Search

• The COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact on hypertension management. • In the pre-pandemic period, unfavorable hypertension phenotypes improved during treatment. • Improvement of hypertension phenotypes was not observed during the pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic had a major impact on medical care. This study evaluated the influence of the pandemic on blood pressure (BP) control and hypertension phenotypes as assessed by office and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). Data were collected from 33 centers including Excellence Centers of the European Society of Hypertension. Two groups of patients with treated hypertension were compared. Pandemic group: including participants who had ABPM twice - at visit 2 during the COVID-19 pandemic and visit 1 performed 9–15 months prior to visit 2. Pre-pandemic group: had ABPM at two visits, performed before the pandemic within 9–15 months interval. We determined the following hypertension phenotypes: masked hypertension, white coat hypertension, sustained controlled hypertension (SCH) and sustained uncontrolled hypertension (SUCH). We analyzed the prevalence of phenotypes and their changes between visits. Data of 1419 patients, 616 (43 %) in the pandemic group and 803 (57 %) in the pre-pandemic group, were analyzed. At baseline (visit 1), the prevalence of hypertension phenotypes did not differ between groups. In the pandemic group, the change in hypertension phenotypes between two visits was not significant (p = 0.08). In contrast, in the pre-pandemic group, the prevalence of SCH increased during follow-up (28.8 % vs 38.4 %, p < 0.01) while the prevalence of SUCH decreased (34.2 % vs 27.8 %, p < 0.01). In multivariable adjusted analysis, the only factor influencing negative changes of hypertension phenotypes was the COVID-19 pandemic period. These results indicate a negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on BP control assessed by hypertension phenotypes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hypertension, a disease of epidemic proportion, is assessed by measuring blood pressure (BP). Various methods are employed, the most common being "clinic blood pressure measurement (CBPM)." However, environment and technical errors can confound it. Other methods include home blood pressure measurement (HBPM), which shows readings of awake time only, and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). A recent technique that causes less sleep disturbance is "timed HBPM." Blood pressure is a 24-hour phenomenon, and prognostically night time blood pressure, being more important, must be assessed properly. Besides providing the precise mean of 24-hour blood pressure, it extends knowledge regarding many other parameters of clinical importance like dipping pattern and morning surge etc. For nocturnal BP assessment, 24-hour ABPM and time-triggered HBPM are utilized. The importance of nocturnal blood pressure assessment for diagnostic and prognostic evaluation of various cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular conditions would be highlighted in this review article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is scarce information regarding ambulatory blood pressure (BP) achieved in daily practice with a wide range of antihypertensive drug combinations. We looked for differences in office and ambulatory BP among major drug combinations of two and three antihypertensive agents from a different drugs class. A total of 17187 patients treated with six types of two-drug combinations and 9724 treated with six types of three-drug combinations from the Spanish ABPM Registry were analyzed. We compared achieved office and ambulatory BP, as well as office (< 140/90 mmHg) and ambulatory (24-hour BP < 130/80; day BP < 135/85, and night BP < 120/70 mmHg) BP control among groups. The combination of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers with diuretics and the triple combination of RAS blockers with diuretics and calcium channel blockers (CCB) were associated with lower values of 24-hour, daytime and nighttime BP, as well as more pronounced nocturnal BP dip. Compared with such combinations (reference), other double combinations had lower rates of ambulatory BP control. Moreover, triple combinations containing alpha blockers also had lower rates of ambulatory BP control. We conclude that even with similar office BP control, differences exist among antihypertensive two-drug and three-drug combinations with respect to ambulatory BP control achieved during treatment, with RAS blockers/diuretics and RAS blockers/CCBs/diuretics obtaining better control rates. This can help physicians choose among drug combinations in order to obtain further ambulatory BP reductions. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]