Hypertension management in chronic coronary syndrome: Insights and consensus from Indian cardiologists

Introduction For practical reasons, blood pressure values measured by physicians or nurses in a medical environment remain the clinical basis of the diagnosis and management of arterial hypertension around the world as recommended by all guidelines [1–4]. Nevertheless, measurements of blood pressure outside the office have gained an increasing popularity over the last decades not only to ascertain the diagnosis of hypertension but also to follow the impact of therapeutic interventions. Out-of-office blood pressure measurements can be obtained either by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring or by home blood pressure monitoring. As reviewed recently [5], both sets of out-of-office blood pressure offer undeniable advantages when compared to office blood pressure. First, both ambulatory blood pressure and home blood pressure monitoring provide more reliable and reproducible information on blood pressure. Second, blood pressure values obtained by ambulatory blood pressure and home blood pressure monitoring appear to be more closely related to target organ damage than office blood pressure and hence have a greater prognostic relevance than office blood pressure. Third, certain diagnosis such as white coat hypertension and masked hypertension can only be diagnosed using out-of-office blood pressure measurements. Fourth, when used in the clinical follow-up of treated hypertensive patients to evaluate the impact of drug treatment, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as well as home blood pressure monitoring has the advantage of not being affected by a placebo effect. Finally, evidence has been provided that treatment-induced reduction in 24-h blood pressure may predict better than office blood pressure the regression of end organ damage (particularly the cardiac one) induced by antihypertensive drug. Many of these information have been achieved during the past two decades by a number of studies carried out in different populations around the world, including the Pressioni Arteriose Monitorate E Loro Associazioni (PAMELA) study [6–10]. When should out-office blood pressure be measured? Despite their advantages, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as well as home blood pressure monitoring is not regarded as a routine procedure that should be applied to all hypertensive patients essentially for economical reasons. However, this issue is debated because the clinical information gathered with these measurements may potentially result in financial savings when applied adequately. The European and American guidelines for the management of hypertension have defined some indications for the use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in hypertension [1,2]. These include patients with resistant hypertension, patients with a high variability of office blood pressure, low-risk patients with a high blood pressure, patients with suspected episodes of hypotension, patients with a large discrepancy between office and home blood pressures, and finally patients with special clinical conditions such as pregnancy or sleep apnea syndrome. Outside these indications, the use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring could be discussed both in terms of feasibility and economics. Theoretically, a measurement of out-of-office blood pressure could be recommended to all new patients with as suspected hypertension to confirm the diagnosis of hypertension and to refine the patient's cardiovascular risk profile. Therefore, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring could be recommended to all high cardiovascular risk patients before starting any treatment and later under therapy to ascertain the adequacy of the control of blood pressure. Ambulatory blood pressure values in diabetic patients In this issue of the Journal of Hypertension, Leitao et al.[11] report the results of a cross-sectional study performed to estimate the daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring values corresponding to the target office blood pressure of 130/80 mmHg for diabetic (as defined by the American Diabetes Association) and to assess which diabetic patients may actually benefit from ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. They included 554 patients in this analysis. Regression analyses were performed to analyze the ambulatory blood pressure monitoring values corresponding to office blood pressure and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were used to assess the sensitivity and specificity of office blood pressure in diagnosing daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring hypertension. According to their regression equations, the daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring corresponding to the target office blood pressure of 130/80 mmHg was 129/79 mmHg and the daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring value corresponding to 140/90 mmHg at the office was 134/82 mmHg. As expected, discrepancies between ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and office blood pressure were due essentially to masked hypertension (about 10% of cases) and white coat hypertension (between 19% for systolic blood pressure and 26% for diastolic blood pressure). Interestingly, when office blood pressure was lower than 120 mmHg systolic and 70 mmHg diastolic, the sensitivity to rule out hypertension using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was 90%. Similarly, when office blood pressure was more than 145 mmHg systolic and more than 90 mmHg diastolic the sensitivity to confirm hypertension using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was 90%. Within these two sets of limits, 38% of patients would be misclassified if only office blood pressure values would be considered for the diagnosis. Thus, using the cut-off values of less than 120/70 mmHg and more than 140/90 mmHg at the office, 56% of the population sample would need an ambulatory blood pressure monitoring to confirm the diagnosis of hypertension. According to these results, only diabetics with an office blood pressure between 120 and 140 mmHg systolic and/or a diastolic blood pressure between 70 and 90 mmHg would really benefit from an out-office assessment of blood pressure. This would limit the use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring to only 50% of the diabetic patients. Studies implications and limitations The results of this provide interesting practical information on the use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in diabetic patients. However, they also have some limitations. The first one is the fact that the entire analysis is based on daytime ambulatory blood pressure only. Although the authors have measured 24-h blood pressure, they have not considered the nighttime blood pressure. This is unfortunate because there is increasing evidence that nighttime is a better predictor of cardiovascular risk than daytime blood pressure. Moreover, diabetic patients are often characterized by an absence of the physiological fall in blood pressure reflecting a nondipping pattern at night. Diabetes may even be the cause of a reverse dipping, that is an increase in blood pressure at night. Both the nondipping and the reverse dipping pattern of blood pressure have been associated with an increased risk of developing target organ damages such as left ventricular hypertrophy, microalbuminuria, renal dysfunction, and cerebral vascular lesions [5,12]. Thus, when assessing the cardiovascular risk profile linked to hypertension in diabetic patients, nighttime blood pressure should be included. Indeed, it is not uncommon in diabetes that daytime normotensive patients exhibit a nocturnal hypertension. This type of patients would be misdiagnosed using the algorithm proposed by the authors. Recently, the results of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial have shown that in diabetic patients the reduction of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality obtained by lowering office blood pressure below 120 mmHg systolic is not greater than that seen reducing blood pressure below 130 mmHg [13]. On the contrary, a systolic blood pressure below 120 mmHg may result in an increased risk of developing cardiac complications, as suggested by the recent post hoc analysis of diabetic patients with coronary heart diseases having participated in the INternational VErapamil SR-Trandolapril (INVEST) Study [14]. If a low blood pressure increases the risk of cardiac complications in diabetics, one might have to reconsider the necessity to perform an ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in diabetic patients with a blood pressure <120/70 mmHg in contrast to the proposals of Leitao et al. Indeed, in treated diabetic patients with a low office blood pressure, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring could be of importance to diagnosis episodes of asymptomatic hypotension episodes which might increase their cardiac risk. Thus, in the analysis of daytime and nighttime blood pressure values, it would be of interest to assess whether the percentage of ambulatory blood pressure values below a certain level is indeed associated with an increased risk of some cardiovascular complications. In this respect, it is important to mention that the analysis presented by Leitao et al. does not provide any information on the presence in this particular patients population of cardiac organ damage. The study also does not provide any data such on the occurrence of cardiovascular events and deaths, as it was not a prospective cohort study. Both these two sets of information should be thus provided by future clinical trials.

Ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring is increasingly recognized as a valuable tool to refine prediction of cardiovascular risk related to blood pressure (BP).1 After the first landmark study published by Perloff and colleagues 24 years ago,2 several longitudinal event-based studies provided unequivocal evidence of an independent association between ABP and risk of cardiovascular disease. Although experimental procedures and statistical analyses varied from study to study, ABP generally improved cardiovascular risk stratification over and beyond traditional risk factors, including clinic BP.3 The Table, obtained through an electronic search of literature using the terms “ambulatory blood pressure” and “prognosis,” shows a list of longitudinal event-based studies performed by independent groups. It is worth noting that the list of available studies is longer because each group generally published other analyses of their database. Only the first-appearing or main contribution from each group has been included in the Table. View this table: Longitudinal Event-Based Studies From Independent Groups That Addressed the Prognostic Value of ABP Article p 2145 Three aspects of available investigations deserve special mention. First, the prognostic value of ABP has been examined not only in subjects with clinical diagnosis of hypertension but also in the general population and in a variety of settings, including diabetes mellitus, renal failure, and cerebrovascular disease. Second, subjects could be untreated or treated at the time of ABP monitoring. This point may raise concerns, because drug treatment could exert unpredictable effects on 24-hour ABP profile and, consequently, interpretation and applicability of results. Third, although a continuous relation emerged in most studies between ABP and cardiovascular risk, several investigators tried to define clinical categories based on arbitrary thresholds of ABP. Although such categories are potentially useful to make diagnostic and therapeutic decisions in clinical practice, their prognostic role requires confirmation from large and independent cohort …

Intracoronary beta-blocker before percutaneous intervention protects myocardium.

Comments on Progress, Medical Care, and the Overuse of Technology

Assessment of Achieved Clinic and Ambulatory Blood Pressure Recordings and Outcomes During Treatment in Hypertensive Patients With CKD: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study

Effect of losartan on ambulatory short-term blood pressure variability and cardiovascular remodeling in hypertensive patients on hemodialysis

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is strongly associated with hypertension (HTN) and each can cause or aggravate the other. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is a superior prognostic marker compared with office BP and has successfully identified hypertensive CKD patients at increased risk. ABPM provides information on circadian BP variation and short-term BP variability, which is associated with cardiovascular and renal outcomes. This review examines the role of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in management of hypertension in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing regular hemodialysis. Aims and objectives: To study the role of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in management of hypertension in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing regular hemodialysis and to study the correlation between intradialytic blood pressure with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Methods: This was an observational study of CKD patients undergoing hemodialysis with Hemodialysis vintage more than 1 month who performed ABPM in tertiary care unit. Data collected from clinical record and ABPM records. Results: A total of 100 hypertensive CKD patients were reviewed. The correlation between intradialytic blood pressure with ambulatory blood pressure was found to be statistically significant. Pre-HD SBP correlated with 24 hour mean SBP, active period SBP and passive period SBP. Conclusion: There was a statistically significant correlation between intradialytic blood pressure and ambulatory blood pressure. Interdialytic weight gain and cholesterol are modifiable risk factors. Pre-HD SBP and 24 hour mean SBP were independent risk factor for IDH. Patients with higher BP have higher BP burden (intradialytic and interdialytic) and may require aggressive control of BP.

The aims of pharmacological management of patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) are to reduce angina symptoms and exercise-induced ischaemia, and to prevent cardiovascular events.1 Optimal treatment can be defined as the treatment that satisfactorily controls symptoms and prevents cardiac events associated with CCS, with maximal patient adherence and minimal adverse events. As stated in the 2019 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline on CCS,1 there is no universal definition of an optimal pharmacological treatment in patients with CCS, and drug therapies must be adapted to each patient's characteristics and preferences. Initial drug therapy usually consists of one or two antianginal drugs, as necessary, plus drugs for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Whether combination therapy with two antianginal drugs is superior to monotherapy with any class of antianginal drug in reducing clinical events remains still unclear. The post hoc analysis of the J-CONFIRM registry [Long-Term Outcomes of Japanese...

Although fixed-dose combination drug therapy is commonly used to treat hypertension, the efficacy of head-to-head comparisons of dual fixed-dose combinations has not been well described. We hypothesized that when used in combination with an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) olmesartan medoxomil, hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) will be as effective as the dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (CCB) amlodipine to lower both clinic and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (BP). Furthermore, we hypothesized that response to ARB along with HCTZ or ARB along with CCB may be heterogeneous depending on clinical characteristics. An individual-level meta-analysis was performed among 559 individuals treated with dual combination therapy in five trials. A forced titration scheme was used in each of these trials and blood BP was measured both in the clinic and outside using 24-h ambulatory BP monitors. The mean age was 62 years, 55% were men, 46% had diabetes mellitus, 17% were black, clinic BP averaged 159.5/89.5 mmHg and 24-h ambulatory BP 145.0/82.5 mmHg. Overall, baseline-adjusted lowering of mean 24-h ambulatory BP was 22.0/11.7 mmHg. BP reductions were similar between ARB along with HCTZ and ARB along with CCB groups. However, clinic BP was lowered 4.3/1.8 mmHg more with ARB along with CCB combination (28.4/13.0 mmHg drop) than with ARB along with HCTZ combination (24.1/11.2 mmHg drop). The white coat effect (WCE) was therefore mitigated 3.8/1.7 mmHg more with ARB along with CCB combination. Heterogeneity in ambulatory BP response was noted. Compared with men, women had a greater ambulatory and clinic BP lowering with either combination. ARB along with HCTZ produced a greater BP-lowering effect among men, elderly, nonobese and nondiabetic. On the contrary, ARB along with CCB produced a greater BP-lowering effect among women, young, obese and diabetic individuals. This heterogeneity in response was often undetectable with clinic BP measurements. In multivariable analysis, sex and diabetes mellitus remained independent measures of heterogeneity. Overall, the combination of olmesartan and HCTZ is as effective as olmesartan and CCB in lowering 24-h, daytime, and night-time ambulatory BP. However, greater lowering is noted with the olmesartan and CCB combination for clinic BP. Thus, out-of-office BP monitoring is necessary to provide better assessment of overall BP and response to treatment. Women and diabetic individuals may have slightly better 24-h ambulatory BP response with the olmesartan and CCB combination therapy.

The aim of this study was to compare the 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) profile in never-treated black hypertensive patients living in Africa, Mozambique (20-80 years), versus never-treated white hypertensive patients living in Europe. ABP recordings of untreated black hypertensive patients and white hypertensive patients with 24-h ABP of 130/80 mmHg or more were retrospectively selected from two computerized database records of ABP and matched for age by decades, sex, and BMI. Black hypertensive patients were n=548, 47 ± 12 years, 52% women, BMI=28.0 ± 8.2 kg/m(2), 7% smokers, 7% diabetics; white hypertensive patients were n=604, 47 ± 15 years, 52% women, BMI=27.4 ± 5.1 kg/m(2), 8.4% diabetics, and 18% smokers (P<0.02). Black hypertensive patients versus white hypertensive patients showed higher casual blood pressure (BP) 160/104 ± 19/14 versus 149/97 ± 18/12 mmHg, 24-h ABP 146/92 ± 16/13 versus 139/85 ± 11/10 mmHg, daytime ABP 150/95 ± 16/13 versus 143/88 ± 13/11 mmHg, night-time BP 139/84 ± 17/13 versus 130/78 ± 13/10 mmHg (all P<0.001) and lower night-time BP fall 8.3 ± 6.9 versus 10.1 ± 8.7% (P<0.02) and higher BP variability. Differences were still significant in all decades above 30 years of age and when calculations were carried out separately for both men and women. The average 24-h heart rate did not differ between groups. Our data suggest that untreated black hypertensive patients systematically present higher clinic and ABP values and a lower night-time BP fall than untreated white hypertensive patients for all spectra of age distribution. This might be the reason for the worse cardiovascular prognosis described in black hypertensive patients compared with white hypertensive patients.

Актуальность. Сочетанное течение первичной артериальной гипертензии (АГ) и абдоминального ожирения (АО) характеризуется рефрактерностью к антигипертензивной терапии и значительным повышением сердечно-сосудистого риска. Перспективным подходом к терапии данных больных является раннее применение фиксированных комбинаций антигипертензивных препаратов первой линии. Цель работы состояла в исследовании эффективности фиксированной комбинации периндоприла, индапамида и амлодипина в сравнении с нефиксированной комбинацией указанных препаратов у больных с АГ в сочетании с АО. Материалы и методы. Обследованы 75 больных с АГ II–III степени в сочетании с АО І–ІІ степени (45 мужчин и 30 женщин) в возрасте от 48 до 66 лет. Все больные были разделены на две подгруппы в зависимости от вида антигипертензивной терапии. Первая подгруппа больных (26 пациентов) получала нефиксированную комбинацию периндоприла, индапамида и амлодипина. Вторая подгруппа (29 больных) получала фиксированную комбинацию указанных препаратов. Обследование проводили до начала лечения и через 3, 6 и 9 месяцев. В качестве гиполипидемического препарата все больные получали аторвастатин в суточной дозе 20 мг. Указанная терапия проводилась на фоне рекомендаций по коррекции образа жизни. Результаты. Установлено, что частота достижения целевых уровней артериального давления (АД) у больных, которые получали фиксированную комбинацию препаратов, через 9 месяцев лечения была достоверно выше, чем у больных, которые получали нефиксированную комбинацию. По данным суточного мониторирования АД, фиксированная комбинация назначенных препаратов значительно лучше нормализовала такие параметры, как среднесуточное и среднедневное диастолическое АД (ДАД), средненочное систолическое АД (САД) и ДАД, а также степень ночного снижения и среднесуточную вариабельность САД и ДАД. Апробированная трехкомпонентная фиксированная комбинация давала возможность достичь целевых уровней АД на более низких дозах примененных компонентов, чем нефиксированная комбинация. Выводы. Фиксированная комбинация периндоприла, индапамида и амлодипина в сравнении с нефиксированной у больных АГ в сочетании с АО проявляет достоверно большую антигипертензивную эффективность по данным как офисного измерения АД, так и суточного мониторирования АД на фоне большей приверженности больных к лечению. Для достижения целевых уровней АД у больных АГ в сочетании с АО требуются более низкие дозы компонентов фиксированной комбинации, чем нефиксированной.

There is strong association between chronic kidney disease (CKD) and increased prevalence of hypertension, risk of end-organ damage, and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Non-dipping, as determined by ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring (ABPM), is frequent in CKD and has also been consistently associated with increased CVD risk. The reported prevalence of non-dipping in CKD is highly variable, probably due to relatively small sample sizes, reliance only on a single, low-reproducibility, 24-h ABPM evaluation per participant, and definition of daytime and nighttime periods by arbitrary fixed clock-hour spans. Accordingly, we assessed the circadian BP pattern of patients with and without CKD by 48-h ABPM to increase reproducibility of the results. This cross-sectional study involved 10 271 hypertensive patients (5506 men/4765 women), 58.0 ± 14.2 (mean ± SD) yrs of age, enrolled in the Hygia Project. Among the participants, 3227 (1925 men/1302 women) had CKD. At the time of recruitment, 568/2234 patients with/without CKD were untreated for hypertension. Patients with than without CKD were more likely to be men and of older age, have diagnoses of obstructive sleep apnea, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and/or obesity, plus have higher glucose, creatinine, uric acid, and triglyceride, but lower cholesterol, concentrations. In patients with CKD, ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) was significantly elevated (p < .001), mainly during the hours of nighttime sleep, independent of presence/absence of BP-lowering treatment. In patients without CKD, ambulatory diastolic BP (DBP), however, was significantly higher (p < .001), mainly during the daytime. Differing trends for SBP and DBP between groups resulted in large differences in ambulatory pulse pressure (PP), it being significantly greater (p < .001) for the entire 24 h in patients with CKD. Prevalence of non-dipping was significantly higher in patients with than without CKD (60.6% vs. 43.2%; p < .001). The largest difference between groups was in the prevalence of the riser BP pattern, i.e., asleep SBP mean > awake SBP mean (17.6% vs. 7.1% in patients with and without CKD, respectively; p < .001). The riser BP pattern significantly and progressively increased from 8.1% among those with stage 1 CKD to a very high 34.9% of those with stage 5 CKD. Elevated asleep SBP mean was the major basis for the diagnosis of hypertension and/or inadequate BP control among patients with CKD; thus, among the uncontrolled hypertensive patients with CKD, 90.7% had nocturnal hypertension. Our findings document significantly elevated prevalence of a blunted nocturnal BP decline in hypertensive patients with CKD. Most important, prevalence of the riser BP pattern, associated with highest CVD risk among all possible BP patterns, was 2.5-fold more prevalent in CKD, and up to 5-fold more prevalent in end-stage renal disease. Patients with CKD also presented significantly elevated ambulatory PP, reflecting increased arterial stiffness and enhanced CVD risk. Collectively, these findings indicate that CKD should be included among the clinical conditions for which ABPM is mandatory for proper diagnosis and CVD risk assessment, as well as a means to establish the best therapeutic scheme to increase CVD event-free survival. (Author correspondence: rhermida@uvigo.es)

Objective: International societies recommend out of office blood pressure (BP) measurement to confirm and follow hypertension (HT). In France Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is usually used only by cardiologists or hypertensive specialists. However a majority of hypertensive patients are seen by general practitioners GP’s. The objective of our study was to evaluate ABPM interest in GP’s daily practice. Design and method: This is a retrospective, monocentric, observational study including all consecutive patients undergoing ABPM in a GP’s surgery in Grenoble. The study groups were divided in three depending on ABPM indications: - Screening of normal clinical blood pressure patients with high cardiovascular risk factors (SNBPP) - Diagnosis in unknown hypertensive patients with elevated clinical BP (DHBPP) Follow up of known treated hypertensive patients (HPP). Results: 422 subjects ABPM were analysed. ABPM changed 43% patient BP status. - Among SNBPP (35 subjects) 49% presented masked HT. - Among DHBPP (158 subjects) 41% presented white coat HT. Systolic and diastolic office BP were significantly higher in confirmed hypertensive patients (p = 0.01 and &lt; 10–4 respectively). - Among HPP (229 subjects) 16% presented controlled BP, 33% presented white coat HTN, 11% masked HTN, 40% uncontrolled HT. Number and type of medications were not statistically correlated with BP control. Dipping profil: 40.4% of patients were dippers, 40.2% were non dippers, 9.9% were reverse dippers, and 9.4% extreme dippers. Dipping variations were statistically different over the 3 groups (p &lt; 10–4). Conclusions: ABPM is a great tool for GP’s to characterise accurately BP profil, and improve follow up and monitoring of patients.

Background: A number of studies reveal that home blood pressure variability is associated with cardiovascular risk factors. However, we do not have a consensus regarding the variability index and the frequency of measurements. Objective: The aim of the study was to assess home blood pressure variability for a period of 7 consecutive days and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure variability using the average real variability index and to test whether home blood pressure variability represents a suitable parameter for long-term monitoring of the hypertensive patients. Material and methods: A number of 31 hypertensive patients were included in the study, 8 male, 23 female, mean age 60.19±7.35 years. At the inclusion ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was performed, home blood pressure monitoring was carried out for 7 consecutive days with 2 measurements daily. We compared ambulatory blood pressure values, variability using paired t-test. We were looking for correlations between HBP values and cardiovascular risk factors. Results: Ambulatory versus home blood pressure derived mean blood pressure was 131.38±15.2 versus 131.93±8.25, p=0.81. Ambulatory derived variability was 10.65±2.05 versus home variability 10.56±4.83, p=0.91. Home versus ambulatory pulse pressure was 51.8± 9.06 mmHg vs. 54.9±11.9 mmHg, p=0.046. We found positive correlation between HBPV and home BP values, p=0.027, r2=0.1577, (CI: 0.04967 to 0.6588). Home, as well as ambulatory derived variability were positively correlated to age p=0.043, r2=0.1377 (CI: 0.01234 to 0.6451) versus p&lt;0.0001, CI: 0.3870 to 0.8220, r2=0.4302. Conclusion: Assessment of home blood pressure monitoring and variability could represent a well-tolerated alternative for long-term follow-up of hypertension management.

Between 20% and 30% of patients with clinically diagnosed hypertension have normal blood pressure (BP) values during automated ambulatory 24-hour BP monitoring. It has not been clear, however, whether these patients can be regarded as normotensive or whether they should be treated in the same way as confirmed hypertensive patients. Ambulatory BP monitoring was performed in 88 normal control subjects and 171 hypertensive patients (office diastolic BP > or = 90 mm Hg on three visits; never treated or off treatment for more than 6 months). Hypertensive patients were classified as nonconfirmed or white coat (n = 58) if their 24-hour diastolic averages were < 85 mm Hg and at least 15 mm Hg lower than their office values. For comparisons, white coat patients were pair-matched with normal subjects by 24-hour diastolic averages and sex, and by similar age and weight; there were 40 such pairs. White coat patients were likewise pair-matched with confirmed hypertensive patients by identical office BPs (51 pairs). Participants were studied by individualized treadmill testing, Doppler echocardiography, and assays of resting plasma catecholamines, upright plasma renin and aldosterone, and lipid, glucose, and insulin concentrations. Because of the matching, compared with normal subjects, patients with white coat hypertension and normal subjects had identical 24-hour BP averages. The white coat patients exhibited slightly greater variability among individual readings (obtained each 15 minutes) throughout the day [P < .05]), but there were no differences in hemodynamic responses to exercise. Plasma norepinephrine (P < .05), renin and aldosterone (P < .01 for each), and insulin and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (P < .01 for each) were higher in the white coat group, as were left ventricular septal wall (P < .05) and muscle mass (P = .07) echocardiographic measurements. When compared with the confirmed hypertensive patients, the white coat patients had higher renin (P < .01) but were otherwise similar. Within the white coat group, plasma norepinephrine correlated with total cholesterol and triglycerides (P < .05 for each), and aldosterone correlated with left ventricular mass (P < .01); there were no significant correlations within the normal control subject or confirmed hypertension groups. Patients with white coat hypertension differ in metabolic, neuroendocrine, and cardiac findings from normal control subjects and have greater BP variability. These changes appear to be mediated by heightened activity of the sympathetic and renin-angiotensin systems. Although these characteristics could reflect an alerting reaction in the clinic due to awareness of their diagnosis, the white coat hypertensive patients also have evidence for additional, more-sustained differences from normal subjects. Thus, this condition appears to be a true variant of hypertension.