 52 60 121
9 62 27 31 36 73
Number of subjects required per group for pulse pressure change from baseline
Effect size for pulse Clinic pulse 24 h pulse Awake pulse Sleep pulse Early morning
pressure (mmHg) pressure pressure pressure pressure pulse pressure
3 342 88 112 132 414
4 192 50 63 74 233
5 123 32 40 48 149
7 63 16 20 24 76
9 38 10 12 15 46
Adapted from Campbell et al. [36] with permission
Prognostic Value of ABPM in the Elderly
Prospective cohort studies in adults have shown 24-h BP measurements to be a more

robust predictor of cardiovascular risk due to hypertension than BP measured in
doctor’s office [38, 39]. The superiority of ambulatory BP over conventional office
BP in predicting cardiovascular outcome was reported in a meta-analysis of more
than 7000 participants studied over a median period of 9.5 years [40]. However,
there are few studies on subjects older than 65 years of age and even less in persons
greater than 80 years of age.
In a prospective cohort study in hypertensive patients older than 65 years that
had a mean follow-up period of 6.7 years [41], ABPM was shown to be a better
predictor of cardiovascular mortality than clinic BP measurement with nocturnal
BP values demonstrating more important relations with outcomes than the diur-
nal BP. After adjusting for the clinic BP values, for each 10-mmHg increase in
diurnal SBP and nocturnal SBP, the relative risk of cardiovascular death rose by
10 % and 18 %, respectively. A sub-study of the Syst-Eur trial compared the
prognostic significance of conventional and ambulatory BP measurement in
patients >60 years of age with isolated systolic hypertension [42]. This analysis
demonstrated that ambulatory systolic BP was a significant predictor of cardio-
vascular risk over and above conventional clinic-derived BP. Furthermore, the
ability of ABPM to predict cardiovascular events is observed in patients with
hypertension who also have type 2 diabetes mellitus [43]. Isolated ambulatory
hypertension in presence of normal office blood pressure confers poor cardiovas-
cular prognosis in the elderly [44].
In addition to cardiovascular disease, ambulatory BP is also a better predictor

of renal and cerebrovascular disease in older people with hypertension [45]. The
24-h systolic BP plays an important role in predicting the progression of subcor-
tical white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volume burden associated with func-
tional decline in mobility and impairment of cognitive function in older people
[46]. White and co-workers studied the importance of ambulatory BP on the
progression of small vessel disease of the brain in a prospective cohort of per-
sons between 75 and 89 years of age [47]. Ambulatory and clinic BP monitoring,
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), mobility studies, and neuropsychological
testing were performed at baseline and after 24 months on the 72 subjects who
completed all aspects of the study. The relationships among the changes in clinic
and ambulatory BP and changes in WMH, mobility, and cognitive measures
were assessed at 24 months. Changes in ambulatory systolic BP, but not clinic
systolic BP, were associated with increases in WMH volume as well as with
impairment of several measures of mobility and cognition. Similar associations
were observed for 24-h systolic BP, awake systolic BP, and sleep systolic BP, but
not for the surge between the sleep and awake time at the 24-month time point.
Loess scatter plots of 24-h systolic BP and WMH demonstrated higher WMH at
higher levels of 24-h systolic BP and larger changes in 24-h systolic BP over
time. Larger increases in WMH were also observed with increases in 24-h sys-
tolic BP (Fig. 11.2). In contrast, similar relations between the clinic systolic or
change in clinic systolic BP and changes in WMH at 24 months were not
observed (Fig. 11.3).
Panel A Panel B Panel C
5 5
2.0
Total WMH% at 24 Months
4 4
Change in WMH%
1.5
3 3
1.0
2 2
0.5
1 1
0.0
0 0
100 116 132 148 164 -20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20

24-hr SBP (mmHg) at 24 months Change in 24-hr SBP (mmHg) Change in 24-hr SBP (mmHg)
Fig. 11.2 White matter hyperintensity (WMH) and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) in a cohort of
older people (from [47] with permission). Locally weighted smoother plots of 24-h average sys-
tolic BP (SBP) and WMH lesions (as percent of total intracranial volume). (a) 24-h SBP versus
WMH (%); (b) change in 24-h SBP and total WMH at 24 months and (c) change in 24-h SBP and
change in WMH (%) at 24 months
Panel A Panel B Panel C
5 5
2.0

4 4
Change in WMH%
1.5
3 3
1.0
2 2
0.5
1 1
0.0
0 0
100 120 140 160 180 -50 -25 0 25 50 -50 -25 0 25 50

Clinic SBP (mmHg) at 24 months Change in Clinic SBP (mmHg) at 24 Change in Clinic SBP (mmHg) at 24
months months
Fig. 11.3 White matter hyperintensity (WMH) and clinic blood pressure (BP) in a cohort of older
people (from [47] with permission). Locally weighted smoother plots of clinic systolic BP (SBP)
and WMH lesions (as percent of total intracranial volume are shown. (a) Clinic SBP and total
WMH (%) at 24 months; (b) change in clinic SBP and change in WMH (%) at 24 months and (c)
change in 24 h SBP and change in WMH (%) at 24 months
Practical Applications of ABPM in Older Population
The feasibility of technical success of ABPM in the elderly is comparable to that

seen in younger population, with similar adverse effects of sleep disturbance and
mild pain and bruising during cuff inflation [48]. Extreme variations of blood pres-
sure with intermittent periods of high and low BP are often observed with ABPM in
older people [49]. As age progresses, certain patterns of blood pressure are more
frequent and these are important to recognize from the point of view of clinical
management [28]. White coat hypertension is more common in older versus younger
population. The increases in 24-h systolic BP in elderly are associated with higher
pulse pressure and higher prevalence of isolated systolic hypertension. Exaggerated
BP variability and early morning BP surge is also more frequent than in younger
and middle-aged patients. The circadian variation in BP is often disrupted with non-
dipping pattern observed in the nighttime. Postural and postprandial hypotension
are also more common in the elderly. Table 11.3 outlines some of the clinical situa-
tions where ambulatory BP monitoring may be useful in older people [50].
White coat hypertension in untreated patients or white coat effect in treated patients
was originally defined as an elevated office BP ≥140 mmHg systolic and/or
≥90 mmHg diastolic with a mean awake ambulatory BP <135/85 mmHg in untreated
individuals. Latest guidelines now propose this definition for patients with office BP
Table 11.3 Clinical • White coat hypertension

situations where ambulatory
• Episodic hypertension
BP monitoring in the elderly
may be useful • Borderline hypertension with or without target
organ involvement
• Evaluation of patients refractory to therapy for
hypertension
• Symptoms of hypotension in patients on
antihypertensive therapy
• Autonomic dysfunction
• Nocturnal hypertension
≥140/90 mmHg and a mean 24-h BP <130/80 mmHg to take into account nocturnal
BP since it is recognized to be superior to daytime BP in predicting cardiovascular
risk [28, 33]. Furthermore, the 24-h mean BP is a more reproducible value than the
awake, daytime BP values [1, 28].
White coat hypertension/white coat effect is seen in 15–25 % of the elderly and
is a more common syndrome in older versus younger people [51, 52]. Indeed, age is
an independent factor influencing white coat hypertension [53] and even seen more
frequently in centenarians [54]. Cross-sectional and prospective cohort studies have
shown repeatedly that people with white coat hypertension have a better prognosis
than those with sustained hypertension outside of the clinical environment [38, 39].
In some clinical outcome studies, patients with WCH may have a slightly increased,
nonsignificant cardiovascular risk compared with normotensive individuals, though
in most of the studies showing this effect, the ambulatory BP of the white coat
hypertensive patients was higher than in normotensive individuals [55, 56]. A meta-
analysis performed by the IDACO group showed that any increased risk of future
cardiovascular event in a patient with white coat hypertension was very small and
substantially lower than the risk seen with either persistent hypertension or masked
hypertension [57].
Several guidelines recommend ABPM in patients suspected of having white coat
hypertension [1, 2, 32]. In the US, this diagnosis (ICD-9-CM code 796.2, ICD-
10-CM code R03.0) is a key indication for ambulatory BP monitoring recognized
for coverage by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services [58].
Isolated Systolic Hypertension
A gradual rise in systolic BP attributed to increased aortic stiffness is observed as

age advances. Diastolic BP peaks and plateaus in the fifth–sixth decades of life and
begins to decline thereafter [59]. The pulse wave velocity used to estimate arterial
distensibility correlates well with ambulatory systolic BP and may be used as a sur-
rogate to estimate aortic stiffness [60]. Epidemiologic studies have shown that iso-
lated systolic hypertension is seen in more than 90 % of hypertensive patients
>70 years of age with a higher prevalence in women than men [61]. The 24-h
systolic BP is associated with more substantial adverse cardiovascular events and

mortality than the ambulatory diastolic BP [62]. The Systolic Hypertension in the
Elderly Program (SHEP), a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial on
4736 subjects >60 years of age, demonstrated that treatment of isolated systolic
hypertension in older patients reduced all strokes, both fatal and nonfatal, by 36 %;
all myocardial infarctions (MIs), both fatal and nonfatal, by 27 %; all coronary heart
disease by 27 %; and all cardiovascular disease by 32 %. Total mortality was reduced
by 13 % [6]. Ambulatory systolic BP is a better predictor of cardiovascular risk than
office systolic BP. The cardiovascular risk conferred by a conventional systolic BP
of 160 mmHg in the doctor’s office is similar to that associated with a 24-h, daytime
or nighttime systolic BP of 142 mmHg, 145 mmHg, or 132 mmHg, respectively
[42]. In addition, the pulse pressure is an independent determinant of cardiovascular
risk in older persons [63]. In the population-based Framingham Heart Study of 1924
subjects between 50 and 79 years of age, pulse pressure was superior to systolic or
diastolic BP in predicting coronary artery disease risk [64]. Ambulatory pulse pres-
sure has also been directly associated with cardiovascular risk [65].
Circadian Variation of Blood Pressure
The circadian pattern of blood pressure and heart rate observed in humans correlates
with cardiovascular events, including both myocardial infarction and stroke [66].
Reduction of about 10–30 % of blood pressure is observed during sleep relative to
the awake period in majority of normotensive and hypertensive people. This is fol-
lowed by a rise in BP upon awakening which coincides with the transition from
sleep to wakefulness [67].
A non-dipping pattern which is defined as a reduced or absent decline in sleep
BP (generally less than 10 % decline) is seen in 25–35 % of hypertensive people and
is more commonly seen in older people, both in men, women, and centenarian
patients [68–71]. Increasing age is observed to be an independent marker of
non-dipping after correction for confounding factors of diabetes, reduced glomeru-
lar filtration rate, low HDL-cholesterol, and elevated urinary albumin excretion
[72]. This BP pattern is associated with increased target organ damage including left
ventricular hypertrophy, albuminuria, and small vessel disease of the brain [25, 73,
74]. Cardiovascular prognosis is worse in elderly non-dippers with ISH than with
dipper profiles [42]. Patients lacking a nocturnal decline in the BP are prone to
developing congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and progression
to end-stage renal failure. Increased incidence of fatal and non-fatal CV events is
also observed in association with blunted decline in nocturnal BP [75–77].
Studies have shown poor reproducibility of the nocturnal dipping status [78, 79].
Absolute nocturnal BP values are more reproducible than the categories of dippers and
non-dippers. The study observing reproducibility of ambulatory BP in elderly subjects
by Campbell et al. found substantial variability in the dipping status over a period of 2
years [36]. Changes in hypertensive status based on absolute nocturnal systolic BP
demonstrated improved reproducibility compared with categorical changes.
Reversal of the normal nocturnal decline in BP causes a “non-dipper/riser”

pattern and an exaggerated rate of rise of BP upon awakening may create a “surge”
pattern and early morning hypertension. In a recent cross-sectional study of 6147
hypertensive patients (2137 of whom were ≥60 year of age) evaluated by 48-h
ABPM, the prevalence of non-dipping was significantly higher in older than younger
patients (63.1 % vs. 41.1 %; p < 0.001). A larger difference between age groups was
observed in the prevalence of the riser BP pattern (19.9 % in older vs. 4.9 % in
younger patients [80].
Larger increases in morning BP may be pathological and associated with higher
rates of cardiovascular events [81, 82]. The most well-described example of this
phenomenon was a prospective cohort study in 519 older (mean age 72 years)
Japanese patients with systolic hypertension with 41 months of observed follow-up.
For each 10 mmHg increase in baseline early morning systolic BP, the relative risk
of stroke increased by 22 % [83]. The extent of the early-morning BP surge was
defined as the difference between the average SBP during the 2 h after awakening
minus the average systolic BP during the 1 h that included the lowest sleeping BP
values. In the group of patients that had a surge of ≥55 mmHg (top decile of the
population), the risk of multiple lacunar infarctions was approximately twofold
higher after matching for age and the 24-h BP (57 % vs. 33 %; p < 0.001) com-
pared to the non-surge patients in whom the average morning increase in systolic
BP was 9 mmHg.
Higher cardiovascular morbidity with nocturnal non-dipping and early morning
BP rise in older patients with hypertension makes it desirable to monitor and control
BP over 24 h [84]. Patients should be evaluated by ABPM to ensure proper evalua-
tion of cardiovascular risk associated with variations of the 24-h BP pattern in order
to formulate a therapeutic treatment plan accordingly.
Autonomic Dysregulation
Orthostatic hypotension due to age-associated reductions in baroreflex function and

increases in venous insufficiency is more common in the elderly and confers high
risk for cardiovascular events and falls [85, 86]. Other factors contributing to ortho-
stasis in the older population is the higher prevalence of diabetes and the use of
medications such as diuretics and alpha-1 adrenergic blockers. Orthostatic BP dys-
regulation due to aging also increases the prevalence of orthostatic hypertension
[87]. Increases in orthostatic systolic BP can be as high as 20 mmHg or more. These
patients have higher frequency of left ventricular hypertrophy, coronary artery dis-
ease, and cerebrovascular disease than elderly patients with hypertension with or
without orthostatic hypotension [88].
Postprandial hypotension, defined as a decrease in systolic BP of more than
20 mmHg up to 1 h after eating without change in heart rate, is more frequently
observed in older persons [89]. It is associated with higher incidence of falls, syn-
cope, coronary events, stroke, and mortality in the elderly [90, 91].
Conclusions
Ambulatory BP monitoring provides insight into the relationships among BP, target
organ involvement, and cardiovascular outcomes in older people. Use of ambula-
tory BP measurements in older people refines our ability to determine prognosis.
The use of out-of-office measurement also helps to guide therapy, particularly in
patients with well-recognized syndromes such as masked and white coat hyperten-
sion. Finally, clinical trials of antihypertensive therapies enhance the determination
of efficacy (and safety) of drugs and devices in older persons.
References
1. Pickering TG, White WB. When and how to use self (home) and ambulatory blood pressure
monitoring. J Am Soc Hypertens. 2010;4:56–61.
2. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection,
Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute,
National High Blood Pressure Education Program Coordinating Committee, et al. Seventh
report of the Joint National Committee on prevention, detection, evaluation, and treatment of
high blood pressure. Hypertension. 2003;42:1206–52.
3. Wang Y, Wang QJ. The prevalence of prehypertension and hypertension among US adults
according to the new joint national committee guidelines: new challenges of the old problem.
Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(19):2126–34.
4. Vasan RS, Beiser A, Seshadri S, et al. Residual lifetime risk for developing hypertension in
middle-aged women and men: the Framingham Heart Study. JAMA. 2002;287(8):1003–10.
5. Franklin SS, Levy D. Aging, blood pressure, and heart failure: what are the connections?
Hypertension. 2011;58(5):760–2.
6. Perry Jr HM, Davis BR, Price TR, et al. Effect of treating isolated systolic hypertension on the
risk of developing various types and subtypes of stroke: the Systolic Hypertension in the
Elderly Program (SHEP). JAMA. 2000;284(4):465–71.
7. Wang JG, Staessen JA, Gong L, Liu L. Chinese trial on isolated systolic hypertension in the
elderly. Systolic Hypertension in China (Syst-China) Collaborative Group. Arch Intern Med.
2000;160(2):211–20.
8. Staessen JA, Fagard R, Thijs L, et al. Randomised double-blind comparison of placebo and
active treatment for older patients with isolated systolic hypertension. The Systolic
Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial Investigators. Lancet. 1997;350(9080):757–64.
9. Beckett NS, Peters R, Fletcher AE, HYVET Study Group, et al. Treatment of hypertension in
patients 80 years of age or older. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(18):1887–98.
10. Parati G, Pickering TG. Home blood-pressure monitoring: US and European consensus.
Lancet. 2009;373(9667):876–8.
11. Banegas JR, de la Cruz JJ, Graciani A, et al. Impact of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring
on reclassification of hypertension prevalence and control in older people in Spain. J Clin
Hypertens (Greenwich). 2015;17(6):453–61.
12. Maselli M, Giantin V, Franchin A, et al. Detection of blood pressure increments in active
elderly individuals: the role of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc
Dis. 2014;24:914–20.
13. Cheitlin MD. Cardiovascular physiology-changes with aging. Am J Geriatr Cardiol.
2003;12(1):9–13.
14. Conti S, Cassis P, Benigni A. Aging and renin-angiotensin system. Hypertension. 2012;
60:878–83.
15. Stokes GS. Management of hypertension in the elderly patient. Clin Interv Aging. 2009;
4:379–89.
16. Franklin SS, Larson MG, Khan SA, et al. Does the relation of blood pressure to coronary heart
disease risk change with aging? The Framingham Heart study. Circulation. 2001;103:
1245–9.
17. Pugh KG, Wei JY. Clinical implications of physiological changes in the aging heart. Drugs
Aging. 2001;18(4):263–76.
18. Cavallini MC, Roman MJ, Blank SG, Pini R, Pickering TG, Devereux RB. Association of the
auscultatory gap with vascular disease in hypertensive patients. Ann Intern Med. 1996;
124:877–83.
19. Pickering TG, Hall JE, Appel LJ, et al. Recommendations for blood pressure measurement in
humans and experimental animals: part 1: blood pressure measurement in humans: a statement
for professionals from the subcommittee of professional and public education of the American
Heart Association Council on high blood pressure research. Circulation. 2005;111:697–716.
20. Zweifler AJ, Shahab ST. Pseudohypertension: a new assessment. J Hypertens. 1993;11:1–6.
21. Wright JC, Looney SW. Prevalence of positive Osler’s manoeuver in 3387 persons screened
for the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). J Hum Hypertens. 1997;
11:285–9.
22. Belmin J, Visintin JM, Salvatore R, Sebban C, Moulias R. Osler’s maneuver: absence of use-
fulness for the detection of pseudohypertension in an elderly population. Am J Med.
1995;98:42–9.
23. White WB, Gulati V. Managing hypertension with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.
Curr Cardiol Rep. 2015;17(2):2. doi:10.1007/s11886-014-0556-6.
24. Verdecchia P, Angeli F, Mazzotta G, Gentile G, Reboldi G. Home blood pressure measure-
ments will not replace 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Hypertension.
2009;54:188–95.
25. Pickering TG, Shimbo D, Haas D. Ambulatory blood-pressure monitoring. N Engl J Med.
2006;354:2368–74.
26. 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 Ohasama, Japan. J Hypertens. 1998;16:971–5.
27. Sega R, Facchetti R, Bombelli M, et al. Prognostic value of ambulatory and home blood pres-
sures compared with office blood pressure in the general population: follow-up results from
the Pressioni Arteriose Monitorate e Loro Associazioni (PAMELA) study. Circulation.
2005;111:1777–83.
28. O’Brien E, Parati G, Stergiou G, et al. The European Society of Hypertension Working Group
on Blood Pressure Monitoring. European Society of Hypertension position paper on ambula-
tory blood pressure monitoring. J Hypertens. 2013;31:1731–68.
29. Kikuya M, Hansen TW, Thijs L, et al. International database on ambulatory blood pressure
monitoring in relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes Investigators. Diagnostic thresholds for
ambulatory blood pressure monitoring based on 10-year cardiovascular risk. Circulation.
2007;24:2145–52.
30. Sega R, Cesana G, Milesi C, Grassi G, Zanchetti A, Mancia G. Ambulatory and home blood
pressure normality in the elderly: data from the PAMELA population. Hypertension.
1997;30:1–6.
31. O’Sullivan C, Duggan J, Atkins N, O’Brien E. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure in
community-dwelling elderly men and women, aged 60-102 years. J Hypertens. 2003;
21(9):1641–7.
32. Mancia G, Fagard R, Narkiewicz K, Task Force Members, et al. 2013 ESH/ESC Guidelines for
the management of arterial hypertension: the task force for the management of arterial hyper-
tension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of
Cardiology (ESC). J Hypertens. 2013;31:1281–357.
33. O’Brien E, Parati G, Stergiou G, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure measurement: what is the
international consensus? Hypertension. 2013;62:988–94.
34. James GD, Pickering TG, Yee LS, Harshfield GA, Riva S, Laragh JH. The reproducibility of
average ambulatory, home and clinic pressures. Hypertension. 1988;11:545–9.
35. Mansoor GA, McCabe EJ, White WB. Long-term reproducibility of ambulatory blood pres-
sure. J Hypertens. 1994;12:703–8.
36. Campbell P, Ghuman N, Wakefield D, Wolfson L, White WB. Long-term reproducibility of
ambulatory blood pressure is superior to office blood pressure in the very elderly. J Hum
Hypertens. 2010;24(11):749–54.
37. Conway J, Johnston J, Coats A, Somers V, Sleight P. The use of ambulatory blood pressure
monitoring to improve the accuracy and reduce the numbers of subjects in clinical trials of
antihypertensive agents. J Hypertens. 1988;6:111–6.
surement in predicting mortality: the Dublin outcome study. Hypertension. 2005;46:156–61.
40. Hansen TW, Kikuya M, Thijs L, et al. Prognostic superiority of daytime ambulatory over con-
ventional blood pressure in four populations: a meta-analysis of 7,030 individuals. J Hypertens.
2007;25:1554e64.
41. Burr ML, Dolan E, O’Brien EW, et al. The value of ambulatory blood pressure in older adults:
the Dublin outcome study. Age Ageing. 2008;37:201–6.
ambulatory blood pressure in older patients with systolic hypertension: Systolic Hypetension
in Europe Trial Investigators. JAMA. 1999;282:539–46.
43. Eguchi K, Pickering TG, Hoshide S, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure is a better marker than
clinic blood pressure in predicting cardiovascular events in patients with/without type 2 diabe-
tes. Am J Hypertens. 2008;21:443–50.
44. Bjorklund K, Lind L, Zethelius B, Andren B, Lithell H. Isolated ambulatory hypertension
predicts cardiovascular morbidity in elderly men. Circulation. 2003;107(9):1297–302.
45. Ghuman N, Campbell P, White WB. Role of ambulatory and home blood pressure recording
in clinical practice. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2009;11:414–21.
46. Abraham HM, Wolfson L, Moscufo N, Guttmann CR, Kaplan RF, White WB. Cardiovascular
risk factors and small vessel disease of the brain: blood pressure, white matter lesions, and
functional decline in older persons. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2015. doi: 10.1038/
jcbfm.2015.121.
47. White WB, Wolfson L, Wakefield DB, et al. Average daily blood pressure, not office blood
pressure, is associated with progression of cerebrovascular disease and cognitive decline in
older people. Circulation. 2011;124(21):2312–9.
48. Trenkwalder P. Automated blood pressure measurement (ABPM) in the elderly. Z Kardiol.
1996;85 suppl 3:85–91.
49. Grodzicki T, Rajzer M, Fagard R, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and postpran-
dial hypotension in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Systolic Hypertension
in Europe (SYST-EUR) Trial Investigators. J Hum Hypertens. 1998;12:161–5.
50. National High BP. Education Program Working Group report on ambulatory blood pressure
monitoring. Arch Intern Med. 1990;150:2270–80.
51. Trenkwalder P, Plaschke M, Steffes-Tremer I, et al. “White-coat” hypertension and alerting
reaction in elderly and very elderly hypertensive patients. Blood Press. 1993;2:262–71.
52. Manios ED, Koroboki EA, Tsivgoulis GK, et al. Factors influencing white-coat effect. Am
J Hypertens. 2008;21:153–8.
53. Mansoor GA, McCabe EJ, White WB. Determinants of the white-coat effect in hypertensive
subjects. J Hum Hypertens. 1996;10(2):87–92.
54. Jumabay M, Ozawa Y, Kawamura H, et al. White coat hypertension in centenarians. Am
J Hypertens. 2005;18:1040–5.
sustained hypertension versus true normotension: a meta-analysis. J Hypertens. 2007;25:
2193–8.
56. Pierdomenico SD, Cuccurullo F. Prognostic value of white-coat and masked hypertension
diagnosed by ambulatory monitoring in initially untreated subjects: an updated meta analysis.
Am J Hypertens. 2011;24:52–8.
57. Franklin SS, Thijs L, Hansen TW, International Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure in
Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes Investigators, et al. Significance of white-coat hyperten-
sion in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension: a meta-analysis using the International
Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes
population. Hypertension. 2012;59:564–71.
58. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare coverage policy – decisions. ABPM
monitoring (#CAG-00067N). 2001. http://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/
nca-decisionmemo.aspx.
59. Burt VL, Whelton P, Roccella EJ, et al. Prevalence of hypertension in the U.S. adult popula-
tion: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1991.
60. Asmar RG, Brunel PC, Pannier BM, Lacolley PJ, Safar E. Arterial distensibility and ambula-
tory blood pressure monitoring in essential hypertension. Am J Cardiol. 1988;61(13):
1066–70.
61. Franklin SS, Gustin W, Wong ND, et al. Hemodynamic patterns of age-related changes in
blood pressure: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 1997;96:308–15.
62. Fagard RH, Van Den Broeke C, De Cort P. Prognostic significance of blood pressure measured
in the office, at home and during ambulatory monitoring in older patients in general practice.
J Hum Hypertens. 2005;19:801–7.
63. Blacher J, Staessen JA, Girerd X, et al. Pulse pressure not mean pressure determines cardiovas-
cular risk in older hypertensive patients. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(8):1085–9.
64. Franklin SS, Khan SA, Wong ND, Larson MG, Levy D. Is pulse pressure useful in predicting
risk for coronary heart disease? The Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 1999;100(4):
354–60.
65. Verdecchia P, Schillaci G, Reboldi G, Franklin SS, Porcellati C. Different prognostic impact of
24-h mean blood pressure and pulse pressure on stroke and coronary artery disease in essential
hypertension. Circulation. 2001;103:2579–84.
66. White WB. Circadian variation of blood pressure: clinical relevance and implications for car-
diovascular chronotherapeutics. Blood Press Monit. 1997;2:47–51.
67. White WB, Gulati V. Managing hypertension with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.
Curr Cardiol Rep. 2015;17:1–9.
68. Fotherby MD, Potter JF. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure in old and very old
subjects. J Hypertens. 1995;13(12):1742–6.
69. Bertinieri G, Grassi G, Rossi P, et al. 24-hour blood pressure profile in centenarians.
J Hypertens. 2002;20(9):1765–9.
70. White WB, Mansoor GA, Tendler BE, Anwar YA. Nocturnal blood pressure epidemiology,
determinants, and effects of antihypertensive therapy. Blood Press Monit. 1998;3:43–51.
71. Di Lorio A, Marini E, Lupinetti M, Zito M, Abate G. Blood pressure rhythm and prevalence
of vascular events in hypertensive subjects. Age Ageing. 1999;28:23–8.
72. Ayala DE, Moya A, Crespo JJ, on behalf of the Hygia Project Investigators, et al. Circadian
pattern of ambulatory blood pressure in hypertensive patients with and without type 2 diabetes.
73. Cuspidi C, Giudici V, Negri F, Sala C. Nocturnal nondipping and left ventricular hypertrophy
in hypertension: an updated review. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2010;8:781–92.
74. Fan HQ, Li Y, Thijs L, et al. Prognostic value of isolated nocturnal hypertension on ambulatory
measurement in 8711 individuals from 10 populations. J Hypertens. 2010;28:2036–45.
76. Brotman DJ, Davidson MB, Boumitri M, et al. Impaired diurnal blood pressure variation and
all-cause mortality. Am J Hypertens. 2008;21:92–7.
77. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Fernandez JR, et al. Sleep-time blood pressure: prognostic value and
relevance as a therapeutic target for cardiovascular risk reduction. Chronobiol Int. 2013;
30:68–86.
78. Omboni S, Parati G, Palatini P, et al. Reproducibility and clinical value of nocturnal hypoten-
sion: prospective evidence from the SAMPLE study. J Hypertens. 1998;16:733–8.
79. Cuspidi C, Meani S, Valerio C, et al. Reproducibility of dipping/non-dipping pattern in
untreated essential hypertensive patients: impact of sex and age. Blood Press Monit. 2007;
12:101–6.
80. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Crespo JJ, et al. Influence of age and hypertension treatment- time on
ambulatory blood pressure in hypertensive patients. Chronobiol Int. 2013;30:176–91.
81. Kario K, White WB. Early morning hypertension: what does it contribute to overall cardiovas-
cular risk assessment? J Am Soc Hypertens. 2008;2:397–402.
82. White WB. Cardiovascular risk and therapeutic intervention for the early morning surge in
blood pressure and heart rate. Blood Press Monit. 2001;6:63–72.
and clinical cerebrovascular disease in elderly hypertensives: a prospective study. Circulation.
2003;107:1401–6.
84. White WB. Importance of blood pressure control over a 24-hour period. J Manag Care Pharm.
2007;13(suppl B):34–9.
85. Davis BR, Langford HG, Blaufox MD, et al. The association of postural changes in systolic
blood pressure and mortality in persons with hypertension: the Hypertension Detection and
Follow-up Program experience. Circulation. 1987;75:340–6.
86. Masaki KH, Schatz IJ, Burchfiel CM, et al. Orthostatic hypotension predicts mortality in
elderly men: the Honolulu Heart Program. Circulation. 1998;98:2290–5.
87. Kario K, Eguchi K, Nakagawa Y, et al. Relationship between extreme dippers and orthostatic
hypertension in elderly hypertensive patients. Hypertension. 1998;31:77–82.
88. Kario K, Eguchi K, Hoshide S, et al. U-curve relationship between orthostatic blood pressure
change and silent cerebrovascular disease in elderly hypertensives: orthostatic hypertension as
a new cardiovascular risk factor. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:133–41.
89. Mathias CJ. Postprandial hypotension: pathophysiological mechanisms and clinical implica-
tions in different disorders. Hypertension. 1991;18(5):694–704.
90. Aronow WS, Ahn C. Association of postprandial hypotension with incidence of falls, syncope,
coronary events, stroke, and total mortality at 29 month follow-up in 499 older nursing home
residents. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997;45(9):1051–3.
91. Fisher AA, Davis MW, Srikusalanukul W, Budge MM. Postprandial hypotension predicts all-
cause mortality in older, low-level care residents. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(8):1313–20.
Chapter 12
in Children and Adolescents
Ian Macumber and Joseph T. Flynn
Introduction
Hypertension in children is a significant and growing problem. A review of recent

data from the National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES) [1] estimates that
in 8–17-year old children there was a 2.3 % increase in the prevalence of prehyper-
tension and a 1 % increase in the prevalence of hypertension from 1963 to 2002,
putting the overall prevalences at 4 % and 10 %, respectively. Since pediatric hyper-
tension has been closely linked with childhood obesity [2], this trend can be expected
to continue as the childhood obesity epidemic worsens.
This increased prevalence of pediatric hypertension is concerning, as there is
substantial evidence that elevated blood pressure (BP) in children is associated with
both childhood and future target-organ damage [2]. High childhood BP has been
shown to increase arterial stiffnessand left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) [2] and
carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) [3], a predictor of atherosclerosis in adults.
In addition, it has been shown that hypertension can affect cognition in children,
potentially by decreasing reactivity of the cerebral vasculature [4]. Children with
hypertension are likely to remain hypertensive as they reach adulthood [5] and
childhood hypertension strongly correlates with the risk of end-organ damage in
adulthood, such as increased cIMT and LVH [6].
Given the significant implications of childhood hypertension, it is important to
have an accurate method for evaluating BP in pediatric populations. BP measured in
the clinic/office setting, otherwise known as casual blood pressure (cBP), have tra-
ditionally been the first step taken to evaluate patients for potential hypertension.
However, this technique has multiple pitfalls including, inherent inaccuracy of auto-
mated machines used in physician offices, poor technique for auscultatory BP, and
I. Macumber, M.D. • J.T. Flynn, M.D., M.S. (*)

Division of Nephrology, Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, WA 98105, USA
e-mail: joseph.fl[email protected]

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-22771-9_12
228 I. Macumber and J.T. Flynn
the white coat effect [7]. Intermittent home BPs taken by parents or caretakers also
are problematic because few home BP devices are validated in children and there is
a lack of normative data for home BP in children [7].
Thus, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) has been increasingly
advocated as a tool for diagnosis and management of childhood hypertension. As
discussed elsewhere in this text, ABPM has the advantage of eliminating observer
bias and improper technique [8] and is a cost-effective way of evaluating BP in
children [9, 10]. It has been shown to be better than casual BP at predicting left
ventricular mass (LVM), arterial stiffness, and increased cIMT in children [2].
There are also hypertensive states that require ABPM for diagnosis, such as masked
hypertension and white coat hypertension.
However, there are some shortcomings to using ABPM in children. It is not rec-
ommended for children under 5 years of age, as most children will not tolerate
wearing the device for 24 h. The normative data that is most often used needs to be
expanded across different ethnicities. Further study also needs to be done in youth
correlating ABPM results and target organ damage. Despite these limitations,
ABPM has become increasingly recommended for evaluating BP in children and its
use continues to increase.
Methodology
Equipment
Available devices for pediatric ABPM currently utilize one of two techniques for
BP detection: oscillometric or auscultatory. While most devices will use one or the
other, there are some that offer both [11]. Both the oscillometric and auscultatory
methods have advantages and limitations. The oscillometric devices are most com-
monly used in pediatrics due to their ease of use and fewer erroneous readings
compared to auscultatory devices. However, oscillometric ABPM devices are
susceptible to the same potential errors as oscillometric devices used for casual BP
readings and have lower accuracy ratings than the auscultatory devices. Systolic and
diastolic BPs are not measured directly, but are back-calculated from the mean arte-
rial pressure (MAP). The formulas for these calculations are proprietary and are not
standardized [2]. Auscultatory devices use Korotkoff sounds to measure BP and
although both the American Heart Association [2] and the National High Blood
Pressure Education Program Working Group [12] recommend using the fifth
Korotkoff sound to determine diastolic BP in children rather than the fourth
Korotkoff sound, current devices may use either one [11]. There are also currently
no normative data available for auscultatory ABPM in children and adolescents. It
is important to remember that there are currently monitors on the market that have
not been validated. A complete listing of devices that have been validated by the
accepted criteria such as the British Hypertension Society standard can be obtained
at www.dableducational.org.
12 Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Children and Adolescents 229
Nursing Implications
Nurses and other staff that will be involved in ABPM should be properly trained for
placement of ABPM and patient education. Following a standardized approach will
help ensure valid BP readings and maintain functionality of equipment. Staff will need
to be responsible for upkeep of equipment, including at least yearly calibration, clean-
ing of hardware, and laundering of cloth BP cuff covers. In addition, a careful history
of contraindications to ABPM should be taken prior to placement of the device. These
include severe clotting disorders and rhythm disturbances. It should be noted, how-
ever, that vein thrombosis secondary to ABPM has not been reported in children.
Appropriate cuff size is essential for accurate BP measurements and published
guidelines should be followed closely [12]. The BP cuff should have an inflatable
bladder that is at least 40 % of the arm circumference at a point midway between the
olecranon and the acromion and the cuff bladder should cover 80–100 % of the arm
circumference [12]. Not all cuffs will be able to fit patients to those criteria. In that
case, it is recommended to use a larger cuff size rather than a smaller cuff size, as
smaller cuff sizes overestimate BP readings to a greater extent than larger cuff sizes
diminish them. It is recommended that the ABPM cuff is placed on the child’s non-
dominant arm so that school work and other daily activities are not affected by the
monitoring. However, if there is a significant BP discrepancy between the two arms,
the arm with the higher BP should be used, even if it is the dominant arm. There are
medical exceptions to the recommendation of using the nondominant arm, such as
if the child has had arterial surgery or dialysis access on the nondominant side. The
ambulatory BP readings should be compared with clinic BP readings obtained using
the same technique of measurement. Cuff placement should be adjusted or device
recalibrated if the average of three values is greater than 5 mmHg different [2].
Patient education is also very important for successful completion of the study.
Patients and parents should be instructed to keep the arm still during all readings,
how to stop a reading if there is excessive pain, and to keep monitor from getting
wet [2]. A diary should be provided to the patient to record sleep and awake times,
time of medication administrations (especially antihypertensives), times of heavy
activities or other stressful events, and any adverse events or symptoms such a diz-
ziness or syncope.
Editing and Analysis Periods
Ideally, the ABPM device should be programmed to record BP measurements every

20 min while awake and every 30 min during sleep. Less frequent readings increase
the chances of missing data and could compromise the quality of the ABPM study. At
least one valid reading per hour is required for an ABPM study to be considered
adequate. Manual editing of BP readings should be kept to a minimum and the soft-
ware should be programmed to exclude invalid readings. Automated exclusion is gen-
erally preferred to manual inspection of the BP readings. Current recommendations
for pediatric ABPM are to exclude SBP’s >220 mmHg and 60 mmHg, DBP >120
and <35 mmHg, heart rate >180 and <40 beats per minute, and pulse pressure >120
or <40 mmHg [2]. These differ from the adult exclusion criteria, which have higher
SBP and DBP limits and lower heart rate limits [13].
The time periods of most interest are the awake period, sleep period, and the
entire 24-h period. The definition of the sleep and awake periods can be predeter-
mined or can be adjusted based on the patient’s sleep diary. While using the
sleep diary to adjust awake and sleep periods is labor-intensive, it has been shown
that using predetermined time periods can lead to significant misclassification and
misinterpretation of ABPM data [14] and therefore it is recommended that provid-
ers use sleep diaries to determine patients’ wake–sleep periods.
Interpretation
Normative Data
There is a distinct lack of robust normative data for pediatric ABPM. Although
large-scale ABPM studies in healthy children have been conducted using both
ausculatory and oscillometric devices, the only “normative” data that have found
widespread use are the oscillometric values published by the German Working
Group on Pediatric Hypertension [15], from original data gathered by Soergel at
al. [16]. These BP percentiles are presented in Table 12.1, categorized by sex, age,
and height. While this is currently the best data available, it has some significant
limitations. It is unclear how generalizable the data are, as only Caucasian children
from Central Europe were included in the study. There were few short children
included in the analysis, making it harder to apply the values to children with
impaired growth, such as those with chronic kidney disease. There was very little
variability in DBP, which is not the case for resting casual DBP. The DBP values
were also rather high, with the awake 90th percentile around 80–81 mmHg and the
awake 95th percentile around 82–84 mmHg, regardless of sex or height [15].
While some of these problems may be related to the oscillometric technique, which
is known to be less accurate for DBP, they do call into question the utility of these
values. Clearly, further studies involving larger, more diverse groups of children
and perhaps utilizing both the oscillometric and auscultatory technique are needed
to generate better normative ABPM values for children and adolescents.
Definition of Hypertension
In 2014, the American Heart Association (AHA) updated their scientific statement
regarding ABPM in children and adolescents [2]. This statement reinforced previ-
ous definitions of prehypertension and hypertension defined in the 2008 AHA
Table 12.1 Normative data for ABPM in children and adolescents
Normal values for ambulatory blood pressure (mmHg) for boys by height
Height (cm)
120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185
24-h DSBP
BP 50th 104.5 105.3 106.2 107.2 108.3 109.5 110.9 112.5 114.2 116.1 118.0 119.7 121.5 123.2
percentile 75th 109.2 110.1 111.1 112.1 113.3 114.6 116.1 117.7 119.5 121.4 123.2 125.0 126.6 128.2
90th 113.8 114.8 115.9 116.9 118.2 119.5 121.0 122.6 124.4 126.3 128.1 129.8 131.3 132.8
95th 116.8 117.8 118.9 120.0 121.2 122.5 124.0 125.7 127.4 129.3 131.1 132.6 134.1 135.5
99th 122.9 123.9 125.0 126.1 127.3 128.6 130.1 131.7 133.4 135.2 136.8 138.2 139.4 140.5
Day-time SBP
BP 50th 110.8 111.1 111.5 112.0 112.7 113.7 115.1 116.8 118.6 120.6 122.6 124.4 126.2 128.0
percentile 75th 116.2 116.5 116.9 117.4 118.0 119.0 120.4 122.1 124.2 126.4 128.4 130.3 132.2 134.1
90th 121.7 121.9 122.2 122.5 123.0 123.9 125.3 127.1 129.4 131.9 134.1 136.1 138.0 139.9
95th 125.2 125.3 125.5 125.7 126.0 126.9 128.3 130.2 132.7 135.3 137.6 139.6 141.6 143.5
99th 132.6 132.4 132.2 132.0 132.1 132.8 134.2 136.3 139.1 142.2 144.7 146.8 148.6 150.5
Night-time SBP
BP 50th 93.6 94.6 95.6 96.7 97.9 99.0 100.1 101.3 102.6 104.1 105.6 107.2 108.7 110.2
percentile 75th 98.6 99.8 101.0 102.3 103.6 104.7 105.9 107.1 108.4 109.9 111.5 113.1 114.6 116.1
90th 103.3 104.8 106.3 107.8 109.3 110.6 111.8 113.0 114.3 115.7 117.2 118.8 120.3 121.8
95th 106.3 107.9 109.7 111.4 113.0 114.4 115.7 116.8 118.1 119.4 120.9 122.4 123.9 125.3
12 Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Children and Adolescents
99th 112.1 114.2 116.5 118.7 120.8 122.5 123.8 124.9 126.0 127.1 128.4 129.6 131.0 132.2
24-h DBP
(continued)
231
232
Height (cm)
120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185
BP 50th 65.6 65.9 66.1 66.4 66.6 66.9 67.1 67.2 67.3 67.5 67.6 67.8 68.0 68.2
percentile 75th 69.7 69.9 70.2 70.4 70.6 70.8 71.0 71.1 71.2 71.3 71.5 71.7 71.8 71.9
90th 73.9 74.1 74.2 74.4 74.5 74.7 74.8 74.8 74.9 75.1 75.3 75.4 75.5 75.6
95th 76.7 76.8 76.9 76.9 77.0 77.1 77.1 77.2 77.3 77.5 77.7 77.8 77.9 78.0
99th 82.7 82.5 82.3 82.1 81.9 81.8 81.8 81.8 81.9 82.2 82.5 82.7 82.9 83.0
Day-time DBP
BP 50th 72.3 72.3 72.2 72.1 72.1 72.1 72.1 72.1 72.2 72.3 72.6 72.8 73.1 73.4
percentile 75th 76.5 76.4 76.3 76.2 76.0 76.0 75.9 75.9 76.0 76.2 76.5 76.8 77.2 77.5
90th 80.2 80.1 79.9 79.7 79.5 79.4 79.3 79.3 79.4 79.7 80.0 80.5 80.9 81.3
95th 82.4 82.2 82.0 81.8 81.5 81.4 81.2 81.2 81.3 81.7 82.1 82.6 83.1 83.6
99th 86.5 86.2 85.9 85.6 85.2 85.0 84.8 84.8 85.0 85.4 86.0 86.6 87.3 87.9
Night-time DBP
BP 50th 54.3 54.8 55.1 55.5 55.8 56.0 56.2 56.2 56.3 56.5 56.7 56.9 57.1 57.3
percentile 75th 57.6 58.2 58.8 59.2 59.6 59.9 60.1 60.2 60.2 60.3 60.5 60.6 60.8 60.9
90th 60.7 61.4 62.1 62.7 63.2 63.5 63.7 63.8 63.8 63.9 63.9 64.0 64.1 64.2
95th 62.6 63.4 64.2 64.8 65.4 65.8 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.2
99th 66.2 67.2 68.2 69.0 69.7 70.1 70.4 70.4 70.3 70.3 70.2 70.1 70.0 69.9
24-h MAP
BP 50th 77.5 78.1 78.7 79.3 79.9 80.5 81.1 81.7 82.3 83.1 83.9 84.7 85.5 86.3
percentile 75th 81.8 82.4 83.0 83.5 84.1 84.6 85.2 85.9 86.6 87.3 88.1 89.0 89.8 90.7
90th 86.3 86.7 87.2 87.6 88.0 88.5 89.1 89.7 90.3 91.1 91.9 92.7 93.5 94.3
95th 89.3 89.6 89.9 90.2 90.5 90.9 91.4 91.9 92.6 93.3 94.0 94.8 95.6 96.4
99th 95.9 95.7 95.5 95.4 95.4 95.6 95.9 96.3 96.7 97.4 98.0 98.7 99.4 100.1
I. Macumber and J.T. Flynn
Height (cm)
120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185
Day-time MAP
BP 50th 83.8 84.1 84.3 84.5 84.7 85.0 85.4 85.8 86.4 87.1 88.0 89.0 90.0 91.0
percentile 75th 88.5 88.7 88.9 89.0 89.1 89.4 89.6 90.1 90.7 91.6 92.6 93.7 94.9 96.1
90th 92.9 93.0 93.1 93.1 93.1 93.2 93.4 93.8 94.5 95.4 96.5 97.7 99.0 100.3
95th 95.6 95.6 95.6 95.5 95.5 95.5 95.7 96.0 96.7 97.7 98.8 100.1 101.4 102.8
99th 101.0 100.7 100.5 100.2 99.9 99.7 99.8 100.1 100.8 101.7 102.9 104.3 105.7 107.1
Night-time MAP
BP 50th 66.8 67.6 68.3 69.0 69.6 70.1 70.6 71.2 71.9 72.7 73.6 74.5 75.4 76.2
percentile 75th 71.0 71.9 72.7 73.4 73.9 74.4 74.9 75.4 76.0 76.8 77.6 78.3 79.1 79.8
90th 75.9 76.6 77.3 77.9 78.3 78.6 78.9 79.2 79.7 80.3 80.9 81.5 82.1 82.7
95th 79.5 80.0 80.5 80.9 81.2 81.3 81.4 81.5 81.9 82.3 82.8 83.3 83.8 84.3
99th 88.4 88.1 87.8 87.6 87.2 86.7 86.3 86.0 86.0 86.1 86.3 86.5 86.8 87.0
Normal values for ambulatory blood pressure (mmHg) for girls by height
Height (cm)
120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175
24-h SBP
BP percentile 50th 104.0 105.0 106.0 106.8 107.6 108.7 109.9 111.2 112.4 113.7 115.0 116.4
75th 108.2 109.3 110.3 111.2 112.1 113.2 114.6 115.9 117.0 118.0 119.2 120.4
90th 112.0 113.2 114.3 115.3 116.2 117.4 118.7 120.0 121.0 121.8 122.8 123.8
95th 114.3 115.6 116.7 117.7 118.7 119.9 121.2 122.5 123.3 124.1 124.9 125.8
99th 118.8 120.1 121.3 122.4 123.4 124.6 126.0 127.1 127.7 128.2 128.8 129.3
Day-time SBP
(continued)
233
234
Height (cm)
120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175
24-h SBP
BP percentile 50th 110.0 110.5 111.0 111.6 112.2 113.1 114.3 115.6 117.0 118.3 119.8 121.2
75th 114.4 115.0 115.7 116.3 117.0 118.1 119.4 120.7 121.9 123.1 124.2 125.3
90th 118.2 119.0 119.7 120.4 121.3 122.5 123.9 125.2 126.4 127.3 128.1 128.9
95th 120.4 121.3 122.1 122.9 123.8 125.1 126.5 127.9 129.1 129.8 130.5 131.0
99th 124.5 125.5 126.4 127.4 128.5 129.9 131.5 133.0 134.0 134.5 134.8 135.0
Night-time SBP
BP percentile 50th 95.0 95.7 96.4 96.9 97.5 98.1 98.9 100.0 101.1 102.2 103.4 104.6
75th 99.4 100.3 101.2 101.9 102.6 103.4 104.4 105.5 106.4 107.3 108.2 109.2
90th 103.3 104.4 105.5 106.5 107.5 108.5 109.5 110.5 111.2 111.8 112.4 113.1
95th 105.6 106.9 108.1 109.3 110.4 111.6 112.7 113.6 114.1 114.4 114.8 115.3
99th 109.8 111.5 113.1 114.7 116.2 117.7 118.9 119.5 119.6 119.4 119.3 119.4
BP percentile 50th 65.9 65.9 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.3 66.5 66.7 67.0 67.4 68.0 68.6
75th 68.6 68.9 69.2 69.5 69.8 70.1 70.4 70.6 70.7 71.0 71.3 71.6
90th 70.9 71.4 71.9 72.4 72.9 73.4 73.8 74.0 74.1 74.2 74.4 74.5
95th 72.2 72.8 73.4 74.1 74.7 75.3 75.7 76.0 76.1 76.2 76.2 76.2
99th 74.6 75.3 76.2 77.1 77.9 78.7 79.3 79.7 79.9 79.9 79.9 79.7
Day-time DBP
BP percentile 50th 73.2 72.8 72.4 72.1 71.8 71.7 71.8 72.0 72.4 73.1 73.9 74.8
75th 76.9 76.6 76.4 76.2 76.1 76.1 76.1 76.2 76.4 76.8 77.3 77.8
90th 80.1 79.9 79.8 79.8 79.7 79.8 79.9 79.9 79.9 80.0 80.2 80.5
95th 81.9 81.8 81.8 81.8 81.9 82.0 82.0 82.0 82.0 81.9 82.0 82.0
99th 85.3 85.3 85.4 85.6 85.8 85.9 86.0 85.9 85.7 85.4 85.2 84.9
Height (cm)
120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175
24-h SBP
Night-time DBP
BP percentile 50th 55.4 55.3 55.1 54.8 54.6 54.4 54.3 54.4 54.6 54.9 55.1 55.4
75th 59.5 59.5 59.4 59.3 59.1 58.9 58.8 58.7 58.8 58.9 61.0 59.3
90th 63.1 63.3 63.4 63.4 63.3 63.1 63.0 62.9 62.9 62.9 66.9 63.1
95th 65.2 65.5 65.7 65.8 65.8 65.7 65.6 65.5 65.5 65.5 70.8 65.5
99th 69.1 69.6 70.1 70.4 70.6 70.8 70.8 70.7 70.7 70.6 79.0 70.4
24-h MAP
BP percentile 50th 77.2 77.8 78.3 78.7 79.2 79.7 80.2 80.8 81.5 82.3 83.1 84.0
75th 80.6 81.2 81.8 82.4 82.9 83.5 84.1 84.7 85.3 85.9 86.6 87.4
90th 83.6 84.2 84.9 85.5 86.1 86.7 87.3 87.9 88.4 88.9 89.5 90.1
95th 85.3 86.0 86.7 87.4 88.0 88.6 89.2 89.7 90.2 90.6 91.1 91.7
99th 88.5 89.2 89.9 90.6 91.3 91.9 92.5 93.0 93.3 93.6 94.0 94.5
Day-time MAP
BP percentile 50th 83.3 83.7 84.0 84.1 84.3 84.5 84.9 85.5 86.2 87.0 88.0 88.9
75th 87.4 87.9 88.2 88.5 88.7 88.9 89.3 89.8 90.3 90.9 91.6 92.2
90th 90.9 91.5 91.9 92.2 92.4 92.7 93.0 93.4 93.7 94.1 94.5 94.9
95th 92.9 93.6 94.0 94.4 94.6 94.9 95.1 95.4 95.6 95.8 96.1 96.4
99th 96.6 97.4 97.9 98.3 98.6 98.8 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.1
Night-time MAP
(continued)
235
236
Height (cm)
120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175
24-h SBP
BP percentile 50th 68.0 68.2 68.4 68.5 68.7 69.0 69.3 69.8 70.4 71.2 72.0 72.8
75th 72.6 72.7 72.9 73.0 73.2 73.5 73.9 74.3 74.8 75.4 76.1 76.9
90th 76.8 76.9 77.0 77.2 77.4 77.7 78.0 78.3 78.6 79.1 79.6 80.3
95th 79.5 79.4 79.6 79.7 79.9 80.2 80.4 80.6 80.8 81.2 81.6 82.2
99th 84.6 84.4 84.5 84.6 84.8 85.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 85.3 85.6
Normal values for ambulatory blood pressure (mmHg) for boys by age
Age (years)
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
24-h SBP
BP percentile 50th 104.6 105.5 106.3 107.0 107.7 108.8 110.4 112.6 115.1 117.8 120.6 123.4
75th 109.0 110.0 111.0 111.9 112.8 114.1 115.9 118.2 120.9 123.7 126.5 129.4
90th 113.4 114.7 115.8 116.8 117.9 119.2 121.2 123.7 126.4 129.3 132.1 134.9
95th 116.4 117.7 118.9 120.0 121.1 122.5 124.6 127.1 129.9 132.7 135.5 138.2
99th 122.7 124.1 125.4 126.6 127.7 129.2 131.4 134.0 136.9 139.5 142.0 144.5
Day-time SBP
BP percentile 50th 111.1 111.5 111.9 112.2 112.6 113.4 114.9 117.0 119.5 122.3 125.3 128.2
75th 115.7 116.3 116.8 117.3 117.9 118.8 120.5 122.9 125.6 128.5 131.5 134.6
90th 120.1 120.9 121.6 122.2 122.9 124.0 125.9 128.4 131.2 134.2 137.3 140.4
95th 122.9 123.8 124.6 125.3 126.1 127.3 129.3 131.8 134.7 137.7 140.8 143.9
99th 128.5 129.6 130.6 131.5 132.3 133.7 135.8 138.6 141.5 144.4 147.4 150.4
Night-time SBP
Age (years)
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
BP percentile 50th 95.0 95.5 96.1 96.7 97.3 98.1 99.4 101.2 103.4 105.8 108.3 110.9
75th 99.2 100.2 101.1 102.0 102.9 103.9 105.3 107.1 109.3 111.9 114.4 116.9
90th 103.4 104.9 106.2 107.5 108.5 109.6 111.0 112.8 115.0 117.5 120.0 122.5
95th 106.3 108.0 109.6 111.0 112.1 113.2 114.6 116.3 118.6 121.0 123.4 125.9
99th 112.3 114.6 116.7 118.4 119.6 120.7 121.9 123.4 125.5 127.8 130.1 132.3
24-h DBP
BP percentile 50th 65.3 65.7 66.1 66.3 66.5 66.6 66.9 67.2 67.4 67.7 68.1 68.6
75th 68.8 69.3 69.6 69.9 70.0 70.2 70.5 70.8 71.0 71.4 71.8 72.3
90th 72.2 72.6 73.0 73.2 73.3 73.4 73.7 74.0 74.3 74.6 75.1 75.6
95th 74.4 74.8 75.1 75.2 75.3 75.4 75.7 75.9 76.2 76.6 77.0 77.5
99th 78.9 79.0 79.1 79.1 79.1 79.1 79.3 79.6 79.9 80.2 80.7 81.3
Day-time DBP
BP percentile 50th 72.2 72.4 72.5 72.5 72.3 72.1 72.0 72.0 72.2 72.5 73.0 73.5
75th 75.9 76.1 76.3 76.4 76.2 76.0 76.0 76.0 76.2 76.5 77.0 77.6
90th 79.1 79.3 79.7 79.8 79.7 79.5 79.5 79.5 79.7 80.0 80.6 81.3
95th 81.0 81.3 81.6 81.8 81.7 81.5 81.5 81.6 81.7 82.1 82.8 83.5
99th 84.5 84.8 85.2 85.5 85.4 85.3 85.3 85.4 85.6 86.1 86.8 87.7
Night-time DBP
BP percentile 50th 55.0 55.3 55.5 55.7 55.8 55.8 55.9 56.0 56.3 56.5 56.8 57.1
75th 58.5 59.1 59.5 59.8 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.1 60.3 60.5 60.7 60.9
90th 62.3 63.2 63.8 64.2 64.3 64.2 64.1 64.1 64.1 64.2 64.3 64.3
95th 65.1 66.1 66.8 67.1 67.1 66.9 66.7 66.5 66.5 66.5 66.4 66.4
99th 71.6 72.7 73.5 73.5 73.2 72.6 71.9 71.4 71.1 70.8 70.6 70.3
(continued)
237
238
Age (years)
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
24-h MAP
BP percentile 50th 77.4 77.9 78.7 79.3 79.7 80.2 80.8 81.7 82.7 83.8 85.1 86.4
75th 81.4 81.9 82.7 83.4 83.8 84.3 85.0 85.9 86.9 88.0 89.3 90.5
90th 85.5 86.0 86.8 87.4 87.9 88.3 88.9 89.7 90.6 91.6 92.7 93.9
95th 88.3 88.7 89.5 90.0 90.4 90.8 91.3 91.9 92.7 93.7 94.7 95.7
99th 94.3 94.6 95.1 95.4 95.6 95.7 95.8 96.2 96.7 97.3 98.1 98.9
Day-time MAP
BP percentile 50th 83.5 84.1 84.5 84.8 84.9 85.0 85.3 85.9 86.8 88.0 89.4 90.8
75th 87.5 88.2 88.8 89.2 89.4 89.5 89.9 90.6 91.5 92.7 94.2 95.7
90th 91.3 92.1 92.8 93.3 93.5 93.7 94.0 94.7 95.6 96.8 98.3 99.8
95th 93.6 94.5 95.3 95.8 96.1 96.2 96.5 97.1 98.0 99.2 100.6 102.1
99th 98.2 99.2 100.1 100.7 101.0 101.0 101.2 101.6 102.4 103.4 104.7 106.1
Night-time MAP
BP percentile 50th 66.7 67.7 68.6 69.2 69.7 70.0 70.5 71.2 72.1 73.1 74.0 74.9
75th 70.5 71.7 72.8 73.5 74.1 74.5 75.0 75.6 76.4 77.2 78.0 78.6
90th 74.7 76.0 77.2 78.1 78.6 78.9 79.3 79.7 80.3 80.8 81.3 81.7
95th 77.6 79.0 80.2 81.1 81.6 81.8 82.0 82.3 82.6 82.9 83.2 83.4
99th 84.1 85.7 86.9 87.6 87.8 87.7 87.4 87.1 86.9 86.8 86.6 86.4
Normal values for ambulatory blood pressure (mmHg) for girls by age
Age (years)
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
24-h SBP
Age (years)
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
BP percentile 50th 102.8 104.1 105.3 106.5 107.6 108.7 109.7 110.7 111.8 112.8 113.8 114.8
75th 107.8 109.1 110.4 111.5 112.6 113.6 114.7 115.7 116.7 117.6 118.4 119.2
90th 112.3 113.7 115.0 116.1 117.2 118.2 119.2 120.2 121.2 121.9 122.6 123.2
95th 114.9 116.4 117.7 118.9 120.0 121.1 122.1 123.0 123.9 124.5 125.0 125.6
99th 119.9 121.5 123.0 124.3 125.5 126.5 127.5 128.4 129.0 129.5 129.7 130.0
Day-time SBP
BP percentile 50th 108.4 109.5 110.6 111.5 112.4 113.3 114.2 115.3 116.4 117.5 118.6 119.6
75th 113.8 114.9 115.9 116.8 117.6 118.5 119.5 120.6 121.7 122.6 123.5 124.3
90th 118.3 119.5 120.6 121.5 122.4 123.3 124.3 125.3 126.4 127.2 127.9 128.5
95th 120.9 122.2 123.3 124.3 125.2 126.2 127.2 128.2 129.2 129.9 130.4 130.9
99th 125.6 127.1 128.4 129.6 130.6 131.7 132.7 133.7 134.5 135.0 135.2 135.4
Night-time SBP
BP percentile 50th 94.8 95.6 96.2 96.8 97.5 98.2 99.0 99.7 100.5 101.3 102.0 102.9
75th 100.2 101.1 101.8 102.5 103.2 104.0 104.7 105.2 105.8 106.3 106.8 107.3
90th 105.3 106.3 107.2 108.0 108.8 109.5 110.1 110.4 110.7 110.9 111.0 111.2
95th 108.4 109.6 110.6 111.5 112.3 113.0 113.5 113.6 113.7 113.6 113.5 113.5
99th 114.5 116.0 117.3 118.4 119.3 119.9 120.1 119.8 119.4 118.8 118.2 117.8
24-h DBP
BP percentile 50th 65.5 65.6 65.8 65.9 66.0 66.2 66.4 66.6 67.0 67.2 67.5 67.7
75th 68.9 69.1 69.2 69.3 69.5 69.8 70.0 70.4 70.8 71.1 71.2 71.4
90th 72.1 72.2 72.3 72.4 72.6 72.9 73.2 73.7 74.1 74.4 74.6 74.7
95th 74.0 74.1 74.2 74.2 74.4 74.7 75.1 75.6 76.1 76.4 76.6 76.7
99th 77.6 77.6 77.6 77.6 77.7 78.0 78.4 79.1 79.7 80.1 80.4 80.5
(continued)
239
240
Age (years)
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Day-time DBP
BP percentile 50th 72.6 72.6 72.4 72.2 72.0 71.8 71.8 72.1 72.4 72.8 73.2 73.5
75th 76.7 76.6 76.5 76.3 76.0 75.9 75.9 76.2 76.5 76.8 77.0 77.2
90th 80.2 80.2 80.0 79.8 79.5 79.3 79.4 79.6 80.0 80.2 80.3 80.3
95th 82.3 82.2 82.1 81.8 81.5 81.3 81.4 81.6 82.0 82.2 82.2 82.1
99th 86.1 86.0 85.8 85.5 85.2 85.0 85.0 85.3 85.6 85.7 85.6 85.4
Night-time DBP
BP percentile 50th 56.4 55.9 55.5 55.1 54.8 54.6 54.3 54.2 54.3 54.5 54.9 55.3
75th 61.1 60.6 60.1 59.7 59.4 59.2 58.9 58.7 58.7 58.7 58.8 59.1
90th 65.6 65.1 64.6 64.1 63.8 63.7 63.4 63.1 62.9 62.8 62.8 62.8
95th 68.5 67.9 67.4 66.9 66.6 66.5 66.2 65.9 65.6 65.4 65.3 65.2
99th 74.2 73.6 72.9 72.4 72.2 72.0 71.8 71.4 71.1 70.7 70.3 70.0
24-h MAP
BP percentile 50th 77.5 78.0 78.4 78.8 79.2 79.6 80.2 80.9 81.5 82.2 82.7 83.0
75th 81.2 81.7 82.1 82.5 82.9 83.3 84.0 84.7 85.4 86.0 86.5 86.8
90th 84.6 85.0 85.4 85.7 86.1 86.5 87.1 87.9 88.6 89.2 89.7 89.9
95th 86.6 87.0 87.3 87.6 87.9 88.3 88.9 89.7 90.5 91.0 91.5 91.7
99th 90.5 90.8 90.9 91.0 91.2 91.6 92.2 93.0 93.7 94.2 94.6 94.8
Day-time MAP
Age (years)
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
BP percentile 50th 83.7 83.9 84.0 84.1 84.2 84.4 84.7 85.2 85.9 86.5 87.1 87.7
75th 88.2 88.3 88.4 88.4 88.4 88.5 88.9 89.4 90.1 90.8 91.4 91.9
90th 92.2 92.2 92.2 92.1 92.0 92.1 92.4 93.0 93.6 94.3 94.8 95.4
95th 94.6 94.5 94.4 94.2 94.1 94.2 94.4 95.0 95.6 96.2 96.8 97.3
99th 99.0 98.7 98.5 98.2 97.9 97.9 98.1 98.6 99.2 99.7 100.2 100.7
Night-time MAP
BP percentile 50th 68.7 68.8 68.8 68.8 68.9 69.1 69.3 69.6 70.1 70.6 71.2 71.8
75th 73.0 73.1 73.1 73.2 73.4 73.6 73.8 74.1 74.5 74.9 75.4 75.9
90th 76.9 77.0 77.1 77.2 77.4 77.6 77.8 78.0 78.3 78.6 78.9 79.3
95th 79.2 79.4 79.6 79.7 79.8 80.1 80.2 80.3 80.5 80.7 80.9 81.2
99th 83.8 84.1 84.2 84.3 84.5 84.6 84.7 84.6 84.6 84.6 84.6 84.7
241
Table 12.2 Classification of BP in children and adolescents based on casual and ambulatory
BP measurements
Mean Ambulatory SBP or DBP
Classification Office BP [1] SBP or DBP [2, 3] Load [3, 4] (%)
Normal BP <90th percentile <95th percentile <25
White coat hypertension ≥95th percentile <95th percentile <25
Prehypertension ≥90th percentile or >120/80 <95th percentile ≥25
Masked hypertension <95th percentile >95th percentile ≥25
Ambulatory (sustained) >95th percentile >95th percentile 25–50
hypertension
Severe ambulatory >95th >95th percentile >50
hypertension
a
Based on the Fourth Report [12]
b
Based on the pediatric ABPM values in Table 12.2
c
For either the wake or sleep period of the study, or both
d
For patients with elevated load but normal mean ABPM and office BP that is either normal
(<90th percentile) or hypertensive (>95th percentile), no specific ABPM classification can be
assigned based on current evidence and expert consensus. These “unclassified” patients should
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the etiology of hypertension and the
absence or presence of other cardiovascular risk factors
ABPM recommendations, as well as addressed concerns regarding those older

recommendations.
The 2008 AHA statement suggested using the following classification for BP in
pediatric patients based on office and ambulatory BP: normotensive, white coat
hypertensive, masked hypertensive, prehypertensive, and ambulatory hypertensive
[11]. The 2008 AHA statement also recommended including severe ambulatory
hypertension and discussed issues with diastolic hypertension, nocturnal hyperten-
sion, mean arterial pressure, and uncategorized patients [11]. These recommenda-
tions are summarized in Table 12.2. It should be noted that classification of pediatric
ambulatory BP differs from adult BP classification in a variety of ways: adult BP
categories are defined by fixed BP levels and not BP percentiles, there is no prehy-
pertension category in adults, and BP loads up to 30 % are considered normal While
these differences largely reflect expert opinion, the AHA classification scheme has
found widespread acceptance in both clinical and research use of ABPM in children
and adolescents.
Prehypertension, Ambulatory Hypertension, and Severe

Ambulatory Hypertension
In a child without any other major comorbidities, a mean ambulatory BP ≥90th

percentile or >120/80 mmHg, and <95th percentile with elevated BP loads ≥25 %
is considered prehypertensive. There is currently a lack of data regarding clinical
outcomes in children with ABPM-diagnosed prehypertension, although, at least one
study has found increased LVM and arterial stiffness in prehypertensive children
compared to normotensive children [17], and experts in pediatric hypertension

believe it represents a higher risk state.
Ambulatory hypertension is defined as mean SBP or DBP >95th percentile with
a BP load of ≥25 and <50 %. Patients with BP loads >50 % are considered to have
severe ambulatory hypertension. Sustained hypertension diagnosed by ABPM has
been shown to correlate more strongly with LVM than casual BPs [18]. Pediatric
hypertension based on ABPM values is also correlated with vascular damage such
as increased carotid intimal-media thickness [19] and renal damage defined as
increased prevalence of microalbuminemia [20]. Clinical outcomes in specific
patient populations are discussed in further detail later in this chapter.
White Coat Hypertension and Masked Hypertension
White coat hypertension (WCH) is a condition in which casual BPs are ≥95th per-
centile, but ambulatory BP <95th percentile with less than 25 % BP load. Although
home or self-measured BP can theoretically be used to help identify patients with
WCH, in children this condition is best diagnosed with ABPM. WCH has higher
prevalence in obese patients and in patients less than 12 years old [21] and while the
overall pediatric prevalence is unknown, estimates have ranged from 10 to 60 %
[22], with one recent retrospective study finding a prevalence of 30 % [23]. Patients
with WCH have higher LVM [24] and increased risk of progressing to ambulatory
hypertension than controls. At least one study found target-organ-damage preva-
lence similar to that in children with confirmed sustained hypertension [23]. These
patients therefore require follow-up with repeat ABPM to monitor their status.
Masked hypertension is essentially the inverse of WCH, with casual BPs below
the 95th percentile, but ambulatory BP greater than the 95th percentile with ≥25 %
BP load on ABPM. The prevalence of this is unknown, but estimates have ranged as
high as 9.7 % in pediatric patients referred for hypertension evaluation [24]. As
casual BPs are normal, it is difficult to know when to evaluate for masked hyperten-
sion with ABPM. Masked hypertension may be suspected when multiple other care
providers report hypertension, the patient has risk factors for hypertension such as
renal disease or obesity, or when there is other evidence of potential hypertension
based on elevations in LVMI. Masked hypertension has been associated with
increased LVH in pediatric populations [11, 24], as well as increased risk of
progression to sustained ambulatory hypertension [25]. As with WCH, ABPM is
considered the gold standard for the evaluation of masked hypertension.
Isolated Diastolic Hypertension
The 2014 AHA statement recognized that some children have isolated diastolic
hypertension and incorporated DBP into their ambulatory BP classification [2].
While the clinical significance of this is not entirely clear, it appears that diastolic
hypertension may be associated with underlying secondary causes of hypertension

[26] and the presence of it may signal the need for further workup to determine the
cause of the hypertension. As alluded to earlier, there are some difficulties, however,
in interpreting diastolic BPs using ABPM. Due to their ease of use, most ABPM
machines used in pediatrics use the oscillometric technique, which has been shown
to be less accurate measuring DBP than SBP [27]. However, as previously stated, it
is thought that the normative data for DBP by Wühl et al. is high, and DBP readings
above 95th percentile given from that data would certainly be considered hyperten-
sive by most practitioners, especially in younger children.
Nocturnal Hypertension and 3Nocturnal Dipping
Isolated nocturnal hypertension has significant prognostic implications for patients

with a variety of other medical conditions, which will be discussed in more detail
later. In adults, it has been shown to be the single best BP parameter predictive of
cardiovascular disease [28]. The clinical significance in otherwise healthy pediatric
patients is not known, but given the significant effects in adults and in specific pedi-
atric populations, the authors of the 2014 AHA statement recommend that isolated
nocturnal hypertension be treated as masked hypertension [2].
Adequate nocturnal dipping is defined as a decrease from mean awake SBP and
DBP of at least 10 % to sleep SBP and DBP. Inadequate nocturnal dipping is defined
as decrease of less than 10 %. Much like with nocturnal hypertension, inadequate
nocturnal dipping has been shown to have prognostic value for specific populations
of pediatric patients, such as those with diabetes [29], although its clinical signifi-
cance in nondiabetic children is unclear. There have been racial disparities seen with
nocturnal dipping, with African Americans having higher sleep BPs and less noc-
turnal dipping than White children [30]. Recent unpublished data from our center
also suggests that obese children have a higher prevalence of inadequate nocturnal
dipping than lean children.
Mean Arterial Pressure
ABPM devices that use the oscillometric technique directly measure MAP and then
back-calculate to generate the SBP and DBP values. These calculated values can vary
significantly when compared to BPs obtained by manual auscultation [31]. The algo-
rithms used to calculate SBP and DBP are specific to the manufacturer, and different
devices therefore may give different results. In addition, MAP is a composite of both
SBP and DBP, making it a simpler tool than using both. Because of this, some have
questioned whether MAP may be more useful than SBP and DBP for diagnosing
hypertension in pediatrics. One recent cross-sectional study compared diagnosis of
hypertension using MAP as opposed to SBP and DBP [32]. Using a hypertension
definition of ≥95th percentile for either MAP or SBP/DBP, the authors found that the
MAP criteria identified 19 % more hypertensive patients than the SBP/DBP criteria.
However, there are few published data evaluating the prognostic value of MAP in
pediatrics. In the ESCAPE trial, therapeutic interventions based on MAP were shown
to improve outcomes in pediatric patients with CKD [33]. There are currently no
other studies in pediatric populations evaluating clinical outcomes and MAP. More
studies assessing intermediate and long-term clinical outcomes using MAP will need
to be conducted before we can recommend using it instead of SBP and DBP.
Secondary Hypertension and Special Populations
Secondary Hypertension
Secondary hypertension refers to hypertension that is caused by an identifiable,

underlying cause such as renal artery stenosis. It is much more common in children
than in adults and is therefore always a consideration when a child or teen is being
evaluated for elevated BP. There are certain signs that are potentially suggestive of
secondary hypertension such as hypertension detected in very young children,
patients with stage 2 hypertension, or in patients with clinical signs that indicate
systemic conditions [7].
ABPM can also help differentiate between primary and secondary hypertension
(see Fig. 12.1). Increased sleep SBP loads and increased awake and sleep DBP loads
Fig. 12.1 High DBP Loads in secondary hypertension. The patient was a hypertensive16-year-old
boy with one small scarred kidney. The awake DBP load was 45 % and the sleep DBP load
was 86 %
are highly specific for a secondary etiology of hypertension [26]. Decreased noctur-
nal dipping has also been associated with secondary hypertension in children [34].
As more data are generated, ABPM may become a more reliable tool for identifying
secondary hypertension and may help guide diagnostic workup. Conditions in which
ABPM may be particularly helpful are summarized in Table 12.3.
While there are no BP targets devised specifically for the management of second-
ary hypertension, some experts recommend using the 90th percentile to define
secondary hypertension in relevant patients as opposed to the 95th percentile.
The following section covers specific etiologies of secondary hypertension and the
utility of ABPM in each condition.
Diabetes
The prevalence of hypertension in adolescent type 1 diabetics in the United States

is estimated to be between 22 and 29 % [35, 36]. The 2014 ISPAD Clinical Practice
Consensus Guideline states that hypertension is a major risk factor for both micro-
and macro-vascular complications in adolescent type 1 diabetic patients and recog-
nizes the role that ABPM has in managing hypertension in the pediatric diabetic
population [37]. It has been shown that early detection of diabetic nephropathy and
hypertension in diabetics significantly decreases the risk of progressing to end-stage
renal failure [37]. While hypertension is known to increase cardiovascular disease
in adults, there are currently few data in children on cardiovascular morbidity or
mortality in relation to hypertension. One recent study, however, found that elevated
BP loads detected on ABPM in children with type 1 diabetes were associated with
Table 12.3 Conditions in which ABPM may be particularly helpful

Condition Relevance of ABPM Benefit
Secondary Elevated load, abnormal ABPM results may indicate higher
hypertension dipping variability likelihood for secondary causes
Diabetes mellitus Elevated load, abnormal Tighter BP control may limit
(Types 1 and 2) dipping variability development of diabetic nephropathy,
retinopathy
Chronic kidney disease Prevalence of HTN, Tighter BP control may delay CKD
masked HTN progression
Dialysis BP loads, Masked HTN Better correlation with target organ
damage than pre/post-dialysis BPs
Renal transplant Masked HTN, abnormal Tighter BP control may delay graft loss
circadian variation
White coat and masked Can only be diagnosed on Patient may not require extensive
HTN ABPM diagnostic testing
Treatment of patients Response to interventions Better BP control may improve outcome
with HTN
increased B-type natriuretic peptide and abnormal tissue Doppler echocardiography

indices, indicating early-stage cardiac dysfunction [38]. In adolescents, nocturnal
hypertension is especially associated with the development of diabetic nephropathy
and other signs of end-organ damage such as increased carotid intimal thickness
[29, 39]. These patients also have estimated prevalence of 10 % and 32 % for
masked hypertension and white coat hypertension, respectively. It is also estimated
that between 24 and 42 % of type 1 diabetic children have non-dipping status [36].
Type 2 diabetes in youth has been consistently shown to run a greater risk of cardio-
vascular complications than type 1 diabetes including hypertension, microalbuminuria,
diabetic nephropathy, and mortality [37, 40]. In fact, up to 50 % of children diagnosed
with type 2 diabetes under the age of 18 will develop end-stage renal disease within 20
years of their diagnosis. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the role of
hypertension in the progression of kidney disease. While it is well-documented that
hypertension increases progression of CKD in adult type 2 diabetics, one large pediat-
ric study did not find any association with risk of renal disease and hypertension, and
in fact found that prescription of renin angiotensin aldosterone inhibitors was a major
risk factor for renal failure [41]. The Improving Renal Complications in Adolescents
with Type 2 Diabetes Through Research (iCARE) Cohort Study [42] is a large, pro-
spective cohort study that is currently examining a variety of risk factors for albumin-
uria and progression of CKD in adolescent type 2 diabetes patients, including
hypertension diagnosed by ABPM, and hopefully will shed more light on the role of
ABPM in the management of children with type 2 diabetes.
Chronic Kidney Disease
Hypertension in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD)is recognized as a risk

factor for worse cardiovascular outcomes as well as progression to end-stage renal
disease. 24-h ABPM has proven to be superior to clinic BP measurements and at
least equivalent to other home BP measurement methods for monitoring hyperten-
sion in children with CKD [43]. Increased BP variability in patients with CKD,
thought to be due to sympathetic nervous system overactivity [44], has been shown
to increase risk of end-organ damage and cardiovascular events. Recent evidence
from the Chronic Kidney Disease in Children (CKiD) Study found that children
with CKD and hypertension had significantly increased BP variability and signifi-
cantly decreased heart rate variability compared to CKD patients without hyperten-
sion [45]. This is an important finding which suggests that treatment strategies to
control sympathetic nervous system overactivity should be utilized in hypertensive
children with CKD.
BP goals in children with CKD are still being evaluated. Citing data from the
“Effect of Strict Blood Pressure Control and ACE Inhibition on the Progression of
CRF in Pediatric Patients” (ESCAPE Trial) [46] from the European Society of
Hypertension notes that strict BP control to 24-h MAP below the 50th percentile
may increase 5-year renal survival [47]. Similar outcomes have been shown when
24-h BP mean by ABPM is kept below the 75th percentile, and renal survival is
worse when 24-h ambulatory BP mean is greater than the 90th percentile. It should
be noted, however, that ABPM may not be universally available, and clinicians may
need to rely upon casual BP readings to make treatment decisions. The casual BP
value that is equivalent to a 24-h MAP value is unknown, making it hard to translate
the ESCAPE findings into clinical practice. Nonetheless, given the strength of the
ESCAPE trial findings, it is recommended that caregivers aim for stricter BP con-
trol, at least less than the 90th percentile, when treating patients with CKD.
End-Stage Renal Disease and Dialysis
It is estimated that 40 % of mortality in children on maintenance hemodialysis in the

United States is secondary to cardiovascular causes [48]. Given this, it is essential
that BPs are accurately assessed and hypertension aggressively treated in this patient
population. Many children on dialysis have their BPs assessed by pre- or post-
dialysis recordings. However, these BP measurements may be inaccurate and have
poor test–retest reliability [49]. ABPM has proven more sensitive and specific
method and provides a more comprehensive BP profile than pre- and post-dialysis
BPs for diagnosing hypertension and improves the predictability of BP as a risk fac-
tor for target organ damage [49]. Dialysis patients with elevated BP loads diagnosed
by ABPM were more likely to have LVH and non-dipping status than patients with-
out elevated BP loads. It has been recommended that ABPM become the standard
for monitoring BPs in patients on dialysis [49]. More recent data suggests that 48-h
ABPM may be even more effective than 24-h ABPM for diagnosing daytime and
nighttime hypertension, decreased dipping, and assessing risks for elevated LVMI
in intermittent hemodialysis patients [50].
Kidney Transplant
ABPM is a critical tool for assessing BPs in pediatric patients after renal transplan-
tation (see Fig. 12.2). Ambulatory hypertension affects a significant percentage
(potentially a majority) of pediatric patients who receive kidney transplants, and
abnormalities on ABPM in these patients are associated with LVH and other target
organ damage [8]. In addition, there is increased incidence of masked hypertension
and abnormal circadian variation in BP, including sleep hypertension and blunted
and reversed BP dipping, which requires ABPM for diagnosis [8]. Optimal BP
treatment guided by repeat ABPM decreases target organ damage [51], increases
stable graft function compared to those that remain hypertensive [52], and decreases
proteinuria (a marker of chronic allograft nephropathy).
Fig. 12.2 Severe nocturnal hypertension in a renal transplant recipient. The patient was a 7-year-
old boy 6 months following renal transplant. The sleep BP loads were 100 % for SBP and 95 % for
DBP; SBP dipping was 6.7 % and DBP dipping was 14 %. He was also hypertensive while awake,
although BP loads were not as high as while asleep
Conclusion
ABPM has proven to be an effective method of measuring BP in the pediatric popu-

lation. It is better correlated with clinical outcomes such as left ventricular hypertro-
phy, eliminating observer bias and improper technique, and allowing for the
diagnosis of white coat hypertension and masked hypertension. There are some
shortcomings to using ABPM in children, such as generalizability of the available
normative data, but as more data are gathered we expect that it will be an even more
effective tool in the diagnosis and management of pediatric hypertension.
References
1. Din-Dzietham R, Liu Y, Bielo M-V, Shamsa F. High blood pressure trends in children and
adolescents in national surveys, 1963 to 2002. Circulation. 2007;116(13):1488–96.
2. Flynn JT, Daniels SR, Hayman LL, et al. Update: ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in
children and adolescents a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.
Hypertension. 2014;63(5):1116–35.
3. Ayer JG, Harmer JA, Nakhla S, et al. HDL-cholesterol, blood pressure, and asymmetric
dimethylarginine are significantly associated with arterial wall thickness in children.
Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2009;29(6):943–9.
4. Wong LJ, Kupferman JC, Prohovnik I, et al. Hypertension impairs vascular reactivity in the
pediatric brain. Stroke. 2011;42(7):1834–8.
5. Chen X, Wang Y. Tracking of blood pressure from childhood to adulthood a systematic review
and meta–regression analysis. Circulation. 2008;117(25):3171–80.
6. Juonala M, Magnussen CG, Venn A, et al. Influence of Age on associations between childhood
risk factors and carotid intima-media thickness in adulthood clinical perspective the cardiovas-
cular risk in young Finns study, the childhood determinants of adult health study, the Bogalusa
heart study, and the Muscatine study for the International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohort
(i3C) consortium. Circulation. 2010;122(24):2514–20.
7. Flynn JT, Urbina EM. Pediatric ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: indications and inter-
pretations. J Clin Hypertens. 2012;14(6):372–82.
8. Flynn JT. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring should be routinely performed after pediatric
renal transplantation. Pediatr Transplant. 2012;16(6):533–6.
9. Swartz SJ, Srivaths PR, Croix B, Feig DI. Cost-effectiveness of ambulatory blood pressure
monitoring in the initial evaluation of hypertension in children. Pediatrics.
2008;122(6):1177–81.
10. Davis ML, Ferguson MA, Zachariah JP. Clinical predictors and impact of ambulatory blood
pressure monitoring in pediatric hypertension referrals. J Am Soc Hypertens;
2014;8(9):660–7.
11. Urbina E, Alpert B, Flynn J, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in children and ado-
lescents: recommendations for standard assessment a scientific statement from the American
Heart Association Atherosclerosis, Hypertension, and Obesity in Youth Committee of the
council on cardiovascular disease in the young and the council for high blood pressure
research. Hypertension. 2008;52(3):433–51.
12. National High Blood Pressure Education Program. The fourth report on the diagnosis, evalua-
tion, and treatment of high blood pressure in children and adolescents: US Department of
Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute, National Hight Blood Pressure Education Program; 2005.
13. Winnicki M, Canali C, Mormino P, Palatini P. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring editing
criteria: is standardization needed? Am J Hypertens. 1997;10(4):419–27.
14. Jones HE, Sinha MD. The definition of daytime and nighttime influences the interpretation of
ABPM in children. Pediatr Nephrol. 2011;26(5):775–81.
15. Wühl E, Witte K, Soergel M, Mehls O, Schaefer F. Hypertension GWGoP. Distribution of 24-h
ambulatory blood pressure in children: normalized reference values and role of body dimen-
sions. J Hypertens. 2002;20(10):1995–2007.
16. Soergel M, Kirschstein M, Busch C, et al. Oscillometric twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood
pressure values in healthy children and adolescents: a multicenter trial including 1141 sub-
jects. J Pediatr. 1997;130(2):178–84.
17. Urbina EM, Khoury PR, McCoy C, Daniels SR, Kimball TR, Dolan LM. Cardiac and vascular
consequences of pre-hypertension in youth. J Clin Hypertens. 2011;13(5):332–42.
18. Sorof JM, Cardwell G, Franco K, Portman RJ. Ambulatory blood pressure and left ventricular
mass index in hypertensive children. Hypertension. 2002;39(4):903–8.
19. Lande MB, Carson NL, Roy J, Meagher CC. Effects of childhood primary hypertension on
carotid intima media thickness a matched controlled study. Hypertension. 2006;48(1):40–4.
20. Seeman T, Pohl M, Palyzova D, John U. Microalbuminuria in children with primary and
white-coat hypertension. Pediatr Nephrol. 2012;27(3):461–7.
21. Stergiou GS, Rarra VC, Yiannes NG. Changing relationship between home and office blood
pressure with increasing age in children: the Arsakeion School study. Am J Hypertens.
2008;21(1):41–6.
22. Stabouli S, Kotsis V, Zakopoulos N. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and target organ
damage in pediatrics. J Hypertens. 2007;25(10):1979–86.
23. Litwin M, Niemirska A, Ruzicka M, Feber J. White coat hypertension in children: not rare and
not benign? J Am Soc Hypertens. 2009;3(6):416–23.
24. Stabouli S, Kotsis V, Toumanidis S, Papamichael C, Constantopoulos A, Zakopoulos N. White-
coat and masked hypertension in children: association with target-organ damage. Pediatr
Nephrol. 2005;20(8):1151–5.
25. Lurbe E, Torro I, Alvarez V, et al. Prevalence, persistence, and clinical significance of masked
hypertension in youth. Hypertension. 2005;45(4):493–8.
26. Flynn JT. Differentiation between primary and secondary hypertension in children using
ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Pediatrics. 2002;110(1):89–93.
27. Skirton H, Chamberlain W, Lawson C, Ryan H, Young E. A systematic review of variability
and reliability of manual and automated blood pressure readings. J Clin Nurs.
2011;20(5‐6):602–14.
28. Hansen TW, Li Y, Boggia J, Thijs L, Richart T, Staessen JA. Predictive role of the nighttime
blood pressure. Hypertension. 2011;57(1):3–10.
30. Harshfield GA, Barbeau P, Richey PA, Alpert BS. Racial differences in the influence of body
size on ambulatory blood pressure in youths. Blood Press Monit. 2000;5(2):59–63.
31. Amoore JN. Oscillometric sphygmomanometers: a critical appraisal of current technology.
Blood Press Monit. 2012;17(2):80–8.
32. Šuláková T, Feber J. Should mean arterial pressure be included in the definition of ambulatory
hypertension in children? Pediatr Nephrol. 2013;28(7):1105–12.
33. Wuehl E, Trivelli A, Picca S, et al. Strict blood-pressure control and progression of renal fail-
ure in children. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(17):1639–50.
34. Seeman T, Palyzová D, Dušek J, Janda J. Reduced nocturnal blood pressure dip and sustained
nighttime hypertension are specific markers of secondary hypertension. J Pediatr.
2005;147(3):366–71.
35. Duncan GE, Li SM, Zhou X-H. Prevalence and trends of a metabolic syndrome phenotype
among US adolescents, 1999–2000. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(10):2438–43.
36. Šuláková T, Janda J, Černá J, et al. Arterial HTN in children with T1DM—frequent and not
easy to diagnose. Pediatr Diabetes. 2009;10(7):441–8.
37. Donaghue KC, Wadwa RP, Dimeglio LA, et al. Microvascular and macrovascular complica-
tions in children and adolescents. Pediatr Diabetes. 2014;15 Suppl 20:257–69.
38. Kır M, Cetin B, Demir K, et al. Can ambulatory blood pressure monitoring detect early dia-
stolic dysfunction in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus: correlations with B-type natri-
uretic peptide and tissue Doppler findings. Pediatr Diabetes. 2014.
39. Lee SH, Kim JH, Kang MJ, Lee YA, Yang SW, Shin CH. Implications of nocturnal hyperten-
sion in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2011;34(10):2180–5.
40. Ettinger LM, Freeman K, DiMartino-Nardi JR, Flynn JT. Microalbuminuria and abnormal
ambulatory blood pressure in adolescents with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Pediatr.
2005;147(1):67–73.
41. Dart AB, Sellers EA, Martens PJ, Rigatto C, Brownell MD, Dean HJ. High burden of kidney
disease in youth-onset type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(6):1265–71.
42. Dart AB, Wicklow BA, Sellers EA, et al. The improving renal complications in adolescents
with type 2 diabetes through the research (iCARE) Cohort Study: rationale and protocol. Can
J Diabetes. 2014;38(5):349–55.
43. Wühl E, Hadtstein C, Mehls O, Schaefer F. Home, clinic, and ambulatory blood pressure
monitoring in children with chronic renal failure. Pediatr Res. 2004;55(3):492–7.
44. Flynn J, Woroniecki R. Pathophysiology of hypertension. In: Avner ED, Harmon WE, Niaudet
P, editors. Pediatric nephrology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004.
p. 1154–77.
45. Barletta G-M, Flynn J, Mitsnefes M, et al. Heart rate and blood pressure variability in children
with chronic kidney disease: a report from the CKiD study. Pediatr Nephrol.
2014;29(6):1059–65.
46. Wühl E, Mehls O, Schaefer F, (eds.) (2008). Nephroprotection by intensified blood pressure
control: final results of the ESCAPE-trial. Journal of Hypertension. Lippincott Williams &
Wilkins: Philadelphia.
47. Lurbe E, Cifkova R, Cruickshank JK, et al. Management of high blood pressure in children
and adolescents: recommendations of the European Society of Hypertension. J Hypertens.
2009;27(9):1719–42.
48. Lilien MR, Groothoff JW. Cardiovascular disease in children with CKD or ESRD. Nat Rev
Nephrol. 2009;5(4):229–35.
49. Chaudhuri A, Sutherland SM, Begin B, et al. Role of twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pres-
sure monitoring in children on dialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011;6(4):870–6.
50. Haskin O, Wong CJ, McCabe L, Begin B, Sutherland SM, Chaudhuri A. 44-h ambulatory
blood pressure monitoring: revealing the true burden of hypertension in pediatric hemodialysis
patients. Pediatr Nephrol. 2014;30(4):653–60.
51. Balzano R, Lindblad YT, Vavilis G, Jogestrand T, Berg UB, Krmar RT. Use of annual ABPM,
and repeated carotid scan and echocardiography to monitor cardiovascular health over nine yr
in pediatric and young adult renal transplant recipients. Pediatr Transplant.
2011;15(6):635–41.
52. Seeman T, Šimková E, Kreisinger J, et al. Improved control of hypertension in children after
renal transplantation: Results of a two-year Interventional Trial. Pediatr Transplant.
2007;11(5):491–7.
Chapter 13
in Special Populations: During Pregnancy
Ramón C. Hermida and Diana E. Ayala
Introduction
Hypertensive complications in pregnancy are associated with increased risk of both

adverse fetal/neonatal outcomes, including preterm birth, intrauterine growth retar-
dation (IUGR), and perinatal death, as well as maternal outcomes, including acute
renal or hepatic failure, antepartum and postpartum hemorrhage, and even death
[1–3]. Hypertensive complications in pregnancy range from hypertension alone
(gestational hypertension [GH]) through proteinuria and multiorgan dysfunction
(preeclampsia [PE]) to seizures (eclampsia) [4]. Reported rates of GH and PE vary
substantially, ranging from 4 to 15 % and 2 to 5 %, respectively [5–7]. However,
these rates might well underestimate actual ones [8], since the rather large variation
in reported prevalence is likely due to under-ascertainment and/or misclassification
of GH and PE [8–10]. Furthermore, since the majority of cases of GH and PE are
typically diagnosed at term, the increasing trend of early elective delivery contrib-
utes to additional underestimation of their prevalence [11].
Many of the physiologic changes of PE are essentially a reversal of those that
accompany a healthy pregnancy, i.e., absence of normal increase in plasma volume,
elevation of blood pressure (BP), increase of peripheral vascular resistance, and
R.C. Hermida, Ph.D. (*) • D.E. Ayala, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D.

Bioengineering and Chronobiology Laboratories, Atlantic Research Center for
Information and Communication Technologies (AtlantTIC), University of Vigo,
Vigo (Pontevedra) 36310, Spain

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-22771-9_13
254 R.C. Hermida and D.E. Ayala
decrease (insufficiency) of aldosterone concentration [12]. Even though the exact

cause of PE is unknown, several mechanisms have been suggested, including
enhanced sensitivity to vasopressors, abnormal maternal immunologic reaction,
and imbalance of vasoactive prostaglandin (thromboxane A2 and prostacyclin) con-
centrations, resulting in small arteries vasoconstriction, platelet activation, and
uteroplacental insufficiency [12–15]. Maternal risk factors for GH and PE include
nulliparity, advanced age, multiple births, diabetes, chronic hypertension, obesity,
previous or family history of PE, different father and/or ≥10 years since last preg-
nancy, renal disease, and circulating antiphospholipid antibodies [3, 5, 6, 16–18].
Decreased risk of GH and PE has been associated with placenta previa, summer
births, daily low-dose aspirin (particularly when ingested daily at bedtime and com-
mencing early in pregnancy) and calcium supplementation, and BP-lowering and
glucose-lowering medications to control, respectively, hypertension and diabetes
[3, 16, 19–24].
Several clinical, biochemical, and biophysical tests have been applied to pre-
dict development of GH or PE later in pregnancy, but with inconsistent and usu-
ally rather low specificity and sensitivity [25]. Because an elevated BP after
20-week gestation is common to the definition of both GH and PE [4, 26], sev-
eral studies [27–30] have assessed if these complications may be predicted on
the basis of office cuff BP measured during conventional antenatal visits. Clinic
BP values, however, have several shortcomings: they are representative of only
a very small fraction of the 24-h BP profile, usually under circumstances that
may have pressor effect, and the technique is fraught with potential errors,
including instrument defects and poor examiner technique [31]. Not surprisingly,
several investigators have found office BP measurements to be neither diagnostic
nor sufficiently predictive of the development of hypertension in pregnancy
[8, 9, 32–35], showing both disappointing sensitivity, as low as 9 % [36], and
positive predictive value, as low as 8 % [29]. Nonetheless, the diagnosis of GH
continues to rely on conventional clinic BP measurements that are interpreted
relative to fix threshold values, i.e., 140/90 mmHg for systolic (SBP)/diastolic
BP (DBP) after 20-week gestation [4, 26]. These reference thresholds for clinic
BP measurements, the same one used to diagnose essential hypertension in non-
gravid women [37], are applied independently of gestational age at the time of
BP measurement.
Ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) has been suggested as a logical approach to
overcoming many of the shortcomings and uncertainties associated with clinical BP
measurement in pregnancy [8, 9, 33, 34, 38–40]. Indeed, multiple studies have eval-
uated the potential prognostic value of ABPM for the early detection of GH and PE
[40–53]. However, many ABPM-based studies evidence the same kind of method-
ological deficiency as clinic BP-based ones: most investigators reporting on the
potential prognostic value of ABPM failed to take into account gestational age at the
time of measurement on their findings [41, 42, 45, 49, 50], thus disregarding the
predictable changes in BP level that occur throughout gestation.
13 Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Special Populations: During Pregnancy 255
Predictable BP Trends during Gestation in Healthy

and Complicated Pregnancies
Noninvasive around-the-clock ABPM investigations have documented predictable

differences in ambulatory BP between clinically healthy and hypertensive pregnant
women during the course of gestation [38, 54, 55]. Hermida et al. [55] conducted a
prospective ABPM study on 403 (207 nullipara) untreated Spanish pregnant women.
Among them, 235 remained normotensive, 128 developed GH, and 40 developed
PE. The SBP and DBP of each pregnant woman were automatically assessed every
20 min between 07:00 and 23:00 h and every 30 min during the night for 48 con-
secutive hours at the time of recruitment (usually within the first trimester of preg-
nancy), and thereafter every 4 weeks until delivery. A 48-h, instead of the most
common 24-h, monitoring was chosen to improve reproducibility of results, as pre-
viously demonstrated both in nonpregnant [56] and pregnant women [57].
In normotensive pregnancies, ambulatory BP steadily decreases until the middle
of gestation and then increases only slightly until delivery (Fig. 13.1, top). In con-
trast, women who develop GH or PE exhibit a stable SBP and DBP during the first
half of pregnancy and thereafter a continuous linear and significantly greater
increase until delivery (Fig. 13.1, bottom) [55]. According to these findings, the
ABPM-derived 48-h SBP/DBP means during the first trimester of pregnancy
already differ significantly between women who will remain normotensive through-
out pregnancy and those who will later develop hypertensive complications. At the
14th week of gestation, the 48-h SBP/DBP means of women who developed GH or
PE were significantly greater—115/67 mmHg—than of those who had a healthy
normotensive pregnancy—103/60 mmHg. Differences in the 48-h SBP/DBP means
between healthy and complicated pregnancies can be observed, therefore, quite
before the actual clinical diagnosis of GH or PE is made, typically in the third tri-
mester of pregnancy. The results of this study on women systematically sampled by
48-h ABPM throughout gestation not only confirm the predictable gestation-stage-
dependent BP variation, but provide proper information to establish both around-
the-clock and gestational-age-dependent reference limits for SBP and DBP [58],
essential for the early identification of women at risk for developing hypertensive
complications later in pregnancy [8, 9, 33, 34, 38, 59].
Circadian BP Patterns in Normotensive and Hypertensive

Pregnant Women
An importantadvantage of around-the-clock ABPM is thorough description and

quantification of the mostly predictable 24-h BP variation that results from the inter-
relationship of various internal and external time-of-day influences: (1) rest/activity-
associated changes in behavior (including activity routine and level, meal timings
Fig. 13.1 Variation of the 48-h SBP mean throughout gestation in normotensive pregnancies (top;
1408 ABPM profiles of 48-h duration obtained from 235 women) and women who developed
either GH (bottom; 800 ABPM profiles from 128 women) or PE (bottom; 222 ABPM profiles from
40 women). Updated from [55]
and content, mental stress, and posture); (2) day–night divergence in ambient tem-
perature, humidity, and noise; and (3) circadian (~24 h) rhythms in neuroendocrine,
endothelial, BP-modulating peptide, and hemodynamic parameters, e.g., plasma
noradrenaline and adrenaline (autonomic nervous system), atrial natriuretic and
calcitonin gene-related peptides, and renin, angiotensin, and aldosterone
(renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system) [60–62]. Such 24-h BP variability also

characterizes clinically healthy pregnant women and those who develop GH or PE
[9, 36, 38, 63–66]. Many reports indicate alteration in the 24-h BP pattern during
gestation can be used either to predict PE or to assess its severity [8, 9, 33, 34, 66].
However, few studies have reported on the normal 24-h BP pattern in uncompli-
cated pregnancies [47, 50, 67], most of them without comparison to complicated
pregnancies, an issue only occasionally addressed [9, 36, 38, 49, 63–65]. By the use
of ABPM, several authors have found reduced BP decline during sleep in women
with PE [9, 38, 63–65], whereas others even reported a reversed circadian BP pat-
tern towards higher sleep-time than awake-time mean BP associated with PE [66,
68, 69]. A major limitation of most of the latter studies is that they have usually been
conducted during the last stages of pregnancy. Moreover, they were not specifically
designed to assess if ABPM might, indeed, be used to predict GH and PE.
Normal 24-h BP values in pregnancy have been established by several ABPM
trials, including one involving a primigravid population of 98 women sampled at
five different gestational ages [47], and a second one involving 235 normotensive
pregnant women systematically sampled every 4 weeks from early in the first tri-
mester of pregnancy until delivery, as described in the previous section, and that
also provided comparison with the 24-h BP pattern of complicated pregnancies [38,
58, 65]. Figure 13.2presents the 24-h pattern of SBP (left) and DBP (right) assessed
by 48-h ABPM per trimester of pregnancy for clinically healthy normotensive
women and those who developed GH or PE. BP data were pooled over an idealized
single 24-h span to simplify graphic presentations.
A statistically significant increased 48-h SBP/DBP mean was documented in
pregnancies complicated with GH or PE compared to uncomplicated pregnancies in
all three trimesters (p always <0.001). Differences in the hourly BP means between
normotensive and hypertensive women were also statistically significant at all cir-
cadian times and in each trimester of gestation, even after correcting for multiple
testing (Fig. 13.2). No differences (p > 0.108) were detected during the first trimes-
ter of pregnancy in the 48-h SBP/DBP means between women who later developed
GH versus PE. The 48-h SBP/DBP means of normotensive pregnant women were
statistically lower in the second as compared to the first trimester (p < 0.001) in
keeping with the documented trends of BP variation with increasing gestational age
(Fig. 13.1). In the second trimester, there was statistically significant difference in
the 48-h SBP/DBP means (p = 0.002/0.038) between the two groups of women who
subsequently developed GH and PE [65]. Panel C of Fig. 13.2, for women sampled
by 48-h ABPM during their third trimester of pregnancy, shows larger between-
groups differences than those documented for the first and second trimesters of
pregnancy (panels A and B of Fig. 13.2, respectively). BP slightly increased from
the second to the third trimester in normotensive pregnancies, up to values equiva-
lent to those obtained in the first trimester for the same women. In women who
developed GH or PE, BP increased greatly from the second to the third trimester, the
increase in BP being greater for women who developed PE versus GH (Fig. 13.1).
Accordingly, during the third trimester, the difference in 48-h SBP/DBP means
between the GH and PE groups was statistically significant (p < 0.001).
Fig. 13.2 24-h pattern of SBP (left) and DBP (right) of normotensive pregnancies (continuous
line) and women who developed GH or PE (dashed line) sampled by 48-h ABPM. Each graph
shows hourly means and standard errors of data for each group of pregnant women. Dark shading
along lower horizontal axis of graphs denotes the average hours of nighttime sleep across the
sample. Panel A: Women evaluated during the first trimester of pregnancy (<14 weeks gestation).
Panel B: Women evaluated during the second trimester of pregnancy (14–27 weeks gestation).
Panel C: Women evaluated during the third trimester of pregnancy (≥27 weeks gestation). Updated
from [65]
Fig. 13.2 (continued)
The results depicted in Fig. 13.2 indicate statistically significant differences in

ambulatory BP between healthy and complicated pregnancies that are detectable as
early as the first trimester of pregnancy; nonetheless, at this stage of gestation, both
SBP and DBP for women with a later diagnosis of GH and PE were still well within
the currently accepted, but as discussed below, outdated, normal physiologic BP
range [65]. Despite this available information, the diagnosis of hypertension in
pregnancy based on ABPM [51] has frequently relied on the very same reference
thresholds established for the diagnosis of essential hypertension, i.e., 130/80
mmHg for the 24-h SBP/DBP means [37]. These reference thresholds have several
shortcomings for use in pregnancy, as documented in the following section.
24-h BP Patterns in Men, Nonpregnant Women,

and Pregnant Women
Apart from the predictable changes in BP with gestational age (Fig. 13.1), epide-
miologic studies report significant sex differences in BP and heart rate [59, 70–73].
Typically, men exhibit lower heart rate and higher BP than women, the differences
being larger for SBP than DBP [39, 71]. These differences become apparent during
adolescence and remain significant until 55–60 years of age [74]. Results from a
recent large long-term prospective study on cardiovascular and cerebrovascular
morbidity and mortality of subjects evaluated by periodic, at least annually, 48-h
ABPM reveal the outcome-based 48 h SBP/DBP reference thresholds for the diag-
nosis of hypertension to be 10/5 mmHg lower for women than men [72].
Fig. 13.3 24-h SBP pattern of clinically healthy normotensive men (Group 1: 643 individuals)
and normotensive nonpregnant women (Group 2: 504 individuals), normotensive pregnant women
(Group 3: 546 ABPM profiles from 235 women), and women who developed GH or PE (Group 4:
412 ABPM profiles from 168 women) sampled by 48-h ABPM during the second trimester of
pregnancy (14–27 weeks gestation). Each graph shows hourly means and standard errors of data
for each group of subjects. Dark shading along lower horizontal axis of graphs denotes the average
hours of nighttime sleep across the subject sample. Updated from [38]
The sex differences in BP regulation are illustrated in Fig. 13.3, which presents,
first, the 24-h SBP pattern of 643 clinically healthy young-adult men and 504 non-
pregnant normotensive women, 18–40 years of age [71]. Data of these 1147 normo-
tensive subjects, matched by age, ethnicity, and, to the extent possible, body weight
and height to the population of pregnant women that provided data for Figs. 13.1
and 13.2, were obtained using the same sampling scheme, i.e., ABPM performed
every 20 min from 07:00 to 23:00 h and every 30 min during the night for 48 con-
secutive hours. Figure 13.3 also illustrates the 24-h BP pattern of normotensive
pregnant women and those who developed GH or PE evaluated by 48-h ABPM
during the second trimester of gestation. Figure 13.3 documents: (1) ambulatory
SBP is significantly higher in young-adult normotensive men than similarly aged
nonpregnant normotensive women (p < 0.001); (2) as previously demonstrated [65],
ambulatory SBP during the second trimester of gestation is significantly diminished

in women having normotensive pregnancies compared to ones later complicated
with GH or PE (p < 0.001), although these differences between healthy and compli-
cated pregnancies can already be observed during the first trimester of pregnancy
(Fig. 13.2, panel A); (3) ambulatory SBP is significantly lower in normotensive
pregnant women than in normotensive nonpregnant women (p < 0.001), as a conse-
quence of the diminished BP during the second trimester of gestation in healthy
pregnancies (Figs. 13.1 and 13.2); (4) ambulatory SBP is significantly higher in
women who developed GH or PE evaluated during the second trimester of gestation
than in normotensive women, either pregnant or nonpregnant (p < 0.001); and (5)
ambulatory SBP is fully equivalent in clinically healthy normotensive men and in
pregnant women who developed GH or PE when sampled during the second trimes-
ter of pregnancy (p = 0.187).
Although Fig. 13.3, as an example, presents data from pregnant women sampled
during their second trimester of gestation, the conclusions are similar for the same
women sampled by 48-h ABPM before 14 weeks gestation, i.e., during the first
trimester [36, 38, 64, 65]. These significant differences in ambulatory BP that are
expressed several months before the diagnosis of GH or PE cannot be established
by clinic BP measurements until very late in pregnancy, well within the third trimes-
ter. Of additional significant clinical relevance is the finding that the detected 48-h
SBP/DBP means, which differ between healthy and complicated pregnancies by
~12/7 mmHg, still fall below the threshold limits currently accepted for the diagno-
sis of hypertension in pregnancy [4, 26]. Until recently [39], knowledge of the
diminished BP of nongravid women as compared to men plus the decrease in BP
during the second half of gestation in normotensive pregnant women was not taken
into account when establishing reference BP thresholds for the diagnosis of hyper-
tension in pregnancy, whether based either on unreliable clinic BP measurements
[4, 26] or the more reproducible ambulatory ones [37]. The unfortunate conse-
quence of reliance upon the currently accepted thresholds established for clinic BP
and ABPM measurements is high risk of misdiagnosis, i.e., gestational normoten-
sion when, in actuality, it should be GH.
24-h BP Mean for Diagnosis of Hypertension in Pregnancy
In chronic essential hypertension, the correlation between BP level and target organ
damage, cardiovascular disease risk, and long-term prognosis is greater for ABPM
than clinic BP measurement [75–77]. Accordingly, several investigators have
attempted to extrapolate these advantages of ABPM to the diagnosis of hyperten-
sion in pregnancy and prediction of pregnancy outcome. As in essential hyperten-
sion, the most common approach for diagnosing hypertension in pregnancy has
been reliance on the ABPM-derived 24-h BP mean. However, previous studies have
reported inconsistent 24-h BP mean threshold reference values for the diagnosis of
GH that only occasionally have been tested prospectively [42, 78]. Moreover, there
is considerable controversy regarding the comparative prognostic value of the

awake versus asleep BP means for the prediction of complications in pregnancy [43,
44, 47, 49].
A large number of studies have addressed the utility of the 24-h BP mean to pre-
dict GH and/or PE, often with significant deficiencies and limitations [38]. For
example, Kyle et al. [49] investigated the usefulness of the second trimester 24-h
BP mean as a screening test for predicting the development of hypertension later in
pregnancy. They reported the awake SBP mean was elevated at 18 and 28 weeks
gestation in women who subsequently developed “preeclampsia,” defined by them
as women with an increase in clinic DBP of ≥25 mmHg during gestation or clinic
DBP ≥90 mmHg, independent of SBP or proteinuria, which differs greatly from
how it is currently defined [4, 26]. The first criterion—a fixed increase in clinic
SBP/DBP throughout gestation—has been eliminated from the current definition of
GH [26], and the second criterion, totally disregarding SBP and proteinuria for the
proper definition of PE, is inaccurate and thus of very low prognostic value [8, 9, 33,
40, 51]. Despite the significant difference in BP detected between the compared
groups, the best predictive BP parameter of the study by Kyle et al. [49] was mean
arterial BP ≥85 mmHg at 28 weeks gestation, providing sensitivity of 65 %, speci-
ficity of 81 %, and positive predictive value of 31 % for the improperly defined
“preeclampsia.” Daytime and nighttime BP means were of similar predictive value.
Penny et al. [51] used a threshold value of 135/85 mmHg for the 24-h SBP/DBP
means to assess the ability of ABPM to predict development of severe hypertension
(clinic SBP/DBP measurements ≥160/110 mmHg), proteinuria, birth weight < third
percentile for gestational age, preterm delivery, and admission of the newborn to the
neonatal intensive care unit. The authors justified their conceptual approach on the
invalid claim that the 135/85 mmHg thresholds for the 24-h SBP/DBP means,
greater than the ones of 130/80 mmHg currently used for non-pregnant women [37],
are comparable to the 140/90 mmHg thresholds commonly used for clinic SBP/
DBP. Moreover, as described above, such threshold values established independent
of gestational age ignore the reported predictable BP changes that occur throughout
pregnancy (Fig. 13.1). Despite all these major limitations, the authors concluded
that a 24-h BP mean >135/85 mmHg in the second half of pregnancy is a signifi-
cantly better predictor than conventional office BP values ≥140/90 mmHg for the
development of cuff-substantiated severe hypertension.
Bellomo et al. [42] also evaluated the prognostic value of ABPM in pregnancy
using reference thresholds of 125/74 mmHg, 128/78 mmHg, and 121/70 mmHg for
the 24 h, awake, and asleep SBP/DBP means, respectively, in women sampled on
just one occasion during their third trimester of pregnancy. These investigators
reported that the 24-h BP mean is superior to clinic BP measurements obtained at
the same time during the third trimester of gestation for prediction of pregnancy
outcome.
Brown et al. [43] reported 70 % sensitivity to predict later detection of either GH
or PE by clinic BP defined by the thresholds of ≥140/90 mmHg, when using a fixed
non-varying by gestational age cutoff value of 62 mmHg for the asleep DBP mean
obtained from ABPM done between 18- and 30-week gestation. They also sug-
gested fixed threshold values of 115 mmHg for the 24-h SBP mean and 106 mmHg
for the asleep SBP mean were predictive of later GH or PE, but again with relatively
low sensitivities, 77 % and 54 %, respectively. In actuality, this research study
describes the potential ability of the highly reproducible ABPM to predict the poorly
reproducible clinic BP ≥140/90 mmHg threshold later in pregnancy.
Higgins et al. [48] applied the same questionable approach of investigating
ABPM as a potential predictor of future clinic BP measurements in pregnancy. They
studied 1048 women evaluated by 24-h ABPM at 18–24 weeks gestation. The best
overall predictor for PE was the 24-h DBP mean, which when using a fixed cutoff
threshold value of 71 mmHg provided a test with sensitivity of only 22 % and posi-
tive predictive value of only 15%.
The illustrative examples presented above highlight the limitation of relying
solely on the ABPM-derived 24-h or even awake or asleep SBP/DBP means deter-
mined early in pregnancy to predict later development of GH or PE defined exclu-
sively in terms of clinic BP and the thresholds of ≥140/90 mmHg. ABPM is
unquestionably of higher prognostic value than conventional clinic BP measure-
ments. However, due to poor results from the diagnostic test based only on the basis
of the 24-h BP mean—namely the identification by ABPM of women who might or
might not show elevated clinic BP later in pregnancy—the most extended, in our
opinion wrong and unjustified, conclusion in the obstetric field so far is that ABPM
is not a suitable tool for the early identification of GH or PE, and therefore should
not be used in pregnancy [48].
The findings of studies entailing a different approach of utilizing ABPM-derived
data by Hermida & Ayala [32], in contrast, clearly substantiate the ability of ABPM
to predict early in pregnancy the risk of GH and PE. They performed a study on 113
pregnant women sampled for 48 h every 4 weeks from the first obstetric examina-
tion until delivery, thus providing 759 ABPM profiles in total, to assess the sensitiv-
ity and specificity of the 48-h BP mean per trimester of pregnancy in identifying
hypertensive complications. This was accomplished by comparing distributions of
the 48-h BP mean values of both healthy and complicated pregnancies, without
assuming an a priori threshold for the diagnosis of GH based on mean BP [32].
Sensitivity ranged from 32 % for DBP in the second trimester to 84 % for SBP in
the third trimester. Specificity, however, was as low as 7 % for the first trimester
DBP. Results from this study revealed the threshold values for the 48-h SBP/DBP
means that would eventually provide the highest combined sensitivity and specific-
ity in the diagnosis of hypertension in pregnancy are: 111/66 mmHg in the first tri-
mester of pregnancy, 110/65 mmHg in the second trimester, and 114/69 mmHg in
the third trimester (Table 13.1). The corresponding threshold values in each of the
three trimesters of pregnancy for the awake SBP/DBP means were 115/70, 115/69,
and 118/72 mmHg; and 99/58, 98/56, and 104/60 mmHg for the asleep SBP/DBP
means, respectively (Table 13.1 [32]). These apparently low values, reflecting the
predictable changes in BP during gestation in normotensive pregnant women plus
the expected diminished BP in pregnant as compared to nonpregnant women (Fig.
13.3), are fully equivalent to those proposed by other independent investigators to
define normal ABPM values in pregnancy [47, 79].
In the attempt to validate prospectively these results, Hermida & Ayala calculated
the sensitivity and specificity of the 48-h, awake, and asleep BP means for the early
identification of hypertension in pregnancy using the reference threshold values
provided above (and also in Table 13.1) when analyzing data described in Figs. 13.1
and 13.2 [78]. As an illustrative example, Fig. 13.4 represents the frequency histo-
Table 13.1 Diagnostic SBP/DBP thresholds (mmHg) for diagnosis of GH and PE based on
ABPM for pregnant women as a function of gestational agea
ABPM First trimester (<14 Second trimester (14–27 Third trimester (≥27
characteristic weeks gestation) weeks gestation) weeks gestation)
48 h mean
SBP 111 110 114
DBP 66 65 69
Awake mean
SBP 115 115 118
DBP 70 69 72
Asleep mean
SBP 99 98 104
DBP 58 56 60
a
Data from [77, 78]. Alternatively, hypertension in pregnancy might be defined as a hyperbaric
index (HBI) ≥15 mmHg × h independent of pregnancy stage (see text). The HBI is defined as total
area during the entire 24-h period of any given subject’s BP above a time-varying threshold defined
by a tolerance interval calculated as a function of gestational age [33, 34]
Fig. 13.4 Frequency distribution of 48-h (left ), awake (center ), and asleep SBP mean (right )
from normotensive (top; 546 ABPM profiles from 235 women) and hypertensive pregnant women
(bottom; 412 ABPM profiles from 168 women) sampled by 48-h ABPM during the second trimes-
ter of pregnancy (14–27 weeks gestation). The tested reference thresholds of 110, 115, and 98
mmHg for the 48-h, awake, and asleep SBP mean, respectively, are represented as thick vertical
lines in each graph. Updated from [78]
grams with the distributions of the 48-h (left), awake (center), and asleep SBP
means (right) calculated from the 958 ABPM profiles of 48 h duration obtained
from the participating pregnant women in their second trimester of pregnancy.
Comparison of the histograms of the normotensive (top) and hypertensive pregnan-
cies (bottom) does not reveal clear separation between the two populations for any
of the three mean BP values investigated. However, testing prospectively the previ-
ously established second trimester thresholds (110, 115, and 98 mmHg for the 48-h,
awake, and asleep SBP mean, respectively [32]) reveals relatively small overlap
between healthy and complicated pregnant women. Only 40 out of the 546 (7.3 %)
BP profiles representative of normotensive pregnant women in the second trimester
of gestation have a 48-h SBP mean >110 mmHg, while 362 out of the 412 (87.9 %)
profiles representative of those who later developed GH or PE show a 48-h SBP
mean above this threshold. Results are similar for the awake SBP mean (Fig. 13.4,
center), although the overlap between the distributions of values of normotensive
and hypertensive women is slightly higher for the asleep SBP mean (Fig. 13.4,
right). Results further indicate a slightly larger overlap of BP mean values between
normotensive and hypertensive women during the first trimester, and a slightly
smaller overlap of the data sampled during the third trimester. Thus, the sensitivity
and specificity of the diagnosis of hypertension in pregnancy based on mean SBP
values increase with gestational age. The sensitivity and specificity of the DBP
means according to the threshold values listed in Table 13.1 are consistently lower
than they are for the SBP means at all stages of pregnancy [78].
These findings on the prospective evaluation per trimester of the prognostic
value in pregnancy of the mean BP values derived from ABPM were additionally
compared to those obtained from clinic BP measurements on the same women. For
data obtained during the second trimester, the total overlap between normotensive
and hypertensive pregnancies was 97.7 and 98.2 % for clinic SBP and DBP, respec-
tively. Women who later developed GH or PE had during the second trimester of
pregnancy clinic SBP values as low as 100 mmHg, with only 33 out of a total of 412
SBP values (8 %) actually ≥140 mmHg. These findings thus indicate very poor
sensitivity at all stages of gestation, mainly for clinic DBP. Specificity, on the con-
trary, was very high, as just a very small proportion of women in this study, includ-
ing those with PE, showed conventional clinic BP values ≥140/90 mmHg, even
during most of their third trimester of pregnancy.
The results of this prospective trial [78] corroborate, first, the advantages of
ABPM over clinic BP values for the early identification of hypertension in preg-
nancy. Relative to the 130/80 mmHg reference thresholds for 24-h SBP/DBP means
proposed for the general population [37], the thresholds listed in Table 13.1 as a
function of gestational age reflect the previously documented [71] expected lower
BP in women as compared to men, the expected further decrease in BP in gravid as
compared to nongravid women [36, 38, 64, 65], and the predictable changes in BP
as a function of gestational age [38, 54, 55]. Results presented in Fig. 13.4 corrobo-
rate prospectively that the diagnosis of hypertension in pregnancy based on mean
BP values derived from ABPM should be established from thresholds much lower
than those currently used in clinical practice [39]. Although the sensitivity and
specificity in the diagnosis of hypertension can still be improved by the use of other
indexes derived from ABPM (for example, by the tolerance-hyperbaric test subse-
quently discussed) [8, 9, 33, 34, 38], the results of rigorously conducted studies
indicate the 48-h, awake, and asleep BP means (Fig. 13.4) provide a diagnostic test
markedly superior to clinic BP measurements, rendering ABPM a more useful tool
for the clinical evaluation and early identification of complications in pregnancy.
Early Identification of Hypertension in Pregnancy

with the Tolerance-Hyperbaric Test
The differing 24-h BP pattern between healthy and complicated pregnancies at all
gestational ages, as shown in Fig. 13.2 [36, 38, 63–65], suggests the diagnosis of
hypertension in pregnancy might be improved without reliance only on 24-h SBP/
DBP mean values that disregard information on 24-h BP variability [32], and the
use for diagnosis of a time-specified reference limit [38, 58]. Once the time-varying
threshold, given for instance by the upper limit of a time-qualified tolerance interval
derived per each hour of the activity and sleep spans [58], is available, the hyper-
baric index (HBI), as a determinant of entire 24-h BP excess, can be calculated as
the total area of any given subject’s BP above the threshold [8, 9, 33, 34, 59, 80].
The HBI as well as the duration of BP excess (percentage time of excess, defined as
the percentage time during the 24 h when the BP of the test subject exceeds the
upper limit of the tolerance interval) can then be used as nonparametric endpoints
for assessing hypertension in pregnancy. This so-called tolerance-hyperbaric test,
by which the diagnosis of hypertension is based on the HBI calculated with refer-
ence to a time-specified tolerance limit, has been shown to provide high sensitivity
and specificity for the early identification of subsequent hypertension in pregnancy
[33], thereby constituting a valuable approach for the prediction of pregnancy out-
come [8, 9]. Because the conventional assessment of GH relies on office values
≥140/90 mmHg for SBP/DBP [4, 26], results based on the determination of BP
excess have been usually expressed as a function of the maximum HBI, defined as
the maximum of the three values of HBI determined for SBP, mean arterial BP, and
DBP, respectively, for any given individual [9, 33, 34, 59, 80]. The prospective
evaluation of the reproducibility of this ABPM-based test for early identification of
complications in pregnancy was found to show a sensitivity of 93 % for women
evaluated by ABPM during their first trimester of gestation [34]. Sensitivity
improved with gestational age, as BP also increases steadily during the second half
of gestation in women who develop hypertension in pregnancy (Fig. 13.1).
Beyond the studies summarized above, several other authors have reported con-
sistent positive results when testing the ability of the HBI derived from ABPM to
predict pregnancy outcome [81–84]. Benedetto et al. [81] performed 24-h ABPM at
8–16 and 20–25 weeks gestation in 104 women at risk of GH or PE. Best sensitivity
and specificity were obtained between 20 and 25 weeks gestation with the 24-h
mean and the HBI of SBP using as cut-off values 103 mmHg (sensitivity: 88 %;
specificity: 75 %) and 10 mmHg × h (sensitivity: 70 %; specificity: 92 %), respec-
tively. The authors concluded ABPM in pregnancy allows definition of objective
cut-off values that can be particularly useful in routine clinical practice when the
risk of developing GH or PE must be calculated for each individual woman.
Shaginian [84] evaluated 34 apparently healthy pregnant women by 72-h ABPM
finding elevated HBI for SBP in the first trimester of pregnancy for the 17 women
who developed GH or PE during the second half of gestation compared to the 17
women who remained normotensive until delivery. On the contrary, Vollebregt et al.
[85] reported limited accuracy of the HBI in predicting hypertension in pregnancy
from a study of 101 women evaluated by 48-h ABPM only once in the first trimester
of gestation. Their approach, which we feel is invalid for many reasons [38], utilized
a (highly reproducible [34]) first trimester ABPM profile to predict elevated (highly
variable and poorly reproducible) clinic BP later in pregnancy. This approach, far
from novel, has been used in the past by many other obstetricians [43, 48], as briefly
discussed above. When both clinic and ambulatory BP are available, ABPM, but not
clinic BP, prevails for diagnosis. This is so because, by comparing clinic and ambu-
latory BP, one is able to distinguish groups of subjects with normotension, sustained
hypertension, isolated clinic (white coat) hypertension, and masked hypertension,
characterized by different cardiovascular risk [37, 39, 86]. The inappropriate
approach of Vollebregt et al. [85] undoubtedly included women with masked hyper-
tension in their reference population as well as in the comparative group they mis-
takenly called “normotensive women,” making invalid all conclusions drawn from
their study. Most important in terms of clinical relevance, the Vollebregt et al. study
found perinatal outcome to be more favorable for women with GH than for the ones
with normotension, which is just the opposite of what the literature in the field leads
anyone to expect.
Previous prospective studies have also documented the ability of the ABPM-
derived HBI, but not clinic BP measurements, to differentiate as early as at 20-week
gestation women who will develop PE from those who will just develop GH without
proteinuria [8, 9]. Accordingly, GH was predicted on the basis of a maximum HBI
value exceeding the relatively low specified threshold of 15 mmHg × h, while PE
was predicted by the higher HBI threshold of 65 mmHg × h [8].
Clinic versus Ambulatory BP for Diagnosis of Complications

in Pregnancy
Another prospective study [8, 9] compared the ABPM profiles and pregnancy out-
come between three groups of pregnant women evaluated by 48-h ABPM at the
time of recruitment (<16 weeks gestation), and then every 4 weeks thereafter until
delivery, namely: (1) “detected” GH, defined as clinic BP ≥140/90 mmHg after
20-week gestation plus maximum HBI consistently above the threshold for
diagnosing hypertension in pregnancy provided above (therefore classified as

hypertensive by both independent criteria); (2) “undetected” GH (i.e., masked GH),
defined as clinic BP <140/90 mmHg but HBI above the threshold for diagnosis in
each and everyone of the monthly profiles of ABPM obtained after 20-week gesta-
tion (therefore considered “normotensive” according to current obstetric guidelines
[4, 26], but in actuality considered to be hypertensive by the ABPM-derived HBI
criterion); and (3) normotension, defined as clinic BP and maximum HBI both con-
sistently below their respective diagnostic thresholds at all evaluations after 20-week
gestation. The demographic and perinatal characteristics of the investigated women
are summarized in Table 13.2.
Comparison of the 24-h BP characteristics of “detected” and “undetected”
(masked) GH for women sampled during the first trimester of pregnancy revealed
Table 13.2 Demographic and perinatal characteristics of women investigated

p value for comparison of
Three DGH vs.
Variable NT DGH UGH groups UGH
Women, n 234 62 59
ABPM profiles, n 1404 401 370
Age, years 30.4 ± 5.5 30.0 ± 4.6 30.8 ± 5.1 0.385 0.726
Weight, kg 63.1 ± 9.7 78.6 ± 17.4 69.6 ± 16.5 <0.001 0.002
Height, cm 161.8 ± 5.5 163.7 ± 7.0 162.3 ± 7.1 0.124 0.194
SBP at first visit, mmHga 119 ± 10 127 ± 10 122 ± 9 <0.001 0.012
DBP at first visit, mmHga 65 ± 7 71 ± 8 68 ± 8 <0.001 0.181
SBP at last visit, mmHga 118 ± 9 142 ± 11 133 ± 7 <0.001 <0.001
DBP at last visit, mmHga 66 ± 7 84 ± 7 79 ± 6 <0.001 <0.001
Gestational age at 39.4 ± 1.1 38.7 ± 3.4 38.8 ± 3.5 0.044 0.814
delivery, weeks
Newborn weight, g 3334 ± 447 3088 ± 634 3062 ± 653 <0.001 0.918
Delivery by cesarean 18.4 35.5 40.7 <0.001 0.715
section, %
Intrauterine growth 5.1 16.1 17.0 <0.001 0.791
retardation, %
Preterm delivery (<37 3.6 9.7 10.2 0.037 0.935
weeks), %
Newborn Apgar scoreb at:
1 min 8.8 ± 1.0 8.8 ± 0.9 8.7 ± 1.0 0.894 0.682
5 min 9.9 ± 0.4 9.9 ± 0.4 9.8 ± 0.7 0.297 0.334
10 min 10 ± 0.2 10 ± 0.1 9.9 ± 0.2 0.492 0.312
Data from [8, 9]. Values are shown as mean ± SD. NT normotension, DGH “detected” GH, UGH
“undetected” GH
a
Values correspond to the average of 3–6 clinic BP measurements obtained by a midwife nurse for
each women at the time of their first and last (before delivery) visits to the hospital
b
The Apgar score is determined by evaluating the newborn with five criteria on a scale from 0 to 2,
i.e., appearance, pulse, grimace, activity, and respiration
Fig. 13.5 24-h SBP pattern of pregnant women sampled by 48-h ABPM at different stages of
pregnancy. Women were divided for comparative purposes into three groups according to the val-
ues of clinic BP and maximum HBI at all evaluations after 20-week gestation: (1) normotensives
(N = 234), with both clinic BP and maximum HBI below diagnostic thresholds; (2) “detected” GH
(N = 62), with clinic BP ≥140/90 mmHg plus elevated HBI; “undetected” (masked) GH (N = 59),
with clinic BP <140/90 mmHg but elevated HBI. Each graph shows hourly means and standard
errors of data for each group of women. Dark shading along lower horizontal axis of graphs
denotes the average hours of nighttime sleep across the sample. Updated from [9]
only a small and nonsignificant (p = 0.056) greater 24-h SBP mean by 2.6 mmHg in
“detected” than “undetected” GH (Fig. 13.5, left panel). Differences between groups
in the 24-h DBP mean (not shown) only amounted to 0.2 mmHg (p = 0.682). The
hourly means of SBP and DBP did not differ significantly between “detected” and
“undetected” GH at any circadian time, as corroborated by t-tests adjusted for mul-
tiple testing. In the second trimester, comparisons between the groups of women
with “detected” and “undetected” GH failed to reveal any significant differences in
the 24-h SBP/DBP means (Fig. 13.5, central panel; p > 0.386). In the third trimester
of pregnancy, differences in the 24-h SBP/DBP means between “detected” and
“undetected” GH were even smaller (Fig. 13.5, right panel). Additionally, at all
stages of pregnancy, ambulatory BP was highly significantly lower in normotensive
pregnant women than in women with either “detected” or “undetected” GH
(p < .001). Moreover, average newborn weight, gestational age at delivery, plus inci-
dence of preterm delivery, IUGR, and delivery by cesarean section were similar
between the two groups of women with “detected” and “undetected” GH (Table 13.2).
There were, however, statistically significant differences in all those perinatal out-
come variables between these two GH groups and normotensive pregnant women
(Table 13.2). Results from this prospective study provide strong evidence to support
ABPM as the proper “gold standard,” instead of unreliable clinic cuff BP
measurements, for the early identification of true hypertension in pregnancy and
associated maternal and perinatal complications [8, 9].
Discussion
Although PE has generally received more attention than just hypertension in the
absence of any other symptom or complication in pregnancy, the long-term follow-
up of women with complicated pregnancies has indicated that GH is associated with
highest incidence of subsequent chronic hypertension [87]. Thus, although PE is a
more severe obstetric complication, GH may have more important long-term impli-
cations. Accordingly, following the common standard applied in most of the cited
references in this review, we focused on the identification of BP elevation in preg-
nancy, whether or not it could be later accompanied by proteinuria. As discussed
earlier, clinical studies already substantiate the ability of the HBI to differentiate to
some extent, at the end of the first half of pregnancy, women who will develop PE
from those who will develop GH [8].
Common to the current definition of all hypertensive complications in pregnancy,
independent of how PE might be defined, is the use of the fixed reference threshold
of 140/90 mmHg for conventional clinic SBP/DBP measurements obtained at the
physician’s office [4, 26, 37]. Previous results have consistently documented the
poor prognostic value of clinic BP for the early identification of hypertension in
pregnancy and prediction of pregnancy outcome [8, 9]. The ideal predictive or
diagnostic test should be simple and easy to perform, reproducible, noninvasive,
and with high sensitivity and positive predictive value. The tolerance-hyperbaric
test described above is noninvasive since it relies on ABPM. Many results summa-
rized in this review are based on ABPM assessed for 48 consecutive hours as
opposed to the most common 24 h [40–53]. As a compromise with practicability,
monitoring over at least 48 h has been shown to present advantages in the analysis
of BP variability, diagnosis of hypertension, and evaluation of patient response to
treatment [33]. Moreover, accuracy in the derivation of ABPM characteristics
(including mean BP values and HBI) depends markedly on the duration of ABPM
[56, 57]. Indeed, sampling requirements for the tolerance-hyperbaric test are not
very demanding. While results summarized in this review were obtained with BP
series sampled at 20- or 30-min intervals, the HBI can be well-estimated from data
sampled at ~2-h intervals with just marginal loss in sensitivity or specificity [57].
Although 15-min sampling for ABPM evaluation in pregnancy has been unjustifi-
ably advocated [40], a longer sampling interval increases compliance and patient
acceptability [88]. Additionally, the number of reference subjects needed for esti-
mating stable time-qualified tolerance SBP and DBP intervals is also quite small, as
previously documented [58, 89]. Finally, the tolerance-hyperbaric test provides both
high sensitivity and positive predictive value as early as in the first trimester of preg-
nancy [8, 9, 33, 34, 81–84].
Perceived limitations of ABPM stem from the fact that most ambulatory devices,
although advanced, are still expensive and most have not been properly validated
for specific application in pregnancy. Cost, however, should always be evaluated in
relation to potential benefit. Results of the prospective ABPM evaluation studies
summarized here indicate the cost–benefit relationship for ABPM is more favorable
than clinic BP measurements in pregnancy, simply because ABPM allows proper
identification of women at high risk of complications, while clinic BP does not [8,
9, 34]. Tolerability of ABPM has also been discussed as a possible limitation of its
use in pregnancy. Although compliance is usually very high [9, 33, 34], reported
patient acceptability tends to be lower [88]. Patient acceptability, a potential limita-
tion also discussed when criticizing the utilization of ABPM in general practice
[37], is in part related to the ability of the physician to provide useful and convinc-
ing information to the patient on the potential advantages of ABPM [39].
Unfortunately, despite the much higher prognostic value of ABPM than clinic
BP measurements, the most extended conclusion so far, due to poor results from the
diagnostic test when based on 24-h SBP/DBP means ≥130/80 mmHg irrespective
of gestational stage, is that ABPM does not provide a proper approach for the early
identification of GH or PE, and it should not be used in pregnancy [48]. Thus, from
this perspective, it is not surprising that the current obstetric guidelines recommend
reliance only upon clinic BP ≥140/90 mmHg after 20-week gestation to establish
the diagnosis of GH [4, 26]. However, it must be recognized that these guidelines
are obsolete because they have not been updated to acknowledge the consensus
recommendations of the European Societies of Hypertension and Cardiology, which
specifically state 24-h BP has been shown to be superior to conventional measure-
ments in predicting proteinuria, risk of preterm delivery, infant weight at birth, and
in general, outcome of pregnancy [37]. Studies summarized above claiming “poor
results” of ABPM are based on the questionable approach to test the ability of the
ABPM-derived 24-h mean to predict a diagnosis founded on unreliable clinic BP
measurements obtained later in pregnancy. Most important, the significantly lower
ambulatory BP of nongravid women as compared to men, the added decrease in
ambulatory BP during the second half of gestation in normotensive but not in hyper-
tensive pregnant women, and the 24-h pattern with large amplitude that character-
izes BP of healthy and complicated pregnant women at all gestational ages (Fig.
13.3) were not taken into account in studies providing negative results on the use of
ABPM in pregnancy. The establishment of proper reference thresholds for the 24-h
BP mean derived by taking all those considerations into account has been shown
prospectively to markedly increase the sensitivity and specificity of ABPM for the
early identification of complications in pregnancy (Fig. 13.4 [78]). Sensitivity and
specificity in the early identification of hypertension in pregnancy based on mean
BP values can be even further improved by the use of other indexes also derived
from ABPM [8, 9, 33, 34]. In particular, the tolerance-hyperbaric test represents a
reproducible, noninvasive, and highly sensitive test for the early identification of
subsequent hypertension in pregnancy, including PE.
ABPM during gestation, commencing preferably at the time of the first obstetric
check-up following positive confirmation of pregnancy, thus provides sensitive end-
points for use in early risk assessment and as a guide for establishing prophylactic
or therapeutic intervention [19–23]. Accordingly, ABPM-derived BP measurements
have been recently recommended as substitute for the unreliable clinic ones as the
“gold standard” for the diagnosis of hypertension in pregnancy and the screening of
women at high risk for additional complications, including IUGR and preterm
delivery [39].
References
1. Duley L. The global impact of pre-eclampsia and eclampsia. Semin Perinatol.

2009;33:130–7.
2. Roberts CL, Ford JB, Algert CS, et al. Population-based trends in pregnancy hypertension and
pre-eclampsia: an international comparative study. BMJ Open. 2011;1, e000101. doi:10.1136/
bmjopen-2011-000101.
3. Steegers EA, von Dadelszen P, Duvekot JJ, Pijnenborg R. Pre-eclampsia. Lancet.
2010;376:631–44.
4. Brown MA, Lindheimer MD, de Swiet M, Van Assche A, Moutquin JM. The classification and
diagnosis of the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: statement from The International Society
for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy (ISSHP). Hypertens Pregnancy. 2001;20:ix–xiv.
5. Hernández-Díaz S, Toh S, Cnattingius S. Risk of pre-eclampsia in first and subsequent preg-
nancies: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2009;338:b2255.
6. Roberts CL, Algert CS, Morris JM, Ford JB, Henderson-Smart DJ. Hypertensive disorders in
pregnancy: a population-based study. Med J Aust. 2005;182:332–5.
7. Wallis AB, Saftlas AF, Hsia J, Atrash HK. Secular trends in the rates of pre-eclampsia, eclamp-
sia, and gestational hypertension, United States, 1987–2004. Am J Hypertens.
2008;21:521–6.
8. Hermida RC, Ayala DE. Prognostic value of office and ambulatory blood pressure measure-
ments in pregnancy. Hypertension. 2002;40:298–303.
9. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Iglesias M. Circadian rhythm of blood pressure challengues office
values as the “gold standard” in the diagnosis of gestational hypertension. Chronobiol Int.
2003;20:135–56.
10. Roberts CL, Bell JC, Ford JB, Hadfield RM, Algert CS, Morris JM. The accuracy of reporting
of the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in population health data. Hypertens Pregnancy.
2008;27:285–97.
11. Koopmans CM, Bijlenga D, Groen H, et al. Induction of labour versus expectant monitoring
for gestational hypertension or mild pre-eclampsia after 36 weeks’ gestation (HYPITAT): a
multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;374:979–88.
12. Dekker GA, Sibai BM. Low-dose aspirin in the prevention of preeclampsia and fetal growth
retardation: rationale, mechanisms, and clinical trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol.
1993;168:214–27.
13. Redman CWG, Sargent IL. Pre-eclampsia, the placenta and the maternal systemic inflamma-
tory response—a review. Placenta. 2003;24:s21–7.
14. Sibai BM, Caritis S, Hauth J. What we have learned about preeclampsia. Semin Perinatol.
2003;27:239–46.
15. Walsh SW. Preeclampsia: an imbalance in placental prostacyclin and thromboxane production.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985;152:335–40.
16. Duckitt K, Harrington D. Risk factors for pre-eclampsia at antenatal booking: systematic
review of controlled studies. BMJ. 2005;330:565.
17. Saftlas AF, Levine RJ, Klebanoff MA, et al. Abortion, changed paternity, and risk of pre-
eclampsia in nulliparous women. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157:1108–14.
18. Skjaerven R, Wilcox AJ, Lie RT. The interval between pregnancies and the risk of pre-
eclampsia. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:33–8.
19. Askie LM, Duley L, Henderson-Smart DJ, Stewart LA, Collaborative Group PARIS. Antiplatelet
agents for prevention of pre-eclampsia: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet.
2007;369:1791–8.
20. Ayala DE, Ucieda R, Hermida RC. Chronotherapy with low-dose aspirin for prevention of
complications in pregnancy. Chronobiol Int. 2013;30:260–79.
21. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Iglesias M, et al. Time-dependent effects of low-dose aspirin admin-
istration on blood pressure in pregnant women. Hypertension. 1997;30:589–95.
22. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Fernández JR, et al. Administration time-dependent effects of aspirin
in women at differing risk for preeclampsia. Hypertension. 1999;34:1016–23.
23. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Iglesias M. Administration-time dependent influence of aspirin on
blood pressure in pregnant women. Hypertension. 2003;41:651–6.
24. Hofmeyr GJ, Atallah AN, Duley L. Calcium supplementation during pregnancy for preventing
hypertensive disorders and related problems. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;3, CD001059.
25. Cnossen JS, ter Riet G, Mol BW, et al. Are tests for predicting pre-eclampsia good enough to
make screening viable? A review of reviews and critical appraisal. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand.
2009;88:758–65.
26. Lindheimer MD, Taler SJ, Cunningham FG. Hypertension in pregnancy. J Am Soc Hypertens.
2008;2:484–94.
27. Miller RS, Rudra CB, Williams MA. First-trimester mean arterial pressure and risk of pre-
eclampsia. Am J Hypertens. 2007;20:573–8.
28. Nijdam ME, Janssen KJ, Moons KG, et al. Prediction model for hypertension in pregnancy in
nulliparous women using information obtained at the first antenatal visit. J Hypertens.
2010;28:119–26.
29. Page EW, Christianson R. The impact of mean arterial pressure in the middle trimester upon
the outcome of pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1976;125:740–6.
30. Villar MA, Sibai BM. Clinical significance of elevated mean arterial blood pressure in second
trimester and threshold increase in systolic or diastolic blood pressure during the third trimes-
ter. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989;160:419–23.
31. Patterson HR. Sources of error in recording the blood pressure of patients with hypertension in
general practice. BMJ. 1984;289:1661–4.
32. Hermida RC, Ayala DE. Diagnosing gestational hypertension and preeclampsia with the
24-hour mean of blood pressure. Hypertension. 1997;30:1531–7.
33. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Mojón A, et al. Blood pressure excess for the early identification of
gestational hypertension and preeclampsia. Hypertension. 1998;31:83–9.
34. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Fernández JR, Mojón A, Iglesias M. Reproducibility of the tolerance-
hyperbaric test for diagnosing hypertension in pregnancy. J Hypertens. 2004;22:565–72.
35. Peek M, Shennan A, Halligan A, Lambert PC, Taylor DJ, De Swiet M. Hypertension in preg-
nancy: which method of blood pressure measurement is most predictive of outcome? Obstet
Gynecol. 1996;88:1030–3.
36. Ayala DE, Hermida RC, Mojón A, Fernández JR, Iglesias M. Circadian blood pressure vari-
ability in healthy and complicated pregnancies. Hypertension. 1997;30:603–10.
37. Mancia G, Fagard R, Narkiewicz K, et al. 2013 ESH/ESC Guidelines for the management of
arterial hypertension: The Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the
European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).
J Hypertens. 2013;31:1281–357.
38. Ayala DE, Hermida RC. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring for the early identificaton of
hypertension in pregnancy. Chronobiol Int. 2013;30:233–59.
39. Hermida RC, Smolensky MH, Ayala DE, et al. 2013 ambulatory blood pressure monitoring
recommendations for the diagnosis of adult hypertension, assessment of cardiovascular and
other hypertension-associated risk, and attainment of therapeutic goals. Joint recommenda-
tions from the International Society for Chronobiology (ISC), American Association of
Medical Chronobiology and Chronotherapeutics (AAMCC), Spanish Society of Applied
Chronobiology, Chronotherapy, and Vascular Risk (SECAC), Spanish Society of
Atherosclerosis (SEA), and Romanian Society of Internal Medicine (RSIM). Chronobiol Int.
2013;30:355–410.
40. Shennan A, Halligan A. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in pregnancy. Fetal Maternal
Med Rev. 1998;10:69–89.
41. Bellomo G, Rondoni F, Pastorelli G, Stangoni G, Narducci P, Angeli G. Twenty four-hour
ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in women with pre-eclampsia. J Hum Hypertens.
1995;9:617–21.
42. Bellomo G, Narducci PL, Rondoni F, et al. Prognostic value of 24-hour blood pressure in
pregnancy. JAMA. 1999;282:1447–52.
43. Brown MA, Bowyer L, McHugh L, Davis GK, Mangos GJ, Jones M. Twenty-four-hour auto-
mated blood pressure monitoring as a predictor of preeclampsia. Am J Obstet Gynecol.
2001;185:618–22.
44. Brown MA, Davis GK, McHugh L. The prevalence and clinical significance of nocturnal
hypertension in pregnancy. J Hypertens. 2001;19:1437–44.
45. Churchill D, Perry IJ, Beevers DG. Ambulatory blood pressure in pregnancy and fetal growth.
Lancet. 1997;349:7–10.
46. Cugini P, Di Palma L, Battisti P, et al. Describing and interpreting 24-hour blood pressure pat-
terns in physiologic pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166:54–60.
47. Halligan A, O’Brien E, O’Malley K, et al. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure mea-
surement in a primigravid population. J Hypertens. 1993;11:869–73.
48. Higgins JR, Walshe JJ, Halligan A, O’Brien E, Conroy R, Darling MRN. Can 24-hour ambula-
tory blood pressure measurement predict the development of hypertension in primigravidae?
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104:356–62.
49. Kyle PM, Clark SJ, Buckley D, et al. Second trimester ambulatory blood pressure in nullipa-
rous pregnancy: a useful screening test for pre-eclampsia? Br J Obstet Gynaecol.
1993;100:914–9.
50. Margulies M, Voto LS, Fescina R, Lastra L, Lapidus AM, Schwarcz R. Arterial blood pressure
standards during normal pregnancy and their relation with mother-fetus variables. Am J Obstet
Gynecol. 1987;156:1105–9.
51. Penny JA, Halligan AWF, Shennan AH, et al. Automated, ambulatory, or conventional blood
pressure measurement in pregnancy: which is the better predictor of severe hypertension? Am
J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;178:521–6.
52. Tranquilli AL, Giannubilo SR, Dell’Uomo B, Corradetti A. Prediction of gestational hyperten-
sion or intrauterine fetal growth restriction by mid-trimester 24-h ambulatory blood pressure
monitoring. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004;85:126–31.
53. Waugh J, Perry IJ, Halligan AW, et al. Birth weight and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure in
nonproteinuric hypertensive pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:633–7.
54. Ayala DE, Hermida RC, Mojón A, et al. Blood pressure variability during gestation in healthy
and complicated pregnancies. Hypertension. 1997;30:611–8.
55. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Iglesias M. Predictable blood pressure variability in healthy and com-
plicated pregnancies. Hypertension. 2001;38:736–41.
56. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Fontao MJ, Mojón A, Fernández JR. Ambulatory blood pressure
monitoring: importance of sampling rate and duration—48 versus 24 hours—on the accurate
assessment of cardiovascular risk. Chronobiol Int. 2013;30:55–67.
57. Hermida RC, Ayala DE. Sampling requirements for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in
the diagnosis of hypertension in pregnancy. Hypertension. 2003;42:619–24.
58. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Mojón A, Fernández JR. Time-qualified reference values for ambula-
tory blood pressure monitoring in pregnancy. Hypertension. 2001;38:746–52.
59. Hermida RC, Mojón A, Fernández JR, Alonso I, Ayala DE. The tolerance-hyperbaric test: a
chronobiologic approach for improved diagnosis of hypertension. Chronobiol Int.
2002;19:1183–211.
60. Fabbian F, Smolensky MH, Tiseo R, Pala M, Manfredini R, Portaluppi F. Dipper and non-
dipper blood pressure 24-hour patterns: circadian rhythm-dependent physiologic and patho-
physiologic mechanisms. Chronobiol Int. 2013;30:17–30.
61. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Portaluppi F. Circadian variation of blood pressure: the basis for the
chronotherapy of hypertension. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2007;59:904–22.
62. Portaluppi F, Tiseo R, Smolensky MH, Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Fabbian F. Circadian rhythms
and cardiovascular health. Sleep Med Rev. 2012;16:151–66.
63. Benedetto C, Zonca M, Marozio L, Dolco C, Carandente F, Massobrio M. Blood pressure pat-
terns in normal pregnancy and in pregnancy-induced hypertension, preeclampsia, and chronic
hypertension. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;88:503–10.
64. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Mojón A, et al. Blood pressure patterns in normal pregnancy,
gestational hypertension and preeclampsia. Hypertension. 2000;36:149–58.
65. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Mojón A, et al. Differences in circadian blood pressure variability
during gestation between healthy and complicated pregnancies. Am J Hypertens.
2003;16:200–8.
66. Miyamoto S, Shimokawa H, Sumioki H, Touno A, Nakano H. Circadian rhythm of plasma
atrial natriuretic peptide, aldosterone, and blood pressure during the third trimester in normal
and preeclamptic pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;158:393–9.
67. Contard S, Chanudet X, Coisne D, et al. Ambulatory monitoring of blood pressure in normal
pregnancy. Am J Hypertens. 1993;6:880–4.
68. Beilin LJ, Deacon J, Michael CA, et al. Circadian rhythms of blood pressure and pressor hor-
mones in normal and hypertensive pregnancy. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 1982;9:321–6.
69. Redman C, Beilin LJ, Bonnar J. Reversed diurnal blood pressure rhythm in hypertensive preg-
nancies. Clin Sci Mol Med. 1976;51:687s–9.
70. Ben-Dov IZ, Mekler J, Bursztyn M. Sex differences in ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.
Am J Med. 2008;121:509–14.
71. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Fernández JR, Mojón A, Alonso I, Calvo C. Modeling the circadian
variability of ambulatorily monitored blood pressure by multiple-component analysis.
72. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Mojón A, Fontao MJ, Chayán L, Fernández JR. Differences between
men and women in ambulatory blood pressure thresholds for diagnosis of hypertension based
on cardiovascular outcomes. Chronobiol Int. 2013;30:221–32.
73. Vriz O, Lu H, Visentin P, Nicolosi L, Mos L, Palatini P. Gender differences in the relationship
between left ventricular size and ambulatory blood pressure in borderline hypertension. The
HARVEST study. Eur Heart J. 1997;18:664–70.
74. Wang X, Poole JC, Treiber FA, Harshfield GA, Hanevold CD, Snieder H. Ethnic and gender
differences in ambulatory blood pressure trajectories: results from a 15-year longitudinal study
in youth and young adults. Circulation. 2006;114:2780–7.
surement in predicting mortality: the Dublin outcome study. Hypertension. 2005;46:156–61.
77. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Mojón A, Fernández JR. Decreasing sleep-time blood pressure deter-
mined by ambulatory monitoring reduces cardiovascular risk. J Am Coll Cardiol.
2011;58:1165–73.
78. Hermida RC, Ayala DE. Reference thresholds for 24-hour, diurnal, and nocturnal blood pres-
sure mean values in pregnancy. Blood Press Monit. 2005;10:33–41.
79. O’Brien A, Asmar R, Beilin L, et al. European society of hypertension recommendations for
conventional, ambulatory and home blood pressure measurement. J Hypertens.
2003;21:821–48.
80. Hermida RC, Mojón A, Fernández JR, Ayala DE. Computer-based medical system for the
computation of blood pressure excess in the diagnosis of hypertension. Biomed Instrum
Technol. 1996;30:267–83.
81. Benedetto C, Marozio L, Giarola M, Chiarolini L, Maulà V, Massobrio M. Twenty-four hour
blood pressure monitoring in early pregnancy: is it predictive of pregnancy-induced hyperten-
sion and preeclampsia? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1998;77:14–21.
82. Carandente F, Angeli A, Massobrio M, et al. Blood pressure and heart rate in pregnancy: com-
parison between health and pathologic conditions. Prog Clin Biol Res. 1990;341A:575–84.
83. Cornélissen G, Kopher R, Brat P, et al. Chronobiologic ambulatory cardiovascular monitoring
during pregnancy in Group Health of Minnesota. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual IEEE
Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems. Minneapolis, MN, June 26–27;
1989;226–237.
84. Shaginian MG. Blood pressure circadian rhythms during development of hypertension in
healthy pregnant women. Georgian Med News. 2006;138:84–6.
85. Vollebregt KC, Gisolf J, Guelen I, Boer K, van Montfrans G, Wolf H. Limited accuracy of the
hyperbaric index, ambulatory blood pressure and sphygmomanometry measurements in pre-
dicting gestational hypertension and preeclampsia. J Hypertens. 2010;28:127–34.
86. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Mojón A, Fernández JR. Sleep-time blood pressure and the prognos-
tic value of isolated-office and masked hypertension. Am J Hypertens. 2012;25:297–305.
87. Marín R, Gorostidi M, Portal CG, Sánchez M, Sánchez E, Alvarez J. Long-term prognosis of
hypertension in pregnancy. Hypertens Pregnancy. 2000;19:199–209.
88. Taylor RS, Freeman L, North RA. Evaluation of ambulatory and self-initiated blood pressure
monitors by pregnant and postpartum women. Hypertens Pregnancy. 2001;20:25–33.
89. Hermida RC, Fernández JR. Computation of time-specified tolerance intervals for ambulato-
rily monitored blood pressure. Biomed Instrum Technol. 1996;30:257–66.
Chapter 14
Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Patients
with Chronic Kidney Disease
William S. Asch, Sergio F.F. Santos, and Aldo J. Peixoto
Introduction
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a growing global healthcare problem. Recently

compiled data from 18 countries worldwide indicate that the prevalence of CKD
based on an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2
often exceeds 10 % [1], and it is conceivable that this prevalence will grow further
as most of the cases of CKD occur in the setting of diabetes, hypertension, and
aging, all conditions of increasing prevalence in modern societies. CKD patients
have a significant rate of morbidity and mortality resulting in high utilization of
healthcare resources.
Hypertension (HTN) is highly prevalent in CKD, where it is estimated that up
to 80 % of patients have elevated blood pressure (BP) by the time they reach
advanced stages of kidney disease (glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min) and is
the most important factor in the progression of most chronic renal diseases.
W.S. Asch, M.D., Ph.D.

Section of Nephrology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520, USA
S.F.F. Santos, M.D., Ph.D.
Division of Nephrology, State University of Rio de Janeiro (UERJ),
Rio de Janeiro, RJ 20550-900, Brazil
A.J. Peixoto, M.D. (*)
Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Nephrology, Yale University School
of Medicine, 330 Cedar Street, New Haven, CT 06520, USA

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-22771-9_14
278 W.S. Asch et al.
HTN is also highly prevalent in dialysis [2] and kidney transplant [3] patients.
Furthermore, cardiovascular diseases are the major cause of death in any stage of
renal impairment [4]. Therefore, HTN is a major cardiovascular risk factor during
any stage of kidney disease.
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is an important tool in hyper-
tension research and clinical practice in view of its better ability to detect target
organ damage and to predict prognosis than office blood pressure measurements,
which has led some societies to recommend its use as an essential step to the diag-
nosis of hypertension [5]. Data in patients with kidney disease are still based on
comparatively smaller studies, but the literature has grown substantially in the past
decade. This chapter will review these relevant findings applicable to patients
throughout the spectrum of CKD.
ABPM and Home BP in Chronic Kidney Disease

(Stages 1–4, “Pre-Dialysis”)
Chronic kidney disease and hypertension commonly coexist. Approximately 80 %

of patients reaching stage 5 CKD (glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/1.73 m2)
have BP levels above 140/90 mmHg. CKD is currently classified according to the
degree of renal function based on estimates of glomerular filtration rate and the
presence of albuminuria or structural renal abnormalities. If the eGFR is above
60 mL/min/1.73 m2, CKD is only diagnosed if there is evidence of albuminuria or
other evidence of renal parenchymal disease (e.g., polycystic kidney disease, hema-
turia, or renal origin). The 2012 KDIGO (Kidney Disease Improving Global
Outcomes) guideline stages CKD according to eGFR as follows [6]:
Category (stage) 1—eGFR ≥90 mL/min/1.73 m2
Category (stage) 2—eGFR 60–89 mL/min/1.73 m2
Category (stage) 3a—eGFR 45–59 mL/min/1.73 m2
Category (stage) 3b—eGFR 30–44 mL/min/1.73 m2
Category (stage) 4—eGFR 15–29 mL/min/1.73 m2
Category (stage) 5—eGFR <15 mL/min/1.73 m2 (kidney failure).
The following paragraphs refer to patients with stages 1–4 CKD.
One of the most consistent findings in these patients is the prevalence of abnormal
diurnal BP profiles, with blunting of the nocturnal BP dip [7]. In a landmark study,
Baumgart et al. showed uniformly blunted circadian BP profiles in patients with
various CKD not on dialysis, patients on hemodialysis, and patients with a kidney
transplant compared with controls matched for age, sex, office systolic BP, and
presence/absence of antihypertensive drug therapy [8]. Average dipping during
sleep (SBP%/DBP%) was 7 %/11 % in CKD patients (18 % vs. 24 % in controls),
4 %/8 % in hemodialysis patients (14 % vs. 24 % in controls), and 5 %/9 % in trans-
plantation patients (13 % vs. 18 % in controls) [8]. Since then, many studies have
confirmed this trend. One of the most remarkable is the analysis of the African
American Study of Kidney Disease (AASK), which included 617 African American
14 Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease 279
Fig. 14.1 Prevalence of dipping patterns according to stage of chronic kidney disease.
Classifications defined in terms of the sleep-time relative SBP decline: ≥20 % (extreme-dipper),
10–20 % (dipper), 0–10 % (non-dipper), <0 % (riser). From Hermida et al. [11], with permission
patients with hypertensive nephrosclerosis with an average iothalamate-measured

GFR of 44 mL/min/1.73 m2. The investigators observed an 80 % combined preva-
lence of non-dipping (41 %) or reverse dipping (39 %) in this cohort [9]. Additionally,
Mojon et al. demonstrated a 61 % prevalence of non-dipping among 3227 predomi-
nantly Caucasian patients from a cohort of less advanced impairment of eGFR
(average 59 mL/min/1.73 m2) [10]. The prevalence of non-dipping, and more impor-
tantly, reverse dipping, which is associated with the highest risk of cardiovascular
events, increases as eGFR falls [11]. Figure 14.1 depicts the proportions of different
circadian BP patterns according to the stage of kidney disease.
Evaluation of Adverse Clinical Outcomes in CKD 1–4
Hypertension is a major risk factor for the progression of CKD of any etiology and
is a major risk factor for cardiovascular events and death. Because out-of-office BP
is a better predictor of target organ damage than office BP and diurnal BP changes
may add to this prediction, it was hypothesized that ABPM could be a better predic-
tor of these major adverse events in CKD. This has been evaluated using both over-
all measures of 24-h BP control and circadian BP patterns.
In a prospective study on the course of events linking BP and albuminuria in type
I diabetes, 75 young patients were followed for an average of 63 months and under-
went ABPM every two years [12]. There was an increase in nighttime BP in the
group who developed microalbuminuria, and this increase in BP preceded the

identification of albumin in the urine, raising a possible pathophysiologic link
between increase nighttime BP and albuminuria. In a logistic regression model, a
5 mmHg rise in nighttime systolic BP resulted in a 44 % increased risk of develop-
ment of albuminuria on subsequent examinations. Office BP was unable to detect
these differences, and daytime BP was less prominently changed [12]. These find-
ings pointed to the importance of the pattern of nocturnal BP to the progression of
renal abnormalities. Likewise, several small studies suggested that the rate of loss of
renal function and/or increase in proteinuria was greater in non-dipping than dipping
patients with different causes of CKD [13], diabetic nephropathy [14], and IgA
nephropathy [15]. However, more recent, larger studies have failed to corroborate the
independent importance of non-dipping in predicting CKD progression after adjust-
ments for average BP and other factors [16, 17], as discussed in detail below.
Target-Organ Dysfunction, Morbidity, and Mortality

in CKD 1–4
As in essential HTN, ambulatory BP is better than office BP to predict left ventricular

mass index in nondiabetic patients with CKD [18]. In hypertensive patients with
IgA nephropathy, left ventricular mass was significantly related to nighttime blood
pressure and “diurnal index” (% BP decline at night), but there was no relationship
with daytime BP [19]. In normotensive patients with autosomal dominant polycystic
kidney disease with normal renal function, left ventricular mass was higher as com-
pared to health control subjects. The increase in left ventricular mass index was
related to ambulatory BP. The nocturnal decrease in BP was also attenuated in poly-
cystic kidney disease patients, but it was not associated with the increased left
ventricular mass [20].
In a cross-sectional analysis of a cohort of 617 African-American patients enrolled
in AASK study, ABPM identified patients with more extensive target-organ damage
based on nighttime BP levels despite similar clinic and daytime BP [9]. When subjects
were divided according to tertiles of nighttime SBP, those in the highest tertile (night-
time SBP >142 mmHg) had significantly lower GFR (41 vs. 44 mL/min/1.73 m2 com-
pared with lowest tertile), more proteinuria (0.55 vs. 0.17 g/g creatinine), and higher
prevalence of LVH on echocardiography (81 % vs. 57 %) [9]. Such differences would
not have been captured by clinic or daytime BP, thus making it also unlikely that home
BP would have been distinctive. Another cross-sectional study of 232 male patients
with CKD has corroborated the stronger association between ABPM with proteinuria
than a standardized office BP measurement [21].
There has been progress in identifying the prognostic role of ABPM and home
BP monitoring in patients with CKD. Agarwal and Andersen enrolled 217 male
patients with CKD due to multiple etiologies, mostly diabetes and hypertension
(baseline eGFR 45 mL/min/1.73 m2), to evaluate the development of ESRD or death
according to standardized office BP or home BP [22]. After a median follow-up of
3.5 years, one standard deviation of home systolic BP (21 mmHg) was associated
with 84 % increased risk (95 % CI = 1.46–2.32) of death or progression to ESRD
after adjustments for demographic factors, office BP, and baseline proteinuria and
eGFR [22]. The point estimate of decreased risk for ESRD alone was similar (74 %,
95 % CI = 1.04–2.93). In a companion paper published shortly thereafter, the same
authors presented ABPM data for the same cohort showing that one standard devia-
tion increase in 24-h systolic BP (17 mmHg) resulted in a 62 % (95 % CI—1.21–
2.18) increase in risk of ESRD or death after adjustment for clinic BP [16]. However,
this prognostic advantage did not remain significant after adjustment for other clini-
cal factors (including age, diabetic status, and baseline proteinuria and eGFR). Of
the individual components of ABPM, only nighttime systolic BP was a significant
predictor of death and ESRD risk after multiple adjustments (hazard ratio 1.79 for
ESRD or death, 1.90 for death) [16].
In a multicenter study, Minutolo et al. enlisted 436 patients with CKD of varying
etiologies, mostly hypertension, diabetes, and tubulointerstitial diseases (baseline
eGFR 43 mL/min/1.73 m2) [23]. After 4.2 years of follow-up, only ABPM values,
not office, were associated with cardiovascular events, progression to ESRD, or
death. As noted in Fig. 14.2, there was a progressive increase in the risk of cardio-
Fig. 14.2 Risk of cardiovascular and renal events in patients with chronic kidney disease according
to office or ambulatory BP measurements. CV cardiovascular, ESRD end-stage renal disease, SBP
systolic blood pressure. BP categories for each type of measurement (based on quintiles of the
distribution): Office SBP (mmHg): <130 (reference), 130–139, 140–149, 150–159, >159. Daytime
SBP (mmHg): <118, 118–125, 126–135 (reference), 136–146, >146. Nighttime SBP (mmHg):
<106, 106–114 (reference), 115–124, 125–137, >137. Hazard ratios adjusted for age, gender, body
mass index, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hemoglobin, proteinuria, and baseline renal function.
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. Data compiled from Minutolo et al. [23]
renal outcomes with increasing levels of baseline daytime and nighttime ambulatory
BP, but not office BP. This group has recently published further data on outcomes
based on the degree of BP control in the office, on ABPM, both or neither [24].
They considered office BP as being at goal is less than 140/90 mmHg, whereas
ABPM was considered at goal if daytime BP was <135/85 mmHg and nighttime BP
was <120/70 mmHg. Among the 489 study subjects, 17 % were controlled both at
home and office, 22 % were controlled only on ABPM (i.e., a white coat effect),
15 % only in the office (i.e., a masked effect), and 47 % on neither (“uncontrolled”).
The group with a “white coat effect” had similar risk of cardiovascular events, dial-
ysis, and death as the referent group (controlled BP in both settings). Conversely,
the “masked effect” and uncontrolled groups had 2.3–3.9-fold greater risk of all
adverse outcomes than patients with controlled BP on adjusted analyses [24]. The
authors also performed several sensitivity analyses using different BP cutoffs that
provided relatively similar results.
Finally, the 5-year longitudinal analysis of 617 patients with hypertensive nephro-
sclerosis enrolled in the AASK study found ABPM to be better than office BP for
prediction of loss of renal function and cardiovascular events [17]. Both daytime and
nighttime BP remained significant predictors of cardiovascular events despite adjust-
ments for office BP and other covariates. On the other hand, ABPM values were only
associated with the composite renal endpoint (doubling of serum creatinine, ESRD
or death) in patients with controlled office BP (systolic BP <130 mmHg). The inves-
tigators postulated that because they used standardized office BP measurements, this
may have decreased the observed differences between ABPM and office BP, and that
these differences were only relevant in patients with a possible masked effect (i.e.,
those with controlled office BP). As previously mentioned, dipping status was not an
independent predictor on any outcomes in AASK [17].
In summary, similar to the general population, out-of-office BP measurements,
both ABPM and home BP, are better predictors of renal and cardiovascular outcomes
in patients with CKD. The studies, however, are not as well-powered as studies in
other hypertensive populations, and there are inconsistencies regarding the prognos-
tic value of individual ambulatory BP variables (i.e., daytime vs. nighttime vs. 24-h
average vs. dipping status).
ABPM in Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis
Blood Pressure Profile in Dialysis Patients
Hemodialysis (HD) provides a unique scenario of BP variability making ABPM a

potentially valuable diagnostic tool. Fluid gain between HD sessions, represented
by the increase in body weight, is removed by ultrafiltration. This reduction in extra-
cellular volume is usually accompanied by a fall in BP [25, 26]. The characteristic
intermittence of HD treatments and wide fluctuations of extracellular volume dur-
ing and between HD sessions produce a unique BP profile in HD patients. In
conventional, thrice weekly HD, 44-h interdialytic ABPM shows that both awake
and sleep BP increase between HD sessions [27, 28] (Fig. 14.3), and that this is not
influenced by HD shift assignment (morning or afternoon) [28]. Although interdia-
lytic fluid retention plays a major role in BP increase [29], several studies failed to
find a correlation between interdialytic weight gain and interdialytic BP [28, 30].
Most of the ABPM descriptive studies showed that non-dipping pattern is very com-
mon in HD patients; more than two thirds of patients lack the normal diurnal BP
rhythm [7]. Limited ABPM data are available in patients receiving more frequent
(daily HD) or more prolonged (nocturnal HD) regimens that usually are associated
with a better clinic BP control [31].
ABPM has been used to determine reasonable clinic BP references in HD
patients, i.e., those BPs taken before (pre-HD BP) and after (post-HD BP) HD ses-
sions that best predict interdialytic BP [32–35]. In a systematic review and meta-
analysis which included 18 studies where in-center BP and interdialytic ABPM
were available, Agarwal et al. showed that pre-dialysis BP overestimated interdia-
lytic ABPM, while on the other hand post-dialysis underestimated ABPM [33].
Although this meta-analysis raises significant concerns about the use of peri-dialysis
BP levels in clinical practice, these are still the only measurements available to most
physicians caring for HD patients. Recognizing this, we believe that pre-, post- and
intradialytic dialysis BP can be used in a qualitative manner to diagnose interdia-
lytic HTN. Agarwal and Lewis [33] have published clinic BP thresholds that have
an accuracy rate of about 80 % to predict a diagnosis of HTN on ABPM (“hyperten-
sion” defined as 44-h interdialytic BP >135/85 mmHg). The best sensitivity and
specificity are observed using pre-HD BP averages between 140 and 150/80 and
85 mmHg and post-HD BP averages between 130 and 140/70 and 80 mmHg [33].
Data from our group [32] and others [34] indicate that the best estimate of interdia-
lytic BP lies around the average of pre-HD and post-HD BP levels. Indeed, Agarwal
et al. [36] validated different indices of peri and intra-dialysis BP measurements and
showed that a median of all intradialytic BP measurements including pre and post-
dialysis BP was better reproducible and had the best accuracy and precision and the
least bias compared to interdialytic ABPM. They also proposed a median intradia-
lytic SBP of ≥140 mmHg (80 % sensitivity and 80 % specificity) and a median
intradialytic DBP of ≥80 mmHg (75 % sensitivity and 75 % specificity) as thresh-
olds for diagnosing interdialytic HTN.
Out-of-office BP (ABPM and home BP) is a useful tool to evaluate the efficacy
of HTN treatment and to explore the association between BP and interdialytic
symptoms. ABPM has been used to monitor dosing periods of antihypertensive
drugs and home BP is superior to clinic BP for the titration of antihypertensive
therapy in HD patients [37–39]. Moreover, because HD patients often have abnor-
mal intradialytic BP changes, both hypo and hypertension [40], their BP control
may be better assessed by interdialytic BP [41]. In an important paper, Battle et al.
showed that a substantial portion of HD patients have a delayed BP nadir occurring
4–6 h following HD [41]. Van Buren et al. assessed the interdialytic BP profile of
patients with intradialytic HTN (systolic BP increase >10 mmHg from pre- to
post-hemodialysis in at least four of six treatments) and compared it with control
DAY 1 DAY 2
180
170
160
SBP (mm Hg)
150
140
130
120
110
100
AWAKE SLEEP
DAY 1 DAY 2
110
105
DBP (mm Hg)
100
95
90
85
80
75
AWAKE SLEEP
DAY 1 DAY 2
80
75
70
PP (mm Hg)
65
60
55
50
45
40
AWAKE SLEEP
Fig. 14.3 Ambulatory blood pressure values on each interdialytic day during 44-h interdialytic
monitoring in hemodialysis patients. SBP systolic BP, DBP diastolic BP, PP pulse pressure,
*p < 0.05. From: Santos, S.F.F. et al. (2003) Am. J. Nephrol. 23, 96-105, with permission from
S. Karger AG, Basel
individuals who had an intradialytic BP fall. Patients with intradialytic HTN had
higher mean ambulatory SBP (both daytime and nighttime). Patients with intradia-
lytic HTN had a slight decrease in SBP in the first nocturnal period, while BP
increased in the control group. Thereafter, BP increased in both groups [42].
Agarwal and Light used ABPM to evaluate the role of volume overload in intradia-
lytic HTN. They analyzed the intradialytic BP slope at baseline and after probing
dry weight [43]. Patients who lost more weight were characterized by an intradia-
lytic rise in BP at baseline. After effective lowering of dry weight, the slope changed
to a net BP fall during HD. This observation suggests that lack of BP decline during
HD is a sign of covert volume overload.
Decisions about dialysis prescription and timing of antihypertensive drug admin-
istration can thereby be made more effectively after understanding the duration of
BP control (or even low BP) after each dialysis session. Home BP monitoring is a
valuable adjunct in this assessment [44], and we often use it in our practice.
Fluid removal in peritoneal dialysis methods is continuous, and patients do not
have large fluctuations in BP related to extracellular volume changes. Therefore,
standard methods can be used to assess BP in PD subjects, who are usually seen
monthly in the ambulatory setting. ABPM descriptive studies showed a blunted
decline in nighttime BP in peritoneal dialysis patients that is very similar to the
profile of HD patients [45, 46]. Different PD modalities (conventional ambulatory,
cycler assisted) seem to have the same diurnal BP profiles [45, 47]. Differences in
BP profile according to peritoneal transport characteristics were explored [48].
While there was substantial difference in the prevalence of HTN and average BP
levels (elevated in high and high-average transporters), there were no differences in
the diurnal BP profile among groups.
ABPM and Home BP and Target-Organ Dysfunction,

Morbidity, and Mortality in Dialysis Patients
The relationship between HTN and outcomes in dialysis patients is complex. While
high BP is associated with adverse outcomes, low BP has an even stronger associa-
tion with mortality, and the optimal levels of BP control are still uncertain for
patients on HD or peritoneal dialysis [2]. Despite this uncertainty, HTN remains a
central concern in the care of dialysis patients, and ambulatory BP measurements
have added substantially to the understanding of the relationships between BP and
outcomes in these patients.
Several cross-sectional studies have studied the relationships between office BP,
ambulatory BP, and LVH in dialysis patients. Two studies, both in patients undergo-
ing long, slow HD, showed no significant correlation between BP levels, office or
ambulatory, and LVH [49, 50]. Others have shown higher correlation coefficients
between ambulatory BP and LVH than those linking office BP and LVH in conven-
tional HD patients [26, 27, 51–54], though others have not confirmed this observa-
tion [55]. Understanding these differences is not straightforward. Study design,
echocardiographic methods, and ABPM techniques were relatively similar among

studies. It is possible that the use of a composite of many peri-dialysis readings (or
home BP readings for that matter) improves the consistency of the results in such a
way that the correlations between LVH and office BPs become indistinguishable
from the more consistent and reproducible ABPM values [55, 56]. Furthermore,
because dipping is blunted, average casual and ambulatory BPs tend to be more
similar, and differences in prediction may be minimized. One last possible factor is
that echocardiographic determination of left ventricular mass (LVM) depends on
assumptions of cardiac symmetry that are not always present in HD and is depen-
dent on the state of hydration of the patient, which inevitably fluctuates in HD
subjects. Echocardiograms underestimate LVM at low LVM values and overesti-
mate it at higher LVM values, a bias that is amplified in patients with higher
end-diastolic volumes (a possible indicator of latent volume overload) [57].
Another question that has been addressed by some investigators is whether the
circadian BP rhythm matters in the evaluation of LVH in dialysis. Amar et al. did
not observe any relationship between dipping status and echocardiographic LVH
[58], whereas other investigators have found that the degree of dipping correlates
with LVM on univariate, but not multivariate analysis [50], and that nocturnal sys-
tolic BP is the strongest predictor of posterior LV wall thickness, though not of other
indices of LVH [52]. Wang et al. showed that nocturnal systolic BP load >30 %
(% of readings above 125/80 during the night) was the only significant predictor of
LVH in a group of peritoneal dialysis patients [47]. In the only available longitudi-
nal study in dialysis, Covic et al. followed echocardiographic and ABPM changes
over 12 months and established that patients with a blunted circadian BP rhythm
had progressive LV dilatation but no other markers of LV dysfunction on follow-up
[59]. Overall, it remains uncertain whether ABPM adds to the evaluation of LVH or
if these observations bear any prognostic value to dialysis patients.
Arterial stiffness is a strong predictor of mortality in ESRD [60]. The relation-
ship between ABPM and pulse wave velocity (a marker of arterial stiffness) was
studied by Amar et al. in 42 hemodialysis patients [58]. Casual and ambulatory BP
had similar correlations with pulse wave velocity. However, non-dipper patients had
significantly higher pulse wave velocity than patients with preserved diurnal rhythm
(14.1 m/s vs. 11.5 m/s, p = 0.03). Karpetas et al. [61] performed concomitant 48-h
ABPM and pulse wave velocity measurements in a cohort of HD patients. They
observed a small increase in pulse wave velocity in the second interdialytic day.
Older age and higher ambulatory mean BP were the factors independently associ-
ated with higher pulse wave velocity [61]. Agarwal and Light [29] found that arte-
rial stiffness was associated with an overall increase in BP during the interdialytic
period, while interdialytic weight gain, which is a predictor of mortality in HD, was
associated with interdialytic increase in BP.
ABPM has been evaluated as a predictor of cardiovascular events among dialysis
patients [62–65]. In one of the larger studies, Tripepi et al. followed 168 nondiabetic
hemodialysis patients who had not sustained a previous cardiovascular event, 49 of
whom died during an average follow-up of 38 months. Patients in the highest tertile
of the night/day ratio (>1.01, i.e., reverse dippers) had an adjusted hazard ratio of
2.5 for total mortality and 4.3 for cardiovascular mortality [64]. Of relevance, blood
pressure (either daytime or nighttime) was not associated with increased mortality
risk. In the largest available study to date, Agarwal investigated a prospective cohort
of 326 HD patients followed for up to 6 years (median 29 months). Dialysis unit BP
(average of 2 weeks), home BP (thrice daily for 1 week), and 44-h ABPM were
analyzed as predictors of all-cause mortality. ABPM and home blood pressure were
similar predictors of mortality (adjusted hazard ratios for increasing quartiles of
ABPM: 2.51, 3.43, 2.62; home BP: 2.15, 1.7, 1.44), and both were better than dialy-
sis unit BP (likelihood ratio test p = 0.009). Only SBP was predictive of mortality
and mortality was lowest when home SBP was between 120 and 130 mmHg and
ABPM was between 110 and 120 mmHg [65].
In summary, ABPM and home BP are better predictors of adverse outcomes in
dialysis patients as compared to clinic BP.
Technical Issues Specific to Dialysis Patients
Dialysis patients, and more specifically those on hemodialysis, have several features
that may make BP measurement and ABPM difficult. These include the presence of
arteriovenous grafts or fistulas, which alter blood flow in the extremities, the fre-
quent changes in volume status represented by each dialysis session, and the BP
fluctuation in BP throughout the period of 48–72 h separating one dialysis session
and the next. Because of these shortcomings, particular concern exists to have
devices formally validated in these patients.
In one relevant study, Fagugli et al. monitored 44 patients during the interdialytic
period with an ABPM device that is capable of simultaneous oscillometric and aus-
cultatory measurements (A&D Takeda Tm2421) to evaluate the relative accuracy of
each technique in hemodialysis patients [66]. The oscillometric component of the
device performed better based on several measures: standard deviations of all BP’s
were lower (18.7 mmHg vs. 20.4 mmHg for systolic, 10.9 mmHg vs. 12.6 mmHg
for diastolic, both p < 0.01); coefficients of variation were also lower (14.6 % vs.
16.1 % for systolic, 14.6 % vs. 17.7 % for diastolic, both p < 0.01); and percentages
of valid BP readings were higher (94 % vs. 72 %, p = 0.001). The authors concluded
that the oscillometric method was preferable in this group of patients. No other
study has compared these two methods, but we have validated an oscillometric
device in hemodialysis patients (SpaceLabs 90207) with acceptable results [67].
The effects of arteriovenous fistulas or grafts have not been systematically
assessed. Nonetheless, in a validation protocol, we demonstrated that an oscil-
lometric device performed equally well in patients with an arteriovenous graft/
fistula as in patients with intact arms undergoing hemodialysis via a tunneled
venous catheter [67].
Fluctuations in volume status raise issues about the reproducibility of ABPM in
hemodialysis patients. To address this question, we evaluated the reproducibility of
ABPM compared with dialysis clinic BP in 21 hemodialysis patients evaluated on

average 68 days apart [68]. This study confirmed the wide BP variability in these
patients. However, despite this shortcoming, ABPM had lower coefficients of varia-
tion and tighter limits of agreement than isolated clinic readings or a composite of
readings from the week surrounding the monitoring period. We concluded that
ABPM provides more reproducible BP values in hemodialysis patients. When
unavailable, a composite of clinic readings are a suitable alternative (investigators
have used averages of 1–4 weeks), whereas isolated readings should not be used to
make any management decisions [69].
A last but important issue is the need to evaluate the entire interdialytic period
and attendant BP fluctuations. This need is compromised by the fact that, in our
experience, up to a third of patients are unable to complete a full 2-day monitoring
period. As mentioned before, home BP monitoring is a very informative and inex-
pensive technique, which has the ability to provide comparable information on BP
profile and prognosis.
ABPM in Adult Kidney Transplant Recipients
Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality follow-

ing successful kidney transplantation [70]. Furthermore, cardiovascular disease
is a significant cause of death with a functioning allograft [70–74]. Estimates
indicate that fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events are approximately 50-fold
more likely in transplant recipients compared with the general population [75].
As poorly controlled hypertension is a well-established risk factor for cardio-
vascular disease, optimal blood pressure management in the kidney transplant
recipient is crucial. Confirming a beneficial effect from management, hyperten-
sion control is associated with prolonged allograft survival, even after censoring
allograft loss for patient death [76, 77]. As hypertension is a modifiable risk
factor, optimal control of blood pressure is essential following kidney
transplantation.
Hypertension is present in the majority of kidney transplant recipients [78].
A recent study found only 16 % of recipients to be normotensive without the need
for antihypertensive therapy [79]. Consistent with the general population, this study
also showed insufficient control of hypertension in 44 %, while 10 % had WCH and
18 % had masked hypertension. Notably, only 16 % of the recipients studied had a
normal nocturnal dipping blood pressure pattern. This increased incidence of hyper-
tension is in part a consequence of the immunosuppression regimen. In particular,
corticosteroids and the calcineurin inhibitors (cyclosporine more so than tacroli-
mus) are associated with hypertension [80]. Furthermore, and consistent with native
kidney disease, hypertension can be both a cause and a consequence of allograft
renal insufficiency.
The RETENAL Study compared assessments of blood pressure control in a
cohort of 868 kidney transplant recipients in Spain by ABPM and clinic-based
blood pressure measurement [78]. The study found 34 % of participants to have

controlled ambulatory blood pressure. Circadian BP patterns showed a high propor-
tion of risers (48 %) in addition to 34 % non-dippers, and only a small proportion
(14 %) were dippers [78].
Azancot et al. recently studied the effect of transplantation on hypertension
using office BP and ABPM [81]. They hypothesized that the immunosuppressants
would lead to a greater degree of hypertension compared to patients with CKD
and similar levels of renal insufficiency. The study design required both groups of
patients to have moderate impairment in kidney function defined as an eGFR less
than 60 mL/min. The office-based blood pressure assessments were comparable
between the two groups. Using ABPM, however, a significant difference in both
awake and asleep blood pressures was found between the groups, and transplant
recipients were less likely to exhibit a normal diurnal blood pressure rhythm
(21 % were dippers, compared with 34 % of the patients with CKD) [81]. In sum-
mary, nocturnal hypertension and non-dipping, both higher cardiovascular risk
blood pressure patterns, were more significant and prevalent in transplant recipi-
ents, respectively.
Home Blood Pressure Monitoring (HBPM) has also been investigated following
kidney transplantation. Consistent with data from the general population [82],
HBPM in kidney transplant recipients more closely correlated with ABPM data
than did office-based recordings (72 % concordance vs. 54 %) [83]. Moreover, com-
pared with ABPM reference data, HBPM was both more sensitive and specific at
detecting hypertension than office-based BP measurements for the recipients
studied.
Limited data are available to compare prognostic accuracy of office and ambula-
tory BP in renal transplant recipients. As in other groups of patients, ABPM is a
better correlate of left ventricular hypertrophy than office BP in renal transplant
patients [84, 85]. In a small prospective study of 46 renal transplant recipients
undergoing ABPM at 6 and 18 months post-transplantation, ABPM values, but not
office BP, were positively correlated with serum creatinine [86]. In a study of 119
transplant recipients, Wadei et al. used ABPM to assess loss of GFR and histologi-
cal evidence of vascular injury in the allograft 12 months post-transplantation [87].
The analysis focused on circadian BP variability and they did not report on differ-
ences in outcomes according to office or average ABPM. As it pertains to circadian
variability, they observed that the absence of nocturnal SBP reduction was strongly
associated with lower GFR and greater vascular injury in the allograft [87], although
this was not observed by another group of investigators using serum creatinine as
the outcome variable [88].
The only long-term study evaluating graft failure and cardiovascular events in
renal transplant patients included 126 patients followed for 46 months [89]. All
patients underwent ABPM at 3 months post-transplantation. In this small study, the
presence of a reverse dipper pattern on ABPM was associated with a 3.6-fold
increase in risk of loss of allograft or cardiovascular event during follow-up
(p = 0.02). Neither office BP nor other measures derived from ABPM were associ-
ated with the outcomes in question [89].
ABPM in Donor Nephrectomy Candidates
At the present time, there are over 100,000 registrants on the kidney transplant wait-
ing list in the United States. This number significantly eclipses the number of
deceased donor transplants performed annually, resulting in a significant donor
organ shortage. Programs have adapted to this organ shortage through improved
utilization of non-standard criteria donor organs, use of organs from deceased
donors with cardiac death, and increased efforts to encourage recipients to seek a
living donor. Indeed, most programs have a growing experience with allowing
donor candidates with well-controlled hypertension to proceed with donor nephrec-
tomy. In addition, there has been a significant upward shift in the average age of
kidney transplant recipients, and with it an increase in the rate of transplantation
from spouse to spouse. As a consequence, more donor candidates in middle and
later life are presenting for evaluation. Many will already have a history of hyper-
tension or prehypertension. Even more will have an elevated office blood pressure
measured during their donor exam, raising concern for undiagnosed hypertension
vs. white coat effect.
Multiple studies indicate that donor candidates with hypertension are at risk for
worsened BP control following kidney donation [90–92]. Furthermore, one study cor-
related the degree of renal function decline associated with kidney donation with the
donor’s BP prior to the nephrectomy, showing a greater decline in the donors with the
higher preoperative BP measurements [92]. Given these findings and concerns, most
transplant centers as part of their evaluation will obtain an ABPM study on donor
candidates with high blood pressure detected in the office. Ommen et al. reported their
experience using ABPM to determine the rates of hypertension, masked hypertension,
and white coat hypertension in their single center cohort of potential donors [93]. A
diagnosis of WCH was made in 62 % of the donor candidates and masked HTN in
17 %. By screening all of their donor candidates with ABPM, the author’s concluded
that they had more accurately assessed the medical risk of the donor candidate while
at the same time reducing their disqualification rate.
This markedly high incidence of WCH (significantly higher than the expected
incidence of WCH for individuals presumed to be in overall good health) in donor
nephrectomy candidates has been independently confirmed [94]. Interestingly, the
white coat effect was largely absent when donors (who had WCH prior to organ
donation) were restudied 6 months postnephrectomy by ABPM [94]. This is consis-
tent with the belief that the anxiety associated with consideration of a surgical pro-
cedure that one does not require for their own health results in this significantly
increased incidence of donor candidates with WCH. To our knowledge, the pres-
ence and magnitude of the white coat effect has not been correlated with the strength
of the relationship between the donor candidate and their intended recipient.
It is recognized that the absence of nocturnal dipping is associated with increased
target organ injury and cardiovascular disease risk in the general population [95].
With studies confirming that the development of end stage renal disease is a rare,
albeit increased risk, event in former donors [96, 97], there is continued concern
regarding the long-term impact donor nephrectomy has on future cardiovascular

disease. Indeed, a group from Norway reported a statistically significant increase in
cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.40) in their former donors [96].
Prasad et al. studied the impact of donor nephrectomy on BP dipping status 12
months following donation [98]. Fifty one donors were studied; 35 were dippers
and 16 were non-dippers predonation. Based on 12-month follow-up data, they
reached the conclusion that predonation non-dipping is not associated with adverse
consequences. Interestingly, 8 of the predonation dippers studied subsequently
became non-dippers, but did so without a statistically significant increase in 24-h
blood pressure compared to those who remained dippers. The durability of this
change in dipping status, as well as the long-term cardiovascular consequences,
remains to be determined.
Mechanistic Considerations on the Blunted Diurnal

Rhythm in Renal Disease
As discussed above, non-dipping is the prevailing BP profile in patients with all

stages of CKD. The mechanisms responsible for abnormal circadian BP rhythms
in CKD patients remain unclear. The key elements appear to be salt-sensitivity
(and volume overload), sleep disordered breathing, and sympathetic overactivity
[99, 100]. Other possible mechanisms include decreased physical activity [101,
102] and abnormalities in several hormonal and neuroendocrine mediators (cate-
cholamines, renin, aldosterone, insulin, atrial natriuretic peptide, asymmetric
dimethylarginine, parathormone), although the strength of these relationships is
weak at best [7, 30].
Sodium sensitivity and volume overload appear to be particularly important fac-
tors. In patients with essential HTN, a change from a high to a low sodium diet
corrects non-dipping in salt-sensitive subjects [103, 104]. In addition, hydrochloro-
thiazide restores dipping in non-dipper, but not in dipper hypertensive subjects
[105]. Thus, it is possible that salt-balance and salt-sensitivity mediate dipping in
hypertensive patients without renal disease. However, it is probable that this is not
the case in advanced CKD, where multiple studies attempts to correlate interdialytic
weight gain with degree of dipping have failed to show any significant correlation
[30, 32]. Furthermore, even patients on long-slow hemodialysis, who are character-
ized by excellent BP control [50, 106] and less marked expansion of extracellular
volume than patients on conventional hemodialysis [107], are non-dippers in
50–75 % of cases [108]. Likewise, the transition from standard hemodialysis to
short-daily hemodialysis leads to better BP control and decreased extracellular
water, but no change in nocturnal dipping [109].
Proteinuria and low GFR seem to interact in the mediation of blunted circa-
dian rhythms. In a study of 336 elderly men, 55 % of whom had CKD (low eGFR
or proteinuria) and 45 % did not, patients with low eGFR (<60 mL/min/1.73 m2)
had only 33 % of the circadian variability in systolic BP compared with patients
without CKD, while those proteinuria (protein/creatinine ratio >0.22) had only
24 % of the control amplitude [110]. There was further blunting when both low
eGFR and proteinuria were present. These results can be interpreted within the
context of salt sensitivity and volume excess, as there is growing data on the role
of proteinuria mediating sodium avidity through activation of the epithelial
sodium channel [111].
Sleep-disordered breathing is a particular problem, especially in advanced CKD,
as it is diagnosed in up to 70 % of patients with ESRD [112]. Zoccali et al. showed
that HD patients without episodes of nocturnal desaturation had a small decline in
sleep BP (by 2.5 %), whereas those with two or more desaturation episodes per hour
had a reversal of the BP rhythm (sleep systolic BP increased by 3.9 %) [113]. These
observations are relevant because sleep-disordered breathing is associated with left
ventricular hypertrophy in dialysis patients [113, 114]. While it is known that inten-
sive dialysis or transplantation can correct the sleep disorder [112, 115], we are not
aware of data-linking correction of sleep apnea and normalization of the BP profile
in CKD, as has been demonstrated in patients without renal disease. In earlier stages
of CKD, this has been assessed in an indirect fashion; one study demonstrated that
patients with fragmented sleep patterns due to nocturia have less nocturnal BP
decline as compared to the intensity of sleep fragmentation [116].
Chronotherapy in CKD
A possible translation of ABPM to the care of hypertensive patients is the use of

chronotherapy, where dosing schedules and/or drug delivery systems are manipu-
lated to mimic the normal circadian BP changes and to minimize the early morn-
ing BP rise. In essential hypertension, there is growing evidence of the possible
value of shifting medication administration from the morning to night to improve
surrogate outcomes [99, 100], and one randomized open-label trial has shown a
marked decrease in cardiovascular events [117], though these findings still war-
rant corroboration.
In CKD patients, non-dipping can be improved or corrected by this chronophar-
macologic dosing approach [118–120], although this has not been observed in all
studies, as reported among patients with CKD due to hypertensive nephrosclerosis
[121]. In some studies, this approach has resulted in potentially relevant results. In
a study of 32 non-dipping CKD patients, shifting the administration of one antihy-
pertensive medication from morning to evening resulted in a decrease in the systolic
BP night/day ratio from 0.98 to 0.89 (p < 0.001) and correction of the non-dipping
pattern in most (28 of 32) patients [120]. Moreover, the greater the fall in the night/
day ratio induced by the dosing change, the greater the fall in proteinuria during this
8-week study (r = 0.26, p < 0.01) [120]. Finally, the impact of dose shifting on car-
diovascular outcomes was evaluated in 661 patients with early CKD (average eGFR
65 mL/min/1.73 m2) [119]. Patients were randomized to either receiving all medica-
tions upon awakening or to receiving at least one drug at bedtime. Bedtime agents
were converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or calcium chan-

nel blockers. After 5.4 years of follow-up, non-dipping frequency was decreased in
the bedtime group (from 65 to 41 %), but not in the awakening group. The primary
endpoint (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, revascular-
ization, heart failure, arterial occlusion of lower extremities, occlusion of the retinal
artery, and stroke) was decreased by 69 % in the bedtime group (adjusted hazard
ratio 0.31; 95 % CI 0.21–0.46), with significant reductions of most individual
components of the composite. These results were impressive and encouraging; if
corroborated, the practice of bedtime medication dosing may become the standard.
Conclusions
ABPM and home BP allow better understanding of BP behavior, are more repro-
ducible than office BP, and appear to be a better marker of renal and cardiovascular
prognosis in CKD. Further work is necessary to determine which out-of-office mea-
sure is most practical in CKD, how often it should be obtained, and for better delin-
eation of reimbursement options remain essential prior to generalization of their
use, in particular in the United States.
References
1. Jha V, Garcia-Garcia G, et al. Chronic kidney disease: global dimension and perspectives.
Lancet. 2013;382(9888):260–72.
2. Peixoto AJ, Santos SF. Blood pressure management in hemodialysis: what have we learned?
Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2010;19(6):561–6.
3. Weir MR, Burgess ED, Cooper JE, et al. Assessment and management of hypertension in
transplant patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015. doi:10.1681/ASN.2014080834.
4. Gansevoort RT, Correa-Rotter R, Hemmelgarn BR, et al. Chronic kidney disease and cardio-
vascular risk: epidemiology, mechanisms, and prevention. Lancet. 2013;382(9889):339–52.
5. McManus RJ, Caulfield M, Williams B, National Institute for H, Clinical E. NICE hyperten-
sion guideline 2011: evidence based evolution. BMJ. 2012;344:e181.
6. Levin A, Stevens PE. Summary of KDIGO 2012 CKD Guideline: behind the scenes, need for
guidance, and a framework for moving forward. Kidney Int. 2014;85(1):49–61.
7. Peixoto AJ, White WB. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in chronic renal disease:
technical aspects and clinical relevance. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2002;11(5):
507–16.
8. Baumgart P, Walger P, Gemen S, von Eiff M, Raidt H, Rahn KH. Blood pressure elevation
during the night in chronic renal failure, hemodialysis and after renal transplantation.
Nephron. 1991;57(3):293–8.
9. Pogue V, Rahman M, Lipkowitz M, et al. Disparate estimates of hypertension control from
ambulatory and clinic blood pressure measurements in hypertensive kidney disease.
Hypertension. 2009;53(1):20–7.
10. Mojon A, Ayala DE, Pineiro L, et al. Comparison of ambulatory blood pressure parameters
of hypertensive patients with and without chronic kidney disease. Chronobiol Int.
2013;30(1–2):145–58.
11. Hermida RC, Smolensky MH, Ayala DE, et al. Abnormalities in chronic kidney disease of
ambulatory blood pressure 24 h patterning and normalization by bedtime hypertension chro-
notherapy. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2014;29(6):1160–7.
13. Timio M, Venanzi S, Lolli S, et al. “Non-dipper” hypertensive patients and progressive renal
insufficiency: a 3-year longitudinal study. Clin Nephrol. 1995;43(6):382–7.
14. Farmer CK, Goldsmith DJ, Quin JD, et al. Progression of diabetic nephropathy—is diurnal
blood pressure rhythm as important as absolute blood pressure level? Nephrol Dial Transplant.
1998;13(3):635–9.
15. Csiky B, Kovacs T, Wagner L, Vass T, Nagy J. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and
progression in patients with IgA nephropathy. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1999;14(1):86–90.
16. Agarwal R, Andersen MJ. Prognostic importance of ambulatory blood pressure recordings in
patients with chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int. 2006;69(7):1175–80.
17. Gabbai FB, Rahman M, Hu B, et al. Relationship between ambulatory BP and clinical out-
comes in patients with hypertensive CKD. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7(11):1770–6.
18. Tucker B, Fabbian F, Giles M, Thuraisingham RC, Raine AE, Baker LR. Left ventricular
hypertrophy and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in chronic renal failure. Nephrol Dial
Transplant. 1997;12(4):724–8.
19. Szelestei T, Kovacs T, Barta J, Nagy J. Circadian blood pressure changes and cardiac abnor-
malities in IgA nephropathy. Am J Nephrol. 1999;19(5):546–51.
20. Valero FA, Martinez-Vea A, Bardaji A, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure and left ventricular
mass in normotensive patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease. J Am Soc
Nephrol. 1999;10(5):1020–6.
21. Agarwal R, Andersen MJ. Correlates of systolic hypertension in patients with chronic kidney
disease. Hypertension. 2005;46(3):514–20.
22. Agarwal R, Andersen MJ. Prognostic importance of clinic and home blood pressure record-
ings in patients with chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int. 2006;69(2):406–11.
23. Minutolo R, Agarwal R, Borrelli S, et al. Prognostic role of ambulatory blood pressure mea-
surement in patients with nondialysis chronic kidney disease. Arch Intern Med.
2011;171(12):1090–8.
24. Minutolo R, Gabbai FB, Agarwal R, et al. Assessment of achieved clinic and ambulatory
blood pressure recordings and outcomes during treatment in hypertensive patients with CKD:
a multicenter prospective cohort study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2014;64(5):744–52.
25. Cheigh JS, Milite C, Sullivan JF, Rubin AL, Stenzel KH. Hypertension is not adequately
controlled in hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 1992;19(5):453–9.
26. Cannella G, Paoletti E, Ravera G, et al. Inadequate diagnosis and therapy of arterial hyperten-
sion as causes of left ventricular hypertrophy in uremic dialysis patients. Kidney Int.
2000;58(1):260–8.
27. Rahman M, Griffin V, Heyka R, Hoit B. Diurnal variation of blood pressure; reproducibility
and association with left ventricular hypertrophy in hemodialysis patients. Blood Press
Monit. 2005;10(1):25–32.
28. Santos SF, Mendes RB, Santos CA, Dorigo D, Peixoto AJ. Profile of interdialytic blood pres-
sure in hemodialysis patients. Am J Nephrol. 2003;23(2):96–105.
29. Agarwal R, Light RP. Arterial stiffness and interdialytic weight gain influence ambulatory
blood pressure patterns in hemodialysis patients. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol.
2008;294(2):F303–8.
30. Peixoto AJ, Sica DA. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in end-stage renal disease.
Blood Press Monit. 1997;2(6):275–82.
31. Kotanko P, Garg AX, Depner T, et al. Effects of frequent hemodialysis on blood pressure:
results from the randomized frequent hemodialysis network trials. Hemodial Int.
2015;2015(5):12255.
32. Mendes RB, Santos SF, Dorigo D, et al. The use of peridialysis blood pressure and intradia-
lytic blood pressure changes in the prediction of interdialytic blood pressure in haemodialysis
patients. Blood Press Monit. 2003;8(6):243–8.
33. Agarwal R, Lewis RR. Prediction of hypertension in chronic hemodialysis patients. Kidney
Int. 2001;60(5):1982–9.
34. Coomer RW, Schulman G, Breyer JA, Shyr Y. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in
dialysis patients and estimation of mean interdialytic blood pressure. Am J Kidney Dis.
1997;29(5):678–84.
35. Rodby RA, Vonesh EF, Korbet SM. Blood pressures in hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis
using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Am J Kidney Dis. 1994;23(3):401–11.
36. Agarwal R, Metiku T, Tegegne GG, et al. Diagnosing hypertension by intradialytic blood
pressure recordings. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;3(5):1364–72. doi:10.2215/CJN.01510308.
Epub 2008 May 21.
37. Agarwal R. Supervised atenolol therapy in the management of hemodialysis hypertension.
Kidney Int. 1999;55(4):1528–35.
38. Agarwal R, Lewis R, Davis JL, Becker B. Lisinopril therapy for hemodialysis hypertension:
hemodynamic and endocrine responses. Am J Kidney Dis. 2001;38(6):1245–50.
39. da Silva GV, de Barros S, Abensur H, Ortega KC, Mion Jr D. Home blood pressure monitor-
ing in blood pressure control among haemodialysis patients: an open randomized clinical
trial. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2009;24(12):3805–11.
40. Santos SF, Peixoto AJ, Perazella MA. How should we manage adverse intradialytic blood
pressure changes? Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2012;19(3):158–65.
41. Batlle DC, von Riotte A, Lang G. Delayed hypotensive response to dialysis in hypertensive
patients with end-stage renal disease. Am J Nephrol. 1986;6(1):14–20.
42. Van Buren PN, Kim C, Toto R, Inrig JK. Intradialytic hypertension and the association with
interdialytic ambulatory blood pressure. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011;6(7):1684–91.
43. Agarwal R, Light RP. Intradialytic hypertension is a marker of volume excess. Nephrol Dial
Transplant. 2010;25(10):3355–61.
44. Agarwal R. Managing hypertension using home blood pressure monitoring among haemodi-
alysis patients—a call to action. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010;25(6):1766–71.
45. Cocchi R, Degli Esposti E, Fabbri A, et al. Prevalence of hypertension in patients on perito-
neal dialysis: results of an Italian multicentre study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1999;14(6):
1536–40.
46. Farmer CK, Goldsmith DJ, Cox J, Dallyn P, Kingswood JC, Sharpstone P. An investigation
of the effect of advancing uraemia, renal replacement therapy and renal transplantation on
blood pressure diurnal variability. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1997;12(11):2301–7.
47. Wang MC, Tseng CC, Tsai WC, Huang JJ. Blood pressure and left ventricular hypertro-
phy in patients on different peritoneal dialysis regimens. Perit Dial Int. 2001;21(1):
36–42.
48. Tonbul Z, Altintepe L, Sozlu C, Yeksan M, Yildiz A, Turk S. The association of peritoneal
transport properties with 24-hour blood pressure levels in CAPD patients. Perit Dial Int.
2003;23(1):46–52.
49. Covic A, Goldsmith DJ, Georgescu G, Venning MC, Ackrill P. Echocardiographic findings in
long-term, long-hour hemodialysis patients. Clin Nephrol. 1996;45(2):104–10.
50. McGregor DO, Buttimore AL, Nicholls MG, Lynn KL. Ambulatory blood pressure monitor-
ing in patients receiving long, slow home haemodialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant.
1999;14(11):2676–9.
51. Nishikimi T, Minami J, Tamano K, et al. Left ventricular mass relates to average systolic
blood pressure, but not loss of circadian blood pressure in stable hemodialysis patients: an
ambulatory 48-hour blood pressure study. Hypertens Res. 2001;24(5):507–14.
52. Erturk S, Ertug AE, Ates K, Duman N, Aslan SM, Nergisoglu G, et al. Relationship of ambu-
latory blood pressure monitoring data to echocardiographic findings in haemodialysis
patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1996;11(10):2050–4.
53. Agarwal R, Brim NJ, Mahenthiran J, Andersen MJ, Saha C. Out-of-hemodialysis-unit blood
pressure is a superior determinant of left ventricular hypertrophy. Hypertension.
2006;47(1):62–8.
54. Goldsmith DJ, Covic AC, Venning MC, Ackrill P. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in
renal dialysis and transplant patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 1997;29(4):593–600.
55. Conlon PJ, Walshe JJ, Heinle SK, Minda S, Krucoff M, Schwab SJ. Predialysis systolic blood
pressure correlates strongly with mean 24-hour systolic blood pressure and left ventricular
mass in stable hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1996;7(12):2658–63.
56. Zoccali C, Mallamaci F, Tripepi G, et al. Prediction of left ventricular geometry by clinic,
pre-dialysis and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring in hemodialysis patients: CREED investiga-
tors. J Hypertens. 1999;17(12 Pt 1):1751–8.
57. Stewart GA, Foster J, Cowan M, et al. Echocardiography overestimates left ventricular mass in
hemodialysis patients relative to magnetic resonance imaging. Kidney Int. 1999;56(6):2248–53.
58. Amar J, Vernier I, Rossignol E, Lenfant V, Conte JJ, Chamontin B. Influence of nycthemeral
blood pressure pattern in treated hypertensive patients on hemodialysis. Kidney Int.
1997;51(6):1863–6.
59. Covic A, Goldsmith DJ, Covic M. Reduced blood pressure diurnal variability as a risk factor
for progressive left ventricular dilatation in hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis.
2000;35(4):617–23.
60. Blacher J, Guerin AP, Pannier B, Marchais SJ, Safar ME, London GM. Impact of aortic stiff-
ness on survival in end-stage renal disease. Circulation. 1999;99:2434–9.
61. Karpetas A, Sarafidis PA, Georgianos PI, et al. Ambulatory recording of wave reflections and
arterial stiffness during intra- and interdialytic periods in patients treated with dialysis. Clin
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;10(4):630–8.
62. Amar J, Vernier I, Rossignol E, et al. Nocturnal blood pressure and 24-hour pulse pressure are
potent indicators of mortality in hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int. 2000;57(6):2485–91.
63. Liu M, Takahashi H, Morita Y, et al. Non-dipping is a potent predictor of cardiovascular
mortality and is associated with autonomic dysfunction in haemodialysis patients. Nephrol
Dial Transplant. 2003;18(3):563–9.
64. Tripepi G, Fagugli RM, Dattolo P, et al. Prognostic value of 24-hour ambulatory blood
pressure monitoring and of night/day ratio in nondiabetic, cardiovascular events-free hemo-
dialysis patients. Kidney Int. 2005;68(3):1294–302.
65. Agarwal R. Blood pressure and mortality among hemodialysis patients. Hypertension.
2010;55(3):762–8.
66. Fagugli RM, Vecchi L, Valente F, Santirosi P, Laviola MM. Comparison between oscillomet-
ric and auscultatory methods of ambulatory blood pressure measurement in hemodialysis
patients. Clin Nephrol. 2002;57(4):283–8.
67. Peixoto AJ, Gray TA, Crowley ST. Validation of the SpaceLabs 90207 ambulatory blood
pressure device for hemodialysis patients. Blood Press Monit. 1999;4(5):217–21.
68. Peixoto AJ, Santos SF, Mendes RB, Crowley ST, Maldonado R, Orias M, et al. Reproducibility
of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis.
2000;36(5):983–90.
69. Sankaranarayanan N, Santos SF, Peixoto AJ. Blood pressure measurement in dialysis
patients. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2004;11(2):134–42.
70. Ojo AO, Hanson JA, Wolfe RA, Leichtman AB, Agodoa LY, Port FK. Long-term survival in
renal transplant recipients with graft function. Kidney Int. 2000;57(1):307–13.
71. Ghods AJ, Ossareh S. Detection and treatment of coronary artery disease in renal transplanta-
tion candidates. Transplant Proc. 2002;34(6):2415–7.
72. Ostovan MA, Fazelzadeh A, Mehdizadeh AR, Razmkon A, Malek-Hosseini SA. How to
decrease cardiovascular mortality in renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc. 2006;
38(9):2887–92.
73. Fellström B. Risk factors for and management of post-transplantation cardiovascular disease.
BioDrugs. 2001;15(4):261–78.
74. Kasiske BL, Guijarro C, Massy ZA, Wiederkehr MR, Ma JZ. Cardiovascular disease after
renal transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1996;7(1):158–65.
75. Kasiske BL, Chakkera HA, Roel J. Explained and unexplained ischemic heart disease risk
after renal transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2000;11(9):1735–43.
76. Hillebrand U, Suwelack BM, Loley K, et al. Blood pressure, antihypertensive treatment, and
graft survival in kidney transplant patients. Transpl Int. 2009;22(11):1073–80.
77. Opelz G, Döhler B, Study CT. Improved long-term outcomes after renal transplantation asso-
ciated with blood pressure control. Am J Transplant. 2005;5(11):2725–31.
78. Fernandez Fresnedo G, Franco Esteve A, Gómez Huertas E, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure
monitoring in kidney transplant patients: RETENAL study. Transplant Proc. 2012;
44(9):2601–2.
79. Czyżewski Ł, Wyzgał J, Kołek A. Evaluation of selected risk factors of cardiovascular dis-
eases among patients after kidney transplantation, with particular focus on the role of 24-hour
automatic blood pressure measurement in the diagnosis of hypertension: an introductory
report. Ann Transplant. 2014;19:188–98.
80. Miller LW. Cardiovascular toxicities of immunosuppressive agents. Am J Transplant. 2002;
2(9):807–18.
81. Azancot MA, Ramos N, Moreso FJ, et al. Hypertension in chronic kidney disease: the influ-
ence of renal transplantation. Transplantation. 2014;98(5):537–42.
82. Masding MG, Jones JR, Bartley E, Sandeman DD. Assessment of blood pressure in patients
with Type 2 diabetes: comparison between home blood pressure monitoring, clinic blood
pressure measurement and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Diabet Med.
2001;18(6):431–7.
83. Agena F, Prado Eo S, Souza PS, et al. Home blood pressure (BP) monitoring in kidney trans-
plant recipients is more adequate to monitor BP than office BP. Nephrol Dial Transplant.
2011;26(11):3745–9.
84. Covic A, Segall L, Goldsmith DJ. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in renal transplan-
tation: should ABPM be routinely performed in renal transplant patients? Transplantation.
2003;76(11):1640–2.
85. Ferreira SR, Moises VA, Tavares A, Pacheco-Silva A. Cardiovascular effects of successful
renal transplantation: a 1-year sequential study of left ventricular morphology and function,
and 24-hour blood pressure profile. Transplantation. 2002;74(11):1580–7.
86. Jacobi J, Rockstroh J, John S, et al. Prospective analysis of the value of 24-hour ambulatory
blood pressure on renal function after kidney transplantation. Transplantation.
2000;70(5):819–27.
87. Wadei HM, Amer H, Taler SJ, et al. Diurnal blood pressure changes one year after kidney
transplantation: relationship to allograft function, histology, and resistive index. J Am Soc
Nephrol. 2007;18(5):1607–15.
88. Haydar AA, Covic A, Agharazili M, Jayawardene S, Taylor J, Goldsmith DJ. Systolic blood
pressure diurnal variation is not a predictor of renal target organ damage in kidney transplant
patients. Am J Transplant. 2003;4(2):244–7.
89. Ibernon M, Moreso F, Sarrias X, et al. Reverse dipper pattern of blood pressure at 3 months
is associated with inflammation and outcome after renal transplantation. Nephrol Dial
Transplant. 2012;27(5):2089–95.
90. Anderson CF, Velosa JA, Frohnert PP, et al. The risks of unilateral nephrectomy: status of
kidney donors 10 to 20 years postoperatively. Mayo Clin Proc. 1985;60(6):367–74.
91. Torres VE, Offord KP, Anderson CF, et al. Blood pressure determinants in living-related renal
allograft donors and their recipients. Kidney Int. 1987;31(6):1383–90.
92. Talseth T, Fauchald P, Skrede S, et al. Long-term blood pressure and renal function in kidney
donors. Kidney Int. 1986;29(5):1072–6.
93. Ommen ES, Schröppel B, Kim JY, et al. Routine use of ambulatory blood pressure monitor-
ing in potential living kidney donors. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;2(5):1030–6.
94. DeLoach SS, Meyers KE, Townsend RR. Living donor kidney donation: another form of
white coat effect. Am J Nephrol. 2012;35(1):75–9.
95. Routledge FS, McFetridge-Durdle JA, Dean CR, Society CH. Night-time blood pressure pat-
terns and target organ damage: a review. Can J Cardiol. 2007;23(2):132–8.
96. Mjøen G, Hallan S, Hartmann A, et al. Long-term risks for kidney donors. Kidney Int.
2014;86(1):162–7.
97. Muzaale AD, Massie AB, Wang MC, et al. Risk of end-stage renal disease following live
kidney donation. JAMA. 2014;311(6):579–86.
98. Prasad GV, Lipszyc D, Huang M, Nash MM, Rapi L. A prospective observational study of
changes in renal function and cardiovascular risk following living kidney donation.
Transplantation. 2008;86(9):1315–8.
99. Sinha AD, Agarwal R. The complex relationship between CKD and ambulatory blood pres-
sure patterns. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2015;22(2):102–7.
100. Peixoto AJ, White WB. Circadian blood pressure: clinical implications based on the patho-
physiology of its variability. Kidney Int. 2007;71(9):855–60.
101. O’Shea JC, Murphy MB. Nocturnal blood pressure dipping: a consequence of diurnal physi-
cal activity blipping? Am J Hypertens. 2000;13(6 Pt 1):601–6.
102. Kutner NG, Cardenas DD, Bower JD. Rehabilitation, aging and chronic renal disease.
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1992;71(2):97–101.
103. Uzu T, Ishikawa K, Fujii T, Nakamura S, Inenaga T, Kimura G. Sodium restriction shifts
circadian rhythm of blood pressure from nondipper to dipper in essential hypertension.
Circulation. 1997;96(6):1859–62.
104. Higashi Y, Oshima T, Ozono R, et al. Nocturnal decline in blood pressure is attenuated by
NaCl loading in salt-sensitive patients with essential hypertension: noninvasive 24-hour
ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Hypertension. 1997;30(2 Pt 1):163–7.
105. Uzu T, Kimura G. Diuretics shift circadian rhythm of blood pressure from nondipper to
dipper in essential hypertension. Circulation. 1999;100(15):1635–8.
106. Charra B, Calemard E, Ruffet M, et al. Survival as an index of adequacy of dialysis. Kidney
Int. 1992;41(5):1286–91.
107. Katzarski KS, Charra B, Luik AJ, Nisell J, Divino Filho JC, Leypoldt JK, et al. Fluid state and
blood pressure control in patients treated with long and short haemodialysis. Nephrol Dial
Transplant. 1999;14(2):369–75.
108. Chazot C, Charra B, Laurent G, et al. Interdialysis blood pressure control by long haemodi-
alysis sessions. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1995;10(6):831–7.
109. Fagugli RM, Reboldi G, Quintaliani G, et al. Short daily hemodialysis: blood pressure
control and left ventricular mass reduction in hypertensive hemodialysis patients. Am
J Kidney Dis. 2001;38(2):371–6.
110. Agarwal R, Light RP. GFR, proteinuria and circadian blood pressure. Nephrol Dial Transplant.
2009;24(8):2400–6.
111. Peixoto AJ, Orias M, Desir GV. Does kidney disease cause hypertension? Curr Hypertens
Rep. 2013;15(2):89–94.
112. Hanly PJ, Pierratos A. Improvement of sleep apnea in patients with chronic renal failure who
undergo nocturnal hemodialysis. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(2):102–7.
113. Zoccali C, Benedetto FA, Tripepi G, et al. Nocturnal hypoxemia, night-day arterial pressure
changes and left ventricular geometry in dialysis patients. Kidney Int. 1998;53(4):1078–84.
114. Zoccali C, Benedetto FA, Mallamaci F, et al. Left ventricular hypertrophy and nocturnal
hypoxemia in hemodialysis patients. J Hypertens. 2001;19(2):287–93.
115. Langevin B, Fouque D, Leger P, Robert D. Sleep apnea syndrome and end-stage renal dis-
ease. Cure after renal transplantation. Chest. 1993;103(5):1330–5.
116. Agarwal R, Light RP, Bills JE, Hummel LA. Nocturia, nocturnal activity, and nondipping.
Hypertension. 2009;54(3):646–51.
117. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Mojon A, Fernandez JR. Influence of circadian time of hypertension
treatment on cardiovascular risk: results of the MAPEC study. Chronobiol Int. 2010;
27(8):1629–51.
118. Portaluppi F, Vergnani L, Manfredini R, degli Uberti EC, Fersini C. Time-dependent effect of isra-
dipine on the nocturnal hypertension in chronic renal failure. Am J Hypertens. 1995;8(7):719–26.
119. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Mojon A, Fernandez JR. Bedtime dosing of antihypertensive medi-
cations reduces cardiovascular risk in CKD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011;22(12):2313–21.
120. Minutolo R, Gabbai FB, Borrelli S, et al. Changing the timing of antihypertensive therapy to
reduce nocturnal blood pressure in CKD: an 8-week uncontrolled trial. Am J Kidney Dis.
2007;50(6):908–17.
121. Rahman M, Greene T, Phillips RA, et al. A trial of 2 strategies to reduce nocturnal blood
pressure in blacks with chronic kidney disease. Hypertension. 2013;61(1):82–8.
Chapter 15
in Coronary Artery Disease and Heart Failure
Fahad Javed and Patrick T. Campbell
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is capable of evaluating multiple

aspects of blood pressure including 24-h blood pressure, nocturnal blood pressures,
dipping patterns, morning surge blood pressures, postprandial hypotension, and BP
variability. ABPM has been shown to be highly effective for the diagnosis and man-
agement of hypertension. ABPM and specifically nocturnal blood pressure has
demonstrated superior predictive and prognostic value for target organ dysfunction
and cardiovascular events. While there is an abundance of data on ABPM in hyper-
tension, stroke, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease, there is relatively little data on
ABPM in coronary artery disease (CAD) or heart failure (HF).
In this chapter, we summarize much of the available data, discuss the diagnostic
and therapeutic benefits offered by ABPM, and will suggest future avenues for
research.
Hypertension in Heart Failure
Hypertension (HTN) has long been recognized as one of the most prevalent modifi-
able risk factors for the development of both heart failure with preserved ejection
fraction (HFpEF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In the
F. Javed, M.D.
Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute, 1514 Jefferson Highway,
New Orleans, LA 70121, USA
P.T. Campbell, M.D. (*)
Heart Failure and Transplant Cardiology, Transplant Institute Baptist Health,
9500 Kanis Road, Little Rock, AR 72205, USA

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-22771-9_15
300 F. Javed and P.T. Campbell
Framingham Heart Study, the presence of elevated blood pressure (BP) was associ-
ated with twice the risk of developing HF compared with normotension [1].
The prevalence of hypertension in the U.S. is approximately 30 % of people
over the age of 18 and current statistics demonstrate that less than 50 % are achiev-
ing adequate control. This is a staggering 95 million Americans at risk for the
development of heart failure from hypertension. Patients with hypertension are
considered to be Stage A heart failure by current guidelines, at risk for heart fail-
ure without structural disease or symptoms, and aggressive management of risk
factors is recommended by the current guidelines [2]. Patients with evidence of
structural heart disease, including Left Ventricular Hypertrophy (LVH), Left Atrial
Enlargement (LAE), reduced systolic function, diastolic dysfunction, valvular dis-
ease, and coronary artery disease (CAD), even without symptoms, are classified as
being Stage B heart failure and require additional therapies beyond BP control;
however, anti-hypertensive therapies remain an integral component of their man-
agement. For patients with Stage C Heart Failure (structural heart disease and
current or history of HF symptoms), maximally titrated guideline-directed therapy
is the mainstay of treatment [2]. In those who have progressed to refractory heart
failure (Stage D), specialized therapies are required and the benefit of ABPM may
be limited as patients are often on inotropic support or have mechanical circula-
tory support.
Hypertensive heart disease is associated with both HFrEF and HFpEF. The exact
mechanisms and triggers that precipitate the progression from LVH to heart failure
remain poorly understood. Hypertension can result in either concentric LVH
(increased wall thickness) or eccentric LVH (dilation of the LV cavity). Traditional
teachings hold that LVH progresses from concentric LVH to dilated LV cavity and
subsequent reduced LV function; however, more recent data suggests that while
patients can progress down the classical pathway to HF, the majority of patients
develop either concentric LVH or eccentric LVH with little crossover [3]. The rea-
sons for the dichotomy remain unclear, but are likely related to a multitude of simul-
taneously interacting factors including: patient characteristics, concomitant disease
processes, variable neurohormonal milieu, variability of pressure and volume load,
and currently unrecognized genetic factors. Concentric LVH is associated with
higher systolic blood pressures (SBP), peripheral vascular resistance (PVR), and
elevated renin levels, while eccentric LVH may be more related to volume loads [4, 5].
Concentric LVH and HFpEF have been correlated with abnormal changes in the
extracellular matrix driven by mineralocorticoid receptor activation and increased
collagen deposition from dysregulation of matrix metaloproteinases [3]. In patients
with eccentric LVH and HFrEF, an initial insult to the myocardium (infection, MI,
toxin, hypertension) results in a decline in LV function. This decline activates the
sympathetic nervous system (SNS) and the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system
(RAAS) that cause salt and water retention, vasoconstriction, increased afterload,
and increased contractility of healthy myocardium. The compensatory mechanisms
ultimately lead to deleterious LV remodeling with LVH, LV chamber dilation, and
myocardial fibrosis. The remodeling results in reduced efficiency and further decline
in LVH function [6] (Fig. 15.1).
15 Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Coronary Artery Disease and Heart… 301
a ARTERIAL HYPERTENSION
Obesity Male Sex SBP PVR
Volume Load on LV Diabetes Mellitus
Low Renin Levels High Renin Levels
Coronary Artery Disease Pressure Load on LV

Genetic Factors
Collagen Deposition Female Sex
ECCENTRIC HYPERTROPHY CONCENTRIC HYPERTROPHY
b
Subsequent Myocardial Infarction
c Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone System

Sodium and Water Retention
Sympathetic Nervous System
Clinical Heart Failure
Fig. 15.1 Pathophysiology of hypertension and heart failure. Schematic of the progression from
hypertension to LVH to the clinical syndrome of heart failure. (a) The exact mechanisms that
determine LV geometry are unclear; however, there are a variety of factors that may play a role in
the progression to eccentric or concentric hypertrophy. (b) While the transition from concentric to
eccentric hypertrophy can occur, most commonly the transition requires an interceding ischemic
event. C: The subsequent maladaptive neurohormonal responses result in progression from LVH to
overt heart failure symptoms. SBP systolic blood pressure, PVR peripheral vascular resistance, LV
left ventricle, RAAS renin angiotensin aldosterone system, SNS sympathetic nervous system, LVH
left ventricular hypertrophy
Arterial hypertension is the most common risk factor present prior to the
development of heart failure. In the Framingham Heart Study, the vast majority
(90 %) of patients diagnosed with heart failure had antecedent hypertension [6].
The same risk was seen in patients with asymptomatic LV dysfunction with
65 % of patients having a prior history of hypertension [7]. In the original
Framingham cohort, the presence of hypertension doubled the risk of develop-
ing clinical heart failure.
The silver-lining to these bleak statistics comes from data demonstrating that the
treatment and control of hypertension reduces the risk of developing heart failure by
50 % [8, 9], reduce the incidence of LVH by EKG, and slows the progression from
Stage A / B to Stage C heart failure [10, 11]. In the SHEP Trial [10], the treatment
of HTN resulted in a 50 % reduction in the incidence of HF with even greater benefit
(80 % reduction) seen in patients with a history of myocardial infarction (MI).
While this benefit has been seen most dramatically in the elderly, modification of
risk is of the utmost importance to reduce the incidence of heart failure in the entire
population. The benefit of BP control is seen irrespective of the anti-hypertensive

strategy used, with the exception of alpha-blockers. The treatment of HTN with
diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor
blockers [ARBs], diuretics, Calcium Chanel Blockers [CCBs], β-blockers all reduce
the incidence of heart failure. However, current data demonstrates that ACEIs and
ARBs are most effective at improving the detrimental LV remodeling and improv-
ing outcomes in patients with reduced LV function [12], followed by beta-blockers
to a lesser extent.
The Basics of ABPM in Heart Failure
The application of ABPM to congestive heart failure has been limited to date, with
much of the data having been gathered prior to the current era of guideline-directed
medical therapy (GDMT). The data that has been published has focused mainly on
describing the 24-h, nocturnal blood pressure and blood pressure variability in heart
failure; there is almost no data regarding the management and outcomes of patients
treated by ABPM. There remains little basic data comparing the variation in BP
readings between office, ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring in heart
failure, or the prevalence of white coat hypertension and masked hypertension.
These basic analyses are required to aid in the application of ABPM to heart failure.
Guidelines for ABPM have established lower definitions for hypertension and treat-
ment goals compared to office and home blood pressure measurements. To date,
there has been no similar studies to define appropriate blood pressure levels in heart
failure by ABPM. Some limited data has described the prognostic benefits of ABPM
in evaluating heart failure patients. The studies are small and limited in scope. The
potential advantages of ABPM compared to traditional office blood pressure moni-
toring in congestive heart failure include: identification of White Coat Hypertension,
Masked hypertension, nocturnal hypertension, describing dipping profiles, evalua-
tion of possible orthostatic hypotension, monitoring of heart failure medication
effectiveness, and titration of GDMT. Some small studies have suggested that
ABPM, specifically nocturnal blood pressures, may be superior to office blood pres-
sure measurements in predicting hospitalization for heart failure; large scale studies
are needed to confirm these findings [13].
As with many chronic diseases, early identification and prevention are keys to
reducing the incidence and decreasing the negative impact of the disease on society.
The use of ABPM to assess patients at risk for heart failure may identify individuals
that could potentially benefit from intensified therapy and life-style modifications to
reduce their risk. ABPM correlates more strongly with LVH than office BP mea-
surements [14] and has been inversely related to diastolic dysfunction [15]. LV
afterload pressures, which can be detected during ambulatory blood pressure read-
ings, may play a significant role in the development of LV dysfunction. 24-h ambu-
latory blood pressures have been strongly correlated to early left ventricular filling
parameters [16], which can identify patients that may benefit from tighter blood
pressure control and afterload reduction. In fact, the reduction in average BP

recorded by ABPM has been shown to correlate with regression of LVH [17],
demonstrating that early intervention may decrease the risk for developing heart
failure. However, the limitation of much of this data is that long-term evaluation of
heart failure outcomes has not been studied. While data has shown that ABPM may
help identify patients with greater risk and that treatment has decreased surrogate
markers (structural abnormalities) that may be precursors to heart failure, there are
no studies that have shown a direct correlation between treatment and outcomes
based on ABPM. While the use of GDMT has demonstrated significant benefit in
the progression of heart failure and development of heart failure in patients at risk,
the application of ABPM may provide further insight into therapeutic strategies and
targets in the future.
One of the earliest signs of progression of heart failure is hypotension and the
inability to tolerate GDMT. The need to withdraw or reduce heart failure medica-
tions portends poor prognosis in patients. In several small clinical trials, patients
with higher blood pressure [18] had better outcomes and patients with NYHA Class
IV heart failure with higher mean 24-h, awake and sleeping blood pressures had
better prognosis compared to those with lower blood pressures [19]. Furthermore
many heart failure symptoms, fatigue, dizziness, lightheadedness, and decreased
exercise tolerance, can also be symptoms of hypotension. The presence of persistent
or prolonged periods of hypotension, which may result from heart failure therapies,
may predispose patients to increased risk of target organ dysfunction. The combina-
tion of low cardiac output and significant hypotension may increase the risk of renal
dysfunction, pre-syncope, syncope, and altered mental status. The application of
ABPM could possibly aid in determining optimal dosing and timing of GDMT to
reduce potential side-effects and maintain optimal therapies. Currently, there
remains a paucity of large randomized data, demonstrating the potential benefits of
utilizing ABPM to optimize treatment in heart failure.
Circadian Variation in Heart Failure
The importance of circadian variations in blood pressure was first described almost
four decades ago and the literature supporting prognostic impact of ABPM in car-
diovascular disease continues to grow. In healthy subjects, BP is highest in the early
morning hours and declines to its lowest levels at night. Normal circadian rhythms
are dictated by various mechanisms including the sympathetic nervous system, pos-
tural position, baroreflexes, physical activity, tobacco use, sodium intake, alcohol
use, and neurohormones. Over the ensuing decades, the superiority of circadian
blood pressures, specifically nocturnal BPs, has been repeatedly demonstrated for
cardiovascular outcomes in many disease states including hypertension, diabetes,
stroke, and kidney disease.
The two most influential circadian patterns for cardiovascular disease are early
morning surge BP and the nocturnal dipping profile. As with the majority of ABPM
150
Normal SBP
100
HF SBP
50 Normal DBP
HF DBP
0
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 1 3 5 7
Fig. 15.2 24-h Blood pressure curve in normal controls compared to heart Failure. An illustration
of the blunted circadian variation in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure in patients with
Heart Failure compared to normotensive controls. SBP systolic blood pressure, DBP diastolic
blood pressure, HF heart failure
data, there is a relative paucity of information regarding the risk and benefits of
ambulatory circadian variation in heart failure, and much of the data that exists were
obtained prior to the current era of GDMT. Current guidelines do not discuss the
potential role of circadian variation in heart failure management [20].
Early studies that assessed the circadian variation in heart failure have demon-
strated a correlation between circadian BP and left ventricular dysfunction; how-
ever, the risk or outcomes attributed to ambulatory readings were not assessed [21].
The current literature suggests that heart failure patients have depressed circadian
variation compared to normal controls (Fig. 15.2). In heart failure up-regulated neu-
rohormones, increased sympathetic activity, salt and water retention, and impaired
baroreceptors may impact the normal circadian rhythm. Heart failure pharmaco-
logic therapies that modulate the neurohormonal milieu, such as beta-blockers and
ACEI, may also play a role in the altered circadian rhythms. The findings regarding
average 24-h blood pressure in heart failure patients have been conflicted, which
impacts the assessment of ambulatory circadian variation. Several small studies
have demonstrated different average daytime blood pressures ranging from
108/72 mmHg [19] to 131/77 mmHg [22]. The data obtained by Borne et al. [21]
demonstrated even lower ambulatory daytime and nocturnal blood pressures in
NYHA Class III-IV patients. These conflicting data highlight the need for large
studies to assess the circadian blood pressure patterns in the heart failure popula-
tion, especially in the current era of GDMT. The effects of neurohormonal activity,
LV function, gender, etiology of cardiomyopathy, functional class, and medication
need to be better understood to appropriately apply ABPM data in heart failure.
While much is still poorly understood, some data exists as a starting point, demon-
strating that neurohormonal activity was indirectly related to circadian variations
while ventricular function was directly associated with greater variability [22].
Furthermore, the severity of HF has been linked to decreased circadian variation, as
heart failure progresses the degree of circadian variation in BP also declines.
Dipping Profile in Heart Failure
In healthy controls, the normal circadian pattern is one of nocturnal dipping or a

decline in BP from ambulatory daytime BPs. Typically, this decline is approxi-
mately 20 % compared with awake readings; however, the general consensus is
that a decline or a “dip” of <10 % from day to night BP readings is considered
abnormal and is associated with poor CV outcomes [20]. Current literature clas-
sifies patients based on their nocturnal dipping profile: (1) Dippers, a normal
decline in BP from day to night, (2) Non-Dippers, a 0–10 % decline in nocturnal
BP, (3) Extreme dippers, those with >20 % decline in BP, and (4) Risers, an
increase in nighttime BP from daytime readings. Dippers and extreme dippers
have the lowest cardiovascular risk, while non-dippers and risers have the high-
est, incrementally.
While these definitions have been applied to heart failure patients, there is no
consensus on what constitutes a normal dipping profile in heart failure. In a large
cohort of NYHA Class II–III heart failure patients, the majority had an abnormal
dipping profile using the standard definitions. In the same cohort, the presence of
an abnormal dipping profile was an independent predictor HF outcomes. Non-
dippers and risers had a 1.6 and 2.7 times increased risk of death or hospitaliza-
tion compared to dippers, respectively [13]. Interestingly, in this cohort the
majority of patients were on GDMT, which included metoprolol as a beta-blocker.
If up-regulation of the sympathetic nervous system indeed plays a role in the
altered circadian rhythm in heart failure, the use of alpha-adrenergic blockade
along with beta-blockade (such as carvedilol) may help to normalize the dipping
profile in these patients. There is, however, no data demonstrating benefit in res-
toration of a normal dipping pattern in HF. In fact, there is some data that suggests
a normal dipping profile may be detrimental in heart failure. Canesin MF et al.
[19] studied the effect of dipping profile on survival in 38 NYHA Class IV HF
patients. Patients who had ≤6 mmHg decline in mean nighttime BP or nocturnal
systolic BP had better prognosis at 6 months. More importantly, patients with a
sleep SBP <105 mmHg were almost eight times more likely to die. While these
findings cannot be extrapolated to patients with less severe heart failure (NYHA
Class I–III), they do raise considerable questions regarding the normal dipping
profile in HF patients. Large-scale assessment of dipping profiles in HF patients
with varying severity is required. Establishing values to define dippers and non-
dippers in HF is essential; it is possible that a dip of <10 % is beneficial in
HF. Establishing these definitions are important in ultimately determining if phar-
macotherapy can be used to normalize the dipping profile and improve outcome.
Chronotherapy may play a significant role in the future of heart failure manage-
ment. The administration of ACEI at bedtime has been shown to normalize dip-
ping profiles in refractory hypertensives, and while it has become widely accepted
to dose ACEI twice daily in heart failure therapy, adjusting the dosing between
morning and evening doses may provide further benefit in the dipping profile in
this population.
Morning Surge BP and Heart Failure
After a normal decline in blood pressure during the quiescence of sleep, a physi-
ologic increase in BP upon wakening should occur. The physiologic increase in
neurohormones, cortisol, and heart rate are likely triggers for the increase in BP. An
increase in cardiovascular events, including stroke and MI, has been associated with
this rise in morning blood pressure. Morning surge BP is an exaggerated rise in
morning blood pressures to levels significantly higher than mean daytime values
and may add incremental risk beyond the normal morning rise. There is limited
recommendation on the application of morning surge BP in clinical practice.
The prevalence and degree of morning surge BP is undefined in heart failure. The
use of GDMT that inhibit the SNS and regulate neurohormonal activity may blunt
the morning rise; however, the altered baroreceptor reflex and chronic adrenergic
up-regulation may result in significantly higher morning BP elevations.
In a sub-study of the PRAISE trial [23], the authors evaluated the timing of
sudden cardiac death (SCD) in NYHA Class III–IV patients. The analysis of the
data revealed a non-uniform distribution of SCD with a peak occurring in the eve-
ning not in the early morning. The evening peak was seen only in those with an
ischemic etiology. The data suggests that the chronically elevated neurohormones
resulted in a more uniform distribution. The study did not assess for heart failure
admissions or cardiovascular mortality. The presence of an early morning surge
may suggest suboptimal neurohormonal blockade and the spike in catecholamines
may result in more rapid progression of heart failure.
Studies evaluating the impact of early morning BP surge on heart failure out-
comes and long-term progression of the disease process may provide important
clinical information and offer a potential target for future therapies. Chronotherapy
aimed at reducing the morning surge may prove beneficial in the management of
chronic heart failure.
White Coat Hypertension and White Coat Effect
White coat hypertension (WCH) is the presence of elevated BPs during contact with
medical professionals, with otherwise normotensive BPs on ABPM in patients not
currently on anti-hypertensive therapies. While it remains controversial, the general
consensus is that white coat hypertension places patients at increased cardiovascu-
lar risk compared to the general population. Given that the majority of heart failure
patients, including Stage A HF, are likely to be on some anti-hypertensive therapy,
establishing guidelines for WCH in heart failure may be limited. However, in the
rare patient with risk factors not actively on therapy, the presence of WHC may
prompt closer monitoring of blood pressure and reemphasis on the importance of
life-style modifications for preventing progression of the disease. Current data do
not support treating WCH with pharmacologic therapies.
White coat effect (WCE) is the presence of higher BPs during clinic visits with
lower, although still elevated, BPs on ambulatory readings in patients on therapy.
Current consensus is that WCE >20 mmHg systolic and >10 mmHg diastolic are
clinically relevant [20]. To the authors knowledge, there is no evidence demonstrat-
ing the presence of WCE in heart failure patients, nor demonstrating any increased
risk from its presence. The lack of evidence highlights the gaps in knowledge
regarding ABPM and HF. The importance of identifying patients with WCE would
be to prevent unnecessary titration of medications, which may place patients at
increased risk for adverse events. Patients identified to have WCE may require
closer monitoring of BPs with more frequent home BP monitoring or repeat
ABPM. In the treatment of Stage C heart failure, current guidelines recommend
titrating GDMT to maximum tolerated doses, which should be performed regard-
less of the presence or absence of WCE. Therefore, defining WCE may be of lim-
ited benefit in these patients.
Masked Hypertension
Masked hypertension (MH) is traditionally defined as having normal office blood

pressure (<140/90 mmHg) in the presence of elevated daytime ambulatory BPs
(>135/85 mmHg) [20]. While current hypertension guidelines have recommended
values for the diagnosis of MH in the general population, there are no data specifi-
cally in heart failure patients. Patients with heart failure, diabetes, LVH, obesity, and
other comorbid conditions are more likely to have MH; the exact prevalence of MH
in the heart failure population requires defining.
This definition is traditionally applied to those not currently receiving therapy, as
HTN clearly cannot be defined as “masked” if indeed it is being treated. However,
in the heart failure population using the term “masked” hypertension, or some deri-
vation thereof, may play an important role. If patients with Stage A or B heart fail-
ure only have blood pressure readings in the office, the presence of elevated
ambulatory BPs may result in undertreatment of an important risk factor for the
progression of the disease. The use of ambulatory monitoring may identify those
patients who would benefit from intensified pharmacologic and life-style therapies.
In patients with Stage C HF, the guidelines clearly recommend forced titration of
GDMT to maximum tolerable doses [2]; however, clinicians may not be comfort-
able pushing the doses of many of the medications if office BP readings are con-
trolled. Elevated daytime ambulatory BPs in the presence of controlled office
readings would reassure the clinician that continued dose titration will be tolerated
and repeated ABPM could demonstrate appropriate response to the therapies.
Without data demonstrating the presence of “masked” hypertension or the benefit of
treatment on heart failure outcomes, recommendations cannot be made. Future
investigations should establish the prevalence of MH, the incremental risk associated
with MH, and determine if normalization of ABPM readings in the presence of
lower office BPs would confer benefit.
Ambulatory Hypotension
ABPM can provide important information regarding the presence of daytime ambu-
latory hypotension. While short/intermittent episodes of hypotension or orthostatic
changes may not be captured during ambulatory monitoring, the identification of
patients with prolonged periods of hypotension is possible. Heart failure is common
in the elderly who are at risk for hypotension due to baroreceptor and autonomic
dysfunction. The symptoms of hypotension, lightheadedness or presyncope from
decreased cerebral perfusion and decreased exercise tolerance, may also be symp-
toms of worsening heart failure. Identification of patients with ambulatory hypoten-
sion could aid in the titration of GDMT and prevent target organ dysfunction.
Postprandial hypotension is the decline in systolic blood pressure within 90 min
of ingesting a meal. The current literature does not specify a clear clinical definition of
Postprandial hypotension, yet in certain populations it is more common than ortho-
static hypotension. It has been associated with syncope, falls and cardiovascular
events. Postprandial hypotension is common in the elderly, with one study demon-
strating it in nearly 70 % of a geriatric population [24]; its prevalence in the heart
failure population in unclear. In healthy subjects, cardiac output can increase by as
much as 20 % after a meal; in patients with impaired ventricular function and
reduced cardiac reserve, cardiac output may not be able to increase sufficiently.
Typically, in heart failure this manifests as early satiety and decreased appetite;
however, it may also result in postprandial hypotension. The prevalence and effect
of postprandial hypotension should be evaluated in the heart failure population.
Recommendations such as smaller more frequent meals may reduce the incidence
and decrease the risk of adverse events.
GDMT may precipitate prolonged periods of hypotension which may not be
recognized in the clinic depending on timing of the medications. Many patients take
all of their medications in the morning and the onset of action of multiple anti-
hypertensive medications may result in periods of hypotension. If discovered during
ambulatory monitoring, the clinician could adjust the timing of medications to avoid
unnecessary periods of low blood pressure while maintaining appropriate
GDMT. Volume depletion from diuretic therapies could also increase the risk of
ambulatory hypotension, which could prompt adjustment of the timing or dose of
diuretic therapies. Little data exist regarding ambulatory hypotension in the heart
failure population and studies should focus on defining the prevalence and risk asso-
ciated with daytime hypotension.
Hypertension and Ischemic Heart Disease
Ischemic Heart Disease: Morbidity and Mortality
Ischemic heart disease (IHD) remains one of the most common chronic fatal ill-
nesses with death rates of nearly 530,000 per year in United States of America [25].
According to National Hospital Ambulatory Medical care Survey, about 11,883,000
people visited a physician’s office for ischemic heart disease in the US 2001. IHD
is an all-too-common initial step on a pathway that leads to various detrimental
cardiovascular outcomes that negatively impact both the longevity and quality of
life. IHD, or coronary artery disease (CAD), is a condition which results from ath-
erosclerosis and resultant plaque build-up in the coronary arteries. This plaque nar-
rows the arteries with time and reduces coronary blood flow which presents as chest
pain, resulting from myocardial ischemia. Eventually, an area of plaque can rupture
causing thrombosis formation which itself can block local coronary blood flow or
can dislodge to distant coronary artery resulting in embolic obstruction, with resul-
tant myocardial infarction.
Risk Factors of IHD
There are several modifiable and some non-modifiable risk factors that predispose
to the development of ischemic heart disease. Important risk factors include, but are
not limited to, age, serum cholesterol, hypertension, tobacco use, sedentary life-
style, diabetes mellitus, stress, obesity, family history, left ventricular hypertrophy,
and various genetic factors [26–29]. These predisposing factors are advantageous in
identifying people who are at increased risk of ischemic heart disease and who
should be targeted for specific life-style and pharmacologic interventions aimed at
prevention and treatment to reduce the incidence of IHD. The non-modifiable risk
factors are age, gender, and family history of IHD. Among many, one of the most
well-documented and important modifiable risk factors is arterial hypertension [30].
There are several epidemiological studies that have documented the strong correla-
tion between hypertension and ischemic heart disease [31–33].
Impact of Hypertension
Hypertension is one of the most common causes of premature death worldwide and
the problem continues to grow; in 2025, an estimated 1.56 billion adults will be liv-
ing with hypertension [34]. The trend towards increasing obesity, sedentary life-
styles, and an aging population contribute to the increased incidence of arterial
hypertension. The overall prevalence of hypertension is similar in women and men
based on recent NHANES data, though the prevalence varies by age [35]. Over 65
million Americans age 20 or older have hypertension, which translates into one in
every three adults [36]. The prevalence of hypertension also varies with ethnicity
and is several fold higher in the African American population [37]. In recently pub-
lished US population data, the prevalence of hypertension after age 60 years is 60 %
in Caucasians and 70 % in African Americans. According to the Framingham study
on risk stratification, hypertension was the most significant risk factor leading to
40 % of coronary events in men and 68 % in women [38]. The relationship between
hypertension and risk of cardiovascular events is continuous, consistent, and
independent of other risk factors [46]. The higher the blood pressure, the greater the
chance of ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and stroke. High blood pressure was
a primary or contributing cause of death for more than 360,000 Americans in
2013—which is nearly 1000 deaths each day [36]. Of greater concern is the overall
poor awareness and control of hypertension; recent data from a large multinational
study consisting of 142,042 participants demonstrated that 46.5 % of the partici-
pants with hypertension were aware of the diagnosis, but only 32.5 % of those were
being treated [39]. In U.S. only, about half (52 %) of people with high blood pres-
sure have their condition under control [40]. These findings suggest substantial
room for improvement in hypertension diagnosis and treatment. Hypertension,
often referred to as the “silent killer,” results in progressive and unrecognized vas-
cular damage increasing the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.
Consistent and regular monitoring of blood pressure in patients with risk factors for
CV disease allows for early identification of patients who may benefit from life-
style modification and pharmacologic therapy that may prevent the development of
chronic morbidity and mortality.
Correlation of IHD with Systolic and Diastolic Blood Pressures
Population-based observational data has consistently demonstrated a strong correla-

tion between increased systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure
(DBP) with ischemic heart disease [41, 42]. Data from the Framingham Heart Study
[43] supported by more recent data [44, 45] indicates that SBP increases continu-
ously across all age groups, whereas DBP increases until age 60 years and then
begins to decrease steadily. We know that coronary arteries are perfused predomi-
nantly during diastole and significant variations in DBP affect coronary circulation
directly. During systole, the contracting LV myocardium compresses intra-
myocardial vessels and obstructs its own blood flow. There is sufficient data dem-
onstrating a J-curve relationship between IHD and mortality when DBP was either
too high or too low [46]. This simply extrapolates to an increased mortality from
myocardial infarctions in patient on either side of range of optimum DBP [47]. As
the prevalence of hypertension increases with age, adequate control of both SBP
and pulse pressure rather than DBP in the elderly has become the dominant public
health imperative. A large study including 902 patients with moderate to severe
HTN reported the nadir of the J-Curve in DBP to be 85–90 mmHg, while no such
J-curve relationship has been found between SBP and IHD; the risk of IHD increases
steeply with increasing SBP [47]. In the Chicago Heart Association Detection
Project in Industry, men 18 to 39 years of age at baseline with a BP of 130–139/85–
89 mmHg or with stage 1 hypertension (SBP 140–159/ 90 = 99 mmHg) accounted
for nearly 60 % of all excess IHD, overall cardiovascular disease, or all-cause mor-
tality [33]. Effective control of both systolic and diastolic blood pressure with the
use of life-style modification and antihypertensive therapies has resulted in major
reductions in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality over the past 50 years [48].
Randomized trials have shown that lowering BP results in rapid reductions in

cardiovascular risks [49]. As an illustration, a 10-mmHg–lower usual SBP (or a
5-mmHg–lower usual DBP) would predict a 50–60 % lower risk of fatal stroke and
an approximately 40–50 % lower risk of death due to ischemic heart disease or other
vascular causes at middle age [50].
Pathophysiology of IHD: Role of Hypertension
Pathophysiology relating to the development of ischemic heart disease in hyperten-

sion involves increased myocardial oxygen demand and decreased coronary blood
flow. When SBP is elevated, there is an increase in both LV output impedance and
intra-myocardial wall tension, which increases LV pressure load and cardiac work—
leading to LV hypertrophy (Fig. 15.3). Arterial hypertension exerts strain on the
Fig. 15.3 The

pathophysiology of Hypertension
hypertension induced
ischemic heart disease
Increaesed vascular wall

tension
Decreased compliance of
vessels
LV output impdedence
Pressure related cardiac

pathology: LV Hypertrophy
Increase myocardial
oxygen demand
Ishemic Heart Diseasse

arterial wall leading to fragmentation, thinning, and fracture of elastin fibers, as well
as increased collagen deposition in arteries, which results in decreased compliance
of these vessels and overtime development of atherosclerosis [51, 52]. Atherosclerosis
leads to diminished coronary blood flow or, at least, a diminished coronary flow
reserve. In addition to these structural abnormalities, endothelial dysfunction, which
develops over time as a consequence of both aging and hypertension, contributes
functionally to increased rigidity of arterial wall [53]. Many of the mechanisms of
the initiation and maintenance of hypertension are also those that mediate damage
to target organs, including the coronary vessels and the myocardium. These mecha-
nisms include increased sympathetic nervous system and renin-angiotensin-
aldosterone system (RAAS) activity; deficiencies in release and/or activity of
vasodilators, for example, nitric oxide, prostacyclin, and the natriuretic peptides;
structural and functional abnormalities in conductance and resistance arteries, par-
ticularly endothelial dysfunction; and increased expression of growth factors and
inflammatory cytokines in the arterial tree [54]. All of these factors either increase
myocardial demand or decrease oxygen supply to myocardium, leading to chronic
stable angina at one end of the spectrum and acute myocardial infarction at the other
end depending on the time lapse for which myocardium is deprived of oxygen.
Role of ABPM in IHD
The identification and management of hypertension is of prime importance for both

primary as well as the secondary prevention of IHD. As such, the accurate measure-
ment of blood pressure is of paramount importance for determination of overall
24-h control, efficacy of therapies, and the identification of those at increased risk
of IHD [55–57]. Various errors in measurement of office blood pressure have been
reported including errors due to manometer, cuff size, observer’s error, or even
errors due to the patient [55]. Studies that have compared office, self-measured, and
ambulatory blood pressures have documented substantial, but nonsystematic, differ-
ences between these measurements [55]. Over the last 50 years, it has become
increasingly recognized that isolated clinic blood pressure measurements may not
be adequately representative of the daily blood pressure load away from the medical
environment [56]. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) has evolved as
one of the most reliable noninvasive assessment of a person’s average blood pres-
sure (BP) in modern era [57]. Because ABPM provides large numbers of measure-
ments, researchers have sought to analyze data beyond just the average of BP values
during 24 h or even over more restricted periods such as the day, night, or morning.
Discrepancies between office and out-of-office blood pressure have resulted in the
description of four clinically important blood pressure profiles: normotension, sus-
tained hypertension, white coat hypertension, and masked hypertension.
There is growing evidence to suggest that target-organ-damage is more closely
associated with 24-h ABPM than with office blood pressure, especially in the
3.5 2.2
Nighttime Nighttime
5-year Risk of Cardiovascular Death (%)
3.0
1.9
24-hour 24-hour
2.5
1.6 Daytime
Daytime
2.0
1.3 Clinic
1.5
Clinic
1.0
1.0
0.5 0.7
90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Systolic BP (mmHg) Diastolic BP (mmHg)
Fig. 15.4 Risk of cardiovascular mortality: comparison of clinic and ambulatory blood pressure.
Adjusted 5-year risk of cardiovascular death in the study cohort of 5292 patients for CBPM and
ABPM. Using multiple Cox regression, the relative risk was calculated with adjustment for base-
line characteristics including gender, age, presence of diabetes mellitus, history of cardiovascular
events, and smoking status. The 5-year risks are expressed as number of deaths per 100 subjects
From Dolan E. et al. Superiority of Ambulatory Over Clinic Blood Pressure Measurements in
Predicting Mortality. The Dublin Outcome Study. Hypertension. 2005;46:156–161
prediction of IHD [58–60] (Fig. 15.4). Various studies have pointed out that not
only mean ambulatory blood pressure levels but also degree of blood pressure vari-
ability, or circadian variations, may have an independent and significant relationship
with IHD [61]. Multiple components of the ABPM have been shown to be involved
in the complex interplay of IHD, including BP increases induced by stress at work
[62], rate of BP rise during early morning [63, 64], Daytime BP variations [65],
Night time BP fall (dipping) [66, 67], or no change (non-dipping) [68].
Circadian BP Variations in Sustained Hypertension and IHD
ABPM has shown that the circadian BP is variable and not uniform in patients with
hypertension. Blood pressure values tend to peak during the daytime hours and then
fall to a nadir after midnight. BP normally decreases (“dips”) during sleep, and
people whose BP dips ≤10 % from their daytime baseline BP have been referred to
as “nondippers.” Nighttime blood pressure (BP) dipping can further be quantified as
the ratio of mean nighttime (sleep) BP to mean daytime (awake) BP. During last
decade, four dipping categories have been described, based on the night–day blood
pressure ratio from 24-h ambulatory blood pressure recordings: extreme dippers
(night–day blood pressure ratio < or = 0.8), dippers (0.8 < ratio < or = 0.9), nondip-
pers (0.9 < ratio < or = 1.0), and reverse dippers (ratio > 1.0).
Early Morning BP Surge and IHD
In the early morning hours with awakening and resuming activities, blood pressure
rises sharply, with daytime levels being reached within a relatively short period. The
circadian pattern of numerous cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, sudden
cardiac death, stroke) reveals a peak in the early hours of the morning, which may
well be explained by early morning higher BP. This circadian rhythm BP peaking in
the morning has also been shown to trigger so-called silent myocardial ischemia,
which occurs in more than 20 % of patients with arterial hypertension and can only
be regularly detected by ABPM [69].
Nocturnal Dipping and IHD
It has been observed that degree of nocturnal dipping, which also contributes to the
magnitude of overall 24-h blood pressure variability, is inversely related to severity
of end organ damage of hypertension especially IHD. In patients with hyperten-
sion, non-dipping is associated with target organ damage and higher cardiovascu-
lar events independent of the overall BP [70]. Non-dipping may be a risk factor for
cardiovascular disease even when the 24-h BP average is not elevated. In a small
study of men with angiographically proven coronary artery disease, 72 % exhibited
a non-dipping BP pattern compared with 46 % of matched controls without known
coronary artery disease [71]. Another study showed that levels of von Willebrand
factor, D-dimer, fibrinogen, and P-selectin were significantly higher among patients
with documented coronary artery disease who were non-dippers [72]. This clearly
extrapolates that high ABP or non-dipping pattern of circadian BP per se is an
important pathophysiologic factor that may influence cardiovascular risk by alter-
ing hemostasis or endothelial function [56] as discussed earlier in Fig. 15.1.
Furthermore, non-dippers experience a greater “BP load” over 24 h than dippers
with the same daytime BP and, hence, may be more likely to develop target organ
damage in the form of IHD.
White Coat Hypertension and IHD
White coat hypertension is a phenomenon in which patients exhibit elevated blood

pressure in a clinical setting. It is believed that this is due to the anxiety and stress
some people experience during a clinic visit [73]. The diagnosis of white coat
hypertension (also called isolated clinic or office hypertension) is applied to patients
with office readings that average more than 140/90 mmHg and reliable out-of-office
readings that average less than 140/90 mmHg. The effect of isolated white coat
hypertension on cardiovascular risk has been controversial. White coat hyperten-
sion is found to be associated with more advanced cardiovascular target organ dam-
age as compared to people who are normotensive [74], but certain studies have
denied this association [75]. The effect of isolated white coat hypertension on
cardiovascular risk still needs further investigation to determine the necessity of
treating it with anti-hypertensives. Therefore, patients with white coat hypertension
should be identified to prevent unnecessary medication implementation. One of the
most important indications for ABPM is to exclude white coat hypertension [76] as
the use of ABPM has added a new source of information about out-of-office blood
pressure to end the debate and conflicting ideas which revolve around whether or
not it would be feasible to treat white coat hypertension [77].
Masked Hypertension and IHD
Over the last decade, masked hypertension (MH) has gained interest in its relation
to increase risk of ischemic heart disease. According to international guidelines,
MH is defined as elevated daytime ambulatory BP (at least 135 or at least 85 mmHg)
in the face of normal office BP (less than 140 and less than 90 mmHg) [78]. It is
believed that clinical blood pressure of the patient with masked hypertension would
underestimate the risk of cardiovascular disease [79]. Studies have reported that
associations between MH and cardiovascular diseases are as strong as those found
for sustained hypertension [80]. MH has also been hypothesized to be a transient
status which progresses to sustained (and detectable) hypertension when a sufficient
time lapse has occurred [80]. A recent study showed that out of all the patients seen
in hypertensive clinic, about one third of those had masked hypertension, and over
a 5-year follow-up period, their relative risk of cardiovascular events was 2.28 as
compared with the patients whose blood pressure was adequately controlled [81].
ABPM provides a useful tool to identify patients with MH whose office BP mea-
surement systematically fail to identify them and who should be treated as hyperten-
sive to avoid progression to develop IHD [82].
Role of ABPM in Anti-Hypertensive Drug Therapy
IHD can be prevented or reversed when aggressive targets are achieved for major
cardiovascular disease risk factors [31]. The distinction between primary and sec-
ondary prevention is arbitrary, because the major therapeutic objective in any indi-
vidual is to delay or reverse the underlying atherosclerotic disease process of which
hypertension is a major contributor. Furthermore, existing therapies are the same for
both primary or secondary cardiac protection. The effectiveness of any therapy is
judged by the degree of reduction in the surrogate BP and the ability of the chosen
regimen to reduce ischemic events [83].
As mentioned above, several studies have persistently shown an association
between nocturnal BP decline (non-dipper BP pattern) and escalating incidence of
fatal and nonfatal CVD events. These findings documenting the risk of CVD events
are influenced not only by ambulatory BP elevation, but also by blunted nocturnal
BP decline, even within the normotensive range, thereby supporting ABPM as a
necessity for appropriate and opportune assessment of CVD risk in the general pop-
ulation. However, myocardial ischemic events are less frequent during the night
than they are during the day; nevertheless studies suggest that there is increased
frequency of cardiovascular ischemic events in hypertensive patients with nocturnal
blood pressure variation [84]. And these were especially true for non-dippers, prob-
ably because persistently raised BP during the night favored myocardial ischemia
by increasing oxygen demand.
Keeping in mind these variations, it may be beneficial to implement chrono-
therapy as a method of adjusting treatment accordingly based on blood pressure
variability and dipping-profile. Though currently little data supports improved out-
comes by utilizing chronotherapy based on dipping profile, it remains possible that
non-dippers may benefit from a subtly different dosing regimen compared to
extreme-dippers and that adjusting the timing of medications could reduce the risk
of CV events. In one study that assessed BP control between a once-daily evening
dose in comparison with a single morning dose, ingestion of angiotensin receptor
blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors results in greater therapeutic
effect on asleep BP, without impacting overall 24-h control, independently of the
terminal half-life of each individual medication [85]. Thus, the impact of hyperten-
sion treatment-time on sleep-time BP regulation might be clinically relevant. The
previously reported results of the randomized part of the MAPEC study indicate
that treatment with one medication at bedtime was significantly associated with
greater asleep BP reduction and significantly lower CVD risk than treatment with
all hypertension medications upon awakening [86].
ABPM: A Useful Tool for Both Primary and Secondary

Prevention of IHD
In nutshell, ABPM is extremely beneficial in enabling the clinician to monitor

multiple aspects of the blood pressure profile, including 24-h average BP, circa-
dian variation, early morning surge and dipping profile, and in patients with
hypertension and aids assessing the risk of IHD and even ACS. Furthermore,
ambulatory blood pressure monitoring allows the clinician to assess the response
to anti-hypertensive medication and possibly suggesting a benefit of chronother-
apy such as switching to an evening dose of ACEI to improve dipping profile or
adding an additional agent that will prevent early morning surge of BP. Lack of
adequate BP control is a major clinical issue which predicts a high risk of future
cardiovascular events; therefore, ABPM is a helpful tool in keeping record and
analyzing the changes in blood pressure throughout 24-h and adjusting the doses
of anti-hypertensive agents accordingly, thereby enabling more effective control
of arterial hypertension.
References
1. Lloyd-Jones DM, Larson MG, Leip EP, et al. Lifetime risk for developing congestive heart
failure—The Framingham Heart study. Circulation. 2002;106:3068–72.
2. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al. ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart
failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(16):e147–239.
3. Drazner MH. The progression of hypertensive heart disease. Circulation. 2011;123:327–34.
4. Ganau A, Devereux RB, Roman MJ, et al. Patterns of left ventricular hypertrophy ad geomet-
ric remodeling in essential hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;19:1550–8.
5. Davila DF, Donis JH, Oderman R, Gonzalez M, Landaeta A. Patterns of left ventricular hyper-
trophy in essential hypertension: should echocardiography guide the pharmacological treat-
ment? Int J Cardiol. 2008;124:134–8.
6. Goldberg LR, Jessup M. Stage B Heart Failure Management of asymptomatic left ventricular
systolic dysfunction. Circulation. 2006;113:2851–60.
7. Wang TJ, Levy D, Benjamin EJ, Vasan RS. The epidemiology of “asymptomatic” left ven-
tricular systolic dysfunction: implications for screening. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:907–16.
8. Sciarretta S, Palano F, Tocci G, Baldini R, Volpe M. Antihypertensive treatment and develop-
ment of heart failure in hypertension: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of studies in patients
with hypertension and high cardiovascular risk. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(5):384–94.
9. Baker DW. Prevention of heart failure. J Card Fail. 2002;8:333–46.
10. Kostis JB, Davis BR, Cutler J, et al. Prevention of heart failure by antihypertensive drug treat-
ment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. SHEP Cooperative Research Group.
JAMA. 1997;278(3):212–6.
11. Yusuf S, Sleight P, Pogue J, et al. Effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor,
Ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high risk patients: the heart outcomes prevention evalu-
ation study investigators. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:145–53.
12. The SOLVD Investigators. Effect of enalapril on mortality and the development of heart fail-
ure in asymptomatic patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fractions. N Engl J Med.
1992;327:685–91.
13. Shin J, Kline S, Moore M, et al. Association of diurnal blood pressure pattern with risk for
hospitalization or death in men with heart failure. J Card Fail. 2007;13(8):656–62.
14. Verdecchia P, Porcellati C, Schilliaci G, et al. Ambulatory Blood Pressure. An independent
nant of cardiac function in patients with mild-moderate hypertension. Am Heart J. 1989;
118(4):782–95.
16. Verdecchia P, Schillaci G, Guerrieri M, et al. Prevalence and determinants of left ventricular
diastolic filling abnormalities in an unselected hypertensive population. Eur Heart
J. 1990;11(8):679–91.
17. Mancia G, Zanchetti A, Agabiti-Rosei E, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure is superior to clinic
blood pressure in predicting treatment induced regression of left ventricular hypertrophy.
SAMPLE Study on Ambulatory Monitoring of Blood Pressure and Lisinopril Evaluation.
Circulation. 1997;95(6):1464–70.
18. Mosterd A, Cost B, Hoes AW, et al. The prognosis of heart failure in the general population.
The Rotterdam Study. Eur Heart J. 2001;15:1318–27.
19. Canesin MF, Giorgi D, Oliveira Jr MT, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring of patients
with heart failure. A new prognostic marker. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2002;78(1):83–9.
20. O’Brien E, Parati G, Sterigou G, Asmar R, Beilin L, Bilo G, et al. European society of hyper-
tension position paper on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. J Hypertens. 2013;
31:1731–68.
21. Borne P, van de Abramowicz M, Degre S, et al. Effects of chronic congestive heart failure on
24-hour blood pressure and heart rate patterns: a hemodynamic approach. Am Heart
J. 1992;123:998–1004.
22. Giles TD, Roffidal L, Quiroz A, Sander G, Trenznewsky O. Circadian variation in blood
pressure and heart rate in nonhypertensive congestive heart failure. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol.
1996;28(6):733–40.
23. Carson PA, O’Connor CM, Miller AB, et al. Circadian rhythm and sudden death in heart fail-
ure results from prospective randomized amlodipine survival trial. J Am Coll Cardiol.
2000;36:541–6.
24. Vloet LC, Pel-Littel RE, Jansen PA, Jansen RWMM. High prevalence of postprandial and
orthostatic hypotension among geriatric patients admitted to Dutch hospitals. J Gerontol A
Biol Sci Med Sci. 2005;60A:1271–7.
25. Wei R, Curtin LR, Arias E, Anderson RN. U.S. decennial life tables for 1999–2001: methodol-
ogy of the United States Life Tables. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2008;57(4):1–9.
26. Gordon T, Kannel WB. Multiple risk functions for predicting coronary heart disease: the con-
cept, accuracy, and application. Am Heart J. 1982;103:1031–9.
27. Kannel WB, McGee DL. Diabetes and glucose tolerance as risk factors for cardiovascular
disease: the Framingham Study. Diabetes Care. 1979;2:120–6.
28. Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults.
Summary of the second report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) expert
panel on detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood cholesterol in adults (Adult
Treatment Panel II). JAMA. 1993;269:3015–23.
29. Anderson KM, Wilson PWF, Odell PM, Kannel WB. An updated coronary risk profile: a state-
ment for health professionals. Circulation. 1991;83:356–62.
30. Yusuf S. Preventing vascular events due to elevated blood pressure. Circulation. 2006;113:
2166–8.
31. Chobanian AV, Bakris GI, Black HR, Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection,
Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute,
National High Blood Pressure Education Program Coordinating Committee, et al. Seventh
report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, detection, evaluation, and treatment of
high blood pressure. Hypertension. 2003;42:1206–52.
32. Vasan RS, Beiser A, Seshadri S, et al. Residual lifetime risk for developing hypertension in
middle-aged women and men: the Framingham Heart Study. JAMA. 2002;287:1003–10.
33. Miura K, Daviglus ML, Dyer AR, et al. Relationship of blood pressure to 25-year mortality
due to coronary heart disease, cardiovascular diseases, and all causes in young adult men: the
Chicago Heart Association Detection Project in Industry. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:
1501–8.
34. WHO Regional Office for South East Asia. Hypertension fact sheet. http://www.searo.who.int/
linkfiles/non_communicable_diseases_hypertension-fs.pdf. Accessed 21 Mar 2012.
35. Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2015 update: a
report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2015;131(4):e29–322. doi:10.1161/
CIR.0000000000000152. Epub 2014 Dec 17.
36. Nwankwo T, Yoon SS, Burt V, Gu Q. Hypertension among adults in the US: National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2011-2012. NCHS Data Brief, No. 133. Hyattsville, MD:
National Center for Health Statistics/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/US Dept of
Health and Human Services; 2013.
37. Javed F, Aziz EF, Sabharwal MS, et al. Association of BMI and cardiovascular risk stratifica-
tion in the elderly African-American females. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2011;19(6):1182–6.
doi:10.1038/oby.2010.307.
38. Franklin SS, Larson MG, Khan SA, et al. Does the relation of blood pressure to coronary heart
disease risk change with aging? The Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 2001;103:
1245–9.
39. Chow CK, Teo KK, Rangarajan S, PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) Study
investigators, et al. Prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in rural and
urban communities in high-, middle-, and low-income countries. (Prospective Urban Rural
Epidemiology) Study investigators. JAMA. 2013;310(9):959–68. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.
184182.
40. Farley TA, Dalal MA, Mostashari F, Frieden TR. Deaths preventable in the U.S. by improvements
in the use of clinical preventive services. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38(6):600–9.
41. Joint National Committee on the 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;157:2413–46.
42. Stamler J, Neaton JD, Wentworth DN. Blood pressure (systolic and diastolic) and risk of fatal
coronary heart disease. Hypertension. 1989;13(suppl I):I-2–12.
43. Franklin SS, Gustin IV W, Wong ND, et al. Hemodynamic patterns of age-related changes in
blood pressure: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 1997;96:308–15.
44. Tate RB, Manfreda J, Krahn AD, Cuddy TE. Tracking of blood pressure over a 40-year period
in the University of Manitoba Follow-up Study, 1948–1988. Am J Epidemiol. 1995;142:
946–54.
45. Lee ML, Rosner BA, Vokonas PS, Weiss ST. Longitudinal analysis of adult male blood pres-
sure: the Normative Aging Study, 1963–1992. J Epidemiol Biostat. 1996;1:79–87.
46. Farnett L, Mulrow CD, Linn WD, Lucey CR, Tuley MR. The J-curve phenomenon and the
treatment of hypertension. Is there a point beyond which pressure reduction is dangerous?
JAMA. 1991;265:489–95.
47. Cruickshank JM, Thorp JM, Zacharias FJ. Benefits and potential harm of lowering high blood
pressure. Lancet. 1987;1:581–4.
48. Rosendorff C, Black HR, Cannon CP, et al. Treatment of hypertension in the prevention and
management of ischemic heart disease: a scientific statement from the American Heart
Association Council for High Blood Pressure Research and the Councils on Clinical
Cardiology and Epidemiology and Prevention. Circulation. 2007;115(21):2761–88. Epub
2007 May 14.
49. Neal B, MacMahon S, Chapman N, Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’
Collaboration. Effects of ACE inhibitors, calcium antagonists, and other blood-pressure-
lowering drugs: results of prospectively designed overviews of randomized trials. Lancet.
2000;356:1955–64.
50. Lewington S, Clarke R, Qizilbash N, Peto R, Collins R, Prospective Studies Collaboration.
Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure tovascular mortality: a meta-analysis of
individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies [published correction appears
in Lancet. 2002;361:1060]. Lancet. 2002;360:1903–13.
51. Chobanian AV. Vascular effects of systemic hypertension. Am J Cardiol. 1992;69:3E–7.
52. Chobanian AV, Lichtenstein AH, Nilakhe V, Haudenschild CC, Drago R, Nickerson
C. Influence of hypertension on aortic atherosclerosis in the Watanabe rabbit. Hypertension.
1989;14:203–9.
53. Todd ME. Hypertensive structural changes in blood vessels: do endothelial cells hold the key?
Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 1992;70:536–51.
54. Opari S, Zaman MA, Calhoun DA. Pathogenesis of hypertension. Ann Intern Med.
2003;139:761–76.
55. James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, et al. Evidence-Based Guideline for the Management of High
Blood Pressure in Adults: report from the Panel Members Appointed to the Eighth Joint
National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA. 2014;311(5):507–20.
56. Ayman D, Goldshine AD. Blood pressure determinations by patients with essential hyperten-
sion, I: the difference between clinic and home readings before treatment. Am J Med Sci.
1940;200:465–74.
57. Pickering TG, Shimbo D, Haas D. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. N Engl J Med.
2006;354:2368–74. PubMed: 16738273.
58. Perloff D, Sokolow M, Cowan R. The prognostic value of ambulatory blood pressures. JAMA.
1983;249(20):2792–8. doi:10.1001/jama.1983.03330440030027.
59. Hansen TW, Jeppesen J, Rasmussen S, Ibsen H, Torp-Pedersen C. Ambulatory blood pressure
and mortality: a population based study. Hypertension. 2005;45:499–504.
61. Mancia G, Parati G, Albini F, Villani A. Circadian blood pressure variations and their impact
on disease. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1988;12 suppl 7:S11–7.
62. Devereaux R, Pickering TG, Harshfield GA, et al. Left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with
hypertension: importance of blood pressure response to regularly recurring stress. Circulation.
1983;68:470–6.
63. Khoury AF, Sunderajan P, Kaplan NM. The early morning rise in blood pressure is related
mainly to ambulation. Am J Hypertens. 1992;5:339–44.
64. Rocco MB, Nadel EG, Selvyn AP. Circardian rhythms and coronary artery disease. Am
J Cardiol. 1987;59:13C–7.
65. Verdecchia P, Gatteschi C, Benemi G, Bodrini F, Guerreri M, Porcellati C. Circadian blood
pressure changes and left ventricular hypertrophy in essential hypertension. Circulation.
1990;81:528–36.
66. Verdecchia P, Schillaci G, Gatteschi C, et al. Blunted nocturnal fall in blood pressure in hyper-
tensive women in future cardiovascular morbid events. Circulation. 1993;88:986–92.
67. Viera AJ, Lin FC, Hinderliter AL, et al. Nighttime blood pressure dipping in young adults and
coronary artery calcium 10-15 years later: the coronary artery risk development in young
adults study. Am J Hypertens. 2015;28(1):42–9.
69. Uen S, Un I, Fimmers R, Vetter H, Mengden T. Myocardial ischemia during everyday life in
patients with arterial hypertension: prevalence, risk factors, triggering mechanism and circa-
dian variability. Blood Press Monit. 2006;11(4):173–82.
70. Ohkubo T, Hozawa A, Yamaguchi J, et al. Prognostic significance of the nocturnal decline in
blood pressure in individuals with and without high 24-h blood pressure: the Ohasama Study.
J Hypertens. 2002;20:2183–9.
71. Mousa T, El-Sayed MA, Motawea AK, Salama MA, Elhendy A. Association of blunted night-
time blood pressure dipping with coronary artery stenosis in men. Am J Hypertens.
2004;17:977–80.
72. Lee KW, Blann AD, Lip GY. High pulse pressure and nondipping circardian blood pressure in
patients with coronary artery disease: relationship to thrombogenesis and endothelial damage/
dysfunction. Am J Hypertens. 2005;18:104–15.
73. Jhalani J, Goyal T, Clemow L, et al. Anxiety and outcome expectations predict the white-coat
effect. Blood Press Monit. 2005;10(6):317–9.
74. Glen S, Elliott H, Curzio J, Lees K, Reid J. White-coat hypertension as a cause of cardiovas-
cular dysfunction. Lancet. 1996;348(9028):654–7.
75. Pierdomenico SD, Cuccurullo F. Prognostic value of white-coat and masked hypertension
diagnosed by ambulatory monitoring in initially untreated subjects: an updated meta analysis.
Am J Hypertens. 2011;24(1):52–8.
76. O’Brien E, Asmar R, Beilin L, et al. European Society of Hypertension recommendations for
conventional, ambulatory and home blood pressure measurement. J Hypertens. 2003;
21(5):821–48.
77. Pickering T. Blood pressure measurement and detection of hypertension. Lancet.
1994;344(8914):31–5.
78. O’Brien E, Asmar R, Beilin L, et al. Practice guidelines of the European Society of Hypertension
for clinic, ambulatory and self blood pressure measurement. J Hypertens. 2005;
23(4):697–701.
sustained hypertension versus true normotension: a meta-analysis. J Hypertens. 2007;
25(11):2193–8.
80. Mancia G, Bombelli M, Facchetti R, et al. Long-term risk of sustained hypertension in white-
coat or masked hypertension. Hypertension. 2009;54(2):226–32.
81. Pierdomenico SD, Lapenna D, Bucci A, et al. Cardiovascular outcome in treated hypertensive
patients with responder, masked, false resistant, and true resistant hypertension. Am
J Hypertens. 2005;18:1422–8.
82. Verberk WJ, Thien T, de Leeuw PW. Masked hypertension, a review of the literature. Blood
Press Monit. 2007;12(4):267–73.
83. Sytkowski PA, Kannel WB, D’Agostino RB. Changes in risk factors and the decline in mortal-
ity from cardiovascular disease: the Framingham Heart Study. N Engl J Med. 1990;
322:1635–41.
84. Pierdomenico SD, Bucci A, Costantini F, Lapenna D, Cuccurullo F, Mezzetti A. Circadian
blood pressure changes and myocardial ischemia in hypertensive patients with coronary artery
disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:1627–34.
85. Smolensky MH, Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Tiseo R, Portaluppi F. Administration-time-
dependent effect of blood pressure-lowering medications: basis for the chronotherapy of
hypertension. Blood Press Monit. 2010;15:173–80.
86. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Mojón A, Fernández JR. Influence of circadian time of hypertension
treatment on cardiovascular risk: results of the MAPEC study. Chronobiol Int. 2010;
27:1629–51.
Chapter 16
in Special Populations: Masked Hypertension
Anthony J. Viera
Introduction
The pairing of the average of blood pressure (BP) measurements derived from out-
of-office BP monitoring with office BP measurements yields four possible diagnos-
tic categories (Table 16.1). White coat hypertension refers to elevated office
measurements with non-elevated out-of-office measurements and is familiar to
most clinicians. The opposite phenomenon, “masked hypertension,” is more recently
described, and the best strategy for detecting and addressing it has not been estab-
lished. This chapter will review the definition, prevalence, and outcomes associated
with masked hypertension as well as possible diagnostic strategies.
Definition
The term “masked hypertension” refers to elevated average ambulatory BP coincid-

ing with a non-elevated office BP [1]. The definition originally applied to people
with the described BP measurements who were not taking antihypertensive therapy.
However, patients on antihypertensive therapy may also exhibit the same BP mea-
surement pattern. The term “masked uncontrolled hypertension” is now suggested
to describe patients on BP-lowering treatment who exhibit non-elevated office but
elevated ambulatory BP [2].
For either group (masked hypertension and masked uncontrolled hypertension),
non-elevated office BP is typically defined as <140/90 mmHg, usually by an average
A.J. Viera, M.D. (*)

Department of Family Medicine and Hypertension Research Program, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-22771-9_16
324 A.J. Viera
Table 16.1 Four diagnostic categories pairing office with Out-of-Office BP

Office BP average
Not elevated above Elevated above
threshold threshold
Out-of-office BP Not elevated above Sustained (“true”) White coat
average threshold normotension hypertension
Elevated above Masked hypertension Sustained hypertension
threshold
Note that classification is based on either systolic, diastolic, or both
of repeated measurements [3]. The threshold for defining elevated ambulatory BP

varies somewhat in the literature [4, 5], but the most widely used threshold has been
a mean awake ambulatory BP ≥135/85 mmHg [6, 7]. If the 24-h BP average is used,
the threshold is typically an average of ≥130/80 mmHg [3].
The nighttime BP average has also been incorporated into the definition of
masked hypertension. According to the European Society of Hypertension, elevated
nighttime BP is defined as ≥120/70 mmHg [2]. Thus, individuals with non-elevated
office BP with elevated mean awake ambulatory BP and/or elevated mean 24-h
ambulatory BP, and/or elevated mean nighttime ambulatory BP are said to exhibit
masked hypertension.
Prevalence of Masked Hypertension
Masked hypertension is present in approximately 10 % of the general adult

population [4, 6, 8, 9]. Among the general adult population of those with non-
elevated office BP, it is present in approximately 15–30 % [10]. The first cross-
sectional study of masked hypertension in the general population was conducted
in Ohasama, a small community in Japan [11]. Among 969 adults (some under
treatment for hypertension), 13 % of those with normal office BPs had masked
hypertension detected by ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). A second study
conducted in Italy examined 3200 adults and found a 9 % prevalence of masked
hypertension by ABPM (Sega et al. [12]). A third study (N = 1400) conducted in
Spain used home BP monitoring for the out-of-office BP measurements and also
found a 9 % prevalence of masked hypertension [13]. Other studies have exam-
ined the prevalence in certain subpopulations. In a worksite study of 267 men,
14 % had masked hypertension by ABPM [14]. In a study of 319 healthy adult
volunteers with normal office BP, 23 % had masked hypertension detected by
ABPM [15]. Among 578 Swedish men 70-years of age, 14 % had masked hyper-
tension [8]. In national and international databases, the prevalence of masked
hypertension among people with normal office BP ranges from 9 to 54.5 % [16].
The variability in prevalence estimates is due to the heterogeneous definition of
masked hypertension as well as differences in the sample characteristics across
studies.
16 Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Special Populations: Masked… 325
Among certain clinical subgroups, masked hypertension may be even more com-
mon. Diabetics have a higher prevalence of masked hypertension [17–19]. In the
International Database of Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Relation to Cardiovascular
Outcomes (IDACO), among the 7826 participants not taking BP-lowering medica-
tions, the prevalence of masked hypertension (clinic BP < 140/90 mmHg and day-
time ambulatory BP average ≥135/85 mmHg) was higher in the clinic normotensive
participants with diabetes (29 %) than in those without diabetes (19 %) [17].
Masked hypertension also appears more common among patients with chronic
kidney disease (CKD). One Spanish study of 5693 hypertensive patients with CKD
showed that the proportion of individuals with masked hypertension was 7 % among
all the patients and 32 % among patients with clinic normotension [20]. In a cross-
sectional study of 617 treated hypertensive African Americans with CKD, the prev-
alence of masked uncontrolled hypertension was 70 % among individuals with
controlled clinic BP [21].
Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) may also be associated with masked hyperten-
sion. In one study of 133 newly diagnosed OSA patients taking no medications, 30
% exhibited masked hypertension using mean 24-h ambulatory pressures [22]. In
another study of 61 otherwise healthy men with normal clinic BP, obstructive sleep
apnea was associated with masked hypertension even using mean awake ambula-
tory BP, suggesting that OSA adversely affects ambulatory BP beyond the sleep
period [23].
Target Organ Damage and Outcomes
Several studies have examined target organ damage and outcomes associated with
masked hypertension, finding that the risk associated with masked hypertension
approaches that of sustained hypertension. In a study published in 1999, left ven-
tricular mass index (LVMI) and carotid plaque were measured among people with
masked hypertension and compared to those with true normotension and those with
sustained hypertension [24]. The LVMI was 73 g/m2 in the true normotensives, 86
g/m2 in the masked hypertensives, and 90 g/m2 in the sustained hypertensives.
Carotid plaque was present in 15 % of true normotensives and in 28 % of both the
masked and sustained hypertensives. In another study, LVMI in people with masked
hypertension was 91 g/m2 compared to 79 g/m2 in true normotensives and 94 g/m2
in people with sustained hypertension [12]. The association with carotid atheroscle-
rosis was also confirmed in a 2007 study [25]. Thus, masked hypertension is associ-
ated with target organ damage on an order of magnitude approaching that associated
with sustained hypertension.
More importantly, there is also evidence of increased cardiovascular disease
(CVD) events (stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular mortality) occurring in
people with masked hypertension. A meta-analysis of seven studies including a
total of 11,502 subjects followed over a mean of 8 years showed a twofold higher
incidence of CVD events (HR 2.00; 95 % CI 1.58–2.52) in people with masked
326 A.J. Viera
Table 16.2 Target organ damage and cardiovascular events [12, 24, 26]
True Masked Sustained
normotension hypertension hypertension
Left ventricular mass index (g/ 73–79 86–91 90–94
m 2)
Carotid plaque (%) 15 28 28
Cardiovascular events hazard 1.0 2.00 (1.58–2.52) 2.28 (1.87–2.78)
ratio (95 % CI)
hypertension compared to those with true normotension [26]. This risk approaches
the risk conferred by sustained hypertension (HR 2.28; 95 % CI 1.87–2.78). Table
16.2 summarizes the target organ damage associations and cardiovascular event
rates in true normotension, masked hypertension, and sustained hypertension.
In another analysis, individual-level data from the IDACO was used to examine
differences in CVD risk among 7030 people comparing white coat hypertension,
masked hypertension, and sustained hypertension. At a median follow-up of 9.5
years (64,958 person years), compared to people with sustained normotension, the
adjusted hazard ratios for CVD events were 1.22 (95 % CI 0.96–1.53) for those with
white coat hypertension, 1.62 (95 % CI 1.35–1.96) for those with masked hyperten-
sion, and 1.80 (95 % CI 1.59–2.03) for those with sustained hypertension [27].
Notably, the hazard ratios between masked hypertension and sustained hyperten-
sion were not significantly different (p = 0.14).
Diagnosis of Masked Hypertension
Missing from the current literature is any evidence that identification and treatment
of masked hypertension reduces CVD events or mortality. In order to conduct such
studies, a practical approach to detecting masked hypertension is needed. At the
very least, identification of people with masked hypertension may allow earlier,
more aggressive lifestyle modifications and closer monitoring for progression to
overt (sustained) hypertension. However, there is limited evidence on how best to
identify people with masked hypertension. One approach would be to perform
ABPM on all adults, perhaps over a certain age, with non-elevated office BP. Given
the relatively new recommendations that ABPM ought to be performed in adults
before diagnosing hypertension (in order to exclude white coat hypertension) [28,
29], an approach that also uses ABPM among people with “normal” office BP
would in effect mean everyone would be getting ABPM. Such an approach is not
practical.
An alternative detection strategy would be to target ABPM to people who are at
high risk for having masked hypertension. While some factors associated with
masked hypertension have been observed, they are not consistent, and no validated
risk assessment tool has yet been developed. The most reliable risk factor may simply
be the office BP level. Recent evidence suggests that the BP cutoff that may have the
most reasonable tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity is approximately 126
mmHg systolic [30]. Similarly, other studies have shown that office BP in the upper
prehypertensive range predicts masked hypertension [31]. Another study examined
the diagnostic overlap between masked hypertension and prehypertension (systolic
BP 120–139 mmHg or diastolic BP 80–89 mmHg) [7]. Among 813 participants not
on antihypertensive medications, 769 participants had non-elevated clinic BP. The
overall prevalence of masked hypertension in the participants with non-elevated
clinic BP was 15 % using a cutoff of 135/85 mmHg for mean awake ambulatory
BP. The prevalence of masked hypertension was only 4 % in participants with office
BP <120/80 mmHg. In the subgroup of participants with prehypertension, the prev-
alence of masked hypertension increased to 34 % and reached 52 % in the upper
prehypertensive range (systolic BP 130–139 mmHg or diastolic BP 80–89 mmHg).
Other studies have shown a similarly high prevalence of masked hypertension
among patients with borderline prehypertensive office BP levels [32, 33].
Thus, one diagnostic approach may be to assess individuals for masked hyper-
tension if their office BP is in the prehypertensive range (Fig. 16.1). If office BP is
<120/80 mmHg, there may be no need to do ABPM since the likelihood of masked
hypertension, especially of any clinical significance, is low. Another potential
approach would be to perform targeted testing among subgroups who exhibit a
higher prevalence of masked hypertension, including those with diabetes, OSA, and
possibly CKD.
Another potential strategy for detecting masked hypertension would be to use
home BP monitoring (HBPM). Like ABPM, measurements from HBPM correlate
better with CVD prognosis. HBPM has also been used in a number of studies to
define masked hypertension [34–37] However, it is not clear that HBPM and ABPM
are interchangeable for identifying masked hypertension. In one study, the congru-
ence of the diagnosis of masked hypertension comparing awake ABPM to HBPM
among 420 adults 30 years and older was 72 % (k = 0.36) [33]. In the PAMELA
study, home BP was elevated (defined as ≥135/83 mmHg) in only half of the patients
diagnosed with masked hypertension by mean 24-h ambulatory BP (defined as
≥125/79 mmHg), again suggesting limited agreement between ABPM and HBPM
in diagnosing masked hypertension [4]. Finally, HBPM may not be an ideal
methodology for identifying masked hypertension due to its inability to determine
nighttime (sleep) BP [4].
<120/80 Recheck office BP

mmHg in 1-2 years
Office BP
>120/80 Consider ABPM to rule

mmHg out masked hypertension
Fig. 16.1 A possible strategy for detecting masked hypertension

328 A.J. Viera
Conclusions
Masked hypertension is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular target

organ damage, CVD events, and mortality compared to sustained normotension. It
appears that 15–30 % of adults have masked hypertension, yet the condition goes
undetected because the office BP is “normal.” The paradigm for detecting hyperten-
sion may need to be changed. Already, enough evidence has accumulated such that
guideline groups recommend ABPM to confirm hypertension in patients with ele-
vated office BP [28, 29]. The evidence is growing such that in time, it may also be
commonplace to use ABPM—at least for some groups—to ensure that masked
hypertension is not present.
References

2002;40(6):795–6.
ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. J Hypertens. 2013;31(9):1731–68.
3. O’Brien E, Asmar R, Beilin L, et al. Practice guidelines of the European Society of Hypertension
for clinic, ambulatory and self blood pressure measurement. J Hypertens. 2005;23(4):697.
4. Mancia G, Facchetti R, Bombelli M, Grassi G, Sega R. Long-term risk of mortality associated
with selective and combined elevation in office, home, and ambulatory blood pressure.
5. Hansen TW, Jeppesen J, Rasmussen S, Ibsen H, Torp-Pedersen C. Ambulatory blood pressure
monitoring and risk of cardiovascular disease: a population based study. Am J Hypertens.
2006;19(3):243–50.
the Ohasama study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(3):508–15.
7. Shimbo D, Newman JD, Schwartz JE. Masked hypertension and prehypertension: diagnostic
overlap and interrelationships with left ventricular mass: the Masked Hypertension Study. Am
J Hypertens. 2012;25(6):664–71.
8. Bjorklund K, Lind L, Zethelius B, Andren B, Lithell H. Isolated ambulatory hypertension
predicts cardiovascular morbidity in elderly men. Circulation. 2003;107(9):1297–302.
9. Hanninen M-RA, Niiranen TJ, Puukka PJ, Johansson J, Jula AM. Prognostic significance of
masked and white-coat hypertension in the general population: the Finn-Home Study.
J Hypertens. 2012;30:705–12.
10. Peacock J, Diaz KM, Viera AJ, Schwartz JE, Shimbo D. Unmasking masked hypertension:
prevalence, clinical implications, diagnosis, correlates and future directions. J Hum Hypertens.
2014;28(9):521–8.
11. Imai Y, Tsuji I, Nagai K, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in evaluating the preva-
lence of hypertension in adults in Ohasama, a rural Japanese community. Hypertens Res.
1996;19(3):207–12.
12. Sega R, Trocino G, Lanzarotti A, et al. Alterations of cardiac structure in patients with isolated
office, ambulatory, or home hypertension: Data from the general population (Pressione
Arteriose Monitorate E Loro Associazioni [PAMELA] Study). Circulation. 2001;104(12):
1385–92.
13. Márquez Contreras E, Casado Martínez JJ, Pardo Alvarez J, Vázquez I, Guevara B, Rodríguez
J. Prevalence of white-coat hypertension and masked hypertension in the general population,
through home blood pressure measurement. Aten Primaria. 2006;38(7):392–8.
14. Belkić KL, Schnall PL, Landsbergis PA, et al. Hypertension at the workplace—an occult dis-
ease? The need for work site surveillance. Adv Psychosom Med. 2001;22:116–38.
15. Selenta C, Hogan BE, Linden W. How often do office blood pressure measurements fail to
identify true hypertension? An exploration of white-coat normotension. Arch Fam Med.
2000;9:533–40.
16. Gorostidi M, Vinyoles E, Banegas JR, de la Sierra A. Prevalence of white-coat and masked
hypertension in national and international registries. Hypertens Res. 2015;38(1):1–7.
17. Franklin SS, Thijs L, Li Y, et al. Masked hypertension in diabetes mellitus: treatment implica-
tions for clinical practice. Hypertension. 2013;61(5):964–71.
18. Leitao CB, Canani LH, Silveiro SP, Gross JL. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and type
2 diabetes mellitus. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2007;89:315–21; 347–54.
19. Ben-Dov IZ, Ben-Ishay D, Mekler J, Ben-Arie L, Bursztyn M. Increased prevalence of masked
blood pressure elevations in treated diabetic subjects. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:2139–42.
20. Gorostidi M, Sarafidis PA, de la Sierra A. et al; Spanish ABPM Registry Investigators.
Differences between office and 24-hour blood pressure control in hypertensive patients with
CKD: A 5,693-patient cross-sectional analysis from Spain. Am J Kidney Dis.
2013;62(2):285–94.
ambulatory and clinic blood pressure measurements in hypertensive kidney disease.
22. Baguet JP, Levy P, Barone-Rochette G, et al. Masked hypertension in obstructive sleep apnea
syndrome. J Hypertens. 2008;26(5):885–92.
23. Drager LF, Diegues-Silva L, Diniz PM, et al. Obstructive sleep apnea, masked hypertension,
and arterial stiffness in men. Am J Hypertens. 2010;23(3):249–54.
24. 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(8):564–72.
25. Matsui Y, Eguchi K, Ishikawa J, Hoshide S, Shimada K, Kario K. Subclinical arterial damage
in untreated masked hypertensive subjects detected by home blood pressure measurement. Am
J Hypertens. 2007;20:385–91.
sustained hypertension versus true normotension: a meta-analysis. J Hypertens.
2007;25(11):2193–8.
27. Hansen TW, Kikuya M, Thijs L, et al. Prognostic superiority of daytime ambulatory over con-
ventional blood pressure in four populations: a meta-analysis of 7,030 individuals. J Hypertens.
2007;25(8):1554–64.
28. National Clinical Guideline Centre (UK). Hypertension: The Clinical Management of Primary
Hypertension in Adults: Update of Clinical Guidelines 18 and 34. London: Royal College of
Physicians; 2011.
intervals: a systematic review for the US Preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med.
2015;162(3):192–204.
30. Viera AJ, Lin FC, Tuttle LA, et al. Levels of office blood pressure and their operating charac-
teristics for detecting masked hypertension based on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.
Am J Hypertens. 2015;28(1):42–9.
31. Hanninen M-RA, Niiranen TJ, Puukka PJ, Mattila AK, Jula AM. Determinants of masked
hypertension in the general population: the Finn-Home study. J Hypertens. 2011;29:1880–8.
32. Viera AJ, Hinderliter AL, Kshirsagar AV, Fine J, Dominik R. Reproducibility of masked hyper-
tension in adults with untreated borderline office blood pressure: comparison of ambulatory
and home monitoring. Am J Hypertens. 2010;23(11):1190–7.
330 A.J. Viera
33. Viera AJ, Lin FC, Tuttle LA, Olsson E, Stankevitz K, Girdler SS, Klein JL, Hinderliter
AL. Reproducibility of masked hypertension among adults 30 years or older. Blood Press
Monit. 2014;19(4):208–15.
34. Bobrie G, Chatellier G, Genes N, et al. Cardiovascular prognosis of “masked hypertension”
detected by blood pressure self-measurement in elderly treated hypertensive patients. JAMA.
2004;291:1342–9.
35. Zhuo S, Wen W, Li-Yuan M, Shu-Yu W, Yi-Xin W. Home blood pressure measurement in
prehypertension and untreated hypertension: comparison with ambulatory blood pressure
monitoring and office blood pressure. Blood Press Monit. 2009;14:245–50.
36. Stergiou GS, Argyraki KK, Moyssakis I, et al. Home blood pressure is as reliable as ambula-
tory blood pressure in predicting target-organ damage in hypertension. Am J Hypertens.
2007;20:616–21.
37. Matsui Y, Eguchi K, Ishikawa J, Hoshide S, Shimada K, Kario K. Subclinical arterial damage
in untreated masked hypertensive subjects detected by home blood pressure measurement. Am
J Hypertens. 2007;20(4):385–91.
Chapter 17
Lawrence R. Krakoff
Introduction
Arterial pressure varies, from heart beat to heart beat, from minute to minute, hour
to hour, and day to day. This fundamental property of systolic and diastolic pressure
has been recognized since the work of Harvey who first measured blood pressure in
equine arteries [1]. During the nineteenth century, astute physicians (Bright,
Mahomet) observed high pressures in patients with chronic kidney disease and then
in a fraction of the population without kidney disease, but destined to die of stroke
or heart disease. (They assessed pressure by feeling the pulse or use of primitive
devices for semi-quantitative measurements [2].
Development of the Riva-Rocci device and use of the stethoscope to hear
Korotkof sounds markedly expanded approximation of the arterial pressure in the
clinic leading to the more general recognition that higher arterial pressure, i.e.,
hypertension, was highly prevalent in the population at large and clearly associated
with cardiovascular and renal diseases. These studies were based on measurement
in the clinic. While variation in arterial pressure from visit to visit may have been
recognized, its significance for clinical diagnosis implied the need for measurement
not only in the clinic but in “real life” where 99 % of any patient’s life is spent, at
home, work, or other locations and activities.
Ayman and Goldshine made the initial observation that clinic or office blood
pressures were often much higher than pressures measured at home. Their patients
were trained to take their own pressure using the stethoscope and mercury manometer
[3]. There was no effective treatment at that time. These authors suggested that
L.R. Krakoff, M.D. (*)

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai,
One Gustave L Levy Place, Box 1030, New York, NY 10029-6574, USA

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-22771-9_17
332 L.R. Krakoff
those with lower home pressures might be less at risk to develop target organ
pathology or die prematurely compared with those with high pressures in both
environments. Ayman and Goldshine’s report, published in 1940, had little apparent
impact at the time, most likely due to the world’s attention to the onset of World War
II and, in the United States, the extraordinary Presidential election (Roosevelt versus
Wilkie) with Roosevelt seeking an unprecedented third term.
The development of a portable recording device (Remmler) for measuring blood
pressure throughout the day was a major step forward for evaluating blood pressure
during ordinary activities, but required manual inflation of the cuff [4]. Perlow and
Sokolow used the Remmler to collect daytime ambulatory blood pressures for
nearly 1000 participants with clinic hypertension and followed this cohort for many
years to characterize patterns of subsequent cardiovascular disease. Those with
ambulatory pressures greater than clinic pressures in this prospective cohort study
had a higher incidence of cardiovascular events, compared with those whose
ambulatory pressures were lower than their clinic pressure [5]. Since then, several
large prospective surveys have amply confirmed the importance of ambulatory
blood pressure monitoring for superior prognostic accuracy in predicting
cardiovascular disease in [6–8].
The presence of a physician can increase blood pressure and intra-arterial blood
pressure in the clinic or a medical intensive care unit [9, 10]. Pickering and
colleagues studied a large number of hypertensive patients and compared clinic and
24-h ambulatory pressures. They found that many of their participants with clinic
hypertension had much lower pressures during the day and night at work or home
as revealed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. They coined the “White Coat
Hypertension” as a useful diagnosis for those with high clinic pressures and normal
out-of-office pressures [11]. From 1988 until the present time, recognition of White
Coat Hypertension has grown progressively with more than 1000 publications in
English listed in PubMed. “White Coat Hypertension” (WCH) is now widely
recognized as a distinct diagnostic entity (ICD 9 code 796.2) that is highly useful for
assessment of patients initially thought to be hypertensive on the basis of screening
programs or limited clinic assessment. The “White Coat Effect” in treated patients
describes those with pressures above goal in the clinic, but below the goal for
treatment when out-of-the- office.
Does WCH indicate that future cardiovascular risk is the same as that of
those with normal clinic pressures? When WCH is present, is anti-hypertensive
drug therapy warranted or can it be withheld and for how long? For treated
patients, when a White Coat Effect (WCE) is present, which pressure is best
related to prognosis; should treatment be based on the clinic pressure or the
out-office-pressure? Few of these questions have been put to rest, despite the
progress that has been made in diagnosis and treatment of hypertension since
initial recognition of White Coat Hypertension, 30 years ago. This review will
summarize current knowledge of White Coat Hypertension and the White Coat
Effect. Our goal is to enhance awareness and usefulness of these diagnoses for
better management of hypertension.
17 White Coat Hypertension 333
Defining White Coat Hypertension and the White Coat Effect
Table 17.1 summarizes the definition of these terms as reflected in recent guidelines
and reports from consensus groups. Alternate terms have sometimes been used.
“Isolated office hypertension” and “Isolated ambulatory hypertension” convey the
same meaning as WCH or Masked Hypertension, respectively.
Most hypertensive patients have slightly higher office pressures compared to
either daytime ABPM or HBPM explaining the differences between threshold pres-
sures in Table 17.2. Occasionally, these differences are large with office systolic
pressures higher by >20 mmHg than out-of-office daytime pressures. Normal par-
ticipants and many hypertensive patients have 10–20 % lower nighttime pressures
(dipper pattern) that account for the lower threshold pressures for 24 h ABPM com-
pared to either daytime ABPM or Home pressures.
For those patients >60 years of age, some recent guidelines, for clinic pressures,
have accepted systolic pressures of 145–150 mmHg as thresholds for both diagnosis
and on-treatment goal pressure [12, 13]. It is not yet established whether or not there
should be changes in current thresholds for arterial pressure when measured out-of-
the office by ABPM or HBPM.
Table 17.1 Arterial pressure categories based on relation between Clinic and Out-of-Office
measurement for untreated patients [16, 17]
White coat Sustained
Classification Normal hypertensiona hypertension
Location
Clinic Pressures Normal High High
<140/90 mmHg ≥140/90 mmHg ≥140/90 mmHg
Daytime ABPM or Normal Normal High
Home BP <135/85 mmHg <135/85 mmHg ≥135/85 mmHg
24 h ABPM <130/80 mmHg <130/80 mmHg ≥130/80
a
Alternate-isolated office hypertension
Table 17.2 Arterial pressure categories based on relation between Clinic and Out-of-Office
measurement for treated patients [17, 18]
Classification Normal-controlled White coat effect Sustained hypertensiona
Location
Clinic pressures Normal High High
<140/90 mmHg ≥140/90 mmHg ≥140/90 mmHg
Daytime ABPM or Normal Normalb Highc
Home BP <135/85 mmHg <135/85 mmHg ≥135/85 mmHg
24 h ABPM <130/80 mmHg <130/80 mmHg ≥130/80
a
Alternate-Isolated office hypertension
b
Pseudo-resistant hypertension, if taking multiple medications at usual therapeutic doses
c
Resistant hypertension if patients are prescribed with three or more drugs at usual therapeutic
doses [19]
334 L.R. Krakoff
Definitions for WCH or WCE are currently based only on the level or blood
pressure observed in clinic and out-of-the office. The degree of difference is not
included. Thus, a 55-year-old patient with an office pressure of 160/100 mmHg and
a home pressure average of 138/84 is still considered to be hypertensive despite the
substantially lower pressure outside the office. The presence or absence of
the normal nocturnal dip in blood pressure is, likewise, not presently considered in
the criteria for WCH or WCE despite its significance for prognosis [14, 15].
Causes of WCH or WCE
Anxiety in anticipation of or during the clinic visit has been linked to WCH or the
WCE during treatment, especially when the doctor measures the pressure. While
some patients have a generalized anxiety syndrome or panic disorder, a sudden
increase in pressure in the office may be, in part, a conditioned reflex [20]. Older
patients may be more likely to have anxiety-related White Coat response, but in
those with dementia the response is less prominent [21].
WCH/WCE Methods
Clinic Pressures Measured by Providers (Assistants, Nurses,

Physicians Using Auscultation)
The diagnosis of White Coat Hypertension or the White Coat effect for treated patients
depends on comparing the clinic pressures and out-of-office pressures. For a valid
comparison, pressures measured in both settings should be accurate, but representative
of each setting. Only one or two pressures are taken at a usual clinic visit by varying
personnel (medical assistant, nurse, or physician) on either arm and in the sitting posi-
tion. The limitations for clinic pressure have been amply documented [22] and include
inaccurate devices, incorrect cuff size, lack of training and observer bias if auscultation
is used rather than a device [23]. Since the virtual disappearance of mercury column
sphygmomanometers due to concern about contamination, many clinics now use either
an aneroid sphygmomanometer with auscultation or a device that inflates the cuff has
a sensor in the cuff and displays pressure. In general, pressures measured by the physician
are higher than those measured by trained nurses, resulting in a greater likelihood of
WCH or WCE when out-of-office measurements are obtained for comparison [22].
Use of Devices in the Clinic/Office
Measuring more blood pressures with an accurate device at the clinic visit can
reduce the chance of a false positive diagnosis of WCH or WCE. Bias is eliminated.
Several approaches have been explored. Patients referred to the Mayo Clinic have
been evaluated by a 6-h recording using the SpaceLabs ambulatory blood pressure
monitor. There was excellent correlation with measurements made by trained nurses
for systolic pressure. Diastolic pressures were about 7 mmHg higher for 6 h average
compared to nurse measurements. Results were not compared with either out-
of-office measurement by ABPM or HBPM [24].
Extensive studies have been reported for use of the BpTru device for clinic pressures.
The BpTru consists of a cuff with pressure detector by oscillometry, inflation pump,
and recording software that uses a programmed sequence of pressure measurements,
then calculates the average pressures. The first measurement is discarded. Average
pressures are then calculated from the following five measurements, usually taken at
1–2 min intervals [25]. In a series of 400 patients evaluated by both daytime ABPM
and in clinic by BpTru, average systolic and diastolic pressures were very similar and
highly correlated: systolic pressure r = 0.640 and diastolic pressure r = 0.693 for
comparison between daytime ABPM and BpTru using 1 min intervals. However, the
absolute differences for individuals were often >5 mmHg for systolic or diastolic
pressure and nearly 20 % had differences of >10 mmHg. The widely available Omron
device has been compared to the BpTru for clinic assessment. Both devices give very
similar systolic and diastolic pressure measurements when taken at 1-min intervals.
When taken at 2-min intervals, systolic pressures were similar, but the average diastolic
pressures were higher for the BpTru device [26].
Out-of-Office ABPM or HBPM
The generally accepted “gold standard” for measuring out-of-office pressure is

non-invasive 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Several accurate and
well-validated devices for this purpose are now available. Protocols for use of
ABPM have been described in guidelines and recommend measurements every
15–20 min during the day and every 30 min during the night. Use of ABPM requires
well-trained staff, patient education to minimize errors (i.e., exercise), and computers
for programing the monitors, collecting stored results and preparing reports. In
general, patients go to a practice or station for placement of monitors and return the
devices after a day of monitoring. This results in some degree of inconvenience in
requiring two visits per ABPM determination. The costs for resources and personnel
to maintain and ABPM program are small, by Western standards, but steep for
developing nations. At present, US Medicare and other insurance providers pay for
ambulatory blood pressure monitoring when the diagnosis of WCH is suspected.
Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) is most accurate and reliable when
automated devices are used (i.e., Omron et al.). There is very good correlation
between HBPM and daytime ABPM. Devices must be checked for accuracy.
Patients need to be trained for use of the devices, recording of results (if devices
don’t have memory), and transmission of results as data sheets or by telemetry (an
increasing trend). Feedback and counseling can be done by phone or e-mail (security
necessary) so that there is less need for clinic visits. An average of 10–20 home
336 L.R. Krakoff
measurements is needed for comparison with clinic pressures to determine presence

or absence of WCH/WCE [27]. Most insurance providers don’t support purchase of
HBPM devices. Prices are in the range of $70–100 for devices with automatic
inflation and memory for storing results. Devices are widely available in pharmacies
and medical supply stores. Combining HBPM with transmission of results directly
to the provider by telemetry is now available in some programs. One advantage for
HBPM with telemetry for treated patients is that patients can evaluate the effect of
treatment and even participate in drug titration during follow-up care, reducing
unnecessary medication that might be prescribed if only office pressures were
available [28–31].
WCH/WCE Epidemiology
WCH occurs in about 30 % of untreated patients suspected of being hypertensive on

the basis of office/clinic measurements. Those most likely to have WCH are women,
younger patients with recent onset of office hypertension [32], and older patients with
varying systolic pressure [33]. The WCE in treated hypertensive patients may occur
less often; recent meta-analyses suggest prevalence rates of 15–20 % [34–36].
WCH and WCE in African-American Hypertensives
African-Americans have not been extensively studied for prevalence of WCH or

WCE. However, in those with chronic kidney disease, the AASK trial found that 33 %
of those treated had WCE based on comparison of daytime ambulatory pressure with
clinic pressure. However, only 23 % had WCE when nighttime pressures were
considered the basis for controlling hypertension [37]. A study of young (average age
30) White and African-American participants found that sustained hypertension,
WCH, and Masked hypertension all occurred in <5 % of either group without
significant differences between the groups [38]. However, average nighttime systolic
and diastolic pressures were significantly higher in African-Americans compared to
Whites and nighttime dipping in pressure was significantly less for African-Americans.
There is a pressing need for more studies of ABPM and HBPM to assess WCH and
WCE in African-American and other less well-studied adult populations.
WCH and WCE in Diabetes
Presence of WCH is associated with greater risk of pre-diabetes and adult (type-2)
diabetes compared to normal participants in prospective observational studies [39].
WCH in Pregnancy
Pregnant women who are hypertensive based on office measurements may have either
pregnancy-induced hypertension or hypertension that was present prior to pregnancy
(chronic hypertension). Either condition requires close monitoring of blood pressure
by office and either ABPM or HBPM for optimal management [40]. Detection of
WCH by ABPM early in pregnancy of women initially considered to have chronic
hypertension may help to select those who might not need anti-hypertensive medication
during pregnancy. Those with WCH in early pregnancy have fewer complications
during their pregnancies than those with sustained hypertension [41, 42]. However, it
is recommended that ABPM in early pregnancy is not accurate enough to predict
either pregnancy-induced hypertension or incidence of pre-eclampsia, so that HBPM
is required for close follow-up. HBPM combined with telemetry is a very promising
strategy for monitoring blood pressure during pregnancy and detecting WCH, but also
for early detection of true hypertension [43].
WCH/WCE in Chronic Renal Disease
Hypertension occurs often in chronic renal disease (CRD), irrespective of the

specific cause of the nephropathy. Uncontrolled or resistant hypertension contributes
to disease progression resulting in the need for renal replacement therapy or
cardiovascular pathology. Nearly all patients with CRD are treated for hypertension.
The prevalence of WCE in CRD is in the range of 20–30 % and conveys a better
prognosis when compared to sustained hypertension [44].
Progression to Sustained Hypertension
WCH may persist without progression to sustained hypertension for many years
[45]. However, in prospective surveys, baseline presence of WCH is associated with
a nearly twofold increased incidence of sustained hypertension during an 8–10 year
follow-up, compared to those with normal pressure [46–48]. Annual re-evaluation
for those with WCH by HBPM is an effective strategy to detect the transition to
sustained hypertension [47].
Progression to sustained hypertension from WCE while on anti-hypertensive
drug treatment has not been well-studied, but might be due to reduced adherence to
medication [49] or to genuine resistance to current treatment [50].
WCH/WCE Prognosis for CVD and Mortality
Perloff reported, in 1983, that out-of-office daytime blood pressures were superior
to office pressures for predicting cardiovascular outcomes in hypertensive patients
[5]. In 1994, Verdecchia et al. published results of a prospective survey using 24-h
338 L.R. Krakoff
ABPM comparing normals to those with WCH (19 %) and two groups with
sustained hypertension. Those with sustained hypertension had either a normal fall
in pressure at night during sleep (Dipper pattern) or a lack of nocturnal (Non-
dippers). During the 7.5 year follow-up period, incidence of CVD in WCH was
almost identical to that of the normals [6]. Since then a number of individual surveys
and several meta-analyses have supported the conclusion that WCH, at baseline, is
associated with less future CVD and mortality compared to sustained hypertension
[18, 34, 35]. It is less certain whether or not WCH confers a greater risk for CVD
than normal blood pressure. Figure 17.1 displays hazard ratios and p values for risk
ratios for pooled results from two recent meta-analyses [34, 35]. Hazard ratios for
WCH tend to be slightly higher than for normal blood pressure, but statistical
significance is not always met.
Not all those classified as WCH are the same, with respect to all available
pressures. In subgroup analyses, a large cohort with “true WCH” (normal home and
24- h ABPM pressures) were compared to “partial WCH” (normal 24-h ABPM, and
Panel A Panel B
P<0.0001
2.2
P= 0.019 1.5
2 P<0.04
1.4
1.8 <0.45
1.3
1.6
1.2
1.4 1.1
1.2 1
1 0.9
0.8 0.8
N WCH SH NC WCE SH-R
Panel C Panel D
1.5 2.2
P=0.002 2
1.4
1.3 1.8
<0.30
1.2 1.6
P<0.0001
1.1 1.4 P=0.6
1 1.2
0.9 1
0.8 0.8
NC WCE SH-R NC WCE SH-R
Fig. 17.1 Hazard ratios for cardiovascular events during follow-up from two recent meta-analyses
are shown. (a, b) Data from Stergiou et al. [35] show hazard ratios for WCH or WCE versus N
(normal) or sustained hypertension. (c, d) show hazard ratios from Franklin et al. [34] for WCH or
WCE. P values for comparison of WCH or WCE with normal states are shown. (a, c) N untreated,
normal pressure, WCH white coat hypertension, S sustained hypertension. (b, d) NC normal, con-
trolled on treatment, WCE white coat effect on treatment, SH-R sustained resistant hypertension on
treatment
high home pressures). Those with “true” WCH had hazard ratios for CVD and
mortality similar to normals, whereas hazard ratios for “partial WCH” were
significantly above that of the normal group but lower than for sustained hypertension
[48]. The results are best explained by differences in pressures; all available
pressures tend to be higher in “partial WCH” compared to “true WCH.” The
prognosis is then best related to average out-of-office pressures rather than the less
precise label, “WCH” [8].
WCE in Treated Patients
In treated patients, prognosis for mortality and morbidity in those with normal
pressures (well-controlled) is similar to those with normal out-of-office pressures and
far better than for sustained-treated hypertension [7, 18, 34, 35]. However, the risk of
future CVD or mortality for those with normal pressure on treatment remains signifi-
cantly above that for those with normal pressure without need for drug treatment.
Treatment of WCH or WCE in Treated Patients
It is reasonable to recommend life-style improvement, for those with WCH and to

evaluate these patients for other cardiovascular risk factors. Other risk factors may
be found in a substantial fraction of those with WCH, especially older patients [51].
A study of placebo administration during a clinical trial reported that women with a
large WCE at entry had a significant fall in office pressure on follow-up without a
change in ABPM, whereas men had a much smaller fall in office pressure [52]. It is
uncertain whether anti-hypertensive medications reduce cardiovascular risk in
WCH, but some have advocated drug treatment despite lack of trial evidence [53].
Patients with WCH or WCE on treatment and prominent anxiety or panic symptoms
might benefit from strategies to reduce symptoms, some form of behavior modifica-
tion with appropriate anti-anxiety medication.
WCH and Cost-Effectiveness
Testing for WCH or the WCE (during treatment) has costs, but these are relatively low
compared to cost of diagnostic tests and medication for control of hypertension.
Economic forecasts indicate that use of 24-h ABPM for detection of WCH is cost-
effective [54]. This strategy may be valuable even when ABPM is repeated annually for
those with WCH to evaluate these patients for transition to sustained hypertension [55].
Home Blood pressure monitoring may be even more effective and cost-effective both
for initial diagnosis and annual follow-up for transition to sustained hypertension [56].
340 L.R. Krakoff
Conclusions–Recommendations
Office blood pressure measurement may be misleading. WCH or isolated office

hypertension should be detected to avoid overdiagnosis of hypertension as a false
positive classification. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring has become the
standard of care for detection of WCH. British and US guidelines for management
of hypertension now recognize this conclusion [57, 58]. Future risk for cardiovascular
disease in those with WCH is minimally above that of those with normal pressure.
It is not known whether or not drug treatment alters the prognosis of WCH or
intensification of drug treatment alters prognosis for WCE with normal pressures.
However, WCH is more likely to progress to sustained hypertension, so that annual
re-evaluation is needed using either ambulatory blood pressure monitoring or home
blood pressure monitoring.
References
1. Frank RGJ. Harvey and the Oxford physiologists. Berkeley: University of California Press;
1980.
2. Pickering G. Systemic arterial hypertension. In: Fishman AP, Richards DW, editors. Circulation
of the blood: men and ideas. New York: Oxford University Press; 1964. p. 487–541.
3. Ayman D, Goldshine AD. Blood pressure determinations by patients with essential hyperten-
sion: the difference between clinic and home readings before treatment. Am J Med Sci.
1940;200:465–70.
4. Perloff D, Sokolow M. The representative blood pressure: usefulness of office, basal, home,
and ambulatory readings. Cardiovasc Med. 1978;3:655–68.
5. Perloff D, Sokolow M, Cowan R. The prognostic value of ambulatory blood pressures. JAMA.
1983;249:2792–8.
6. Verdecchia P, Porcellati C, Schillaci G, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure: an independent pre-
dictor of prognosis in essential hypertension. Hypertension. 1994;24:793–801.
7. Clement D, De Buyzere M, De Bacqer DA, et al. Prognostic value of ambulatory blood-
8. Dolan E, Stanton A, Thijs L, et al. Superiority of ambulatory over clinic blood pressure measure-
ment in predicting mortality: the Dublin outcome study. Hypertension. 2005;46(1):156–61.
9. 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;2:695–8.
10. Simons RJ, Baily RG, Zelis R, Zwillich CW. The physiologic and psychologic effects of the
bedside presentation. N Engl J Med. 1989;321:1273–5.
white coat hypertension? JAMA. 1988;259:225–8.
12. Aronow WS, Fleg JL, Pepine CJ, et al. ACCF/AHA 2011 expert consensus document on
hypertension in the elderly: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task
Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. Circulation. 2011;123(21):2434–506.
13. James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, et al. 2014 evidence-based guideline for the management of
high blood pressure in adults: report from the Panel Members Appointed to the Eighth Joint
National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA. 2013;311:507–20.
14. Fagard RH, Celis H, Thijs L, et al. Daytime and nighttime blood pressure as predictors of death
and cause-specific cardiovascular events in hypertension. Hypertension. 2008;51(1):55–61.
15. Verdecchia P, Schillaci G, Borgioni C, et al. Adverse prognostic value of a blunted circadian
rhythm of heart rate in essential hypertension. J Hypertens. 1998;16(9):1335–43.
16. Parati G, Pickering TG. Home blood-pressure monitoring: US and European consensus.
Lancet. 2009;373(9667):876–8.
17. Kikuya M, Hansen TW, Thijs L, et al. Diagnostic thresholds for ambulatory blood pressure
monitoring based on 10-year cardiovascular risk. Circulation. 2007;115:2145–52.
18. Franklin SS, Thijs L, Hansen TW, O’Brien E, Staessen JA. White-coat hypertension: new
insights from recent studies. Hypertension. 2013;62(6):982–7.
19. Achelrod D, Wenzel U, Frey S. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of
resistant hypertension in treated hypertensive populations. Am J Hypertens. 2014.
20. Ogedegbe G, Pickering TG, Clemow L, et al. The misdiagnosis of hypertension: the role of
patient anxiety. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(22):2459–65.
21. Mario B, Massimiliano M, Chiara M, Alessandro S, Antonella C, Gianfranco F. White-coat
effect among older patients with suspected cognitive impairment: prevalence and clinical impli-
cations. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2008;24(5):509–17.
22. Graves JW, Sheps SG. Does evidence-based medicine suggest that physicians should not be
measuring blood pressure in the hypertensive patient? Am J Hypertens. 2004;17(4):354–60.
23. Bruce NG, Shaper AG, Walker M, Wannamethee G. Observer bias in blood pressure studies.
J Hypertens. 1988;6:375–80.
24. Graves JW, Nash CA, Grill DE, Bailey KR, Sheps SG. Limited (6-h) ambulatory blood pres-
sure monitoring is a valid replacement for the office blood pressure by trained nurse clinician
in the diagnosis of hypertension. Blood Press Monit. 2005;10(4):169–74.
25. Myers MG, Valdivieso M, Kiss A. Optimum frequency of office blood pressure measurement
using an automated sphygmomanometer. Blood Press Monit. 2008;13(6):333–8.
26. Myers MG, Valdivieso M, Kiss A, Tobe SW. Comparison of two automated sphygmomanom-
eters for use in the office setting. Blood Press Monit. 2009;14(1):45–7.
27. Niiranen TJ, Johannsson JK, Reunanen A, Jula A. Optimal schedule for home blood pressure
measurement based on prognostic data: the Finn-Home Study. Hypertension. 2011;57:1081–6.
28. Margolis KL, Asche SE, Bergdall AR, et al. Effect of home blood pressure telemonitoring and
pharmacist management on blood pressure control: a cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA.
2013;310(1):46–56.
29. Neumann CL, Menne J, Rieken EM, et al. Blood pressure telemonitoring is useful to achieve
blood pressure control in inadequately treated patients with arterial hypertension. J Hum
Hypertens. 2011.
30. McManus RJ, Mant J, Bray EP, et al. Telemonitoring and self-management in the control of
hypertension (TASMINH2): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;376(9736):163–72.
31. Parati G, Omboni S, Albini F, et al. Home blood pressure telemonitoring improves hyperten-
sion control in general practice. The TeleBPCare study. J Hypertens. 2009;27(1):198–203.
32. Khattar RS, Senior R, Lahiri A. Cardiovascular outcome in white-coat versus sustained mild
hypertension: a 10 year follow-up. Circulation. 1998;98:1892–7.
33. Ruddy MC, Bialy GB, Malka ES, Lacy CR, Kostis JB. The relationship of plasma renin activ-
ity to clinic and ambulatory blood pressure in elderly people with isolated systolic hyperten-
sion. J Hypertens. 1988;6:S412–5.
34. Franklin SS, Thijs L, Hansen TW, et al. Significance of white-coat hypertension in older per-
sons with isolated systolic hypertension: a meta-analysis using the International Database on
Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes population.
Hypertension. 2012;59(3):564–71.
35. Stergiou GS, Asayama K, Thijs L, et al. Prognosis of white-coat and masked hypertension:
International Database of Home blood pressure in relation to cardiovascular outcome.
Hypertension. 2014;63(4):675–82.
36. Ben-Dov IZ, Kark JD, Mekler J, Shaked E, Bursztyn M. The white coat phenomenon is benign
in referred treated patients: a 14-year ambulatory blood pressure mortality study. J Hypertens.
2008;26(4):699–705.
342 L.R. Krakoff
ambulatory and clinic blood pressure measurements in hypertensive kidney disease. Hypertension.
2009;53(1):20–7.
38. Muntner P, Lewis CE, Diaz KM, et al. Racial differences in abnormal ambulatory blood
pressure monitoring measures: results from the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young
Adults (CARDIA) study. Am J Hypertens. 2014.
39. Mancia G, Bombelli M, Facchetti R, et al. Increased long-term risk of new-onset diabetes mel-
litus in white-coat and masked hypertension. J Hypertens. 2009;27(8):1672–8.
40. Brown MA, McHugh L, Mangos G, Davis G. Automated self-initiated blood pressure or
24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in pregnancy? BJOG. 2004;111(1):38–41.
41. Brown MA, Mangos G, Davis G, Homer C. The natural history of white coat hypertension
during pregnancy. BJOG. 2005;112(5):601–6.
42. Brown MA. Is there a role for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in pregnancy? Clin Exp
Pharmacol Physiol. 2014;41(1):16–21.
43. Denolle T, Weber JL, Calvez C, et al. Diagnosis of white coat hypertension in pregnant women
with teletransmitted home blood pressure. Hypertens Pregnancy. 2008;27(3):305–13.
44. Agarwal R. Home and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in chronic kidney disease. Curr
Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2009;18(6):507–12.
45. Martin K, Phillips RA, Krakoff LR. Persistant white coat hypertension. Am J Hypertens.
1994;7:368–70.
46. Mancia G, Bombelli M, Facchetti R, et al. Long-term risk of sustained hypertension in
white-coat or masked hypertension. Hypertension. 2009;54(2):226–32.
47. Ugajin T, Hozawa A, Ohkubo T, et al. White-coat hypertension as a risk factor for the develop-
ment of home hypertension: the Ohasama study. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(13):1541–6.
48. Mancia G, Bombelli M, Brambilla G, et al. Long-term prognostic value of white coat hyper-
tension: an insight from diagnostic use of both ambulatory and home blood pressure measure-
ments. Hypertension. 2013;62(1):168–74.
49. Kronish IM, Ye S. Adherence to cardiovascular medications: lessons learned and future direc-
tions. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2013;55(6):590–600.
50. Redon J, Campos C, Rodicio JL, Pascual JM, Ruilope LM. Prognostic value of ambulatory
blood pressure monitoring in refractory hypertension: a prospective study. Hypertension.
2001;31:712–8.
51. Pierdomenico SD, Cuccurullo F. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in type 2 diabetes and
metabolic syndrome: a review. Blood Press Monit. 2010;15(1):1–7.
52. Loeb EN, Diamond JA, Krakoff LR, Phillips RA. Sex difference in response of blood pressure
to calcium antagonism in the treatment of moderate-to-severe hypertension. Blood Press
Monit. 1999;4:209–12.
53. Moser M. White-coat hypertension- to treat or not to treat: a clinical dilemma. Arch Intern
Med. 2001;161:2655–6.
54. Lovibond K, Jowett S, Barton P, et al. Cost-effectiveness of options for the diagnosis of high
blood pressure in primary care: a modelling study. Lancet. 2011;378:1219–30.
55. Krakoff LR. Cost-effectiveness of ambulatory blood pressure: a reanalysis. Hypertension.
2006;47(1):29–34.
56. Mallick S, Kanthety R, Rahman M. Home blood pressure monitoring in clinical practice: a
review. Am J Med. 2009;122(9):803–10.
57. Ritchie LD, Campbell NC, Murchie P. New NICE guidelines for hypertension. Br Med
J. 2011;343:d5644.
intervals: an updated systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann
Intern Med. 2015;162(3):192–204.
Chapter 18
Gender and Circadian Rhythms
in Cardiovascular Function
Björn Lemmer
Introduction
Progress has been made in studying gender-specific differences in the symptoms

and treatment of cardiovascular diseases. There is also increasing evidence that
mechanisms of regulation of cardiovascular functions are sex-dependent both in
animal and in man. However, the data published are still not sufficient to draw final
conclusions on whether drug treatment should consider gender-dependency and
whether pre- and postmenopausal women should be treated differently.
Clinical Observations
Hypertension, myocardial infarction, and stroke are well-known risk factors influ-
encing the life span of an individual. Ambulatory blood pressure measurements
greatly helped not only to better understand mechanisms of blood pressure (BP) and
heart rate (HR) regulation, but also gave more insight into the way of antihyperten-
sive treatment. The dipping or non-dipping BP profile greatly determines the choice
and the circadian timing of a drug and its application in order not only to reduce
elevated BP, but also to normalize a pathological BP profile (see [1–5]). However,
there are no data convincingly demonstrating that the 24-h BP pattern is different
between male and female persons, in contrast to rats (see below). Conversely, there
is overwhelming evidence that BP increases and severity of cardiovascular disease
B. Lemmer, M.D. (*)

Faculty of Medicine Mannheim, Institute of Experimental & Clinical Pharmacology &
Toxicology, Ruprecht-Karls University of Heidelberg,
Maybachstr,14, Mannheim 68169, Germany

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-22771-9_18
344 B. Lemmer
are higher in women after menopause than in age-matched men [6–8]. After meno-
pause, women catch up with the higher cardiovascular risk observed in men
indicating the important role of sex hormones on vascular functions. The
Framingham study has shown that cardiovascular risk factors are increased after
menopause when compared to premenopausal women [6].
Importantly however, hormone replacement therapy does not reduce BP in
most cases of postmenopausal women [9]. On one hand, this indicates that other
factors than the loss of estrogens are involved in higher BP development [9]. On the
other hand, an important chronobiological point which has not been challenged
by a clinical study to the best of my knowledge: Estrogens are administered to
postmenopausal women as slow release (e.g., retard) formulations, which is not
the physiological way these hormones are secreted in premenopausal women; all
sex hormones are secreted in a rhythmic fashion, both in a circadian and monthly
pattern. It is well-known that the physiological function of a hormone/transmitter
can be abolished when these compounds are applied in zero order kinetics and not
in their rhythmic pattern. Hence, it would be worthwhile to address such an issue
in a clinical study.
It is now well-documented that the vasodilator nitric oxide (NO) plays an impor-
tant role in regulating the vascular bed. Nitric oxide production occurs in a circa-
dian phase-dependent fashion with peak values in the early afternoon. In healthy
men, NO marker molecules such as urinary nitrate and cGMP secretion increase in
the morning concomitantly with the morning increase in BP and show peak values
in the early afternoon, indicating that NO may buffer the BP increase [10]. In patients
with peripheral arterial occlusive disease and in hypertensive patients, these rhythms
are abolished and this disturbed rhythmic NO production may contribute to the BP
increases [10].
We recently studied in 10 healthy male and female subjects at an age of 21–23 years
simultaneously the 24-h BP and HR profiles by ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM)
together with circadian pattern in plasma catecholamines and the nitrate/nitrite (NOx)
excretion in urine [11]. The subjects exhibited a normal 24-h profile and there was no
gender-dependent differences in the normal BP and HR data [11] (Fig. 18.1).
Concerning the plasma norepinephrine concentrations, however, there was a
clear sex-dependent difference, the early morning rise in norepinephrine was sig-
nificantly steeper in males than in females though both groups were normotensive
(Fig. 18.2). In males, this observation could be an early sign of a genetically set
greater early morning drive in sympathetic tone, which is often found in white coat
hypertensive patients [12].
The sex-dependent difference was even greater for the NOx concentration deter-
mined in 6-h portions in the urine over 24 h in male and female subjects (Fig. 18.3).
In both groups, NOx concentration displayed a 24-h rhythm with a peak value in the
activity phase, similar to the rhythm in nitrate and cGMP secretion described by
Bode-Boger et al. [10].
These data clearly demonstrate that at an early age and under normotensive
conditions, the important co-regulator of the vascular bed, NO, displays
sex-dependent variations with higher values in female subjects, possibly allowing
18 Gender and Circadian Rhythms in Cardiovascular Function 345
Fig. 18.1 24-h patterns in heart rate (HR) and systolic and diastolic BP (upper/lower BP curve) in
ten male (closed) and ten female (open) healthy volunteers of an age of 21–23 years, motility was
registered to control sleep activity. Data from [11] with permission
Fig. 18.2 24-h values in plasma norepinephrine and epinephrine concentrations and motility in
healthy young (21–23 years) subjects. Figure from [11] with permission
346 B. Lemmer
Fig. 18.3 Amount of NOx

(nitrate/nitrite) in 6-h
portions of urine in 10
female (filled) and 11 male
(open) healthy volunteers.
Note: NOx is significantly
higher in females than
males (p < 0.05). Figure
from [11] with permission
a better buffering capacity for BP changes for females than for males. This obser-
vation could contribute to the increasing data that show that the setting of the
cardiovascular system is different between males and females. Though the thera-
peutic consequences are not clear at the moment, future clinical research must
concentrate on cardiovascular factors associated with gender in more detail than
has been the case in the past.
Data from Animal Experiments
Basic research in the cardiovascular system of experimental animals has been

greatly improved by the availability of telemetric blood pressure monitoring
devices. They are regarded as the gold standard today allowing in vivo experimen-
tation in freely moving unrestrained animals [13–16], which is not the case for the
tail-cuff method [17, 18]. Radiotelemetry also allows a closer look on the rhythmic
organization of the cardiovascular system. These clinical experiments in small ani-
mals mainly used males. Thus, the data on cardiovascular effects and mechanisms
in female rats are sparce. By 1993, we could demonstrate specific circadian rhythms
in BP and HR in four different strains of rats, both normotensive and hypertensive
[15]. In this study, there was evidence that in a transgenic rat strain (TGR),
a dissociation occurred between BP and HR; whereas HR peaked in the activity

phase of the animals at night, BP showed peak values in the resting phase during
daytime [15], exhibiting a BP pattern known as non-dippers in humans. Thus, this
rat strain displayed an internal desychronization concerning BP and HR.
Maris et al. studied by radiotelemerty BP and HR in normotensive Wistar-Kyoto
(WKY) and spontaneous hypertensive (SHR) rats [19]. In both strains and in males
and females, they show significant daily variations, HR was higher in female WKY
than in all other groups, and male SHR had higher systolic BP than the females
[19]. Very similar to these findings, we describe that under control conditions of
12:12 h of light and darkness, the HR was higher in pro-estrous females than in
age-mached male SHRs, whereas BP was inversely higher in males than in females
[20] (Fig. 18.4). Urinary NO excretion was about threefold higher in female than
in male SHR with peak value in the dark span [20]. Additionally, eNOS expression
in the aortae of females was significantly higher than in males (relative expression
42.9 ± 7.3 vs. 25.2 ± 1.0, p < 0.05), indicating that elevated NOx excretion in females
in comparison to males is linked to higher eNOS expression [20]. The beta-receptor
blocking drug metoprolol was also more effective in decreasing HR and BP in
females than in males. These animal data greatly support the notion that sex-
dependent variations have to be taken into account as they contribute to the
regulation and drug effectiveness within the cardiovascular system, both in animal
and in humans.
Fig. 18.4 Heart rate, systolic and diastolic BP after intraperitoneal application of 30 mg/kg MET
at 19.00 h to female (n = 7) and male SHR (n = 13). Shown are mean values ±95 % confidence
intervals. The dark period is highlighted. Data from [20] with permission
348 B. Lemmer
Conclusion
There is increasing evidence that cardiovascular factors are associated with sex and
sex-related modifications within circadian systems. Unfortunately, both in clinical
studies and in basic research, mainly male subjects and animals have been studied
in the past. In light of recent data that women and female animals use different
mechanisms of regulation in the cardiovascular system and may differ in drug
sensitivity and drug effectiveness [6, 21–23], future research should focus more on
females in clinical research.
References
1. White WB. Utilizing ambulatory blood pressure recordings to evaluate antihypertensive drug
therapy. Am J Cardiol. 1992;69(13):E8–12.
2. White WB, LaRocca GM. Chronopharmacology of cardiovascular therapy. Blood Press
Monit. 2002;7(4):199–207.
3. Smolensky MH, Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Tiseo R, Portaluppi F. Administration-time-
dependent effects of blood pressure-lowering medications: basis for the chronotherapy of
hypertension. Blood Press Monit. 2010;15(4):173–80.
4. Lemmer B. Chronobiology and chronopharmacology of hypertension: importance of timing
of dosing. In: White WB, editor. Blood pressure monitoring in cardiovascular medicine and
therapeutics. 2nd ed. Totowa, NY: Humana Press; 2007. p. 410–35.
5. Portaluppi F, Lemmer B. Chronobiology and chronotherapy of ischemic heart disease. Adv
Drug Deliv Rev. 2007;59(9-10):952–65.
6. Kannel WB, Hjortland MC, McNamara PM, Gordon T. Menopause and risk of cardiovascular
disease: the Framingham study. Ann Intern Med. 1976;85(4):447–52.
7. Dubey RK, Oparil S, Imthurn B, Jackson EK. Sex hormones and hypertension. Cardiovasc
Res. 2002;53(3):688–708.
8. Safar ME, Smulyan H. Hypertension in women. Am J Hypertens. 2004;17(1):82–7.
9. Reckelhoff JF. Gender differences in the regulation of blood pressure. Hypertension.
2001;37(5):1199–208.
10. Bode-Boger SM, Boger RH, Kielstein JT, Loffler M, Schaffer J, Frolich JC. Role of endoge-
nous nitric oxide in circadian blood pressure regulation in healthy humans and in patients with
hypertension or atherosclerosis. J Invest Med. 2000;48(2):125–32.
11. Lemmer B. The importance of biological rhythms in drug treatment of hypertension and
sex-dependent modifications. Chron Physiol Ther. 2012;2:9–18.
12. Middeke M, Lemmer B. Office hypertension: abnormal blood pressure regulation and
increased sympathetic activity compared with normotension. Blood Press Monit. 1996;
1:403–7.
13. Brockway BP, Mills PA, Azar SH. A new method for continuous chronic measurement and
recording of blood pressure, heart rate and activity in the rat via radio-telemetry. Clin Exp
Hypertens A. 1991;13(5):885–95.
14. Lemmer B, Mattes A. Evaluation of the dose-response relationship and circadian
phase-dependency of antihypertensive drugs in normotensive and hypertensive rats by use of
telemetry. Baltic Meeting on Pharmacology; Vilnius, Litauen, Abstr pp. 57–58; 1992.
15. Lemmer B, Mattes A, Bohm M, Ganten D. Circadian blood pressure variation in transgenic
hypertensive rats. Hypertension. 1993;22(1):97–101.
16. van den Buuse M. Circadian rhythms of blood pressure, heart rate, and locomotor activity in
spontaneously hypertensive rats as measured with radio-telemetry. Physiol Behav.
1994;55(4):783–7.
17. Abu-Taha I, Lemmer B. Superiority of radiotelemetry over the tail-cuff method in evaluating
control and drug-induced values in cardiovascular functions in rats. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s
Arch Pharmacol. 2007;375 Suppl 1:R313.
18. Grundt A, Grundt C, Gorbey S, Thomas MA, Lemmer B. Strain-dependent differences of
restraint stress-induced hypertension in WKY and SHR. Physiol Behav. 2009;97(3–4):341–6.
19. Maris ME, Melchert RB, Joseph J, Kennedy RH. Gender differences in blood pressure and
heart rate in spontaneously hypertensive and Wistar-Kyoto rats. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol.
2005;32(1–2):35–9.
20. Grundt C, Meier K, Lemmer B. Gender dependency of circadian blood pressure and heart rate
profiles in spontaneously hypertensive rats: effects of beta-blockers. Chronobiol Int.
2006;23(4):813–29.
21. Mendelsohn ME, Karas RH. Molecular and cellular basis of cardiovascular gender differences.
Science. 2005;308(5728):1583–7.
22. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Mojon A, Fontao MJ, Chayan L, Fernandez JR. Differences between
men and women in ambulatory blood pressure thresholds for diagnosis of hypertension based
on cardiovascular outcomes. Chronobiol Int. 2013;30(1–2):221–32.
23. Meyer MR, Haas E, Barton M. Gender differences of cardiovascular disease: new perspectives
for estrogen receptor signaling. Hypertension. 2006;47(6):1019–26.
Part IV
Applications of Out-of-Office Blood
Pressure Monitoring
Chapter 19
Home (Self) Monitoring of Blood Pressure
in Clinical Trials
George S. Stergiou and Angeliki Ntineri
Introduction
Although the conventional measurement of blood pressure by the doctor in the

office remains the cornerstone for the diagnosis and management of hypertension
worldwide, it is recognized that this method can be misleading and evaluation of
blood pressure out of the office using 24-h ambulatory or self-home monitoring by
patients is often necessary for optimal decision making. The limitations of conven-
tional office blood pressure measurement have a strong impact on the precision of
hypertension clinical trials, which can be considerably improved by the application
of out-of-office blood pressure monitoring. This chapter presents the features of
self-home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) that are important for the design of
clinical trials and how they can be applied in hypertension research (Table 19.1).
Advantages of Self-Home Blood Pressure Monitoring
HBPM has the unique advantage of providing multiple readings obtained over
several days, weeks, or months, in the individual’s usual environment. On the
contrary, office or clinic blood pressure measurement provides only few readings
taken in an artificial and potentially stressful setting. Twenty-four hour ambula-
tory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) also provides multiple measurements
away from the office, yet these are crowded during a single day and cannot be
frequently repeated. Because of these features, HBPM, as well as ABPM, are
G.S. Stergiou, M.D. (*) • A. Ntineri, M.D.

Third University Department of Medicine, Hypertension Center STRIDE-7, Sotiria Hospital,
152 Mesogion Avenue, Athens 11527, Greece

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-22771-9_19
354 G.S. Stergiou and A. Ntineri
Table 19.1 Advantages of home blood pressure compared to office and ambulatory blood pressure
in clinical trial design
HBP OBP ABP
Reproducibility, study power, and sample +++ + +++
size
Exclusion of white coat hypertension +++ − +++
Observer bias elimination +++ (automated devices + +++
or tele-monitoring)
Placebo effect elimination +++ − +++
Assessment of magnitude of BP changes +++ + +++
Assessment of duration of antihypertensive ++ + +++
drug action
Time-course of BP lowering effect (days) ++ + −
Assessment of homogeneity of − − +++
antihypertensive drug action (smoothness
index)
Assessment of morning hypertension +++ + +++
Assessment of nocturnal hypertension— ++ (devices which − +++
detection of non-dippers monitor asleep BP)
Identification of masked uncontrolled +++ − +++
hypertension
Diagnosis of true resistant hypertension ++ + +++
Assessment of short-term variability − − ++
Assessment of mid-term variability ++ − −
Assessment of long-term variability ++ ++ +
Association with preclinical organ damage +++ + +++
Assessment of arterial stiffness − − ++ (AASI)
Assessment of treatment-induced changes in ++ + +++
organ damage
Association with cardiovascular events risk +++ + +++
Compliance with drug treatment +++ + +
Patients’ preference +++ + +
Repeated monitoring in longitudinal trials +++ ++ +
Cost +++ ++ +
BP blood pressure, HBP home BP, OBP office BP, ABP ambulatory BP, AASI ambulatory arterial
stiffness index, +++ superior, − inferior
devoid of several major deficiencies of the conventional office measurements,

including white coat effect (WCE), masked hypertension effect, the placebo
effect, and observer prejudice and bias (when using automated electronic devices
for home monitoring) [1, 2].
Because of the above mentioned advantages, HBPM has superior diagnostic
accuracy and reproducibility than office measurements, with the standard devia-
tion of the mean difference between two measurements being much lower than
that achieved with casual office measurements (Fig. 19.1) [3]. More importantly,
19 Home (Self) Monitoring of Blood Pressure in Clinical Trials 355
Fig. 19.1 Reproducibility of clinic, ambulatory, and home blood pressure, and sample size
required for a comparative parallel design clinical trial of two antihypertensive drugs using each
method (modified from [3]). BP blood pressure, ABP ambulatory BP, N number, Asterisk, required
for a trial aiming to detect a difference in the effect of two drugs of 10 mmHg systolic or 5 mmHg
diastolic BP with 0.90 power and 0.05 significance level
HBPM provides reliable predictive information, with strong associations with

indices of preclinical organ damage and risk of cardiovascular events, which are
superior to those obtained by office measurements and similar to those by ABPM
[4–6].
Another advantage of HBPM is that it entails less discomfort and minimal
restriction of daily activities and sleep, and therefore is more acceptable by patients
than ambulatory monitoring [7, 8]. Thus, HBPM appears to be the optimal method
for long-term follow-up of treated hypertension and has been shown to improve
compliance with drug treatment and thereby hypertension control rates [9]. Last but
not the least, HBPM not only can provide reliable guidance in treatment initiation
and adjustment, but it can also be a more affordable choice for hypertension man-
agement in the community, since the cost of applying the method for treatment
decision, titration, and follow-up appears to be lower than when using conventional
office measurements complemented by ABPM [2, 10–13].
Self-Home Blood Pressure Monitoring in Clinical Research
The advantages of HBPM compared to conventional office measurements have

important implications in clinical research. HBPM improves the sensitivity and
accuracy of clinical trials and allows for the evaluation of additional aspects of the
blood pressure profile and behavior at baseline and in response to blood pressure
lowering interventions.
Subject Selection for Clinical Trials
The selection of appropriate study participants with homogenous characteristics is

of vital importance for clinical research. By using HBPM instead of office measure-
ments, a hypertension phenotype is accurately defined and subjects with intermedi-
ate phenotypes, such as white coat or masked hypertension, can be identified and
excluded [14–16]. Subjects with white coat hypertension (WCH) show minimal
response to antihypertensive drug treatment compared to sustained hypertensives
[17] and may create diluting effects in the assessment of reductions in blood
pressure.
Studies of resistant hypertension, defined as uncontrolled blood pressure on tri-
ple antihypertensive drug therapy, demonstrated the importance of using ABPM or
HBPM for the exclusion of the WCH, which is common even among treated sub-
jects [18]. Recent studies assessing the effectiveness of renal denervation have
clearly demonstrated the importance of out-of-office blood pressure monitoring for
the reliable diagnosis of resistant hypertension [19].
Moreover, because of its superior reproducibility, HBPM as well as ABPM pro-
vides a more accurate classification of the true baseline blood pressure of an
individual.
Sample Size and Study Power
The reproducibility of a blood pressure measurement method, expressed as the stan-

dard deviation of differences, is an important factor in the calculation of the sample
size required for a clinical trial. Because of its superior reproducibility (Fig. 19.1),
HBPM as well as ABPM when used in a clinical trial comparing the antihyperten-
sive efficacy of two drugs allow the same difference in blood pressure lowering
effect to be identified with higher precision [3]. Alternatively, HBPM and ABPM
allow a smaller sample size to be recruited in order to identify a difference in the
blood pressure lowering effect of two drugs with the same study power (Fig. 19.1)
[20–23].
The power curves of a randomized cross-over clinical trial comparing the antihy-
pertensive efficacy of two drugs using clinic, ambulatory, or home blood pressure
measurements are shown in Fig. 19.2 [24]. According to these data, for a trial aim-
ing to detect a difference in the hypotensive effect of the drugs of 10 mmHg for
systolic blood pressure, 5 mmHg for diastolic, or 3 mmHg for pulse pressure, the
study power is much higher when using HBPM and ABPM instead of office mea-
surements (Fig. 19.2) [24].
Systolic BP
100
80
Power (%)
60
40
20
0
−15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15
Diastolic BP
100
80
Power (%)
60
40
20
0
−15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15
Pulse Pressure
100
80
Power (%)
60
Power curves
40 CBP
ABP
20 HBP
0
−15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15
True difference (mmHg)
Fig. 19.2 Study power curves of a randomized crossover clinical trial comparing the efficacy of
two antihypertensive drugs using blood pressure measurements in the clinic, at home, and with
ambulatory monitoring (from [24]). BP blood pressure, CBP clinic BP, ABP 24-h ambulatory BP,
HBP home BP, Horizontal dotted lines indicate 80 % power to detect a difference in the hypoten-
sive effect of the drugs of 10 mmHg for systolic, 5 mmHg for diastolic BP, or 3 mmHg for pulse
pressure (vertical dotted lines)
Assessment of Magnitude of Antihypertensive Drug Action
Because of its superior reproducibility, HBPM allows for the identification of anti-
hypertensive drug treatment-induced blood pressure changes with greater precision
and without the placebo effect, which largely affect clinical trials using clinic blood
pressure measurements [25]. A randomized parallel design-controlled study, which
evaluated the antihypertensive efficacy of the angiotensin converting enzyme
inhibitor trandolapril versus placebo, showed no difference in blood pressure low-
ering effect compared to placebo when clinic measurements were used [26].
However, a significant placebo-corrected blood pressure lowering effect was
observed when HBPM was employed (Fig. 19.3) [26]. Another randomized paral-
lel design clinical trial comparing the beta-blocker bisoprolol with the calcium
channel blocker nitrendipine found no difference in the antihypertensive effect of
these two drugs when clinic or daytime ambulatory blood pressure was used,
whereas self-home and daytime ambulatory blood pressure measurements demon-
strated a significantly larger effect with bisoprolol (Fig. 19.4) [21]. For this particu-
lar study to have the sensitivity to identify a 10 mmHg difference between the
effects of the two drugs on systolic blood pressure, at total of 118 subjects would
be required if clinic blood pressure measurement were used, compared to 70 with
ABPM and 56 with HBPM [21].
Another randomized cross-over clinical trial comparing the antihypertensive
efficacy of the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor lisinopril with the angioten-
sin receptor blocker losartan showed that although all the blood pressure measure-
ment methods (clinic, ambulatory, and home) suggested that lisinopril was more
effective (Fig. 19.5), the difference between the two drugs was demonstrated with
greater precision using HBPM (p < 0.001) than 24-h ABPM (p < 0.01), and the poor-
est precision for demonstrating this difference was provided by clinic measurements
Fig. 19.3 Evaluation of the antihypertensive efficacy of a drug in a parallel design placebo con-
trolled clinical trial using clinic or home systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) mea-
surements (modified from [26])
Fig. 19.4 Comparison of the antihypertensive efficacy of two drugs in a parallel design clinical
trial using clinic, ambulatory, and home blood pressure measurements (modified from [21]). BP
blood pressure, ABP ambulatory BP
(p < 0.05) [24]. Lisinopril was also found to be more effective in reducing home
pulse pressure (p < 0.01) and 24-h ambulatory pulse pressure (p < 0.03), whereas no
such difference was detected using clinic measurements (Fig. 19.5) [24].
These data clearly demonstrate that the use of HBPM increases the sensitivity
and precision of clinical trials assessing the efficacy of antihypertensive drug action.
The benefits of HBPM are attributed to its superior reproducibility, the absence of
the placebo effect, the regression dilution bias (regression to the mean), and the
observer prejudice and bias (when electronic devices with automated memory are
used), all of which limit the reliability of clinical trials based on clinic blood pres-
sure measurements.
Assessment of Duration of Antihypertensive Drug Action
The duration of antihypertensive action and 24-h coverage are usually assessed
using the trough-to-peak ratio (T/P), which is based on 24-h ambulatory or on clinic
blood pressure measurements [27]. The morning-to-evening (M/E) home blood
pressure ratio assessed by self-monitoring can provide information of the “trough”
effect of the drug by obtaining morning measurements before drug intake and the
“plateau” effect in the evening [28]. Studies have shown that the M/E home blood
pressure ratio might be a useful alternative to the T/P ambulatory blood pressure
ratio for assessing the duration of antihypertensive drug action [29–31]. A random-
ized clinical trial that compared the duration of the antihypertensive drug action of
the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor lisinopril with the angiotensin receptor
blocker losartan showed higher T/P and M/E blood pressure ratios (evaluated by
ABPM and HBPM respectively) with lisinopril, which was consistent when the
CLINIC DBP
SBP PP
0
−2
−4
−6
mmHg
−8 NS
−10
−12
−14 *
−16
AMBULATORY
0
−2
−4
−6 *
mmHg
−8
−10
**
−12
−14
**
−16
HOME
0
−2
−4
−6
mmHg
−8
−10 *
−12 ***
−14
Lisinopril
−16
*** Losartan
Fig. 19.5 Randomized crossover comparative clinical trial of the effects of two antihypertensive
drugs on clinic, 24-h ambulatory, and home blood pressure (from [24]). SBP, systolic blood pres-
sure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; PP, pulse pressure; *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001 for
differences between the two drugs)
Fig. 19.6 Morning-to-evening (M/E) home blood pressure ratio versus trough-to-peak (T/P)
ambulatory blood pressure ratio for assessing the duration of antihypertensive effect of two drugs
in all study subjects and in those who responded to treatment (modified from [29])
analysis was restricted to subjects with significant blood pressure response to

treatment (Fig. 19.6) [29].
A similar mathematical expression is the difference between morning and eve-
ning home blood pressure values (morning-evening difference), which has been
shown to be a significant determinant of echocardiographic left ventricular hyper-
trophy (LVH), geometry, and diastolic function [32]. It should be mentioned, how-
ever, that the M/E home blood pressure ratio does not provide information on the
peak effect of treatment and might therefore fail to identify an excessive hypoten-
sive effect at peak.
Evaluation of Nocturnal Blood Pressure and Detection

of Non-dippers
ABPM is regarded as a unique tool, because it allows the evaluation of blood pres-
sure during nighttime sleep and thereby the detection of non-dippers. This advan-
tage appears to have major clinical relevance because of the accumulating evidence
suggesting that, compared to other aspects of the blood pressure profile, nocturnal
blood pressure is the strongest predictor of cardiovascular risk. Non-dippers have
demonstrated a higher risk of preclinical organ damage and cardiovascular events
than dippers [33].
Advancement in technology of automated home blood pressure monitors pro-
vided the ability to obtain automated readings throughout nighttime sleep [34].
There is evidence that nocturnal home monitoring gives reproducible blood pres-
sure values [34]. A cross-sectional study showed similar daytime and nighttime
blood pressure levels assessed with home and ambulatory blood pressure and
good agreement between the two methods in diagnosing non-dippers [35]. More
importantly, these devices can provide nocturnal blood pressure evaluation for
more than a single 24-h period, which is the case with ambulatory monitoring.
The Japan Morning Surge—Home Blood Pressure (J-HOP) Study showed that
automated asleep home blood pressure evaluated three times per night for at least
two (average 9) nights gave comparable blood pressure values with nighttime
ambulatory blood pressure [36]. More importantly, nocturnal systolic home blood
pressure was more closely associated with indices of cardiac and renal organ dam-
age than nocturnal ambulatory blood pressure [36]. Ishikawa et al. also reported
significant association of nighttime home blood pressure with hypertensive target
organ damage [37].
Thus, HBPM appears to be a useful alternative to ABPM even for the evaluation
of nocturnal hypertension and might be more appropriate for the evaluation of
treatment-induced changes in nocturnal blood pressure in clinical trials, because it
can provide multiple assessments on different days and at lower cost.
Assessment of Treatment-Induced Effects on Blood Pressure

Variability
HBPM is a useful tool for the evaluation of the effect of antihypertensive treat-
ment on mid-term, day-by-day blood pressure variability. Analysis of the varia-
tion of home measurements allows the evaluation of differential effects of
antihypertensive drugs on day-by-day blood pressure variability. More specifi-
cally, studies based on self-home measurements have shown that treatment with
beta-blockers leads to greater home blood pressure variability, whereas alpha-
blockers lower the variability [38]. Another study suggested that treatment with
an angiotensin receptor blocker was associated with higher systolic home blood
pressure variability compared to treatment with a calcium channel blocker [39].
Moreover, the addition of a calcium channel blocker on an angiotensin receptor
blocker was shown to decrease home blood pressure variability to a greater extent
than the addition of a thiazide [40]. In addition, self-home monitoring explores
blood pressure behavior over time, by assessing the mid- and long-term aspects of
blood pressure variability, which are currently suggested to provide additional
information, independently associated with common study endpoints such as
indices of subclinical target organ damage or cardiovascular events and mortality
[38, 41–43].
Treatment-induced changes in home blood pressure variability have been sug-
gested to independently correlate with regression of organ damage. Matsui et al.
reported that a 6-month change in pulse wave velocity achieved using a two-drug
combination treatment (angiotensin receptor blocker and calcium channel blocker)
was independently associated with the corresponding change in systolic home blood
pressure variability [40], whereas another study showed that the decrease in urinary
albumin excretion was not associated with that of home blood pressure variability
after 6-month treatment with a combination of an angiotensin receptor blocker with
a thiazide diuretic [44].
Assessment of Treatment-Induced Effects on Organ Damage

and Events
Several studies have shown that self-home blood pressure measurements are supe-
rior to office measurement and as good as ambulatory monitoring in terms of their
association with several indices of preclinical target organ damage [6]. Clinical tri-
als designed to investigate treatment-induced regression of target organ damage in
association with blood pressure changes require long-term follow-up in order to
observe the beneficial effects on the heart, arteries, and kidneys. In such conditions,
HBPM appears to be a reliable and convenient tool to track blood pressure changes.
A study in 116 hypertensives with 13.4 months follow-up showed that treatment-
induced changes in self-home or ambulatory blood pressure were more closely
related than office measurements with treatment-induced changes in organ damage
(echocardiographic left ventricular mass index, pulse wave velocity, albuminuria)
[45]. The Study on Ambulatory Monitoring of Blood Pressure and Lisinopril
Evaluation (SAMPLE) in 206 hypertensives followed for 12 months reported that
treatment-induced regression in LVH was more closely associated with treatment-
induced changes in ambulatory than in clinic or home blood pressure measurements
[46]. However, only two home readings were obtained, which has considerably lim-
ited the reliability of the method.
A more ambitious approach for exploring long-term treatment effects by
HBPM is the investigation of more complex endpoints, including cardiovascular
events. The Home blood pressure measurement with Olmesartan Naive patients to
Establish Standard Target blood pressure (HONEST) study established the prog-
nostic value of home blood pressure by identifying its threshold for the risk of
major cardiovascular events over 2 years of treatment with an angiotensin recep-
tor blocker-based regimen (olmesartan) even in subjects with controlled office
blood pressure [47].
Assessment of Other Aspects of the Blood Pressure Profile

and Behavior
There is increasing interest on morning hypertension which appears to be related

with morning blood pressure surge or follows a non-dipping status or nocturnal
hypertension [48–50]. Studies have shown that morning hypertension has
independent prognostic significance for target organ damage and stroke [49].
There is evidence that morning HBPM and ABPM have considerable similarity
and diagnostic agreement and therefore appear to be interchangeable methods
for the assessment of morning hypertension [50]. An important advantage of
morning home compared to ambulatory blood pressure measurement is that
morning readings at home are taken under more standardized conditions of
environment, activity, and posture (seated at home). In addition, they are based
on measurements taken over several days, compared to a single day with ambu-
latory monitoring. Since treated patients’ measurements are taken before drug
intake, they are truly trough measurements [48]. Therefore, recent studies
attempted to test treatment-induced effects on elevated morning blood pressure
levels by using self-home monitoring. Redon et al. reported that telmisartan
alone or with hydrochlorothiazide improved morning home blood pressure con-
trol and maintained a smooth home blood pressure profile throughout the day
[51]. Similar results were obtained by Kario et al. in the HONEST Study using
an olmesartan-based regimen [52].
HBPM has also been used in chronotherapy studies, which explored the optimal
time of drug administration in relation to blood pressure levels, organ damage, and
adverse effects [53–55]. Mori et al. showed that olmesartan effectively decreased
morning home blood pressure and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio, regardless of
whether the drug was administered in the morning or in the evening [53]. Moreover,
Mengden et al. found that the time of once-a-day amlodipine administration did not
influence its efficacy for 24-h blood pressure control assessed by home monitoring
[55]. In contrast, Hashimotto et al. reported that bedtime administration of the cen-
trally acting alpha2-agonists effectively suppressed elevated morning blood pressure
in treated hypertensives [54].
Another research question investigated by HBPM is the time of maximum anti-
hypertensive effect, which was evaluated by determining the velocity of hypoten-
sive effect using exponential decay function analysis based on serial home blood
pressure measurements [56, 57].
Since HBPM is well-accepted by hypertensive patients for repeated long-term
use and preferred to ABPM, this method appears to be appropriate for long-term
follow-up of blood pressure changes in longitudinal hypertension outcome trials
[7, 8]. Thus, the need for frequent office visits can be reduced, which is convenient
for both patients and researchers and is potentially more cost-effective. This appli-
cation is also supported by evidence showing improvement of patients’ compliance
with drug treatment when using HBPM [9].
Limitations of Self-Home Blood Pressure Monitoring
Although HBPM overcomes certain important limitations of office and ABPM, a

major drawback that is often neglected is the “reporting bias” (over- or under-
reporting of self-measurements by patients), which has been characterized as the
“Achilles’s heel” of the method [58]. Several studies have documented that the
reporting bias of self-home measurements is common and can lead to under- and
overdiagnosis of hypertension. Unless this bias is prevented, home measurement
should not be used as endpoints in hypertension research. The use of validated elec-
tronic home monitors with automated memory and capacity to export the readings,
or of home blood pressure tele-monitoring systems, can prevent this bias. Another
problem of self-home monitoring is due to the spontaneous blood pressure variabil-
ity, which can cause anxiety to some individuals and lead to self-modification of
treatment and study protocol violation. Most of these cases can be prevented or
efficiently managed with careful training and consultation with the clinical
researcher.
Home Blood Pressure Tele-monitoring
Current technological advances and increasing use of tele-communications

make home-blood pressure tele-monitoring a promising twenty-first century
solution, which allows prompt collection and unbiased assessment of blood
pressure data, especially in remote or special populations, or high-risk popula-
tions with a need for closer and more regular blood pressure monitoring and
tight control of hypertension. Home blood pressure tele-monitoring is also
ideal for long-term in-treatment follow-up of antihypertensive drug trials and
has been shown to be more expensive, yet a more cost-effective strategy for
blood pressure monitoring [59]. Tele-medicine systems based on home mea-
surements have been used in clinical trials comparing the effects of antihyper-
tensive drugs on the diurnal variation and blood pressure variability of home
blood pressure [60].
Conclusions
The use of HBPM has important advantages in clinical hypertension research. Its
application improves the sensitivity and precision of clinical trials of antihyperten-
sive drug efficacy and increases the study power or decreases the sample size
required. Moreover, self-home monitoring allows for the investigation of additional
research aspects of the blood pressure profile and behavior, such as the duration of
antihypertensive drug effect, morning and nocturnal hypertension, blood pressure
variability, treatment-induced changes in organ damage, and cardiovascular risk.
Furthermore, home blood pressure tele-monitoring provides a modern and reliable
solution for the unbiased evaluation of long-term treatment-induced blood pressure
changes.
References
1. Parati G, Stergiou GS, Asmar R, et al.; ESH Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring.
European Society of Hypertension guidelines for blood pressure monitoring at home: a sum-
mary report of the Second International Consensus Conference on Home Blood Pressure
Monitoring. J Hypertens. 2008;26:1505–26.
2. Stergiou GS, Kollias A, Zeniodi M, Karpettas N, Ntineri A. Home blood pressure monitoring:
primary role in hypertension management. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2014;16:462.
3. Stergiou GS, Baibas NM, Gantzarou AP, et al. Reproducibility of home, ambulatory, and clinic
blood pressure: implications for the design of trials for the assessment of antihypertensive drug
efficacy. Am J Hypertens. 2002;15:101–4.
4. Stergiou GS, Siontis KC, Ioannidis JP. Home blood pressure as a cardiovascular outcome
predictor: it’s time to take this method seriously. Hypertension. 2010;55:1301–3.
5. Ward AM, Takahashi O, Stevens R, Heneghan C. Home measurement of blood pressure and
cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.
J Hypertens. 2012;30:449–56.
6. Bliziotis IA, Destounis A, Stergiou GS. Home versus ambulatory and office blood pressure in
predicting target organ damage in hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
J Hypertens. 2012;30:1289–99.
7. Nasothimiou EG, Karpettas N, Dafni MG, Stergiou GS. Patients’ preference for ambulatory
versus home blood pressure monitoring. J Hum Hypertens. 2014;28:224–9.
8. Little P, Barnett J, Barnsley L, Marjoram J, Fitzgerald-Barron A, Mant D. Comparison of
acceptability of and preferences for different methods of measuring blood pressure in primary
care. Br Med J. 2002;325:358–9.
9. Ogedegbe G, Schoenthaler A. A systematic review of the effects of home blood pressure moni-
toring on medication adherence. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2006;8:174–80.
10. Stergiou GS, Karpettas N, Destounis A, et al. Home blood pressure monitoring alone vs. com-
bined clinic and ambulatory measurements in following treatment-induced changes in blood
pressure and organ damage. Am J Hypertens. 2014;27:184–92.
11. Asayama K, Ohkubo T, Metoki H, et al.; Hypertension Objective Treatment Based on
Measurement by Electrical Devices of Blood Pressure (HOMED-BP). Cardiovascular out-
comes in the first trial of antihypertensive therapy guided by self-measured home blood pres-
sure. Hypertens Res. 2012;35:1102–10.
12. Staessen JA, Den Hond E, Celis H, et al.; Treatment of Hypertension Based on Home or Office
Blood Pressure (THOP) Trial Investigators. Antihypertensive treatment based on blood pres-
sure measurement at home or in the physician’s office: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA.
2004;291:955–64.
13. Boubouchairopoulou N, Karpettas N, Athanasakis K, et al. Cost estimation of hypertension
management based on home blood pressure monitoring alone or combined office and ambula-
tory blood pressure measurements. J Am Soc Hypertens. 2014;8:732–8.
14. Nasothimiou EG, Tzamouranis D, Rarra V, Roussias LG, Stergiou GS. Diagnostic accuracy of
home vs. ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in untreated and treated hypertension.
Hypertens Res. 2012;35:750–5.
15. 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;11:820–7.
16. Stergiou GS, Efstathiou SP, Argyraki CK, Roussias LG, Mountokalakis TD. White coat effect
in treated versus untreated hypertensive individuals: a case-control study using ambulatory and
home blood pressure monitoring. Am J Hypertens. 2004;17:124–8.
17. Mancia G, Facchetti R, Parati G, Zanchetti A. Effect of long-term antihypertensive treatment
on white-coat hypertension. Hypertension. 2014;64:1388–98.
18. Nasothimiou EG, Tzamouranis D, Roussias LG, Stergiou GS. Home versus ambulatory blood
pressure monitoring in the diagnosis of clinic resistant and true resistant hypertension. J Hum
Hypertens. 2012;26:696–700.
19. Bhatt DL, Kandzari DE, O’Neill WW, et al.; SYMPLICITY HTN-3 Investigators. A controlled
trial of renal denervation for resistant hypertension. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1393–401.
20. Altman DG. Statistics and ethics in medical research: how large a sample? Br Med
J. 1980;281:1336–8.
21. Mengden T, Binswanger B, Weisser B, Vetter W. An evaluation of self-measured blood pres-
sure in a study with a calcium-channel antagonist versus a beta-blocker. Am J Hypertens.
1992;5:154–60.
22. Mengden T, Battig B, Vetter W. Self-measurement of blood pressure improves the accu-
racy and reduces the number of subjects in clinical trials. J Hypertens. 1991;9(suppl 6):
S336–7.
23. Stergiou GS, Efstathiou SP, Argyraki CK, Gantzarou AP, Roussias LG, Mountokalakis
TD. Clinic, home and ambulatory pulse pressure: comparison and reproducibility. J Hypertens.
2002;20:1987–93.
24. Stergiou GS, Efstathiou SP, Skeva II, Baibas NM, Kalkana CB, Mountokalakis TD. Assessment
of drug effects on blood pressure and pulse pressure using clinic, home and ambulatory mea-
surements. J Hum Hypertens. 2002;16:729–35.
25. Chatellier G, Day M, Bobrie G, Menard J. Feasibility study of N-of-1 trials with blood pres-
sure self-monitoring in hypertension. Hypertension. 1995;25:294–301.
26. Vaur L, Dubroca II, Dutrey-Dupagne C, et al. Superiority of home blood pressure measure-
ments over office measurements for testing antihypertensive drugs. Blood Press Monit.
1998;3:107–14.
27. Meredith PA. How to evaluate the duration of blood pressure control: the trough:peak ratio and
24-hour monitoring. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1998;31(suppl 2):S17–21.
28. Menard J, Chatellier G, Day M, Vaur L. Self-measurement of blood pressure at home to evalu-
ate drug effects by the trough:peak ratio. J Hypertens Suppl. 1994;12:S21–5.
29. Stergiou GS, Efstathiou SP, Skeva II, Baibas NM, Roussias LG, Mountokalakis TD. Comparison
of the smoothness index, the trough:peak ratio and the morning:evening ratio in assessing the
features of the antihypertensive drug effect. J Hypertens. 2003;21:913–20.
30. Zannad F, Vaur L, Dutrey-Dupagne C, et al. Assessment of drug efficacy using home self-
blood pressure measurement: the SMART study. Self Measurement for the Assessment of the
Response to Trandolapril. J Hum Hypertens. 1996;10:341–7.
31. Nishimura T, Hashimoto J, Ohkubo T, et al. Efficacy and duration of action of the four selec-
tive angiotensin II subtype 1 receptor blockers, losartan, candesartan, valsartan and telmisar-
tan, in patients with essential hypertension determined by home blood pressure measurements.
Clin Exp Hypertens. 2005;27:477–89.
32. Matsui Y, Eguchi K, Shibasaki S, et al. Association between the morning-evening difference
in home blood pressure and cardiac damage in untreated hypertensive patients. J Hypertens.
2009;27:712–20.
33. Hansen TW, Li Y, Boggia J, Thijs L, Richart T, Staessen JA. Predictive role of the night-time
blood pressure. Hypertension. 2011;57:3–10.
34. Hosohata K, Kikuya M, Ohkubo T, et al. Reproducibility of nocturnal blood pressure assessed
by self-measurement of blood pressure at home. Hypertens Res. 2007;30:707–12.
35. Stergiou GS, Nasothimiou EG, Destounis A, Poulidakis E, Evagelou I, Tzamouranis
D. Assessment of the diurnal blood pressure profile and detection of non-dippers based on
home or ambulatory monitoring. Am J Hypertens. 2012;25:974–8.
36. Hoshide S, Kario K, Yano Y, et al. J-HOP Study Group. Association of morning and evening
blood pressure at home with asymptomatic organ damage in the J-HOP Study. Am J Hypertens.
2014;27:939–47.
37. Ishikawa J, Hoshide S, Eguchi K, Ishikawa S, Shimada K, Kario K. Nighttime home blood
pressure and the risk of hypertensive target organ damage. Hypertension. 2012;60:
921–8.
38. Stergiou GS, Ntineri A, Kollias A, Ohkubo T, Imai Y, Parati G. Blood pressure variabil-
ity assessed by home measurements: a systematic review. Hypertens Res. 2014;37:
565–72.
39. Ishikura K, Obara T, Kato T, et al. J-HOME-Morning Study Group. Associations between day-
by-day variability in blood pressure measured at home and antihypertensive drugs: the
J-HOME-Morning study. Clin Exp Hypertens. 2012;34:297–304.
40. Matsui Y, O’Rourke MF, Hoshide S, Ishikawa J, Shimada K, Kario K. Combined effect of
angiotensin II receptor blocker and either a calcium channel blocker or diuretic on day-by-day
variability of home blood pressure: the Japan Combined Treatment With Olmesartan and a
Calcium-Channel Blocker Versus Olmesartan and Diuretics Randomized Efficacy Study.
41. Asayama K, Kikuya M, Schutte R, et al. Home blood pressure variability as cardiovascular
risk factor in the population of Ohasama. Hypertension. 2013;61:61–9.
42. Okada T, Matsumoto H, Nagaoka Y, Nakao T. Association of home blood pressure variability
with progression of chronic kidney disease. Blood Press Monit. 2012;17:1–7.
measured blood pressure and heart rate: the Finn-Home Study. Hypertension. 2012;59:
212–8.
44. Hoshide S, Yano Y, Shimizu M, Eguchi K, Ishikawa J, Kario K. Is home blood pressure vari-
ability itself an interventional target beyond lowering mean home blood pressure during anti-
hypertensive treatment? Hypertens Res. 2012;35:862–6.
45. Karpettas N, Destounis A, Kollias A, Nasothimiou E, Moyssakis I, Stergiou GS. Prediction of
treatment-induced changes in target-organ damage using changes in clinic, home and ambula-
tory blood pressure. Hypertens Res. 2014;37:543–7.
46. Mancia G, Zanchetti A, Agabiti-Rosei E, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure is superior to clinic
blood pressure in predicting treatment-induced regression of left ventricular hypertrophy.
SAMPLE Study Group. Study on Ambulatory Monitoring of Blood Pressure and Lisinopril
Evaluation. Circulation. 1997;95:1464–70.
47. Kario K, Saito I, Kushiro T, et al. Home blood pressure and cardiovascular outcomes in
patients during antihypertensive therapy: primary results of HONEST, a large-scale prospec-
tive, real-world observational study. Hypertension. 2014;64:989–96.
48. Stergiou G, Parati G. Further insights into the 24-h blood pressure profile by home blood pres-
sure monitoring: the issue of morning hypertension. J Hypertens. 2009;27:696–9.
49. Asayama K, Ohkubo T, Kikuya M, et al. Prediction of stroke by home “morning” versus “eve-
ning” blood pressure values: the Ohasama study. Hypertension. 2006;48:737–43.
50. Stergiou GS, Nasothimiou EG, Roussias LG. Morning hypertension assessed by home or
ambulatory monitoring: different aspects of the same phenomenon? J Hypertens. 2010;28:
1846–53.
51. Redon J, Bilo G, Parati G. Surge Steering Committee. The effects of telmisartan alone or in
combination with hydrochlorothiazide on morning home blood pressure control: the SURGE
2 practice-based study. Blood Press. 2013;22:377–85.
52. Kario K, Saito I, Kushiro T, et al. Effect of the angiotensin II receptor antagonist olmesartan
on morning home blood pressure in hypertension: HONEST study at 16 weeks. J Hum
Hypertens. 2013;27:721–8.
53. Mori H, Yamamoto H, Ukai H, et al. COMPATIBLE Study Group. Comparison of effects of
angiotensin II receptor blocker on morning home blood pressure and cardiorenal protection
between morning administration and evening administration in hypertensive patients: the
COMPATIBLE study. Hypertens Res. 2013;36:202–7.
54. Hashimoto J, Chonan K, Aoki Y, et al. Therapeutic effects of evening administration of guana-
benz and clonidine on morning hypertension: evaluation using home-based blood pressure
measurements. J Hypertens. 2003;21:805–11.
55. Mengden T, Binswanger B, Spühler T, Weisser B, Vetter W. The use of self-measured blood
pressure determinations in assessing dynamics of drug compliance in a study with amlodipine
once a day, morning versus evening. J Hypertens. 1993;11:1403–11.
56. Metoki H, Ohkubo T, Kikuya M, et al. J-HOME-AI Study group. The velocity of antihyperten-
sive effect of losartan/hydrochlorothiazide and angiotensin II receptor blocker. J Hypertens.
2012;30:1478–86.
57. Mashima K, Nakatsu T, Murakami T, et al. Exponential-exponential cosine fitting of blood

pressure decay induced by a long-acting calcium blocker, amlodipine, using home blood pres-
sure measurement. Clin Exp Hypertens. 2003;25:145–54.
58. Myers MG, Stergiou GS. Reporting bias: Achilles’ heel of home blood pressure monitoring.
J Am Soc Hypertens. 2014;8:350–7.
59. Stoddart A, Hanley J, Wild S, et al. Telemonitoring-based service redesign for the management
of uncontrolled hypertension (HITS): cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised
controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002681.
60. Nakamoto H, Nishida E, Ryuzaki M, et al. Effect of telmisartan and amlodipine on home blood
pressure by monitoring newly developed telemedicine system: monitoring test by using tele-
medicine. Telmisartans effect on home blood pressure (TelTelbosu). Clin Exp Hypertens.
2008;30:57–67.
Chapter 20
in Clinical Trials of Drugs and Devices
William B. White and Line Malha
Introduction
The utilization of 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring to assess new
drugs and devices for hypertension has markedly increased over the past two
decades. The determination of dosage and comparative efficacy of antihypertensive
regimens has been guided by ambulatory BP monitoring in diverse patient
populations with hypertension. More recently, studies of renal denervation devices
have also used ambulatory BP measurements to determine more precise effects of
partially interrupting the sympathetic nervous system.
Several specific attributes have made ambulatory monitoring of BP important in
clinical trials involving the assessment of antihypertensive therapies [1–4]. Some of
these benefits include removal of observer bias or error [5], better short- and long-term
BP reproducibility [6], elimination of the white coat effect during patient selection [7,
8], and the ability to assess the effects of therapy on diurnal and nocturnal BP variability
[9]. Furthermore, recent data have demonstrated that ambulatory BP is a superior
predictor of hemodynamic abnormalities in the hypertensive patient [10], hypertensive
target organ involvement [11, 12], and prognostic outcomes, including myocardial
infarction, stroke, and other types of cardiovascular morbidity [13–19].
In this chapter, an overview of the utility of ambulatory BP monitoring in clinical
pharmacology and medical device research will be provided with several examples

L. Malha, M.D.
NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-22771-9_20
372 W.B. White and L. Malha
using data from randomized, controlled, or comparator trials. Furthermore, examples

that show the utility of ambulatory monitoring for the assessment of treated patients
in clinical practice will also be discussed.
Impact of Blood Pressure Variability on the Reproducibility

of Office vs. Ambulatory Blood Pressure as it Relates to Drug
Development
The typical reduction in systolic or diastolic BP observed in a clinical trial of an

antihypertensive drug (generally in the range of 5–20 %) must be viewed in light of
the magnitude of the relatively large variability of office BP from one visit to the
next (12–18 %). Studies that have examined the repeatability of office and
ambulatory BP in patients with hypertension have consistently demonstrated much
less variance with ambulatory BP [20–22].
Many years ago, Conway et al. [20] recorded the diastolic BP of 75 hypertensive
subjects on two occasions, 1 month apart, while they were being administered pla-
cebo. With clinic measurements, the mean difference in diastolic BP was 1.7 mmHg
and the standard deviation of this difference was 12.3 mmHg. In contrast, the
daytime ambulatory BP fell by 0.9 mmHg and the standard deviation of the
difference was halved to 6.3 mmHg. The implications of this marked reduction in
BP variability with ambulatory BP recordings compared to the clinic pressure are
that it will double the precision of a short-term trial and allow as much as a fourfold
reduction in the number of patients required to achieve an accurate result.
Similarly, the long-term reproducibility of ambulatory BP is also superior to office
BP [21]. Patients with hypertension were studied under the same therapeutic and
environmental conditions and their blood pressure was measured twice, 2 years apart.
The standard deviation of the differences in blood pressure was significantly lower
and the correlation coefficients significantly higher for ambulatory BP than for office
BP (Table 20.1). The improved reproducibility of ambulatory over office BP continued
to be present when the data were divided into awake and sleep periods. These data
suggest that clinical trials involving ambulatory BP over long periods would also
Table 20.1 Reproducibility of clinic and ambulatory blood pressure studies separated by up to
2 years in patients with hypertension
Blood pressure measure Systolic Diastolic
R-value SDD CV R-value SDD CV
Office 0.48 17.0 11.0 0.31 10.0 10.0
24-h mean 0.87a 9.8a 7.0 0.90a 4.7a 5.6
Awake 0.86a 10.7a 7.4 0.88a 5.8a 6.5
Sleep 0.92a 7.7 6.3 0.88a 5.2 7.1
R-value, correlation coefficient; SDD standard deviation of the differences, CV coefficient of variation
a
Significantly different from the office blood pressure correlation coefficients, SDD, and CV. From [21]
20 Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Clinical Trials of Drugs and Devices 373
require smaller sample sizes than similarly designed trials in which the statistical
power is based on the ability to show changes in a more highly variable clinic BP.
In contrast, there may be little advantage of ambulatory BP over clinic pressure
in clinical trials when the measure of interest is a small block of time, such as 1 or
2 h. In an evaluation of a group of hypertensives using both noninvasive and
intra-arterial BP over 24 h, Mancia et al. [23] showed that the standard deviation of
the differences for 24-h mean BP values was similar for the two methodologies.
However, despite the much larger number of BP values obtained in an intra-arterial
study, the hourly BP reproducibility was no different for the direct measurements
than it was for noninvasive BP monitoring. Thus, unlike the larger blocks of time
(e.g., 24 h, the awake period, or the sleep period), the reproducibility of hourly
ambulatory BP data has not been shown to be superior to that of office BP
measurements [23]. Hence, ambulatory BP recordings will not allow a reduction in
sample sizes if the end point is for short periods of time. This increased variability
in hourly BP levels is probably secondary to differences in the activities of patients
monitored on two different days. Because controlling for hourly physical and
mental activities is nearly impossible in free-ranging subjects, longer periods of
time (e.g., 4 h) will remain statistically and practically appropriate for clinical trials
involving ambulatory BP monitoring.
The benefits of ambulatory monitoring of the BP over clinic BP with regard to
sample size requirements in clinical trials of the elderly may be substantially
reduced, however. One report in elderly hypertensive patients with isolated systolic
hypertension suggests that there would not be improvement in reproducibility for
ambulatory BP over clinic BP measurements, as the between-subject variance was
not much different for the two methods [24]. Staessen et al. reported that 60 subjects
with isolated systolic hypertension would be required to detect a 10-mmHg
difference in systolic BP between two treatments in a parallel design using clinic
readings, whereas if ambulatory BP monitoring was used, the number would only
fall to 54. In contrast, if a crossover design was used, the number of subjects needed
to show the same systolic BP difference would be 18 and 14, respectively, for clinic
vs ambulatory BP measurements.
Ambulatory Blood Pressure for Evaluating Patients

for Clinical Trial Entry
At the recruitment and enrollment phases of a clinical hypertension trial, current

antihypertensive medication is discontinued, and baseline BPs and heart rates are
obtained during a single-blind placebo period that generally lasts for 2–4 weeks.
Conventional inclusion criteria for these trials have been based on the seated clinic
systolic or diastolic BPs at the end of the single-blind placebo period. In recent
years, many protocols have also included ambulatory BP values as primary or
secondary criteria for inclusion into the study. For example, it is not uncommon to
Fig. 20.1 Effects of patient recruitment using an office diastolic blood pressure >90 mmHg and
various awake ambulatory diastolic blood pressures as the selection criteria in antihypertensive
drug trials (Modified from [1])
require that the seated diastolic BP in the clinic exceed 90 or 95 mmHg and that the
awake (or daytime) ambulatory BP exceed 85 or 90 mmHg [1]. The impact of
various awake ambulatory BP values for exclusion of patients during the screening
process can be fairly dramatic when the requirement for the office diastolic BP is
90 mmHg or greater.
An example of this is shown in an analysis from a multicenter US clinical trial
(Fig. 20.1). In this study, a seated clinic diastolic BP of >95 and <115 mmHg was
used as the criterion for entering and remaining in the single-blind portion of the
trial. To progress into the double-blind randomized portion of the study, ambulatory
BP values at certain thresholds were used. However, when using an ambulatory
awake BP cutoff value of 85 mmHg, nearly 30 % of the study group was excluded
from randomization into the double-blind part of the trial.
When 90 mmHg was the cutoff value for ambulatory diastolic pressure, more
than 50 % of the group was excluded from randomization. The major reason for the
high exclusion rate based on the ambulatory BP values compared to the office pressure
is that a relatively high percentage of patients entering these trials experience a
white coat effect [3, 7, 25, 26]. There has always been substantial controversy as to
whether patients with white coat hypertension should be included or excluded from
participation in clinical trials of antihypertensive drugs. The viewpoint of those
favoring inclusion of white coat hypertensive patients is that it is relevant to study
their hemodynamic response to the new drug because it is likely that many patients
with the white coat syndrome will have therapy prescribed by physicians who base
treatment decisions solely on office BP measurements. Although not an unreasonable
concern, a number of studies have demonstrated that patients with white coat hyper-
tension exhibit few changes in ambulatory BP following antihypertensive therapy
[27, 28]. The typical compromise in recent years has been to include an interme-
diate cutoff BP entry value for ambulatory BP that is lower than the office BP
entry criteria. By using the ambulatory BP criteria, fewer patients will be required
in the randomized portion of the study, but the number of individuals screened in
the single-blind period is typically increased [9, 20, 21]. Even in 2015, it remains
commonplace to recruit about 130–140 % of the required final number of patients
who can be evaluated to assure that the statistical power required to show the
desired changes from baseline will be achieved.
Multicenter Trials to Evaluate Antihypertensive Therapy
A multicenter trial is a clinical trial conducted simultaneously by several investigators

working in different institutions, but using the same protocol and identical methods
in order to pool the data collected and analyze them together [29, 30]. Two key
reasons for conducting multicenter studies rather than single-center studies is to
enhance patient recruitment and to make the study group more “representative” of
the entire patient population, as there may be unique or homogeneous local
population characteristics from a single center.
Analyses of Multicenter Hypertension Trials: Relevant Problems

for Ambulatory Blood Pressure Recordings
There are several problems specific to multicenter hypertension trials, including

those utilizing ambulatory BP measurements. First, there is the “center” factor:
incorporation of the center factor into the analysis improves the power of comparison
of treatments. One can assess the variability among centers from the residual
variability in order to improve the sensitivity in detecting differences between
treatments. However, in the extreme situation of 1–2 patients in a center, it is not
possible to differentiate between a center-related effect and one related to the
treatments. In such cases, the smallest centers should be pooled to serve as a larger
“center” in the statistical model.
Second, it is important to evaluate whether the differences between treatment
modalities vary outside of random fluctuations across all centers. If a major
difference does exist, it may be proven statistically by performing a test of treatment
by center interaction.
Table 20.2 Causes of treatment-by-center interactions in multicenter clinical trials

Differences in patient features from one center to another
Abnormal frequency of protocol violations, losses to follow-up, or noncompliance in one or more
centers
Outlier center (small number of “doubtful” cases)
Real variations of differences between treatments according to centers
From [32]
It is relevant to evaluate the causes of treatment by center interactions because

they may invalidate the principal findings of a study [31], including those using
ambulatory BP monitoring. Some of the causes of treatment-by-center interactions
are listed in Table 20.2. An abnormal or unusual frequency of protocol violations,
losses to follow-up, or noncompliant patients may occur in one or more centers.
When this occurs, it may reflect poor adherence to the protocol or insufficient
motivation of the investigators or study coordinators at these centers. For example,
when a center has inexperienced or apathetic personnel involved in an ambulatory
BP monitoring protocol, there may be excessive data loss during the recording
period, poor correlation between cuff and device measurements, or inaccuracy with
regard to drug dosing and recorder hookup times [3, 7, 32].
Outlier centers, possibly because of a small number of doubtful cases, may
decrease credibility concerning these data and may also cause a center effect.
However, tests for outliers may be misleading in a large clinical trial. For example,
if three or four centers are identified as outliers, it is possible that these are the
clinics that are doing a good job while the others are not. Thus, statistical tests for
outliers, which are essentially tests of homogeneity, must be used carefully and
intelligently by the statisticians in charge of the final analyses. Finally, real variations
of differences between treatments according to centers may occur and restrict the
general applicability of the results.
Bias in a Multicenter Trial Using Ambulatory

Blood Pressure Monitoring
Bias enters into a multicenter trial through two primary mechanisms: selection bias
and misclassification bias. An example of selection bias in an antihypertensive drug
trial involving ambulatory BP monitoring might be recruiting a more severely
hypertensive population to avoid inclusion of white coat hypertensives. Many
investigators have learned to avoid screen failures (Fig. 20.1), which has a possible
financial impact on the center, so they will enroll either a patient with higher clinic
pressures or one who has a “known” ambulatory BP from a previous trial.
Misclassification bias in the multicenter trial is exemplified by clinic BP measurement
error (e.g., using improper methodology for measurement) and may induce a center
effect if untrained or inexperienced personnel are used. Misclassification bias is
probably uncommon in studies using experienced investigators and coordinators,

but in recent multinational, multicenter trials, the use of centers inexperienced in
performing clinical research and measurement errors have become more prevalent.
Practical Concerns in the Conduct of Multicenter Trials That

Use Ambulatory Blood Pressure Recorders
The use of ambulatory BP monitors in a clinical trial requires the availability of

skilled, trained technicians. Multiple devices are necessary in order to complete a
clinical trial in a timely fashion, to facilitate the scheduling of large numbers of
participants and to minimize the impact of mechanical problems when they occur.
These requirements increase study costs, but are critical to the success of the trial.
An additional concern is the possibility that the data for some individuals may be
excluded from analyses because of the poor quality of an ambulatory BP recording
or mechanical difficulty [33]. Rarely, the use of ambulatory BP monitoring may
hinder recruitment efforts because certain individuals may decline participation in a
trial as a result of the perceived burden of wearing and returning a recorder. Appel
et al. [33] have reported that patient recruitment efforts improve when the technique
is presented as a standard part of the study. Then the expectation is that the
ambulatory BP data collection is a primary part of the study [34] as opposed to an
optional or ancillary procedure.
Importance of the Placebo Effect in Clinic vs. Ambulatory

Blood Pressure
It remains standard practice to include a placebo group in clinical trials involving

antihypertensive therapy, especially studies that are considered dose ranging or
“pivotal” during the earlier phases of drug development. Because of the marked
variability of office BP, most investigators have found it necessary to distinguish
true drug effect from placebo effect in BP trials. Several factors might create a
reduction in BP on placebo, including regression to the mean [34], the presence of
a pressor response in the doctor’s office that resolves the white coat effect [35, 36],
and expectations of the patient and the clinical observer [5]. Unfortunately,
surreptitious readings may also play a role in BP reductions on placebo.
In contrast to studies that employ clinic pressure as the primary means to obtain
the primary study end point, the placebo effect is either minimal or absent when
ambulatory BP monitoring is used in antihypertensive drug trials [37–39]. The lack
of observed placebo effect on ambulatory BP is probably secondary to both the lack
of observer bias and the increased number of BP values obtained over a 24-h study
period. In contrast, ambulatory BP monitoring probably would not remove
regression to the mean or other potential patient factors that contribute to the placebo
effect. In fact, it is somewhat difficult to separate the regression to the mean effect
from the placebo effect and the decrease in a white coat effect over time. This
phenomenon of regression to the mean in an ambulatory BP monitoring study has
been shown quite clearly in a study by White et al. [40]. In this trial, patients with
hypertension were randomized to receive either placebo or controlled-onset
extended-release (COER) verapamil for 8 weeks after a 3–4-week single-blind
placebo baseline period. The patients were then divided into those with BP fall by
>10 % during sleep compared to their awake values (dippers) and those with BP
falls by <10 % during sleep (non-dippers). In the non-dipper patients randomized to
receive placebo, nocturnal systolic BP fell by 4 mmHg compared to the first baseline
study (also on placebo but during the single-blind period). In the dipper patients
randomized to receive placebo, nocturnal systolic BP increased by about 4 mmHg
compared to the baseline BP. Thus, the spread between the two types of patients in
the placebo group for nocturnal pressure was nearly 8 mmHg (Fig. 20.2).
The changes in nocturnal BP on active drug were also consistently greater across
all doses and greater in non-dippers compared to dippers. Thus, if this substantial
regression to the mean on placebo had not been accounted for, the response to active
treatment with COER verapamil in the dippers would have been underestimated
and the response in the non-dippers would have been overestimated.
Fig. 20.2 Changes in nocturnal (10 PM to 5 AM) blood pressure (BP) from baseline measured by
ambulatory BP monitoring in dippers (decline in mean BP from the daytime period to the noctur-
nal period was >10 %) contrasted with changes in nocturnal BP in non-dippers (<10 % decline in
nocturnal BP) on placebo and four doses of controlled-onset extended-release (COER) verapamil
(Modified from [40])
Fig. 20.3 Difference in mean 24-h ambulatory systolic (a) and diastolic (b) BP after 14 weeks of
treatment with placebo, darusentan, and guanfacine. ***p < 0.001 as compared with placebo or
guanfacine (From [41])
More recently, Bakris et al. [41] randomized 849 patients with resistant
hypertension to darusentan (a selective endothelin-A receptor antagonist), placebo,
and guanfacine (central α-2 agonist). At 14 weeks, the systolic BP in the placebo
group decreased by 14 ± 14 mmHg in the office measurements, while the mean 24-h
systolic BP only decreased by 2 ± 12 mmHg. Hence, when mean 24-h BP is taken
into account, the placebo effect is dramatically attenuated. While the drop in clinic
systolic BP at 14 weeks with darusentan was not significantly different from placebo,
the mean 24-h systolic BP was lower for darusentan group (p < 0.001) (Fig. 20.3).
A study by Mutti et al. [39] reported a significant 10/3 ± 3/2 mmHg fall in office
BP after 4 weeks of placebo, whereas the overall 24-h BP was unchanged. However,
the ambulatory BP did fall slightly during the first 8 h of placebo administration,
which the authors attributed to the white coat effect. Of note is that this initial fall
did not have a statistical effect on the overall mean BP and thus ambulatory BP
monitoring still allowed for better characterization of the placebo effect.
In a much longer-term study by Staessen et al. [42] in older patients with isolated
systolic hypertension, one treatment arm was randomized to placebo for 1 year.
Compared to the baseline period, the clinic systolic BP fell by 7 ± 16 mmHg on
placebo and the 24-h systolic BP fell by just 2 ± 11 mmHg. Because the ambulatory
BP has a superior repeatability index compared to the clinic pressure, the changes
in 24-h systolic BP met statistical significance, whereas the larger mean reduction
in clinic BP showed only a trend (p = 0.06). Because this was a patient population
with normal diastolic BP, there were no statistically significant changes in clinic or
ambulatory diastolic BP on placebo therapy during this study. The authors also
noted that the 24-h systolic BP was more likely to decrease on placebo if it was
higher at baseline and if the follow-up was longer. The authors discounted regression
to the mean or the white coat effect as having an impact on these placebo effects and
recommended that long-term studies in older patients using noninvasive ambulatory
BP monitoring require a placebo-controlled design.
Analysis of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Data

in Antihypertensive Drug Trials
Data from ambulatory BP studies in hypertension trials can be analyzed in a number

of ways (Table 20.3). Features of any method of analysis for ambulatory BP data
should include the statistical ease of calculation, clinical relevance of the measure,
and relationship of the parameter to the hypertensive disease process. The most
popular methods remain the change from baseline in the 24-h systolic and diastolic
BP and the visual assessment of the hourly curves over 24 h. However, the use of
daytime and nighttime means (or preferably awake and sleep values), blood pressure
loads (the proportion of values above a cutoff value during wakefulness
[>140/90 mmHg] or sleep [>120/80 mmHg] divided by the total number of BP
readings), area under the 24-h BP curve (AUC), and smoothing techniques designed
to remove some of the variability from the raw BP data analysis are also among the
utilized methods of analysis [1–4, 9, 10].
The 24-h mean BP remains an important parameter for evaluation in antihypertensive
drug trials because it appears to be a strong predictor of hypertensive target organ disease
[2], is easy to calculate, utilizes all of the ambulatory BP data, and as previously
mentioned, is remarkably reproducible in both short-term [6] and long-term [21] studies.
The blood pressure load has been used as a simple method of analysis in
evaluating the effects of antihypertensive drugs. Blood pressure load has been
defined as the percentage of BPs exceeding 140/90 mmHg while the patient is
awake plus the percentage of BPs exceeding 120/80 mmHg during sleep [43]. A
number of years ago, we evaluated the relationship between this BP load and cardiac
target organ indexes in previously untreated hypertensives. At a 40 % diastolic BP
load, the incidence of LVH was nearly 80 %, but below a 40 % diastolic BP load,
the prevalence of LVH fell to about 8 %. In contrast, the office BP and even the 24-h
average BP were not as discriminating in predicting LVH in this group of previously
untreated patients. Thus, in mild to moderately hypertensive patients, one would
desire a low (conservatively <30 %) BP load while being treated with antihypertensive
drug therapy.
Table 20.3 Methods for evaluating ambulatory blood pressure data in clinical trials
24-h means (and standard deviation as a measure of variability)
Awake and sleep means based on patient diaries or activity recorders
Hourly means
Blood pressure load (proportion method)
Area under the blood pressure curve
Placebo-subtracted curves showing hourly means
Various data smoothing techniques (including cosinor analyses or fast Fourier transformation)
Modeling of 24-h curves
Trough-to-peak ratio (for once or twice daily drugs)
In studies in which the patient population has a greater range in BP, the
proportional (or percentage) BP load becomes less useful. Because the upper limit
of the BP load is 100 %, this value may represent a substantial number of individuals
with broad ranges of moderate to severe hypertension. To overcome this problem,
we devised a method to integrate the area under the ambulatory BP curve and relate
its values to predicting hemodynamic indices in untreated essential hypertensives
[10]. Areas under the BP curve were computed separately for periods of wakefulness
and sleep and combined to form the 24-h AUC. Threshold values were used to
calculate AUC such as 135 or 140 mmHg systolic while awake and 85 or 90 mmHg
diastolic while awake. Values during sleep were reduced to 115 and 120 mmHg
systolic and 75 and 80 mmHg diastolic.
Smoothing of ambulatory BP data may be used to aid in the identification of the
peak and trough effects of an antihypertensive drug. The extent of variability in an
individual’s BP curve may be large as a result of both mental and physical activity;
thus, evaluating the peak antihypertensive effect of a short- or intermediate-acting
drug may be difficult. Other than the benefits associated with examining pharmacody-
namic effects of new antihypertensive drugs, data and curve smoothing for 24-h BP
monitoring appear to have little clinical relevance. Furthermore, editing protocols are
not uniform in the literature, and missing data may alter the balance of mean values
for shorter periods of time. To avoid excessive data reduction in a clinical trial, one
statistical expert suggested that data smoothing should be performed on individual BP
profiles rather than on group means [44].
Situations in Which Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring

Has Been Useful in Antihypertensive Drug Trials
Treating the White-Coat Hypertensive Patient
The inclusion of white coat hypertensive patients in an antihypertensive drug trial

that uses only clinic BP criteria for study entry will have a potentially confounding
effect on efficacy, because these patients are not hypertensive outside of the medical
care environment [7, 8, 11, 13]. Furthermore, patients may develop excessive
drug-induced side effects without much change in BP, especially if titration of the
dose is based on office pressures.
In a study by Weber et al. [28], a sustained fall in BP was found across a study
group taking a long-acting form of diltiazem. In a subset of six patients who had
hypertensive office BP readings but whose ambulatory BPs were normotensive (i.e.,
a white coat hypertensive group), no significant ambulatory BP changes from
placebo baseline (0/1 mmHg) were observed. In contrast, the diltiazem therapy
decreased 24-h BPs by 18/13 mmHg in the subgroup of nine patients who were
hypertensive by both office and ambulatory BP. Thus, treating white coat
hypertensive patients may be of little to no benefit if the only place where BP
reduction is observed is in the medical care environment.
Utility of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring

in Dose-Finding Studies
Since the early 1990s, numerous studies have been performed with ambulatory BP
monitoring to fully assess the efficacy of a wide range of doses of new antihypertensive
agents. The advantage of ambulatory BP monitoring in dose-finding studies is the
ability to discern differences among the doses with smaller numbers of study
participants compared to the sample size requirements when clinic pressures are used.
Examples are shown next.
Eplerenone
The efficacy of eplerenone, a novel selective aldosterone receptor antagonist, was

studied in patients with essential hypertension using a multicenter, randomized,
placebo-controlled design [45]. In this trial, the drug was assessed using a once-
daily dosing regimen of either 25 or 200 mg. Clinic and ambulatory BPs were com-
pared to both baseline values and the effects of placebo. As shown in Fig. 20.4, there
was a dose-related reduction in BP at the trough for both clinic and ambulatory
BP. The ambulatory BP values were better at delineating the dose–response than the
clinic BP readings.
Fig. 20.4 Changes from baseline in ambulatory vs clinic systolic blood pressure in a dose-ranging
trial with a selective aldosterone antagonist, eplerenone (Data from [45])
Utility of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring

in Comparator Trials
Ambulatory BP monitoring has been very helpful in comparing antihypertensive

drugs, especially when assessing duration of action. Numerous examples in the
literature illustrate this benefit, including the superiority of ambulatory BP over
clinic BP in assessing the trough-to-peak ratio of various agents [46].
Comparisons Within the Same Class
In a multicenter study, Neutel et al. [47] compared the β-blockers bisoprolol and
atenolol in 606 patients using both clinic and ambulatory BP. Following therapy,
trough BP in the clinic was reduced 12/12 mmHg by bisoprolol and 11/12 mmHg
by atenolol. Although these changes were significantly different from baseline
therapy, there were no differences when comparing the effects of each drug. In
contrast, daytime systolic and diastolic BPs (6 AM to 10 PM) and the last 4 h of the
dosing interval (6–10 AM) were lowered significantly more by bisoprolol than by
atenolol. This finding was present whether the assessment was made by examination
of the overall means, area under the curve, or BP loads. These data demonstrated
that despite there being no difference in office BP, bisoprolol had significant
differences in efficacy and duration of action compared with atenolol when assessed
by 24-h BP monitoring.
The antihypertensive efficacy of the selective angiotensin II receptor
antagonists azilsartan medoxomil, valsartan, and olmesartan medoxomil was
compared with placebo in a randomized, multicenter, parallel group,
double-blind trial of 1291 patients with hypertension [48]. Azilsartan medoxomil
is metabolized to azilsartan, an active metabolite with potent angiotensin II type
1 receptor antagonist properties. After 2 weeks of single-blind placebo baseline
treatment, patients were randomized to receive 160 mg valsartan, 20 mg of
olmesartan, 20 or 40 mg azilsartan medoxomil or placebo once daily. The doses
were up-titrated to double the initial dose after 2 weeks and maintained until
week 6 after randomization. Based on placebo-adjusted 24-h BP measurements,
the reductions in systolic BP were -14.3 mmHg for azilsartan, -11.7 mmHg for
olmesartan, and -10.0 mmHg for valsartan. Changes in BP induced by azilsartan
were significantly greater than the reductions in BP observed with olmesartan
(p = 0.009) and valsartan (p < 0.001) (Fig. 20.5). The decreases in blood pressure
measured in the office using digital devices were consistent with the changes
from baseline in the mean 24-h BP measurements in this study. This contrasts
with prior findings by Mallion et al. [49] where office BP did not demonstrate a
blood pressure difference between telmisartan and losartan, while ambulatory
BP monitoring was able to identify a more drop of systolic BP for the telmisartan
group compared to the losartan group at 18–24-h after the dose was
administered.
Fig. 20.5 Change in systolic BP from baseline after 6 weeks of treatment with placebo, 40 or
80 mg of azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M), 320 mg of valsartan (VAL), and 40 mg of olmesartan
(OLM-M) (Modified from [48])
Comparisons of Drugs in Different Classes
The Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm

(ASCOT-BPLA) compared the prevention of cardiovascular events from an
antihypertensive regimen based on a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine 5–10 mg
once daily) in combination with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (perin-
dopril 4–8 mg once daily) to a combination of a beta blocker (atenolol 50–100 mg
once daily) and a thiazide diuretic (bendroflumethiazide 1.25–2.5 mg once daily)
[50]. In a substudy of the ASCOT-BPLA, Dolan et al. compared the ability of
ambulatory BP versus office BP to predict cardiovascular events [51]. The substudy
randomized 1905 patients to either amlodipine-peridopril or atenolol-thiazide
regimens. Both ambulatory and office BP were correlated with cardiovascular
events, but the ambulatory BP monitor demonstrated that nocturnal BP was reduced
to a greater extent by amlodipine-perindopril versus atenolol-thiazide therapy.
The ASCOT BPLA substudy also demonstrated a lower risk for cardiovascular
events in the amlodipine-perindopril group. The hazard ratio was further
strengthened when integrating nighttime systolic BP values with accumulated mean
office BP in a multivariate model. These data suggested that the addition of
ambulatory BP allowed for improved characterization of the prognostic implications
of different drug regimens in a clinical outcome trial [50].
Use of Ambulatory Monitoring to Assess the Effects of Dosing

Time
In general, when antihypertensive therapies are administered, there is an attempt to

match the effects of a drug to the timing of the BP variability [52–54]. In the case of
hypertension and coronary artery disease, this imparts a great deal of clinical
relevance because BP and heart rate have distinct, reproducible circadian rhythms.
In most patients, the BP and heart rate are lowest during sleep and highest during
the day. As noted previously by several authors in this volume, most cardiovascular
diseases, including myocardial infarction [55]), angina and myocardial ischemia
[56], and stroke [57], have circadian patterns that are all characterized by the highest
incidences in the early morning hours.
Timing of Drug Administration
Several authors have made attempts to alter the effects of conventional drugs by
dosing them prior to sleep vs upon arising [58–65]. In one of these studies [64], the
angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE) quinapril was dosed in the early
morning vs at bedtime in 18 moderately hypertensive patients. The study was
conducted in a double-blind crossover design with quinapril dosed at either 8 AM
or 10 PM for 4 weeks in each period. Ambulatory BP monitoring was carried out
before and at the end of each 4-weeks double-blind period. Daytime BP was reduced
similarly by both dosing regimens. In contrast, nighttime systolic and diastolic BP
was decreased to a significantly greater extent with the evening administration of
quinapril. Measurement of ACE activity showed that evening administration of
quinapril induced a more sustained decline in plasma ACE but not a more
pronounced change. The findings in this study are of substantial interest because
nocturnal BP has largely been ignored in the past [63], and in many types of
hypertensive patients the BP during sleep may remain elevated despite “normal” BP
measurement in the doctor’s office.
The MAPEC (Monitoración Ambulatoria para Predicción de Eveventos
Cardiovasculares) study [59] from Spain randomized 2156 participants with
hypertension and instructed them to ingest all their antihypertensive medications
upon awakening versus taking one or more at bedtime. The bedtime medication
group had improvement in ambulatory BP control, reduction in the occurrence of
non-dipping pattern, and a lower risk (relative risk 0.39, p < 0.001) for cardiovascular
events (median time = 5.6 years). Cardiovascular events were defined in terms of all
cause mortality and morbidity including: angina, coronary artery disease (myocardial
infarction or coronary revascularization), heart failure, peripheral vascular disease
(lower extremity or retinal arterial occlusions), aortic aneurysmal rupture, and
stroke (hemorrhagic, ischemic, and transient ischemic attack). Further studies from
the same research group had reproducible results with benefit of bedtime dosing of
antihypertensive medication on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality [61].
Other studies [66–68] show that little change in BP or heart rate occurs by
altering the dosing time of these long-acting agents to nighttime. However, most of
the studies have small sample sizes and had low statistical power to show changes
less than 5–10 mmHg in ambulatory BP. Thus, whether or not altering the dosing
time of a long-acting antihypertensive agent truly changes the level of ambulatory
BP has not been shown with any great degree of confidence.
Situations in Which Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring

Has Been Useful in Antihypertensive Device Trials
Utility of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Evaluation

of Treatment Efficacy of Renal Sympathetic Denervation
Renal sympathetic denervation by radiofrequency ablation is an emerging

technique to treat severe and drug-resistant hypertension. The goal of the procedure
is to disrupt the sympathetic nerves overlying the renal artery and attenuate the
release of catecholamines [69, 70]. The first randomized, controlled trial using
this technology (SYMPLICITY HTN-3) [71] evaluated the change in ambulatory
systolic BP at 6 months with renal denervation as compared to a sham procedure.
The trial randomized 535 patients with drug-resistant hypertension, but failed to
demonstrate a benefit of renal sympathetic denervation on changes in office
BP. Bakris et al. [72] later published the ambulatory BP monitoring results from
SYMPLICITY-3. There was no difference in the change from baseline in 24 h
ambulatory BP between treatment groups; the nocturnal systolic BP trended to be
lower following renal denervation (−3.3 mmHg, p = 0.06, versus sham procedure).
Still it is unknown whether reductions in sympathetic nervous system activation
may modulate beneficial effects on nighttime BP control, a key factor in
cardiovascular risk prevention.
The findings of SYMPLICITY-3 [71] contrast with results from prior uncon-
trolled and unblinded studies [73, 74]. These open-label studies demonstrated large
reductions in clinic BP and much more modest reductions in ambulatory BP, 3–6
months after renal denervation. However, with lack of blinding and sham-control,
the strength of evidence in these prior studies is limited.
Mahfoud et al. [73] pooled data from a series of 346 renal denervation patients
who had had uncontrolled hypertension by office measurements and divided them
into true and pseudo-resistant hypertension based on the ambulatory systolic BP. If
the 24-h mean systolic BP was <130 mmHg, they were considered pseudo-resistant.
In patients with true resistant hypertension, renal denervation significantly
decreased the 24-h systolic and diastolic BP by −11.7/−7.4 mmHg (p < 0.007) at 12
months. However, renal denervation did not significantly decrease ambulatory BP
in the pseudo-resistant hypertension group despite a large reduction in office BP
(Fig. 20.6).
Fig. 20.6 Systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure changes (compared to base-
line BP) in all patients, in patients with true and with pseudo-resistant hypertension at 3 months
(3M), 6 months (6M), and 12 months (12M) after renal denervation. Panel A represents office
blood pressure measurement and panel B represents 24-h mean BP by ambulatory BP monitoring.
Adapted from [73]
These results demonstrated that ambulatory BP was a superior means to assess

blood pressure responses in patients undergoing renal denervation. The differential
response of ambulatory and office blood pressures to renal denervation can be
explained in part by observer bias, white coat effect, and perhaps disparities in the
physiologic basis for true resistant hypertension versus pseudo-resistant hyperten-
sion [41, 73].
While the efficacy of renal denervation in the first sham-procedure trial was not
significant, numerous issues related to the lack of effectiveness have been identified
[75] and it is expected that numerous newly designed device trials will be initiated
as technological advances occur [76, 77].
Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Community-Based

Trials
Traditional clinical trials in hypertension measure the efficacy of anti-hypertensive

drugs, but may not fully assess their effectiveness in clinical practice. Thus, it was
relevant to evaluate a community-based trial that could provide this information using
an open-label design without being subject to observer bias. To meet this requirement,
White et al. [78] (Fig. 20.7) used ambulatory BP monitoring to overcome these
Fig. 20.7 Effects of telmisartan or telemisartan and hydrochlorothiazide on 24-h ambulatory BP

(upper panel) and the last 4 h of the dosing interval (lower panel) from the MICCAT-2 trial.
Patients were characterized as having a morning surge if their early morning BP exceeded the pre-
awakening sleep BP by 30 mmHg systolic (Modified from [78])
shortcomings in a large community-based trial involving more than 600 medical

practices in the United States. Patients with hypertension, either untreated or currently
on treatment, were started on, or switched to, the angiotensin receptor blocker
telmisartan 40 mg daily; after 2 weeks, if office BP remained >140/85 mmHg, the
dose was increased to 80 mg and, if necessary, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg added
after a further 4 weeks and continued for the final 4-week period. Twenty-four-hour
ABPM was performed at baseline and at the end of the treatment period. Baseline and
treatment ambulatory BP measurements were completed in 940 previously untreated
patients and 675 previously treated patients. The average reduction of the entire cohort
was −10.7/−6.5 mmHg (p > 0.0001; 24-h BP averages were reduced by 12/8 and
8/5 mmHg in untreated and previously treated patients, respectively). In contrast, the
office BPs fell by an average of 23/12 and 17/10 mmHg in previously untreated and
treated patients. In 401 patients whose baseline 24-h BP was >130/85 mmHg, the
mean decrease in 24-h BP was 16.8/11.4 mmHg. Based on the ambulatory BP criteria,
the BP was fully controlled (<130/85 mmHg) in 70 % of patients and, based on office
measurement criteria (<140/90 mmHg), in 79 %. Thus, observer and measurement
bias was substantially based on the changes from baseline by clinical measurements
in contrast to ambulatory BP recordings. The successful use of this procedure in
primary care research will create further opportunities to define the effectiveness of
treatment in the environment in which it is customarily prescribed.
Conclusions
The data from the past 15–20 years of clinical trials now overwhelmingly support
the usefulness of ambulatory BP monitoring in the assessment and development of
new antihypertensive drugs. Numerous reports show that the ambulatory BP is a
powerful, independent predictor of cardiovascular morbidity. Additionally, several
studies also show that ambulatory BP monitoring has excellent potential as a tool to
aid in the management of hypertension, including determining whether the initiation,
adjustment, and withdrawal of antihypertensive treatment should be considered.
Finally, based on most analyses, ambulatory monitoring of the BP is, at worst,
cost-neutral and should become cost-effective in most countries when used for the
appropriate clinical diagnoses and charged for at reasonable costs.
References
1. Mansoor GA, White WB. Contribution of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring to the design
and analysis of antihypertensive therapy trials. J Cardiovasc Risk. 1994;1(2):136–42.
2. Mansoor GA, White WB. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in current clinical practice
and research. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 1995;4(6):531–7.
3. White WB, Morganroth J. Usefulness of ambulatory monitoring of blood pressure in assessing
antihypertensive therapy. Am J Cardiol. 1989;63(1):94–8.
4. White WB. The role of ambulatory monitoring of the blood pressure for assessment of
antihypertensive agents. J Clin Pharmacol. 1992;32(6):524–8.
5. Bruce NG, Shaper AG, Walker M, Wannamethee G. Observer bias in blood pressure studies.
J Hypertens. 1988;6(5):375–80.
6. James GD, Pickering TG, Yee LS, Harshfield GA, Riva S, Laragh JH. The reproducibility of
average ambulatory, home, and clinic pressures. Hypertension. 1988;11:545–9.
white coat hypertension? JAMA. 1988;259(2):225–8.
8. White WB. Assessment of patients with office hypertension by 24-hour noninvasive ambula-
tory blood pressure monitoring. Arch Intern Med. 1986;146(11):2196–9.
9. White WB. Methods of blood pressure determination to assess antihypertensive agents: are
casual measurements enough? Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1989;45(6):581–6.
10. White WB, Lund-Johansen P, Weiss S, Omvik P, Indurkhya N. The relationships between
casual and ambulatory blood pressure measurements and central hemodynamics in essential
human hypertension. J Hypertens. 1994;12(9):1075–81.
11. White WB, Schulman P, McCabe EJ, Dey HM. Average daily blood pressure, not office blood
pressure, determines cardiac function in patients with hypertension. JAMA. 1989;261(6):873–7.
12. Shimada K, Kawamoto A, Matsubayashi K, Ozawa T. Silent cerebrovascular disease in the
elderly: correlation with ambulatory blood pressure. Hypertension. 1990;16(6):692–9.
13. Perloff D, Sokolow M, Cowan RM, Juster RP. Prognostic value of ambulatory blood pressure
measurements: further analyses. J Hypertens. 1989;7(3):S3–10.
Hypertension. 1998;31(2):712–8.
15. Verdecchia P, Angeli F, Cavallini C. Ambulatory blood pressure for cardiovascular risk
stratification. Circulation. 2007;115(16):2091–3.
17. Khattar RS, Senior R, Lahiri A. Cardiovascular outcome in white-coat versus sustained mild
hypertension: a 10-year follow-up study. Circulation. 1998;98(18):1892–7.
ambulatory blood pressure in older patients with systolic hypertension. Systolic Hypertension
in Europe Trial Investigators. JAMA. 1999;282(6):539–46.
19. Staessen JA, Thijs L, O’Brien ET, et al. Ambulatory pulse pressure as predictor of outcome in
older patients with systolic hypertension. Am J Hypertens. 2002;15:835–43.
20. Conway J, Johnston J, Coats A, Somers V, Sleight P. The use of ambulatory blood pressure
monitoring to improve the accuracy and reduce the numbers of subjects in clinical trials of
antihypertensive agents. J Hypertens. 1988;6(2):111–6.
21. Mansoor GA, McCabe EJ, White WB. Long-term reproducibility of ambulatory blood
pressure. J Hypertens. 1994;12(6):703–8.
22. Campbell P, Ghuman N, Wakefield D, Wolfson L, White WB. Long-term reproducibility of
ambulatory blood pressure is superior to office blood pressure in the very elderly. J Hum
Hypertens. 2010;24:749–54.
23. Mancia G, Omboni S, Parati G, Trazzi S, Mutti E. Limited reproducibility of hourly blood
pressure values obtained by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: implications for studies on
antihypertensive drugs. J Hypertens. 1992;10(12):1531–5.
24. Staessen JA, Thijs L, Clement D, et al. Ambulatory pressure decreases on long-term placebo
treatment in older patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Syst-Eur Investigators.
J Hypertens. 1994;12(9):1035–9.
25. Gradman AH, Pangan P, Germain M. Lack of correlation between clinic and 24 hour ambula-
tory blood pressure in subjects participating in a therapeutic drug trial. J Clin Epidemiol.
1989;42(11):1049–54.
26. de la Sierra A, Segura J, Banegas JR, et al. Clinical features of 8295 patients with resistant
hypertension classified on the basis of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Hypertension.
2011;57(5):898–902.
27. Myers MG, Reeves RA. White coat phenomenon in patients receiving antihypertensive ther-
apy. Am J Hypertens. 1991;4:844–9.
28. Weber MA, Cheung DG, Graettinger WF, Lipson JL. Characterization of antihypertensive
therapy by whole-day blood pressure monitoring. JAMA. 1988;259(22):3281–5.
29. Meinert CL. Toward more definitive clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1980;1(3):249–61.
30. Sylvester RJ, Pinedo HM, De Pauw M, et al. Quality of institutional participation in multicenter
clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1981;305(15):852–5.
31. Spriet A, Dupin-Spriet T, Simon P. Methodology of clinical drug trials. 2nd ed. Basel: Karger; 1994.
32. White WB, Walsh SJ. Ambulatory monitoring of the blood pressure in multicenter clinical
trials. Blood Press Monit. 1996;1(3):227–9.
33. Appel LJ, Marwaha S, Whelton PK, Patel M. The impact of automated blood pressure devices
on the efficiency of clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1992;13(3):240–7.
34. McDonald CJ, Mazzuca SA, McCabe Jr GP. How much of the placebo ‘effect’ is really
statistical regression? Stat Med. 1983;2(4):417–27.
on patient’s blood pressure and heart rate. Lancet. 1983;2(8352):695–8.
36. Mansoor GA, McCabe EJ, White WB. Determinants of the white-coat effect in hypertensive
subjects. J Hum Hypertens. 1996;10(2):87–92.
37. Bottini PB, Carr AA, Rhoades RB, Prisant LM. Variability of indirect methods used to
determine blood pressure. Office vs mean 24-hour automated blood pressures. Arch Intern
Med. 1992;152(1):139–44.
38. Dupont AG, Van der Niepen P, Six RO. Placebo does not lower ambulatory blood pressure. Br
J Clin Pharmacol. 1987;24(1):106–9.
39. Mutti E, Trazzi S, Omboni S, Parati G, Mancia G. Effect of placebo on 24-h non-invasive
ambulatory blood pressure. J Hypertens. 1991;9(4):361–4.
40. White WB, Mehrotra DV, Black HR, Fakouhi TD. Effects of controlled-onset extended-release
verapamil on nocturnal blood pressure (dippers versus nondippers). COER-Verapamil Study
Group. Am J Cardiol. 1997;80(4):469–74.
41. Bakris GL, Lindholm LH, Black HR, et al. Divergent results using clinic and ambulatory blood
pressures: report of a darusentan-resistant hypertension trial. Hypertension. 2010;56(5):824–30.
42. Staessen JA, Thijs L, Mancia G, Parati G, O’Brien ET. Clinical trials with ambulatory blood pres-
sure monitoring: fewer patients needed? Syst-Eur Investigators. Lancet. 1994;344(8936):1552–6.
43. White WB, Dey HM, Schulman P. Assessment of the daily blood pressure load as a determinant of
cardiac function in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Am Heart J. 1989;118(4):782–95.
44. Dickson D, Hasford J. 24-hour blood pressure measurement in antihypertensive drug trials:
data requirements and methods of analysis. Stat Med. 1992;11(16):2147–58.
45. White WB, Carr AA, Krause S, Jordan R, Roniker B, Oigman W. Assessment of the novel
selective aldosterone blocker eplerenone using ambulatory and clinical blood pressure in
patients with systemic hypertension. Am J Cardiol. 2003;92(1):38–42.
46. White WB. Relevance of the trough-to-peak ratio to the 24 h blood pressure load. Am
J Hypertens. 1996;9(10 Pt 2):91S–6S.
47. Neutel JM, Smith DH, Ram CV, et al. Application of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in
differentiating between antihypertensive agents. Am J Med. 1993;94(2):181–7.
48. White WB, Weber MA, Sica D, et al. Effects of the angiotensin receptor blocker azilsartan
medoxomil versus olmesartan and valsartan on ambulatory and clinic blood pressure in
patients with stages 1 and 2 hypertension. Hypertension. 2011;57(3):413–20.
49. Mallion J, Siche J, Lacourciere Y. ABPM comparison of the antihypertensive profiles of the
selective angiotensin II receptor antagonists telmisartan and losartan in patients with mild-
to-moderate hypertension. J Hum Hypertens. 1999;13(10):657–64.
50. Dahlof B, Sever PS, Poulter NR, et al. Prevention of cardiovascular events with an
antihypertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding
bendroflumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood
Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet.
2005;366(9489):895–906.
51. Dolan E, Stanton AV, Thom S, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring predicts cardiovascular
events in treated hypertensive patients—an Anglo-Scandinavian cardiac outcomes trial substudy.
J Hypertens. 2009;27(4):876–85.
52. Smolensky MH, D’Alonzo GE. Medical chronobiology: concepts and applications. Am Rev
Respir Dis. 1993;147(6 Pt 2):S2–19.
53. Straka RJ, Benson SR. Chronopharmacologic considerations when treating the patient with
hypertension: a review. J Clin Pharmacol. 1996;36(9):771–82.
54. White WB. A chronotherapeutic approach to the management of hypertension. Am
J Hypertens. 1996;9(4 Pt 3):29–33.
55. Muller JE, Tofler GH, Stone PH. Circadian variation and triggers of onset of acute
cardiovascular disease. Circulation. 1989;79(4):733–43.
56. Waters DD, Miller DD, Bouchard A, Bosch X, Theroux P. Circadian variation in variant
angina. Am J Cardiol. 1984;54(1):61–4.
57. Marler JR, Price TR, Clark GL, et al. Morning increase in onset of ischemic stroke. Stroke.
1989;20(4):473–6.
58. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Mojon A, et al. Comparison of the effects on ambulatory blood
pressure of awakening versus bedtime administration of torasemide in essential hypertension.
Chronobiol Int. 2008;25(6):950–70.
59. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Mojon A, Fernandez JR. Influence of circadian time of hypertension treat-
ment on cardiovascular risk: results of the MAPEC study. Chronobiol Int. 2010;27(8):1629–51.
60. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Mojon A, Fontao MJ, Fernandez JR. Chronotherapy with valsartan/
hydrochlorothiazide combination in essential hypertension: improved sleep-time blood
pressure control with bedtime dosing. Chronobiol Int. 2011;28(7):601–10.
61. Hermida RC, Rios MT, Crespo JJ, et al. Treatment-time regimen of hypertension medications
significantly affects ambulatory blood pressure and clinical characteristics of patients with
resistant hypertension. Chronobiol Int. 2013;30(1–2):192–206.
62. Moya A, Crespo JJ, Ayala DE, et al. Effects of time-of-day of hypertension treatment on
ambulatory blood pressure and clinical characteristics of patients with type 2 diabetes.
Chronobiol Int. 2013;30(1–2):116–31.
63. Lemmer B. Differential effects of antihypertensive drugs on circadian rhythm in blood pressure
from the chronobiological point of view. Blood Press Monit. 1996;1(2):161–9.
64. Palatini P, Racioppa A, Raule G, Zaninotto M, Penzo M, Pessina AC. Effect of timing of
administration on the plasma ACE inhibitory activity and the antihypertensive effect of
quinapril. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1992;52(4):378–83.
65. Mengden T, Binswanger B, Gruene S. Dynamics of drug compliance and 24 hour blood
pressure control of once daily morning vs evening amlodipine. J Hypertens. 1992;10 Suppl
4:S136–S42.
66. Gillman MW, Kannel WB, Belanger A, D’Agostino RB. Influence of heart rate on mortality
among persons with hypertension: the Framingham Study. Am Heart J. 1993;125(4):1148–54.
67. White WB, Mansoor GA, Pickering TG, et al. Differential effects of morning and evening
dosing of nisoldipine ER on circadian blood pressure and heart rate. Am J Hypertens. 1999;12(8
Pt 1):806–14.
68. White WB, Mansoor GA, Tendler BE, Anwar YA. Nocturnal blood pressure epidemiology,
determinants, and effects of antihypertensive therapy. Blood Press Monit. 1998;3(1):43–51.
69. Krum H, Schlaich M, Sobotka P. Renal sympathetic nerve ablation for treatment-resistant
hypertension. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;76(4):495–503.
70. Mahfoud F, Luscher TF, Andersson B, et al. Expert consensus document from the European
Society of Cardiology on catheter-based renal denervation. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(28):2149–57.
71. Kandzari DE, Bhatt DL, Sobotka PA, et al. Catheter-based renal denervation for resistant hyper-
tension: rationale and design of the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial. Clin Cardiol.
2012;35:528–35.
72. Bakris GL, Townsend RR, Liu M, et al. Impact of renal denervation on 24-hour ambulatory
blood pressure: results from SYMPLICITY HTN-3. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(11):1071–8.
73. Mahfoud F, Ukena C, Schmieder RE, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure changes after renal
sympathetic denervation in patients with resistant hypertension. Circulation. 2013;128:132–40.
74. Krum H, Schlaich M, Whitbourn R, et al. Catheter-based renal sympathetic denervation for
resistant hypertension: a multicentre safety and proof-of-principle cohort study. Lancet.
2009;373:1275–81.
75. Kandzari DE, Bhatt DL, Brar S, et al. Predictors of blood pressure response in the SYMPLICITY
HTN-3 trial. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(4):219–27.
76. Gulati V, White WB. Review of the state of renal nerve ablation for patients with severe and
resistant hypertension. J Am Soc Hypertens. 2013;7(6):484–93.
77. White WB, Turner JR, Sica DA, et al. Detection, evaluation, and treatment of severe and resistant
hypertension: proceedings from an American Society of Hypertension Interactive forum held in
Bethesda, MD, U.S.A., October 10th 2013. J Am Soc Hypertens. 2014;8(10):743–57.
78. White WB, Giles T, Bakris GL, Neutel JM, Davidai G, Weber MA. Measuring the efficacy of
antihypertensive therapy by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in the primary care setting.
Am Heart J. 2006;151(1):176–84.
Chapter 21
Out-of-Office Monitoring in Clinical Practice
Raymond R. Townsend
Introduction
Clinical undertaking of an ABPM program is no small endeavor. Current

reimbursements are marginal and start up, as well as maintenance, costs are
significant. A checklist for one’s resolve in undertaking the establishment of 24-h
ABPM might include the following:
• The purchase of software and of ABPM devices.
• Training of staff to initialize, manage, and enable draft ABPM reports.
• Education of patients while wearing the ABP monitor.
• Expectations of what constitutes an “adequate” ABPM recording.
• A plan to deal with phone calls while patients are wearing the ABP Monitor.
• What to do with the diary that patients bring back to the clinic?
• Recognition of patterns on ABPM and adequate expertise to comment on the
clinical question that generated the ABPM request.
Reasons Why Out-of-Office Monitoring is Useful
Many chapters in this book review select aspects of either the circadian rhythm, or
the value of Out-of-Office monitoring in a number of clinical circumstances.
Table 21.1 provides at a glance some reasons for conducting ABPM studies in
clinical practice as espoused by recent guidance documents on blood pressure
monitoring in the US, Canada, and Europe with examples in this chapter.
R.R. Townsend, M.D. (*)

Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania,
122 Founders Building, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-22771-9_21
396
Table 21.1 Situations where out-of-office ABP monitoring may be useful and recommended in Guidelines
2015 2014 2014 ASH/ 2013 2013 ESH/ 2011 ACCF/ 2011
Examples in this chapter USPSTF [6] CHEP [7] ISH [9] ESH [8] ESC [10] AHA [11] NICE [12]
In Untreated Patients with
Elevated clinic BP
White coat hypertension Figs. 21.1 and 21.2 X X X X X X X
Non-elevated clinic BP
Masked hypertension Fig. 21.3 X X X
In Treated Patients with
Elevated clinic BP
White coat effect Figs. 21.4, 21.5 and 21.6 X X X X
Drug-resistant hypertension Fig. 21.7 X X X X
Non-elevated clinic BP
Masked hypertension Fig. 21.5 X X
Clinic BP that fluctuates Fig. 21.8 X X
considerably over same or
different visits
BP variability (24-h) Fig. 21.9 X X
Low blood pressure Fig. 21.10 X X X X
Other situations Figs. 21.11 and 21.12
USPSTF United States Preventive Services Task Forces, CHEP Canadian Hypertension Education Program, ASH/ISH American Society of Hypertension/
International Society of Hypertension, ESH European Society of Hypertension, ESH/ESC European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology,
ACCF/AHA American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association, NICE National Institutes for Health and Clinical Excellence, BP blood
pressure
R.R. Townsend
21 Out-of-Office Monitoring in Clinical Practice 397
Fig. 21.1 53-year-old man on no medications with elevated office BP. In this and subsequent figures,
a faint dotted line shows the systolic BP value of 140 mmHg from 0600 h to 2200 h; from 2200 h to
0600 h (corresponding to typical night time) the dotted line shows the systolic BP value of 120 mmHg
Fig. 21.2 64-year-old man on no medications with elevated office BP

398 R.R. Townsend
Fig. 21.3 37-year-old man with normal office BP
Fig. 21.4 58-year-old woman with office BP > 140 mmHg systolic
Fig. 21.5 62-year-old woman with office BP > 150 mmHg systolic
Fig. 21.6 68-year-old woman with office BP 162/100 mmHg

400 R.R. Townsend
Fig. 21.7 77-year-old man with chronic kidney disease and office BP of 150/88 mmHg
Fig. 21.8 53-year-old woman with erratic office blood pressures

Fig. 21.9 55-year-old woman with pheochromocytoma
Fig. 21.10 64-year-old woman with dizziness

402 R.R. Townsend
Fig. 21.11 31-year-old man considering becoming a kidney donor
Fig. 21.12 33-year-old man with unexplained left ventricular hypertrophy

Preparing an ABPM Report
It is important to delineate the sleep and awake times, and whether a nap occurred
during the period of study. The diary can be helpful, but patients need coaching for
diary contents to be of use. In addition to noting times of sleep/awake/naps, it can
be informative for the presence of symptoms like dizziness, or extreme fatigue, as a
place to record an activity like exercise (treadmill, gym), and also as a place to
annotate medication taking, or as a place to note something out of the ordinary
which the patient feels may be informative. The use of the diary in the interpretation
of ABPM is subjective as there is little in guidance documents outside of recording
the time to bed and time to rise for diary usage. In some of the examples in this
section, the diary is used to help interpret the 24-h data. Most ABP monitors allow
the option of additional blood pressure measurement outside the timed protocol
used to configure the automated blood pressure measurement. These extra blood
pressures are typically marked with a letter such as an “M” in the raw data section
of the ABP report; thus, examining the diary entry around this time may help to link
symptoms with blood pressure deviations when clinically appropriate.
Next for consideration is a determination of the number of readings successfully
obtained. If one programs the monitor for every 20 min during the day (06:00–22:00 h)
and every half hour during the night (22:00–06:00 h), you could anticipate having 60
readings available (not counting the manual readings taken in the office to assure
monitor function) for a 24-h ABPM. Opinions differ, but most centers like to see at
least 70 % of the expected ABPM readings successfully obtained [1].
Most ABPM programs allow the use of a “caliper” or equivalent capability that
lets the operator put in the time a patient went to bed and the time they arose. These
summaries are useful for determining the actual daytime and nighttime BP averages
(and the average reduction during the time the patient reports as asleep).
It is also useful to examine the overall 24-h raw data in terms of gaps (sometimes
patients remove the device for several hours) and for overall variability (see examples
below that emphasize these points).
Although there is no universally agreed upon template for an ABPM report, most
centers who use ABPM will report the number of successful readings, the daytime
and nighttime averages, whether or not the readings appear to be in the “hyperten-
sive range” when white coat hypertension is the clinical question, and any comments
from the interpreter of noted patterns in the 24-h ABPM data. When the question is
something other than “Does this patient have white coat hypertension,” we typically
try to address it with additional commentary. A remarkable variety of patterns have
been noted in the clinical examination of 24-h ABPM patients.
Each manufacturer of an ABP monitor typically has customizable software that
allows incorporation of a potentially large amount of data and graphics into a report.
Table 21.2 contains recommendations for what should, at a minimum, be
incorporated into the report as suggested by societies that have written guidance
documents outlining the value of ABPM.
404 R.R. Townsend
Table 21.2 Recommendations for what to include in an ABPM report

Patient demographics (age, gender, medical Number (and percentage) of successful
record number) readings
Why the recording was undertaken Average 24 h, daytime, and nighttime blood
pressures
Graphic display of BP and heart rate readings An impression that addresses the clinical
question
Addressing the Clinical Questions
In addition to the standard question, “Does this patient have white coat
hypertension?,” there are a myriad of other circumstances that complicate the
outpatient management of hypertensive patients including:
• Are symptoms reported by this patient corroborated by a blood pressure
abnormality?
• Is this person a reasonable kidney donor?
• Is this person’s antihypertensive regimen truly controlling their blood pressure?
• Does this person have something in their blood pressure profile that may indicate
that I need to do something different in their management?
• Is this person’s blood pressure control “all over the place?”
• Do these ABPM data help me to understand why the patient is dizzy, or even
pre-syncopal?
What follows next are some examples of the utility of ABPM in managing a
variety of patients with blood pressure disorders. Each scenario will include a brief
capsule of the clinical question addressed, followed by a 24-h ABPM graphic and a
concise interpretation of the ABPM data.
Clinical Examples (See Table 21.1)
In the following examples, the format used is a brief “Clinical:” stem, followed by
a graphic of the raw ABPM data. The raw graphed data provide a preferential view
of the 24-h output because hourly averaged BP hides variability and can conceal
low or high values of BP when they are flanked by relatively normal values. Each
example has an “Impression” completing each case.
A Non-medicated Patient with Elevated Office Blood Pressure
Clinical: 53-year-old man on no antihypertensive agents with in-office values

>140/90 mmHg on several occasions. He has no known history of CV disease.
Impression: The daytime average of this patient is 122/80 mmHg, which is not in
the hypertensive range. He satisfies the criteria for untreated white coat hypertension
and his elevated BP at the time of monitor application persisted for about an hour after
the first reading; it can take an hour or more for the “white coat effect” to attenuate
after monitor application [2]. He does not, however, have sleep suppression evident,
and this patient likely requires more vigilance in follow-up. Other chapters in this
textbook review the importance of nocturnal BP declines (See, for example, Chap. 6).
Clinical: 64-year-old man on no antihypertensive agents with elevated in-office
values of >150/90 mmHg on several occasions.
Impression: In this instance, the daytime ABPM data confirms the diagnosis of
hypertension and negates the diagnosis of white coat hypertension. Initiating
antihypertensive therapy would be reasonable here.
Unmedicated Patient with Normal Office Blood Pressure
Some patients report elevated readings outside the office despite having what
appears to be reasonable BP control in the office; Dr. Thomas Pickering labeled this
phenomenon “masked” hypertension [3].
Clinical: 37-year-old man followed for gastroesophageal reflux reports that his
blood pressure was high when checked by a friend using their home BP monitor. In
prior office visits over the past 2 years, BP values of 120–130 mmHg systolic and
diastolic values of 80 mmHg or less were recorded in the office before ABPM was
performed.
Impression: Virtually every reading in the ABPM is above 140 mmHg. This
un-medicated patient with repeated normal in-office values actually has masked
hypertension.
Patients with Elevated Office Blood Pressure

on Antihypertensive Drug Therapy
Receiving antihypertensive therapy does not necessarily abrogate a “white coat

effect” on the in-office BP. The term “white coat effect” is often used after treatment
has been initiated to distinguish the in-office elevation of blood pressure as a finding
in a treated hypertensive patient who shows higher levels in-office compared to at
home (or by ABPM) compared with “white coat hypertension,” which usually
implies that the patient is normotensive outside the clinic setting.
Clinical: 58-year-old woman with hypertension treated with a beta blocker. Her
in-office systolic BP values are >140 mmHg.
Impression: Her daytime blood pressure is 122/84 mmHg, which represent
reasonable daytime blood pressure control. High in-office values are likely a white
coat effect that overrides the antihypertensive drug.
406 R.R. Townsend
Clinical: 62-year-old woman receiving an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB)

and a diuretic for therapy of hypertension. In-office systolic BP values are
>150 mmHg.
Impression: This patient had a daytime average of 144/87 mmHg that roughly
correlates with in-office values in the low 150 mmHg range, and in-office diastolic
values slightly over 90 mmHg. In this instance, this patient does not have white coat
effect, but rather treated, uncontrolled, hypertension.
Clinical: 68-year-old woman seen in the office after a recent visit to the hospital
emergency department for abdominal pain. In-office readings were 162/100 mmHg
on an antihypertensive regimen that included an ACE-inhibitor and a beta-blocker.
Impression: In this case, the daytime pressures of 125/81 mmHg coupled with
reasonable reductions in BP during sleep were useful information to the referring
provider for continuing the current antihypertensive regimen. There are a few
elevated readings in the evening likely associated with a brisk evening walk. The
important thing, however, is to consider the average of the awake values rather than
the occasional outlier reading.
Patients with Variable Office Blood Pressures

on Antihypertensive Therapy
In some cases, the patient displays erratic in-office values, sometimes controlled on
medications, sometimes very low, and sometimes quite high. In these situations,
home monitoring of BP, if it can be reliably undertaken, may be a useful adjunct to
interpretation of BP behavior over time. The example provided next, however, is of
such a patient who would not take her BP at home, convinced that “those things
don’t work.”
Clinical: 53-year-old woman on antihypertensive medications with erratic
in-office blood pressures
Impression: This patient underscores the challenges in trying to use out-of-office
monitoring in some scenarios. She took the BP monitor off at night, so no comments
can be made about nocturnal pressure. During the daytime when she did wear the
monitor, she had highly variable BP values with systolic readings ranging from: 76
to 203 mmHg and diastolic readings ranging from 46 to 147 mmHg. Her heart rate
was also labile with 9 readings >100 beats/min and a range of 73–138 beats/min,
supporting the referring providers suspicion of a diagnosis of dysautonomia.
Variability in 24-h BP Profile
Clinical: 55-year-old woman with newly diagnosed pheochromocytoma

awaiting surgical removal and treated with the long-acting alpha-1 blocker
phenoxybenzamine.
Impression: The averaged value of the systolic and diastolic BPs belies their
variability. In her case the daytime systolic pressures (± S.D.) were 156 ± 18 mmHg
and diastolic pressures were 73 ± 11 mmHg. The nocturnal pressures were
135 ± 22 mmHg and 59 ± 10 mmHg. The magnitude of these standard deviations—
particularly during the night time—is about 1.5–2× what is normally found, and the
variability in her blood pressure profile is evident in the Figure.
Patients with Low Out-of-Office Blood Pressures

on Antihypertensive Drug Therapy
Sometimes ABPM uncovers low blood pressures outside of the office setting. In
many cases, this is done to evaluate symptoms including severe fatigue or dizziness/
lightheadedness, which could be related to antihypertensive medications, or to
hemodynamic consequence of excessive blood pressure reduction as sometimes
occurs after meals [4].
Clinical: 64-year-old woman with occasional symptoms of dizziness. She also
has a history of depression and takes fluoxetine daily. The hypertension is managed
with an ACE-inhibitor and a beta-blocker.
Impression: Her daytime profile shows average BPs of 108/65 mmHg, with
several systolic readings below 100 mmHg. During the time of monitoring, she did
not note any episodes of lightheadedness or dizziness. Not shown in the graphic, but
evident in the report was an average heart rate of 49 beats/min over the 24 h period.
In an instance like this, a reduction in beta-blocker dose could be helpful.
In some treated patients, an ABPM may show several patterns at one time. This
next patient is an example of that.
Clinical: 77-year-old man with chronic kidney disease. He was treated with
multiple antihypertensive agents. Despite repeated urging, he would not consider
doing home blood pressure monitoring. His in-office value for his most recent visit
was 150/88 mmHg.
Impression: There are several patterns evident in this patient. First he has a white
coat effect. The highest values of his blood pressure were at the time of (and
immediately following) monitor application, and the time of removal of the blood
pressure monitor. In addition, the average daytime blood pressure of 197/101 mmHg
is much higher than the in-office value of 150/88 mmHg, supporting a masked
hypertension effect. Finally, he has treated but uncontrolled hypertension.
Uncommon Usages for Out-of-Office Monitoring
Kidney Donation
One of the areas in which ABPM is used is in determining a potential kidney

donor’s risk for kidney donation. At our center (University of Pennsylvania and the
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia), we previously demonstrated that the
408 R.R. Townsend
evaluation process for kidney donation has a significant “white coat effect,”
especially among potential donors who have “normotensive” blood pressure which
declines in an office setting after donation at the 6-month time point [5]. The long
waiting times for cadaveric kidney donation have placed pressure on transplant
centers to increase the number of living-related or living unrelated kidney
donations. One of the principal areas of concern is whether the subjugation of a
person with treated or untreated hypertension based on clinic or office levels of
blood pressure increases their cardiovascular risk. To address that question, ABPM
provides a level of assurance when office or clinic levels of blood pressure are
borderline, or elevated above 140/90 mmHg.
Although not required in the evaluation of a person who has come forward as a
potential kidney donor, ABPM can be useful in gauging the candidate’s blood
pressure profile, and this can be particularly useful when the recipient is a blood
relative as there may be a hereditary component to blood pressure.
Clinical: A 31-year-old man being considered for kidney donation. In-clinic
blood pressures are >140 mmHg with no history of hypertension. He is not on
antihypertensive medications.
Impression: This candidate has a clear increase on arriving for monitor application
with normal daytime and nighttime systolic blood pressure values (as shown in the
lower right inside the graph box). The main times the systolic pressure exceeded
140 mmHg were when the monitor was applied and when it was removed.
Pursuing Causation of Target Organ Effect
We sometimes are asked to do an ABPM on someone with otherwise unexplained

target organ effect. One such example follows next.
Clinical: 33-year-old athletic man who upon recent evaluation for chest
discomfort was found to have moderate left ventricular hypertrophy on an
electrocardiogram, which was confirmed by echocardiography. He is untreated. His
prior in-office blood pressures had not been elevated and was 130/82 mmHg at the
most recent office visit when referred to a cardiologist.
Impression: The daytime average blood pressure of 134/74 mmHg in this patient
makes it less likely that his ventricular hypertrophy is the result of untreated
hypertension, and in particular masked hypertension. It may be that a genetic
cardiomyopathy is present, or that the pattern of his athletic activity, which includes
bench-press weight lifting, should be altered.
When is Out-of-Office Monitoring Not Needed, or Not Useful?
Patients presenting with very high levels of blood pressure (e.g., >180/110 mmHg),
whether on treatment or not, are candidates for immediate attention to blood
pressure reduction [6–8]. Generally, it is not necessary to confirm these high levels
of blood pressure outside the office or hospital, particularly if there is a history of or

ongoing target organ damage present. There are occasional extreme white coat
effect patients, and in these cases, home blood pressure monitoring is quite useful.
ABPM is usually not useful to pursue symptoms that may be related to cardiac
rhythm problems, although recent advances in oscillometric monitoring are
improving the ability to measure blood pressure in patients with atrial fibrillation. In
patients with symptoms such as loss of consciousness, for example, the blood
pressure may be below the limits, the ABPM device can detect or cannot be
measured because the pulse is absent.
In a patient with a confirmed diagnosis of hypertension, who seems well-managed
and adherent, ABPM adds little beside potential information on the nocturnal blood
pressure component. Until there is more agreement on management of this nocturnal
segment, little is gained by using ABPM for this instance unless there are morbidities
such as unexplained left ventricular hypertrophy, heart failure, or the emergence of
chronic kidney disease, complications of hypertension to which blood pressures
elevations in the nocturnal segment may be contributing.
In Closing
Out-of-office monitoring with ABPM is useful in a number of clinical scenarios. It

provides information on the relationship of symptoms and BP, adequacy of BP
control, the circadian profile, and it is unsurpassed as a predictor for cardiovascular
risk attributable to blood pressure levels. It is relatively expensive to initiate an
ABPM program and requires a moderate amount of staff time devoted to the
application and removal of the monitor, as well as the coaching of patients on
wearing the device in order to maximize the number of readings obtained. Although
reimbursement in the US is generally poor, the provision of this service is a valuable
tool to our colleagues in general practice dealing with complex situations in clinical
management where the limitations of an office BP are often overcome by the ability
to effectively perform out-of-office ABP monitoring.
References
1. Parati G, Stergiou G, O’Brien E, et al. European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines

for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. J Hypertens. 2014;32(7):1359–66.
2. Yanovski A, Townsend RR, Virginia F, Michael C. A psychophysiologic reaction to applica-
tion of ambulatory blood pressure monitor: fact or artifact? Blood Press Monit.
2011;16(1):29–36.
2002;40(6):795–6.
4. Jansen RW, Lipsitz LA. Postprandial hypotension: epidemiology, pathophysiology, and
clinical management. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122:286–95.
5. Deloach SS, Meyers KE, Townsend RR. Living donor kidney donation: another form of white
coat effect. Am J Nephrol. 2012;35(1):75–9.
410 R.R. Townsend
intervals: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med.
2015;162(3):192–204.
7. Dasgupta K, Quinn RR, Zarnke KB, et al. The 2014 Canadian Hypertension Education
Program recommendations for blood pressure measurement, diagnosis, assessment of risk,
prevention, and treatment of hypertension. Can J Cardiol. 2014;30(5):485–501.
ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. J Hypertens. 2013;31(9):1731–68.
9. Weber MA, Schiffrin EL, White WB, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of
hypertension in the community a statement by the American Society of Hypertension and the
International Society of Hypertension. J Hypertens. 2014;32(1):3–15.
10. Mancia G, Fagard R, Narkiewicz K, et al. ESH/ESC Guidelines for the management of arterial
hypertension: the Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European
Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). J Hypertens.
2013;31(7):1281–357.
11. Aronow WS, Fleg JL, Pepine CJ, et al. ACCF/AHA 2011 expert consensus document on
hypertension in the elderly: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task
Force on Clinical Expert Consensus documents developed in collaboration with the American
Academy of Neurology, American Geriatrics Society, American Society for Preventive
Cardiology, American Society of Hypertension, American Society of Nephrology, Association
of Black Cardiologists, and European Society of Hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol.
2011;57(20):2037–114.
12. Krause T, Lovibond K, Caulfield M, McCormack T, Williams B. Management of hypertension:
summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2011;343:d4891.
Index
A Ambulatory arterial stiffness index (AASI),

Aambulatory blood pressure, 332 173, 180–182
AAMI/ANSI/ISO standard, 78, 82, 86–88 Ambulatory blood pressure, 332, 335, 340
AASI. See Ambulatory arterial stiffness index Ambulatory blood pressure components,
(AASI) 173–180
ABCD grading system, 79 Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring
ABPM. See Ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM)
(ABPM) acute/subacute stroke patients, 199
Actigraphy and sleep, 47–49, 51 AHA/ASA guidance, 201, 202
ACTH. See Adrenocorticotropic hormone alpha-adrenergic activity, 199
(ACTH) analysis, 60–72
Activity monitoring arterial stiffness, 227
actigraphy and sleep, 48 ausculatory gap, 211
ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, 48 auscultatory and oscillometric, 56–58
and cardiovascular variability, 46–48 blood pressure (BP), 209
environmental noise and cardiovascular load, 61
system, 50–51 variation, 198
methods and limitations, 46–47 BP monitoring, 211
and neurological disorders, 49 cardiovascular events, 198
particulate matter and cardiovascular cardiovascular physiology, 210
risk, 51 cBP, 227
physical activity and hemodynamic CKD (see Chronic kidney disease (CKD))
parameters, 47 in community-based trials, 388–389
seasonal effects, temperature and blood in comparator trials, 383–384
pressure, and heart rate, 49–50 comparisons within same class, 383–384
and sleep apnea, 49 cost-effectiveness, 72–73
Addison’s disease, 116 description, 55
ADPV. See Ambulatory Does Prediction Valid descriptive blood pressure data, 60–61
(ADPV) diabetes, 246–247
Adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), 110 diagnosis and management, 228
Altered circadian rhythms, 304 diagnosis, hypertension, 212
Alternate-isolated office hypertension, 333 dipping/non-dipping/extreme dipping,
Alzheimer-type dementia, 116 63–64

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-22771-9
412 Index
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring clinical situations, 217, 218

(ABPM) (cont.) ISH, 218, 219
diurnal and nocturnal blood pressure, 199 WMH, 217, 218
in dose-finding studies, 382–383 orthostatic hypotension/autonomic
editing and analysis periods, 229–230 dysfunction, 70–72
effects of dosing time, 385–386 pseudohypertension, 211
end-stage renal disease and dialysis, 248 reporting, 64
equipment, 228 reproducibility, 64–66, 212–215
factors, 198 clinic and ambulatory blood
Framingham heart Study, 210 pressures, 213
high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, 199 limits, agreement, 214
hyperinsulinemia, 199 middle-aged population, 212
hypertension, 193, 227 WMH, 216
hypertension to stroke resistant hypertension, 69–70
benefit, 194 secondary hypertension, 245, 246
and cardiovascular disease silent hypertensive brain disease, 199
prevention, 195 sleep-disordered breathing, 198
control blood pressure and risk stroke prevention, 197
factors, 195 stroke risk and brain morphology, 196
diastolic blood pressure, 195 stroke risk determination, 194
epidemiological basics, US, 196 systolic and diastolic BP values, 199, 210
epidemiological observational studies therapeutic interventions, 68–69
and randomized controlled trials, therapy/chronotherapeutics type, 70
194, 195 threshold values, 212
meta-analysis, 194 treating WCH patient, 381
PAR, 195 treatment, 198
randomized controlled trials, 194 treatment efficacy of renal sympathetic,
indications, 66–67 386–387
interpretation trigger intraparenchymal brain
definition, hypertension, 230–242 hemorrhage, 198
isolated diastolic hypertension, 243–244 validation, 58–60
MAP, 244, 245 and WCE, 61–62
nocturnal dipping and hypertension, 244 and WCH, 61–62, 67–68
normative data, 230–241 WMH, 217
prehypertension, ambulatory Ambulatory BP data in antihypertensive drug
hypertension, and severe trials, 380–381
ambulatory hypertension, 242–243 Ambulatory BP for clinical trial entry,
WCH and masked hypertension, 243 373–375
intracranial hemorrhage, 199 Ambulatory BP measurements, 165
ischemic brain injury, 198 Ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), 6, 25,
kidney transplant, 248–249 119, 261
long-term blood pressure variability, circadian patterns, 255, 257, 259
197, 198 complications, 254
LVH and cIMT, 227 demographic and perinatal
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 199 characteristics, 268
masked hypertension, 62–63 frequency distribution, 264
measurement, 196 gestational hypertension (GH), 270
modern ABP recorders, 57 healthy and complicated pregnancy, 255
non-ABPM and blood pressure hypertension, pregnancy (see
variability, 197 Hypertension, pregnancy)
nursing implications, 229–230 hypertensive complications, 253
old elderly, 212 limitations, 270
older population logical approach, 254
autonomic dysregulation, 220 maternal risk factors, 254
Index 413
mechanisms, 254 central and peripheral clocks and circadian

non-pregnant women, 259, 261 rhythm, 150–152
physiologic changes, 253 conventional versus automated
pregnancy, 254, 267, 269 measurement, 10–11
pregnant women, 259, 261 diurnal blood pressure variability, 135–136
regulation, 260 higher cardiovascular morbidity, 220
stages, 269 level and variability, 130–131
systolic blood pressure (SBP), 257, 258 load, 182
variation, 255, 256 measurement (see BP measurement)
Ambulatory BP variability, 176 metabolic and environmental factors
Ambulatory Does Prediction Valid contributing to circadian variations,
(ADPV), 182 158–159
Ambulatory hypotension, 308 morning blood pressure surge, 133–134
Ambulatory Systolic-Diastolic Pressure myocardial infarction and stroke, 219
Regression Index (ASDPRI), 200 neuro-hormonal factors and circadian
American Heart Association/American Stroke rhythm, 153–155
Association (AHA/ASA), 195 nocturnal dipping status, 219
Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors non-dipping pattern, 219
(ACEIs), 119 poor reproducibility, 132
Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), 119 principles, 11
The Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes reading-to-reading blood pressure
Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm variability, 136–138
(ASCOT-BPLA), 384 sleep/activity cycle and circadian
Antihypertensive drug action, 358–359 variations, 152–153
Anti-hypertensive drug therapy, sodium balance and circadian rhythm,
315–316, 375 155–158
Apnea, 153 variability, 129–132, 141–143, 176–177, 181
ASDPRI. See Ambulatory Systolic-Diastolic variability indexes, 132–133
Pressure Regression Index within-visit and between-visit blood
(ASDPRI) pressure variability, 138–141
Association for the Advancement of Medical Blood pressure (BP) variability vs. ambulatory
Instrumentation (AAMI), 58, 78 BP, 372–373
Atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP), 114 Blood pressure measurement, 78–80, 92
Ausculatory gap, 211 accuracy checking, 77
Auscultatory system, 98 AOBP measurement, 8
Automated office BP (AOBP) arm circumference and cuff
and ABPM, 9–10 requirements, 87
advantages and disadvantages, 8–9 devices for manual measurement, 4–6
Canadian guidelines, 8 impact of manual BP in management of
importance, 8 hypertension, 6–7
Autonomic nervous system (ANS), 109, 111 intra-subject blood pressure variability, 87
Average ambulatory BP, 182 mercury sphygmomanometer, 5
Average blood pressure, 173–175 practical aspects of validation
Average real variability (ARV), 131, 181 sphygmocorder, 92
readings, 4
recording, 5
B semi-automated recorders, 7
Beat-to-beat blood pressure variability, 143 sphygmomanometers, 7–8
Bedtime chronotherapy (BTCT), 119–121 validation centres, 90–91
BHS protocols, 58, 59, 78–79 Validation Protocols (see Validation
Blood pressure (BP) Protocols)
beat-to-beat blood pressure variability, 143 Blood pressure monitoring, 129, 132, 134
cardiovascular events, 220 Blood pressure variability (BPV), 16, 194,
cardiovascular prognosis, 219 196, 197, 201
414 Index
BP. See Casual blood pressure (cBP) neural, neuroendocrine, and endocrine
BP circadian rhythm endogenousity systems, 111–113
bedtime vs. morning-time hypertension pineal gland and melatonin, 109
medication outcomes trials, 119–120 wake/sleep circadian rhythm, 109–111
bedtime vs. morning-time hypertension CKD. See Chronic kidney disease (CKD)
therapy, 116–119 Clinical observations, 343–346
24-h BP Profile, 406–407 Clock genes, 150, 152
British Hypertension Society (BHS), 78 Consumer awareness, 93–94
Continuous positive airway pressure
(CPAP), 198
C Controlled-onset extended-release (COER), 378
Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), 114 Conventional morning time therapy
Calcium-channel blockers (CCBs), 119 (CMTT), 119
Cardiovascular disease (CVD), 325 Conventional versus Automated Measurement
Cardiovascular risk factors, 344 of Blood Pressure (CAMBO)
Cardiovascular system study, 11
data from animal experiments, 346–348 Coronary artery disease (CAD), 299, 300,
Cardiovascular variability and activity 309, 314
monitoring, 46–48 Corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH), 110
Carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT), 227 CPAP. See Continuous positive airway
Casual blood pressure (cBP), 227 pressure (CPAP)
Catecholamine-producing tumors, 116 Cushing’s syndrome, 116
Central and peripheral clocks and circadian
rhythm of BP, 150–152
Chronic kidney disease (CKD), 247, 248, 325 D
adult kidney transplant recipients, 288, 289 Day–night blood pressure changes, 175–176
adverse clinical outcomes, 279, 280 DBP. See Diastolic blood pressure (DBP)
blunted diurnal rhythm, 291, 292 Device reliability, 95
chronotherapy, 292, 293 Device validation, 78, 90, 92
clinical practice, 278 Dialysis patients
dialysis patients, 287, 288 blood pressure profile, 282, 283, 285
donor nephrectomy candidates, 290, 291 fluctuations, 287
HD and dialysis patients, 282, 283, 285 hemodialysis, 287
home BP, 285–287 interdialytic period, 287, 288
hypertension, 277 oscillometric component, 287
morbidity, and mortality, 280–282 Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), 210, 310
mortality, 285–287 Dipping pattern, 182
pre-dialysis, 278, 279 Dipping profile, 305
prevalence, 277 Dipping/non-dipping/extreme dipping, 63–64
renal events, 281 Diurnal blood pressure variability, 135–136
target-organ dysfunction, 280–282 Donor nephrectomy
Chronotherapy, 292, 293 coat effect, 290
cIMT. See Carotid intima-media thickness hypertension/prehypertension, 290
(cIMT) kidney donation, 290
Circadian BP patterns nocturnal dipping, 290
advantage, 255 Drug development, 372–373
healthy and complicated pregnancy, 259 Drug treatment, 69
limitation, 257
multiple testing, 257
pregnancy, 257 E
Circadian BP profile of hypertensive Endocrine systems, 152
conditions, 116 Endothelial factors, 115
Circadian rhythms Environmental noise and cardiovascular
master and peripheral circadian clocks, system, 50–51
108–109 Eplerenone, 382–383
Index 415
ESH International Protocol, 80 measurement conditions and procedures, 16

ESH-IP 2010 protocol, 90 methodological aspects, 16–19
ESH-IP protocol, 82, 86, 87 prognostic value, 20–22
ESH-IP validation protocol, 82 role
ESH-IP2 protocol, 60 assessment of BP control in treated
Estimated GFR (eGFR), 29 hypertension, 23–27
The European Lacidipine Study on diagnosis and management of
Atherosclerosis (ELSA), 173 hypertension, 22–23
improving adherence to treatment and
reducing therapeutic inertia, 28
F substitute or complement to ABPM and
Fatal familial insomnia, 116 OBP measures, 27–28
telemonitoring of, 31
Home BP telemonitoring (HBPT)
G cost-effectiveness, 33–34
Gender-dependency, 343 role of nurse and pharmacist, 32–33
Home systolic blood pressure (HSBP), 29
HONEST Study, 364
H Hypertension (HTN), 167, 299
HBPM. See Home blood pressure monitoring arterial hypertension, 301
(HBPM) impact of, 309–310
HD. See Hemodialysis (HD) prevalence, 300
Heart failure Hypertension and Ambulatory Recording
ABPM, 302–303 Study (HARVEST), 65
circadian variation, 303–305 Hypertension, pregnancy
dipping profile, 305 advantages, 261
hypertension in, 299–302 development, 262
morning surge BP and, 306 diagnosis, 263, 264
Heart rate, 179–180 frequency histograms, 264–265
Hemodialysis (HD) normotensive, 265
antihypertensive drug, 285 prognostic value, 262
characterization, 285 prospective trial, 265
fluid gain, 282 sensitivity and specificity, 263
fluid removal, 285 threshold value, 262
interdialytic symptoms, 283 tolerance-hyperbaric test, 266, 267
pre and post-dialysis, 283 Hypothalamic–pituitary–thyroid axis
systematic review and meta-analysis, 283 (HPTA), 113
treatments, 282
wide fluctuations, 282, 284
Home Blood Pressure for Diabetic I
Nephropathy (HBP-DN) study, 29 The International Classification of Diseases
Home blood pressure tele-monitoring, 365 (ICD)-9 code, 72
Home BP, 141–143, 407, 409 International Database of Ambulatory blood
cardiovascular events, 286 pressure in relation to
cross-sectional studies, 285 cardiovascular outcome (IDACO),
dialysis patients, 285 179, 212, 325
mortality, 286, 287 International Protocol (ESH-IP), 79
peri-dialysis, 286 Intrinsic non-rod/non-cone ganglion cells
Home BP monitoring (HBPM), 22–29, (ipRGC), 108
289, 335 Ischemic heart disease (IHD)
day-to-day blood pressure variability, ABPM role, 312–313
28–31 circadian BP variations, 313–314
device selection, 18 early morning BP surge and, 314
frequency and timing, 18 and MH, 315
hypertension and BP control, 19–20 morbidity and mortality, 308–309
416 Index
Ischemic heart disease (IHD) (cont.) to evaluate antihypertensive therapy,

nocturnal dipping, 314 375–377
pathophysiology, 311–316 use ambulatory blood pressure
risk factors, 309 recorders, 377
with systolic and diastolic BP, 310–311
WCH and, 314–315
ISH. See Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) N
Isolated ambulatory hypertension, 333 Na-sensitive essential hypertension, 116
Isolated diastolic hypertension, 243–244 National Health and Nutrition Survey
Isolated office hypertension, 333 (NHANES), 227
Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH), 210, The National Institute for Health and Care
218, 219 Excellence (NICE), 184
National Institute for Health and Clinical
Excellence (NICE), 67
J Neural, neuroendocrine, and endocrine
The Japan Morning Surge—Home Blood systems
Pressure (J-HOP), 362 ANS, 111
HPTA, 113
hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis, 113
L RAAS, 111–112
Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), 171–172, Neurogenic hypertension, 116
210, 227, 361 Neuro-hormonal factors and circadian rhythm,
Left ventricular mass index (LVMI), 325 153–155
LVH. See Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) Neurological disorders and activity
monitoring, 49
NHANES. See National Health and Nutrition
M Survey (NHANES)
MAP. See Mean arterial pressure (MAP) Nitric oxide (NO), 344
Masked hypertension (MH), 62, 63, 166, Nocturnal dipping, 314
168–170, 243, 307 Normotensive and hypertensive
definition, 323–324 asthma, 116
diagnosis, 326–327
prevalence, 324–325
Masked resistant hypertension (MRH), 25 O
Master and peripheral circadian clocks, Observer, 7
108–109 Observer blinding procedure
Mean arterial pressure (MAP), 228, 244–245 booth contents, 98
Metabolic and environmental factors observer Isolation, 97
contributing to circadian variations, pneumatic system, 98
158–159 procedure for each subject, 99
Mineral corticoid excess syndromes, 116 subject forms, 98
The Monitoración Ambulatoria para Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), 198, 325
Predicción de Eveventos Office and ambulatory blood pressure,
Cardiovasculares (MAPEC) 166–171
stud, 385 Office hypertension, 340
Morning blood pressure surge, 133–134, Opioid factors, 114
178–179, 314 Organ damages, 173
Morning Surge BP and HF, 306 OSA. See Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)
Morning-to-evening (M/E) home blood Out-of-office monitoring
pressure ratio, 359 addressing clinical question, 404
MRI. See Magnetic resonance imaging antihypertensive drug therapy, 405–406
(MRI) in closing, 409
Multicenter trials low out-of-office BP on
using ABPM, 376–377 antihypertensive, 407
Index 417
non-medicated patient with elevated office S

BP, 404–405 SBP. See Systolic blood pressure (SBP)
patients on antihypertensive therapy, 406 SDDs. See Standard deviation of the
preparing ABPM report, 403–404 differences (SDDs)
pursuing causation of target organ Self-home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM)
effect, 408 advantages, 353–355
reasons to opt, 395–403 in clinical research, 355–364
uncommon usages, 407–408 antihypertensive drug action, 358–361
unmedicated patient with normal assessment of BP profile and behavior,
office BP, 405 363–364
variability in 24-h BP profile, 406–407 evaluation of nocturnal BP and
detection of non-dippers, 361–362
sample size and study power, 356–358
P subject selection, 356
PAR. See Population attributable risk (PAR) treatment-induced effects on BP
Particulate matter and cardiovascular variability, 362–363
risk, 51 treatment-induced effects on organ
Pass (AB)—Fail (CD) system, 79 damage and events, 363
Pediatric hypertension, 227, 230, 243, 249 limitations of, 364–365
Peritoneal dialysis, 282, 283, 285 Self-measured blood pressure, 19, 30
Physical activity and hemodynamic SHEP. See Systolic Hypertension in the
parameters, 47 Elderly Program (SHEP)
Pineal gland and melatonin, 109 Shy–Drager syndrome, 116
PIUMA study, 179 Sleep, 150, 160
Placebo effect, 354, 358, 359 Sleep apnea, 116, 153
Placebo effect in clinic vs. ambulatory blood Sleep apnea and activity monitoring, 49
pressure, 377–379 Sleep/activity cycle and circadian variations,
Plasma renin activity (PRA), 112 BP, 152–153
Population attributable risk (PAR), 195 Sodium balance and circadian rhythm,
Postprandial hypotension, 308 155–158
Pregnancy, 261 Sphygmocorder, 91–92
characteristics, 268 Standard deviation of the differences
diagnosing hypertension, 268 (SDDs), 213
hypertension (see Hypertension) Stroke prevention guidelines, 194
Primary and secondary prevention of Suprachiasmatic nuclei (SCN), 108
IHD, 316 Surrogate outcome markers, 171–173
Protocol harmonisation, 95–96 Swedish Trial in Old Patients (STOP), 196
Pseudohypertension, 211 Sympathetic nervous system (SNS), 109
Pulse pressure, 177–178, 182 SYMPLICITY HTN-3 technology, 386
Systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP/
DBP), 106
Q Systolic blood pressure (SBP), 310
Quinapril, 385 Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program
(SHEP), 211, 219
R
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 34 T
Reading-to-reading blood pressure variability, Target organ damage (TOD), 171, 182, 183,
136–138 325–326
Renal, 150, 153, 155, 156, 159 Telemonitoring of HBPM, 31
Renal hemodynamics, 115–116 Thyroid stimulation hormone (TSH), 113
Renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system Thyrotroph embryonic factor (TEF), 150
(RAAS), 111–112 Thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH), 110
Risk stratification, 175, 179, 181, 182 Timing of drug administration, 385–386
418 Index
Tolerance-hyperbaric test, 266, 267 sex distribution requirements, 87

Toxemia of pregnancy, 116 in special groups, 88
Transplant recipients (adult kidney) validation quality, 89–90
cardiovascular disease, 288 Variability of night-time systolic BP, 182
graft failure and cardiovascular events, 289 Vasoactive peptide elements, 114–115
HBPM, 289
hypertension, 288
prognostic accuracy, 289 W
RETENAL Study, 288 Wake/sleep circadian rhythm, 109–111
WCH. See White coat hypertension (WCH)
White coat effect (WCE), 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17,
U 24, 62, 307
Urinary albumin excretion (UAE), 30 in African-American hypertensives, 336
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force causes, 334
(USPSTF), 184 in chronic renal disease, 337
definition, 333–334
in diabetes, 336
V epidemiology, 336–337
Validation protocols, 91, 93, 94 out-of-office ABPM, 335–336
AAMI/ISO standards, 78 prognosis for CVD and mortality, 337–339
age distribution requirements, 86 in treated patients, 339
BHS Protocols, 78–79 White coat hypertension (WCH), 56, 61,
consumer awareness 67–68, 170–171, 243, 306,
apps, 94 314–315, 403, 405
availability of information, 93 in African-American hypertensives, 336
increasing Awareness, 94 causes, 334
on-line Information, 93 in chronic renal disease (CRD), 337
control pressures, 87–88 and cost-effectiveness, 339
device equivalence, 88–89 definition, 333–334
device reliability, 95 devices in clinic/office, 334–335
differences between protocols, 82–88 in diabetes, 336
ESH International Protocols, 79–80 diagnosis, 334
future technology, 96 epidemiology, 336–337
manufacturer compliance, 92 out-of-office ABPM, 335–336
methodology, 82 in pregnancy, 337
passing requirements, 82 prognosis for CVD and mortality, 337–339
practical aspects of validation progression to sustained hypertension, 337
blinding process, 91 in treated patients, 339
sphygmocorder, 91 White coat resistant hypertension (WCRH),
pressure-range requirements, 86 24, 25
protocol harmonisation, 95–96 White matter hyperintensity (WMH), 216–218
protocol use, 80 Within-visit and between-bisit blood pressure
recruitment requirements, 86 variability, 138–141

X

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

X

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

X

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Clinical Hypertension and Vascular Diseases

Series Editor: William B. White

William B. White Editor

Series Editor: William B. White

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/7673

Blood Pressure Monitoring in Cardiovascular Medicine and Therapeutics,

Blood Pressure Monitoring

Clinical Hypertension and Vascular Diseases

Library of Congress Control Number: 2015958778

Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London

Printed on acid-free paper

Humana Press is a brand of Springer

This Third Edition of Blood Pressure Monitoring in Cardiovascular Medicine and

Chicago, IL, USA George L. Bakris, M.D., F.A.S.H.

The third edition of Blood Pressure Monitoring in Cardiovascular Medicine and

solid information to have an impact on the day-to-day management of their patients.

Farmington, CT, USA William B. White, M.D.

Part I Techniques for Monitoring Blood Pressure

Part II Concepts in the Circadian Variation

8 Physiologic Control of the Circadian Variability

Part III Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring

Part IV Applications of Out-of-Office Blood Pressure Monitoring

20 Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring

Index ................................................................................................................. 411

Fabio Angeli, M.D. Division of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Pathophysiology,

Muhammad U. Farooq, M.D. Division of Stroke and Vascular Neurology, Mercy

Angeliki Ntineri, M.D. Third University Department of Medicine, Hypertension

M.G. Myers, M.D. (*)

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 3

General Conditions for BP Measurement

There are several aspects of BP measurement which need to be considered regard-

Devices for Manual BP Measurement (Table 1.1)

In what is probably the single most important development in the measurement of

Table 1.1 Commonly used Manual

Impact of Manual BP in Management of Hypertension

The involvement of a health professional in the measurement of BP can affect the

Semi-automated Sphygmomanometers in Office Practice

Concerns about the accuracy of manual office BP in diagnosing hypertension have

Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement

The most recent guidelines focus primarily on semi-automated electronic devices as

The Pros and Cons of AOBP

AOBP readings in a busy clinical practice. However, if guidelines for recording a

Relationship Between AOBP and ABPM

Even though the measurement of BP is an integral part of primary care, compara-

The Conventional versus Automated Measurement of Blood

Until recently, there was considerable reluctance to abandon conventional manual

removing other causes of measurement error is sufficient to justify the continued

Principles of Automated Office BP

An important aspect of office BP measurement is the need to minimize extraneous

Table 1.5 Recommendations for office BP measurement

The determination of an individual’s BP status is currently in a transition phase.

1. Pickering G. High blood pressure. London: J&A Churchill; 1968.

Gianfranco Parati and Juan Eugenio Ochoa

G. Parati, M.D. (*)

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 15

hypertension management advise combining OBP with information on out-of-ofﬁce

Methodological Aspects of HBPM

Measurement conditions and procedures: Although automated and semi-automated

self-management of drug treatment by patients. Overall, conditions and procedures