This study investigated the relationship between seasonal variations in blood pressure (BP) and the corresponding changes in meteorological parameters and weather-induced patients' discomfort. Hypertensives on stable treatment were assessed in winter-1, summer and winter-2 with clinic (CBP), home (HBP) and 24-hour ambulatory BP (ABP). Discomfort indices derived from temperature, humidity and atmospheric pressure that reflected subjects' discomfort were evaluated. Symptomatic orthostatic hypotension was assessed with a questionnaire. Sixty subjects (mean age 65.1±8.8 [s.d.], 39 men) were analyzed. CBP, HBP and daytime ABP were lower in summer than in winter (P<0.01). Nighttime ABP was unchanged, which resulted in a 55% higher proportion of non-dippers (P<0.001). All the discomfort indices that reflected weather-induced subjects' discomfort were higher in summer (P<0.05) and systolic daytime ABP was <110 mm Hg in 15 subjects (25%). Seasonal changes in temperature and the discomfort indices were correlated with BP changes (P<0.05). Multivariate analyses revealed that winter BP levels, seasonal differences in temperature, female gender and the use of diuretics predicted the summer BP decline. In conclusion, all aspects of the BP profile, except nighttime ABP, are reduced in summer, resulting in an increased prevalence of non-dippers in summer with unknown consequences. Seasonal BP changes are influenced by changes in meteorological parameters, anthropometric and treatment characteristics. Trials are urgently needed to evaluate the clinical relevance of excessive BP decline in summer and management guidelines for practicing physicians should be developed.

Studies in adults have shown similar levels of home (HBP) and daytime ambulatory blood pressure (dABP), which are lower than clinic blood pressure (CBP) measurements. This study investigated the impact of age on these differences. A total of 642 untreated children, adolescents, and adults referred to a hypertension clinic were evaluated with CBP, HBP, and dABP measurements within 4 weeks (mean age 38.6 ± 19.4 years; range 5-78 years; 61.1% males). In children, dABP was higher than both CBP and HBP. These differences were progressively eliminated with increasing age, and after the age of 30 years, dABP was similar to HBP, and both were lower than CBP. In subjects aged ≥60 years, dABP appeared to be lower than HBP. Age and hypertension appeared to be the main independent predictors of the differences among the three methods.These data suggest that the relationship between office and out-of-office blood pressure measurements is not the same across all age groups and should be taken into account in the evaluation of subjects with elevated blood pressure in clinical practice.

The ambulatory arterial stiffness index (AASI) has been introduced as an index of arterial function, predicting cardiovascular events. However, treatment-induced changes in AASI are rather equivocal. This study aims to: (i) present the results of treatment-induced changes in AASI in untreated subjects with elevated blood pressure (BP), subjected to antihypertensive treatment for 1 year and (ii) perform a meta-analysis of studies reporting on treatment-induced change in AASI. A total of 104 subjects (mean age 51.4±10.3 years, 62% males, mean follow-up: 13.6±2.4 months) were analyzed. Despite significant reductions in 24-h ambulatory systolic/diastolic BP, pulse pressure and pulse wave velocity (mean change: -15.9±12/-10.4±7.6 mm Hg, -5.4±6.8 mm Hg, -0.7±1.9 m s(-1), respectively, all P<0.05), there was no significant change (Follow up-Baseline) in AASI values (mean change: 0.01±0.17, P=not significant). The treatment-induced change in AASI was correlated with baseline AASI (r=-0.61), baseline 24-h pulse pressure (-0.26), treatment-induced change in 24-h pulse pressure (0.26) and in systolic/diastolic nocturnal dipping (-0.25/-0.40, respectively). Meta-analysis of eight trials (n=990) revealed a marginal decrease in AASI with antihypertensive treatment (pooled change: -0.018 (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.033,-0.003)). When the analysis was restricted to data with renin-angiotensin system blockers (n=755, 76% of total), the results did not significantly change (pooled change -0.028 (95% CI -0.048, -0.007)). In conclusion, although AASI is an independent predictor of cardiovascular events, its response to antihypertensive treatment is only marginal and clinically uncertain, which may render its use as a therapeutic target in clinical practice questionable.

Hypertension significantly contributes to the increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, thus leading to rising healthcare costs. The objective of this study was to quantify the clinical and economic benefits of optimal systolic blood pressure (SBP), in a setting under severe financial constraints, as in the case of Greece. Hence, a Markov model projecting 10-year outcomes and costs was adopted, in order to compare two scenarios. The first one depicted the "current setting", where all hypertensives in Greece presented an average SBP of 164 mmHg, while the second scenario namely "optimal SBP control" represented a hypothesis in which the whole population of hypertensives would achieve optimal SBP (i.e. <140 mmHg). Cardiovascular events' occurrence was estimated for four sub-models (according to gender and smoking status). Costs were calculated from the Greek healthcare system's perspective (discounted at a 3% annual rate). Findings showed that compared to the "current setting", universal "optimal SBP control" could, within a 10-year period, reduce the occurrence of non-fatal events and deaths, by 80 and 61 cases/1000 male smokers; 59 and 37 cases/1000 men non-smokers; whereas the respective figures for women were 69 and 57 cases/1000 women smokers; and accordingly, 52 and 28 cases/1000 women non-smokers. Considering health expenditures, they could be reduced by approximately €83 million per year. Therefore, prevention of cardiovascular events through BP control could result in reduced morbidity, thereby in substantial cost savings. Based on clinical and economic outcomes, interventions that promote BP control should be a health policy priority.

This study aims at estimating the resources consumed and subsequent costs for hypertension management, using home blood pressure (BP) monitoring (HBPM) alone versus combined clinic measurements and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (C/ABPM). One hundred sixteen untreated hypertensive subjects were randomized to use HBPM or C/ABPM for antihypertensive treatment initiation and titration. Health resources utilized within 12-months follow-up, their respective costs, and hypertension control were assessed. The total cost of the first year of hypertension management was lower in HBPM than C/ABPM arm (€1336.0 vs. €1473.5 per subject, respectively; P < .001). Laboratory tests' cost was identical in both arms. There was no difference in achieved BP control and drug expenditure (HBPM: €233.1 per subject; C/ABPM: €247.6 per subject; P = not significant), whereas the cost of BP measurements and/or visits was higher in C/ABPM arm (€393.9 vs. €516.9, per patient, respectively P < .001). The cost for subsequent years (>1) was €348.9 and €440.2 per subject, respectively for HBPM and C/ABPM arm and €2731.4 versus €3234.3 per subject, respectively (P < .001) for a 5-year projection. HBPM used alone for the first year of hypertension management presents lower cost than C/ABPM, and the same trend is observed in 5-year projection. The results on the resources consumption can be used to make cost estimates for other health-care systems.

Whether blood pressure thresholds for hypertension should differ according to sex or age remains debated. We did a subject-level meta-analysis of 5018 people untreated for hypertension and randomly recruited from 5 populations (women, 56.7%; ≥60 years, 42.3%). We used multivariable-adjusted Cox regression and a bootstrap procedure to determine home blood pressure (HBP) levels yielding 10-year cardiovascular risks similar to those associated with established systolic/diastolic thresholds (140-160/80-100 mm Hg) for the conventional blood pressure (CBP). Conversely, we estimated CBP thresholds providing 10-year cardiovascular risks similar to those associated established HBP levels (125-135/80-85 mm Hg). All analyses were stratified for sex and age (<60 versus ≥60 years). During 8.3 years (median), 414 participants experienced a cardiovascular event. The sex differences between HBP thresholds derived from CBP and between CBP thresholds derived from HBP were all nonsignificant (P≥0.24), ranging from -4.6 to 3.6 mm Hg systolic and from -4.3 to 2.1 mm Hg diastolic. The age differences between HBP thresholds derived from CBP and between CBP thresholds derived from HBP ranged from -6.7 to 8.4 mm Hg systolic and from -1.9 to 1.7 mm Hg diastolic and were nonsignificant (P≥0.08), except for HBP thresholds derived from CBP levels of 140 mm Hg systolic and 80 mm Hg diastolic (P≤0.04). Sensitivity analyses based on cardiac or cerebrovascular complications were confirmatory. In conclusion, our findings based on outcome-driven criteria support contemporary guidelines that propose single blood pressure thresholds that can be indiscriminately applied in both sexes and across the age range.

In the last two decades, considerable evidence on home blood pressure monitoring has accumulated and current guidelines recommend its wide application in clinical practice. First, several outcome studies have shown that the ability of home blood pressure measurements in predicting preclinical target organ damage and cardiovascular events is superior to that of the conventional office blood pressure measurements and similar to that of 24-hour ambulatory monitoring. Second, cross-sectional studies showed considerable agreement of home blood pressure measurements with ambulatory monitoring in detecting the white-coat and masked hypertension phenomena, in both untreated and treated subjects. Third, studies have shown larger blood pressure decline by using home blood pressure monitoring instead of office measurements for treatment adjustment. Fourth, in treated hypertensives, home blood pressure monitoring has been shown to improve long-term adherence to antihypertensive drug treatment and thus, has improved hypertension control rates. These data suggest that home blood pressure should no longer be regarded as only a screening tool that requires confirmation by ambulatory monitoring. Provided that an unbiased assessment is obtained according to current recommendations, home blood pressure monitoring should have primary role in diagnosis, treatment adjustment, and long-term follow-up of most cases with hypertension.

Given the increasing use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in both clinical practice and hypertension research, a group of scientists, participating in the European Society of Hypertension Working Group on blood pressure monitoring and cardiovascular variability, in year 2013 published a comprehensive position paper dealing with all aspects of the technique, based on the available scientific evidence for ABPM. The present work represents an updated schematic summary of the most important aspects related to the use of ABPM in daily practice, and is aimed at providing recommendations for proper use of this technique in a clinical setting by both specialists and practicing physicians. The present article details the requirements and the methodological issues to be addressed for using ABPM in clinical practice, The clinical indications for ABPM suggested by the available studies, among which white-coat phenomena, masked hypertension, and nocturnal hypertension, are outlined in detail, and the place of home measurement of blood pressure in relation to ABPM is discussed. The role of ABPM in pharmacological, epidemiological, and clinical research is also briefly mentioned. Finally, the implementation of ABPM in practice is considered in relation to the situation of different countries with regard to the reimbursement and the availability of ABPM in primary care practices, hospital clinics, and pharmacies.