Search

Background: The diagnosis of hypertension and hypertension-induced target organ injury by the 2022 American Heart Association (AHA) ambulatory blood pressure threshold as compared with 2014 AHA and 2016 European Society of Hypertension (ESH) thresholds has not been evaluated. Methods: In a cross-sectional study (n = 291, aged 5–18 years, at a tertiary care outpatient clinic), we compared 2022 AHA with 2014 AHA and ESH thresholds (revised with 2018 adult ESH thresholds where applicable) to diagnose ambulatory hypertension (AH), and detect ambulatory arterial stiffness index (AASI) and left ventricular target organ injury (LVTOI). Results: The 2022 AHA threshold diagnosed significantly more AH (53%) than the 2014 AHA (42%, p < 0.01) and ESH (36%, p < 0.001) thresholds. The 2022 AHA threshold demonstrated only a moderate agreement with the 2014 AHA (kappa (k) = 0.77) and ESH (k = 0.66) thresholds to diagnose AH. Adjusted logistic regression analysis found that only the 2022 AHA threshold predicted elevated AASI significantly (odds ratio 2.40, 95% CI 1.09, 5.25, p = 0.02; AUC 0.61, p < 0.01). In those with elevated AASI, more participants had AH by the 2022 AHA threshold (72%) than the 2014 AHA (46%, p = 0.02) and ESH (48%, p = 0.03) thresholds. AH defined by the 2022 AHA threshold continued to maintain higher odds, larger AUC, and higher sensitivity to identify LVTOI than the 2014 AHA and ESH thresholds; however, the difference did not reach a statistically significant level. Conclusions: AH defined by the 2022 AHA threshold diagnoses more children with hypertension and identifies more children with hypertension-induced target organ injury than the 2014 AHA and ESH thresholds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is a standard screening tool for the diagnosis of hypertension in children, adolescents, and adults. However, there is confusion and misunderstanding about which guidelines can provide the most accurate diagnostic values. Local problem: At a large, free-standing pediatric hospital, ABPM testing was historically being conducted by both nephrology and cardiology departments. The nephrology service was using the American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines, published in 2014 for interpretation of results and for diagnosis of hypertension, whereas the cardiology service depended on the 2004 National High Blood Pressure Education Program (NHBEP) fourth report, which led to discrepancies in diagnosis of hypertension in this patient population. Methods: A nurse practitioner–led quality improvement project was designed and implemented to determine the best method of ABPM monitoring and test interpretation based on comparing results of patients using height, gender, and application of either the 2004 NHBEP fourth report or 2014 AHA guidelines. Interventions: Using a retrospective chart review, ABPM monitoring results from both cardiology and nephrology services were reviewed and compared to identify the most accurate methods and to recommend changes to practice. Results: Accuracy of interpretation for ABPM is best accomplished using the 2014 AHA guidelines. Conclusions: Using a single method of interpretation provides consistent diagnosis and treatment of hypertension in children. Nurse practitioners can apply this knowledge in other settings to manage hypertension and provide similar services in different settings, including primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent American hypertension guidelines recommended a threshold of 130/80 mmHg to define hypertension on the basis of office, home or ambulatory blood pressure (BP). Despite recognizing the potential advantages of automated office (AO)BP, the recommendations only considered conventional office BP, without providing supporting evidence and without taking into account the well documented difference between office BP recorded in research studies versus routine clinical practice, the latter being about 10/7 mmHg higher. Accordingly, we examined the relationship between AOBP and awake ambulatory BP, which the guidelines considered to be a better predictor of future cardiovascular risk than office BP. AOBP readings and 24-hour ambulatory BP recordings were obtained in 514 untreated patients referred for ambulatory BP monitoring in routine clinical practice. The relationship between mean AOBP and mean awake ambulatory BP was examined using linear regression analysis with and without adjustment for age and sex. Special attention was given to the thresholds of 130/80 and 135/85 mmHg, the latter value being the recognized threshold for defining hypertension using awake ambulatory BP, home BP and AOBP in other guidelines. The mean adjusted AOBP of 130/80 and 135/85 mmHg corresponded to mean awake ambulatory BP values of 132.1/81.5 and 134.4/84.6 mmHg, respectively. These findings support the use of AOBP as the method of choice for determining office BP in routine clinical practice, regardless of which of the two thresholds are used for diagnosing hypertension, with an AOBP of 135/85 mmHg being somewhat closer to the corresponding value for awake ambulatory BP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]