Differential impact of clinic BP target on the prevalence and predictors of the masked uncontrolled hypertension and white-coat uncontrolled hypertension

Abstract Background Although intensive blood pressure (BP) control have been advocated, major clinical practices guidelines still recommend clinic BP (cBP) < 149/90 mmHg as the target for antihypertensive therapy. But, cBP targets could influence the prevalence and predictors of any hypertension phenotype. We investigated how different cBP targets impacted on the prevalence and predictors of masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) and white-coat uncontrolled hypertension (WUCH) using the Korean Ambulatory Blood Pressure (KorABP) registry. Methods A multicenter prospective longitudinal cohort study was performed in outpatients with hypertension. Among 5,965 patients enrolled in the KorABP registry, 1,601 patients on antihypertensive medications with a valid ambulatory BP monitoring record were included in this study. Two different cBP targets, <130/80mmHg (intensive) and <140/90 mmHg (conventional) were investigated. Results Controlled ambulatory BP (aBP; <130/80 mmHg) was observed in 472 patients (29.5%). Controlled cBP was shown in 348 patients (21.7%) with the intensive cBP target and in 697 patients (43.5%) with the conventional cBP target. Controlled hypertension, WUCH, MUCH and uncontrolled hypertension were found in 294, 174, 54, and 1,075 patients with the intensive target and in 378, 94, 319 and 810 patients with the conventional target, respectively. Among the patients with controlled cBP, the prevalence of MUCH markedly decreased with the intensive target (15.5%), compared to the conventional target (45.8%). In contrast, among the patients with uncontrolled cBP, the prevalence of WUCH had only 3.8% increase with the intensive target (10.4%), compared to the conventional target (14.2%) (Figure 1). With the conventional target, 75.9% of patients with MUCH had cBP between 130/80 mmHg and 139/89 mmHg. The concordance between the controlled aBP and controlled cBP was higher with the intensive target than with the conventional target (Cohen’s κ 0.62 [0.58-0.67] vs. 0.46 [0.41-0.50]). The logistic models for MUCH included the left ventricular mass index and underuse of antihypertensive drugs (<2 types of drugs) as the common predictors of the both targets. With the conventional target, clinic systolic BP and diastolic BP were the strongest predictors of MUCH, but the cBP was not a predictor of MUCH with the intensive target. The logistic models for WUCH included beta-blocker use, increased heart rate and lower waist circumference and clinic systolic BP as the common predictors of WUCH with the both target. The logistic model for MUCH performed better with the conventional target, whereas the logistic model for WUCH performed better with the intensive target (Figure 2). Conclusion The use of the intensive cBP target (<130/80 mmHg) could reduce the prevalence of MUCH with minimal increase in the prevalence of WUCH and would provide the better assessment for the BP control status than the use of the conventional cBP target (<140/90 mmHg).Figure 1Figure 2