Abstract
Resistant hypertension (HT) is a condition that confers a high cardiovascular risk to the patient due to both persistent blood pressure elevation and the high prevalence of comorbidities and organ damage. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) has become an important tool in the diagnosis and follow-up of the hypertensive patient, and it is even more important in the evaluation of those with resistant HT. Data from the Spanish ABPM Registry have allowed the comparison between large groups of resistant hypertensive patients seen in daily life and those controlled on antihypertensive treatment, as well as in resistant hypertensive patients who are classified based on ambulatory blood pressure values. In comparison with controlled patients, the cohort of resistant hypertensives has a worse circadian profile with a high proportion of nondipping, but also stark differences between office and ambulatory blood pressures. This enhanced white-coat effect was responsible for more than one-third of resistant hypertensive patients having normal 24-h blood pressures. Clinical data, including comorbidities, organ damage and circadian patterns, suggest a lower cardiovascular risk among white-coat resistant hypertensives. This finding was in agreement with longitudinal studies in smaller cohorts, suggesting fewer cardiovascular events and less mortality. In summary, it seems reasonable to routinely use ABPM in the initial evaluation of all resistant hypertensive patients. In a significant number of these patients, ABPM will also be an essential tool in follow-up, especially regarding the possible effects of all therapeutic maneuvers that are devoted to bringing blood pressure into target ranges.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Resistant hypertension (HT) is defined as a clinical situation in which blood pressure is not controlled despite optimal antihypertensive treatment, including at least three antihypertensive drugs (one of them preferably being a diuretic) at full doses.1 Despite significant progress in the treatment of HT, resistant HT is not uncommon and affects 10–15% of all treated hypertensive patients.2, 3 The diagnosis of resistant HT has important implications from diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic perspectives. Patients with resistant HT more frequently present with secondary causes of HT, more severe target organ damage4 and a greater risk of cardiovascular complications and death.5
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) has become a very useful (and sometimes essential) tool for the diagnosis and management of hypertensive patients.6, 7, 8, 9 The primary applications of ABPM comprise the diagnosis of white-coat HT, masked HT, hypotension phenomena that occur at any point during a 24-h period, assessment of the circadian and physiological nocturnal decrease patterns and a more precise assessment of the effect and duration of antihypertensive treatment.10, 11 In addition to these known indications, one of the main advantages of ABPM, which involves a large number of blood pressure measurements during everyday activities (including the main causes of variability—activity and rest), is that it is more reliable than a single measurement of an individual’s blood pressure. Thus, it is not surprising that the main estimators obtained during ABPM are more closely associated with the presence and evolution of organ damage and have a greater predictive value than office blood pressure measurements. The advantages of ABPM are even greater when a physician is faced with a more difficult clinical situation, as occurs in resistant HT. This chapter reviews the main characteristics of ABPM in patients with resistant HT. Most of the information is derived from various analyses of the Spanish ABPM Registry.
Characteristics of the Spanish ABPM registry
In 2005, the Spanish Society of Hypertension, with the help of the pharmaceutical industry, decided to disseminate both the knowledge and the use of ABPM among health-care professionals involved in caring for patients with cardiovascular risk. The CARDIORISC project involved the distribution of validated ABPM monitors (SpaceLab 90207/Microlife Watch BP 03) to >1000 physicians from various health-care settings, >75% of whom were general practitioners.12, 13 The monitors were accompanied by a training program about correct clinical blood pressure measurements, the utilities of ABPM and how to interpret the main estimators obtained, as well as training and technical support to ensure the correct use of the technique. In addition to the local software, access to a website was provided for downloading monitoring data and clinical data forms for each patient. This approach enabled reports to be obtained in real time. These reports contained the main estimators obtained from monitoring, which consisted of information about their quality and stratification of the absolute cardiovascular risk calculated using the clinical data provided (Figure 1). The clinical and monitoring data were also stored in a server and used for subsequent analyses.
There was a massive response to the initiative, and data immediately started to be recorded, including up to the present day. By January 2013, there were more than 165 000 entries referring to >120 000 patients (www.cardiorisc.com/MP/index_MP.asp accessed on January 16th, 2013). The availability of such a source of information led to the creation of a scientific committee by the Spanish Society of Hypertension, which developed the lines of research that have led to subsequent publications on the registry.
Comparison between patients with resistant and controlled HT
Little information is available about the characteristics of ABPM in patients with resistant HT compared with the general hypertensive population.14, 15, 16 The data in the Spanish ABPM Registry enabled us to assess a group of patients with resistant HT (not controlled with three drugs or being treated with four or more drugs) and to compare them with a group of controlled patients who take three or fewer drugs. With regard to clinical characteristics,4 the first group was older and had a greater prevalence of obesity and a longer history of HT. The prevalence of diabetes, lipid metabolism disorders and kidney damage defined by either reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate or microalbuminuria, left ventricular hypertrophy on the electrocardiogram or a previous history of cardiovascular disease were all significantly higher in the group of patients with resistant HT (Table 1).
In relation to the differential characteristics of ABPM between resistant and controlled HT patients, the former group clearly presented higher 24-h, daytime and nighttime values in comparison to the latter group. More importantly, resistant HT was associated with a circadian pattern in which the nighttime BP dip was blunted. Thus, night/day ratios for both systolic and diastolic BP (SBP and DBP, respectively) were higher among patients with resistant HT (0.93±0.09 vs. 0.92±0.08 for SBP and 0.89±0.10 vs. 0.87±0.09 for DBP). Significant differences were also found in the circadian profile distribution between the groups (Figure 2); patients with resistant HT more commonly presented with a riser pattern and less commonly with a dipper pattern.
Diagnosis of true resistant HT—the role of ABPM
The main advantage of ABPM in resistant HT is the diagnosis of white-coat resistant HT. Patients with resistant HT present with a greater white-coat phenomenon than controlled HT patients. In comparison between the groups with resistant and controlled HT, the white-coat phenomenon, defined as the differences between clinical BP values and 24-h values, was 24/13 mm Hg for SBP and DBP, respectively, in the group with resistant HT and 5/4 mm Hg in the group of controlled patients.4
To evaluate the prevalence of white-coat resistant HT, we only analyzed patients who had not achieved office BP control with three or more drugs. This approach did not include those who, although meeting the definition of resistant HT, presented controlled clinical figures while receiving four or more drugs. The patients in this group totaled 8295, and 37.5% of them presented with 24-h figures of <130/80 mm Hg, 44.1% daytime figures of <135/85 mm Hg and 31.8% nighttime figures of <120/70 mm Hg.2
Regarding clinical characteristics, white-coat resistant HT was associated with older age and female gender. Contrasting phenomena were found with HT duration, smoking, diabetes, kidney impairment, left ventricle hypertrophy and previous cardiovascular disease (Table 2).
The distribution of circadian rhythms was also different between true and white-coat resistant HT patients. As Figure 3 shows, the prevalence of the dipper pattern was greater, and the riser pattern lower, in patients with white-coat resistant HT.
Circadian pattern and antihypertensive treatment in resistant HT patients
Antihypertensive treatment can indeed affect the BP circadian profile. In a previous analysis of the Spanish ABPM Registry, the clinical factors that were associated with a blunted nocturnal BP dip were similar in both the treated and untreated patients. Advanced age, obesity and advanced disease (silent organ damage or confirmed cardiovascular or kidney disease) were all associated with a non-dipper pattern. Furthermore, in patients under antihypertensive treatment, the number of drugs taken, but not their time of administration, was also associated with this pattern.17, 18
In the group of resistant HT patients in the Spanish ABPM Registry, a specific analysis was performed on the impact of antihypertensive treatment on BP values obtained by ABPM and on circadian patterns. With regard to the number of drugs, a progressive increase was observed in SBP figures from the group treated with three drugs to the group treated with six or more. This pattern was present for all 24-h, daytime and nighttime SBP but not for DBP (Figure 4). The number of drugs also affected the BP circadian profile, and the night/day ratio progressively increased from three to five drugs, then reached a plateau. From a qualitative perspective, this phenomenon was also found in the proportion of patients with a dipper profile, which progressively fell as the number of drugs increased, with the opposite phenomenon occurring for the riser profile (Figure 5).
Another possible treatment-related factor that can affect BP values and circadian rhythms is the type of pharmacological combination used. If the joint administration of three drugs is required, the ESH consensus document of 2009 recommended that the most logical option would be a combination of a renin-angiotensin system blocker (an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker), a calcium antagonist and a diuretic.19 In our series of patients with resistant HT treated with three drugs, we analyzed whether there were differences in ABPM values or the circadian pattern between patients who received this specific pharmacological association (n=2871) vs. other possible combinations (n=6201). Although the 24-h and daytime SBP figures were slightly lower in the former group (by approximately 0.5 mm Hg), neither the DBP figures, the night/day ratio or the proportion of patients with different circadian profiles were significantly different depending on the type of combination used.
Finally, the last therapeutic factor analyzed was the time of administration of antihypertensive drugs. In this respect, a previous study suggested that patients with resistant HT who received three drugs in the morning could improve their BP values and circadian rhythms by taking one of those three drugs at night.20 When we analyzed the resistant HT patients in the Spanish ABPM Registry, most of them (73%) took all of their medication in the morning, 16% at night and 11% received the administered drugs on a b.i.d. schedule. We found no significant differences in 24-h, daytime or nighttime DBP values between the three treatment posology groups. SBP values were slightly higher in patients who received their medication in a b.i.d. schedule, and the proportion of patients with an insufficient BP reduction at night (non-dipper or riser profiles) was also higher in this group (Figure 6).
These results do not suggest that time of administration of drugs is important in controlling BP or circadian patterns in the resistant HT population. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as a more complex posology is also associated with a higher number of drugs and most likely reflects greater BP control difficulties.
ABPM and cardiovascular prognosis in resistant HT patients
In the general population, cardiovascular risk is directly related to BP values. Accordingly, persistently high values despite antihypertensive treatment (the definition of resistant HT) are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular episodes and death.5 Regarding the role of ABPM in the prognosis of resistant HT, a study conducted >10 years ago in 86 resistant HT patients suggested that daytime BP according to ABPM was a better predictor of future cardiovascular events than office BP.21 In a subsequent study, Pierdomenico et al.22 followed up a cohort of patients according to the response to treatment, defining their response through clinical and ambulatory BP figures. More of the patients who presented resistance defined by ambulatory values also presented greater cardiovascular morbidity and mortality than those whose resistance to treatment was only found in clinical BP values. Likewise, Salles et al.23 found greater cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in the follow up of a cohort of resistant HT patients who were classified as being truly resistant (high ambulatory BP values) than in white-coat cases (elevated office BP but normal ambulatory values).
Information about cardiovascular prognosis in resistant HT is not available in the Spanish ABPM Registry patients, as it is a cross-sectional registry. However, two figures indirectly support the greater importance of ambulatory BP values. When patients were divided into true or white-coast resistant HT groups, the former group more commonly presented renal impairment, albuminuria or confirmed cardiovascular disease as compared with the latter group.2 Furthermore, in a follow-up analysis of high-risk patients (more than a third of them met resistant HT criteria), nocturnal BP was the parameter that best predicted the onset of cardiovascular disease during follow-up, neglecting the impact of office BP.24 These findings suggest that, in resistant HT, ABPM is a stratification tool that identifies high-risk patients who require more intensive therapy.
Conclusions
Discrepancies exist among different clinical guidelines concerning the need for ABPM in the diagnosis and follow-up of HT.11, 25 However, resistant HT is one case in which the use of ABPM would appear to be essential. Confirmation of resistance to treatment with data obtained by ABPM has prognostic and therapeutic implications. Furthermore, the information obtained about the characteristics of the records, both in the absolute values as in BP variability and the circadian profile, is also useful from both prognostic and therapeutic perspectives. Further studies are required to evaluate whether a therapeutic approach based on ambulatory values could be more useful in cardiovascular prevention than the current approach based on clinical BP values.
References
Calhoun DA, Jones D, Textor S, Goff DC, Murphy TP, Toto RD, White A, Cushman WC, White W, Sica D, Ferdinand K, Giles TD, Falkner B, Carey RM . Resistant hypertension: diagnosis, evaluation and treatment: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Professional Education Committee of he Council for High Blood Pressure Research. Hypertension 2008; 51: 1403–1419.
De la Sierra A, Segura J, Banegas JR, Gorostidi M, de la Cruz JJ, Armario P, Oliveras A, Ruilope LM . Clinical features of 8295 patients with resistant hypertension classified on the basis of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Hypertension 2011; 57: 898–902.
Persell SD . Prevalence of resistant hypertension in the United States, 2003-2008. Hypertension 2011; 57: 1076–1080.
De la Sierra A, Banegas JR, Oliveras A, Gorostidi M, Segura J, de la Cruz JJ, Armario P, Ruilope LM . Clinical differences between resistant hypertensives and patients treated and controlled with three or les drugs. J Hypertens 2012; 30: 1211–1216.
Daugherty SL, Powers JD, Magid DJ, Tavel HM, Masoudi FA, Margolis KL, O’Connor PJ, Selby JV, Ho PM . Incidence and prognosis of resistant hypertension in hypertensive patients. Circulation 2012; 125: 1635–1642.
Kikuya M, Ohkubo T, Asayama K, Metoki H, Obara T, Saito S, Hashimoto J, Totsune K, Hoshi H, Satoh H, Imai Y . Ambulatory blood pressure and 10-year risk of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular mortality: the Ohasama Study. Hypertension 2005; 45: 240–245.
Sega R, Facchetti R, Bombelli M, Cesana G, Corrao G, Grassi G, Mancia G . 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: 1777–1783.
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: 156–161.
Banegas JR, Segura J, Sobrino J, RodrÃguez-Artalejo F, De la Sierra A, De la Cruz JJ, Gorostidi M, SarrÃa A, Ruilope LM, for the Spanish Society of Hypertension Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring Registry Investigators. Effectiveness of blood pressure control outside the medical setting. Hypertension 2007; 49: 62–68.
O'Brien E, Asmar R, Beilin L, Imai Y, Mallion JM, Mancia G, Mengden T, Myers M, Padfield P, Palatini P, Parati G, Pickering T, Redon J, Staessen J, Stergiou G, Verdecchia P, European Society of Hypertension Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring. European Society of Hypertension recommendations for conventional, ambulatory and home blood pressure measurement. J Hypertens 2003; 21: 821–848.
Mancia G, De Backer G, Dominiczak A, Cifkova R, Fagard R, Germano G, Grassi G, Heagerty AM, Kjeldsen SE, Laurent S, Narkiewicz K, Ruilope L, Rynkiewicz A, Schmieder RE, Boudier HA, Zanchetti A, Vahanian A, Camm J, De Caterina R, Dean V, Dickstein K, Filippatos G, Funck-Brentano C, Hellemans I, Kristensen SD, McGregor K, Sechtem U, Silber S, Tendera M, Widimsky P, Zamorano JL, Erdine S, Kiowski W, Agabiti-Rosei E, Ambrosioni E, Lindholm LH, Viigimaa M, Adamopoulos S, Agabiti-Rosei E, Ambrosioni E, Bertomeu V, Clement D, Erdine S, Farsang C, Gaita D, Lip G, Mallion JM, Manolis AJ, Nilsson PM, O'Brien E, Ponikowski P, Redon J, Ruschitzka F, Tamargo J, van Zwieten P, Waeber B, Williams B, Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension; European Society of Cardiology. 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: 1105–1187.
Segura J, Sobrino J, Sierra C, Ruilope LM, Coca A, en representación de los investigadores del Proyecto CRONOPRES. Proyecto CRONOPRES: un nuevo enfoque para el control de la hipertensión arterial. Hipertensión 2005; 22: 275–283.
Sierra C, de la Sierra A, Sobrino J, Segura J, Banegas JR, Gorostidi M, Ruilope LM . Monitorización ambulatoria de la presión arterial (MAPA): caracterÃsticas clÃnicas de 31.530 pacientes. Med Clin (Barc) 2007; 129: 1–5.
Cuspidi C, Macca G, Sampieri L, Michev I, Salerno M, Fusi V, Severgnini B, Meani S, Magrini F, Zanchetti A . High prevalence of cardiac and extracardiac target organ damage in refractory hypertension. J Hypertens 2001; 19: 2063–2070.
Lloyd-Jones DM, Evans JC, Larson MG, O’Donnell CJ, Rocella EJ, Levy D . Differential control of systolic and diastolic blood pressure: factors associated with lack of blood pressure control in the community. Hypertension 2000; 36: 594–599.
Egan BM, Zhao Y, Axon N, Brzezinski WA, Ferdinand KC . Uncontrolled and apparent treatment resistant hypertension in the United States, 1988 to 2008. Circulation 2011; 124: 1046–1058.
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, SarrÃa A, Aranda P, Ruilope LM . Prevalence and factors associated with circadian blood pressure patterns in hypertensive patients. Hypertension 2009; 53: 466–472.
De la Sierra A, Segura J, Gorostidi M, Banegas JR, De la Cruz JJ, Ruilope LM . Diurnal blood pressure variation, risk categories, and antihypertensive treatment. Hypertens Res 2010; 33: 767–771.
Mancia G, Laurent S, Agabiti-Rosei E, Ambrosioni E, Burnier M, Caulfield MJ, Cifkova R, Clément D, Coca A, Dominiczak A, Erdine S, Fagard R, Farsang C, Grassi G, Haller H, Heagerty A, Kjeldsen SE, Kiowski W, Mallion JM, Manolis A, Narkiewicz K, Nilsson P, Olsen MH, Rahn KH, Redon J, Rodicio J, Ruilope L, Schmieder RE, Struijker-Boudier HA, Van Zwieten PA, Viigimaa M, Zanchetti A . Reappraisal of European guidelines on hypertension management: a European Society of Hypertension Task Force document. J Hypertens 2009; 27: 2121–2158.
Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Calvo C, Lopez JE, Mojon A, Fontao MJ, Soler R, Fernandez JR . Effects of time of day of treatment on ambulatory blood pressure pattern of patients with resistant hypertension. Hypertension 2005; 46: 1053–1059.
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: 712–718.
Pierdomenico SD, Lapenna D, Bucci A, Di Tommaso R, Di Mascio R, Manente BM, Caldarella MP, Neri M, Cuccurullo F, Mezzetti A . Cardiovascular outcome in treated hypertensive patients with responder, masked, false resistant, and true resistant hypertension. Am J Hypertens 2005; 18: 1422–1428.
Salles GF, Cardoso CRL, Muxfeldt ES . Prognostic influence of office and ambulatory blood pressures in resistant hypertension. Arch Intern Med 2008; 168: 2340–2346.
De la Sierra A, Banegas JR, Segura J, Gorostidi M, Ruilope LM . Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and development of cardiovascular events in high-risk patients included in the Spanish ABPM Registry. J Hypertens 2012; 30: 713–719.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Hypertension. The clinical management of primary hypertension in adults. Clinical Guideline 127: 2011. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG127.
Acknowledgements
I thank all the participants of the Spanish ABPM Registry. Their names are available at www.cardiorisc.com.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The Spanish ABPM Registry was initiated and is maintained by an unrestricted grant from Lacer Laboratories, Spain and the Spanish Society of Hypertension. Some of the analyses have received a Grant from the Spanish Health Authority (Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria: PI10/01011). AS has participated in educational meetings focused on ABPM. Some of these meetings have been funded by Lacer Laboratories, Spain.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
de la Sierra, A. Profile of ambulatory blood pressure in resistant hypertension. Hypertens Res 36, 565–569 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/hr.2013.39
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/hr.2013.39
Keywords
This article is cited by
-
Resistant hypertension: patient characteristics, risk factors, co-morbidities and outcomes
Journal of Human Hypertension (2014)
-
An Update on Treatment Options for Drug Resistant Hypertension
Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports (2014)