Advertisement

Methods of Blood Pressure Assessment Used in Milestone Hypertension Trials

  • Yi Chen
  • Lei Lei
  • Ji-Guang Wang
Chapter

Abstract

Accurate blood pressure measurement is critical for the diagnosis and management of hypertension. In the present narrative review, we summarized the blood pressure measurement protocols used in contemporary milestone hypertension trials. In all these trials, clinic blood pressure was used for the diagnosis and therapeutic monitoring of hypertension. The methodological details regarding the observers, devices, number of blood pressure measurements and the time interval between consecutive readings varied considerably between trials. Other aspects, such as the body position and resting time, differed much less across these trials. Details regarding arm side and cuff were infrequently noted. The timing of blood pressure measurement was rarely acknowledged explicitly. Automated office blood pressure measurement has been recently used in clinical trials, and seems to have less white-coat effect. In spite of apparent advantages of the out-of-office blood pressure measurement, either ambulatory or home blood pressure monitoring, it was only used in a subset of study participants of few trials in hypertension, and its superiority over office blood pressure in guiding antihypertensive therapy has not yet been proven by randomized controlled trials. Future randomized clinical trials should consider the use of these novel office or out-of-office blood pressure measurements in the guidance of antihypertensive therapy and prevention of cardiovascular events.

Keywords

Blood pressure Assessment Methods Clinical trials Hypertension 

References

  1. 1.
    Pickering TG, Hall JE, Appel LJ, Falkner BE, Graves J, Hill MN, et al. Recommendations for blood pressure measurement in humans and experimental animals: part 1: blood pressure measurement in humans: a statement for professionals from the Subcommittee of Professional and Public Education of the American Heart Association Council on High Blood Pressure Research. Circulation. 2005;111:697–716.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    O’Brien E, Asmar R, Beilin L, Imai Y, Mancia G, Mengden T, et al. Practice guidelines of the European Society of Hypertension for clinic, ambulatory and self blood pressure measurement. J Hypertens. 2005;23:697–701.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    O’Brien E, Asmar R, Beilin L, Imai Y, Mallion JM, Mancia G, et al. European Society of Hypertension recommendations for conventional, ambulatory and home blood pressure measurement. J Hypertens. 2003;21:821–48.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    The Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP) Cooperative Research Group. Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. Final results of the SHEP. JAMA. 1991;265:3255–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    The Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP) Cooperative Research Group. Rationale and design of a randomized clinical trial on prevention of stroke in isolated systolic hypertension. J Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41:1197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Labarthe DR, Blaufox MD, Smith WM, Lacy CR, Schnaper H, LaBaw F, et al. Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). Part 5: baseline blood pressure and pulse rate measurements. Hypertension. 1991;17(3 Suppl):II62–76.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dahlof B, Lindholm LH, Hansson L, Schersten B, Ekbom T, Wester PO. Morbidity and mortality in the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension (STOP-Hypertension). Lancet. 1991;338:1281–5.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dahlöf B, Hansson L, Lindholm L, Råstam L, Scherstén B, Wester PO. STOP-Hypertension: Swedish trial in old patients with hypertension. J Hypertens. 1986;4:511–3.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dahlöf B, Hansson L, Lindholm L, Schersten B, Wester PO. STOP-Hypertension-preliminary communication from the pilot study of the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension. J Hypertens. 1987;5(Suppl. 5):S607–10.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hansson L, Dahlöf B, Ekbom T, Lindholm L, Scherstén B, Wester PO. Key learnings from the STOP-Hypertension study: an update on the progress of the ongoing Swedish study of antihypertensive treatment in the elderly. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 1991;4(Suppl 6):1253–5.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    MRC Working Party. Medical Research Council trial of treatment of hypertension in older adults: principal results. BMJ. 1992;304:405–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Neaton JD, Grimm RH Jr, Prineas RJ, Stamler J, Grandits GA, Elmer PJ, et al. Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study Research Group. Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study. Final results. JAMA. 1993;270:713–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Treatment of Mild Hypertension Research Group. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of a nutritional-hygienic regimen along with various drug monotherapies. Arch Intern Med. 1991;151:1413–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Staessen JA, Fagard R, Thijs L, Celis H, Arabidze GG, Birkenhäger WH, et al. The Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial Investigators. Randomised double-blind comparison of placebo and active treatment for older patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Lancet. 1997;350:757–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Amery A, Birkenhäger W, Bulpitt CJ, Clément D, De Leeuw P, Dollery CT, et al. Syst-Eur: a multicentre trial on the treatment of isolated systolic hypertension in the elderly: objectives, protocol, and organization. Aging Clin Exp Res. 1991;3:287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Slovick DI, Amery A, Birkenhager W, Bulpitt CJ, Cox J, de Leeuw P, et al. SYST-EUR multicentre trial on the treatment of isolated systolic hypertension in the elderly: first interim report. J Hum Hypertens. 1993;7:201–3.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Staessen J, Bert P, Bulpitt C, De Cort P, Fagard R, Fletcher A, et al. Nitrendipine in older patients with isolated systolic hypertension: second progress report on the SYST-EUR trial. J Hum Hypertens. 1993;7:265–71.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liu L, Wang JG, Gong L, Liu G, Staessen JA. Systolic Hypertension in China (Syst-China) Collaborative Group. Comparison of active treatment and placebo in older Chinese patients with isolated systolic hypertension. J Hypertens. 1998;16:1823–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang JG, Liu G, Wang X, Zhang S, Sun M, Pan X, et al. Long-term blood pressure control in older Chinese patients with isolated systolic hypertension: a progress report on the Syst-China trial. J Hum Hypertens. 1996;10:735–42.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hansson L, Zanchetti A, Carruthers SG, Dahlof B, Elmfeldt D, Julius S, et al. Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial. HOT Study Group. Lancet. 1998;351:1755–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kjeldsen SE, Hedner T, Jamerson K, Julius S, Haley WE, Zabalgoitia M, et al. Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) study home blood pressure in treated hypertensive subjects. Hypertension. 1998;31:1014–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mancia G, Omboni S, Parati G, Clement DL, Haley WE, Rahman SN, et al. Twenty-four hour ambulatory blood pressure in the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) study. J Hypertens. 2001;19:1755–63.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    National Intervention Cooperative Study in Elderly Hypertensives Study Group. Randomized double-blind comparison of a calcium antagonist and a diuretic in elderly hypertensives. Hypertension. 1999;34:1129–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hansson L, Lindholm LH, Niskanen L, Lanke J, Hedner T, Niklason A, et al. Effect of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition compared with conventional therapy on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Captopril Prevention Project (CAPPP) randomised trial. Lancet. 1999;353:611–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hansson L, Hedner T, Lund-Johansen P, Kjeldsen SE, Lindholm LH, Syvertsen JO, et al. Randomised trial of effects of calcium antagonists compared with diuretics and beta-blockers on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Nordic Diltiazem (NORDIL) study. Lancet. 2000;356:359–65.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lund-Johansen P, Omvik P. Effect of long-term diltiazem treatment on central haemodynamics and exercise endurance in essential hypertension. Eur Heart J. 1990;11:543–51.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brown MJ, Palmer CR, Castaigne A, de Leeuw PW, Mancia G, Rosenthal T, et al. Morbidity and mortality in patients randomised to double-blind treatment with a long-acting calcium-channel blocker or diuretic in the International Nifedipine GITS study: Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension Treatment (INSIGHT). Lancet. 2000;356:366–72.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mancia G, Omboni S, Parati G. Investigators of the INSIGHT ABPM substudy. Twenty-four hour ambulatory blood pressure in the International Nifedipine GITS study Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension Treatment (INSIGHT). J Hypertens. 2002;20:545–53.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    PROGRESS Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of a perindopril-based blood-pressure-lowering regimen among 6,105 individuals with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack. Lancet. 2001;358:1033–41.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    PROGRESS Management Committee. Blood pressure lowering for the secondary prevention of stroke: rationale and design for PROGRESS. J Hypertens Suppl. 1996;14:S41–5; discussion S45–6Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    PROGRESS Management Committee. PROGRESS – perindopril protection against recurrent stroke study: characteristics of the study population at baseline. J Hypertens. 1999;17:1647–55.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Arima H, Anderson C, Omae T, Woodward M, Hata J, Murakami Y, et al. Effects of blood pressure lowering on major vascular events among patients with isolated diastolic hypertension: the perindopril protection against recurrent stroke study (PROGRESS) trial. Stroke. 2011;42:2339–41.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Clarke WR, Berl T, Pohl MA, Lewis JB, Collaborative Study et al. Group. Renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:851–60.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Berl T, Hunsicker LG, Lewis JB, Pfeffer MA, Porush JG, Rouleau JL, et al. Cardiovascular outcomes in the Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial of patients with type 2 diabetes and overt nephropathy. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:542–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rodby RA, Rohde RD, Clarke WR, Hunsicker LG, Anzalone DA, Atkins RC, et al. For the Collaborative Study Group. The Irbesartan type II diabetic nephropathy trial: study design and baseline patient characteristics. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2000;15:487–97.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Svensson P, de Faire U, Sleight P, Yusuf S, Ostergren J. Comparative effects of Ramipril on ambulatory and office blood pressures a HOPE substudy. Hypertension. 2001;38:e28–32.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yusuf S, Sleight P, Pogue J, Bosch J, Davies R, Dagenais G. Effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:145–53.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dahlof B, Devereux RB, Kjeldsen SE, Julius S, Beevers G, de Faire U, et al. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomized trial against atenolol. Lancet. 2002;359:995–1003.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dahlöf B, Devereux RB, de Faire U, Fyhrquist F, Hedner T, Ibsen H, et al. The Losartan Intervention for Endpoint reduction (LIFE) in hypertension study: rationale, design, and methods. Am J Hypertens. 1997;10:705–13.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dahlöf B, Devereux RB, Julius S, Kjeldsen SE, Beevers G, de Faire U, et al. Characteristics of 9,194 patients with left ventricular hypertrophy: the LIFE study. Hypertension. 1998;32:989–97.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kjeldsen SE, Dahlöf B, Devereux RB, Julius S, de Faire U, Fyhrquist F, et al. Lowering of blood pressure and predictors of response in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy: the LIFE study. Am J Hypertens. 2000;13:899–906.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    The ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). JAMA. 2002;288:2981–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Davis BR, Cutler JA, Furberg CD, Wright JT, Farber MA, Felicetta JV, et al. Relationship of antihypertensive treatment regimens and change in blood pressure to risk for heart failure in hypertensive patients randomly assigned to doxazosin or chlorthalidone: further analyses from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering treatment to prevent Heart Attack Trial. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(5 Part 1):313–20.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. Major cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients randomized to doxazosin vs chlorthalidone: the antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment to prevent heart attack trial (ALLHAT). JAMA. 2000;283:1967–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Grimm RH Jr, Margolis KL, Papademetriou V, Cushman WC, Ford CE, Bettencourt J, et al. Baseline characteristics of participants in the Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). Hypertension. 2001;37:19–27.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wing LM, Reid CM, Ryan P, Beilin LJ, Brown MA, Jennings GL, et al. A comparison of outcomes with angiotensin-converting–enzyme inhibitors and diuretics for hypertension in the elderly. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:583–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Management Committee on behalf of the High Blood Pressure Research Council of Australia. Australian comparative outcome trial of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and diuretic based treatment of hypertension in the elderly (ANBP2): objective and protocol. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 1997;24:188–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lithell H, Hansson L, Skoog I, Elmfeldt D, Hofman A, Olofsson B, et al. The Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE): principal results of a randomized double-blind intervention trial. J Hypertens. 2003;21:875–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hansson L, Lithell H, Skoog I, Baro F, Bánki CM, Breteler M, et al. Study on cognition and prognosis in the elderly (SCOPE). Blood Press. 1999;8:177–83.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pepine CJ, Handberg EM, Cooper-DeHoff RM, Marks RG, Kowey P, Messerli FH, et al. Acalcium antagonist vs a non-calcium antagonist hypertension treatment strategy for patients with coronary artery disease. The International Verapamil-Trandolapril Study (INVEST): a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;290:2805–16.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Pepine CJ, Handberg-Thurmond E, Marks RG, Conlon M, Cooper-DeHoff R, Volkers P, et al. Rationale and design of the International Verapamil SR/Trandolapril Study (INVEST): an Internet-based randomized trial in coronary artery disease patients with hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32:1228–37.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wassertheil-Smoller S, Psaty B, Greenland P, Oberman A, Kotchen T, Mouton C, et al. Association between cardiovascular outcomes and antihypertensive drug treatment in older women. JAMA. 2004;292:2849–59.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    WHI Study Group. Design of the Women’s Healthi nitiative clinical trial and observational study. Control Clin Trials. 1988;19:61–109.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Julius S, Kjeldsen SE, Weber M, Brunner HR, Ekman S, Hansson L, et al. Outcomes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine: the VALUE randomised trial. Lancet. 2004;363:2022–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Dahlof B, Sever PS, Poulter NR, Wedel H, Beevers DG, Caulfield M, et al. Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihypertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding bendroflumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA): a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;366:895–906.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sever PS, Dahlöf B, Poulter NR, Wedel H, Beevers G, Caulfield M, et al. Rationale, design, methods and baseline demography of participants of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial. J Hypertens. 2001;19:1139–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Liu L, Zhang Y, Liu G, Li W, Zhang X, Zanchetti A. The Felodipine Event Reduction (FEVER) study: a randomized long-term placebocontrolled trial in Chinese hypertensive patients. J Hypertens. 2005;23:2157–72.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Suzuki H, Kanno Y. Effects of candesartan on cardiovascular outcomes in Japanese hypertensive patients. Hypertens Res. 2005;28:307–14.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    ADVANCE Collaborative Group. Effects of a fixed combination of perindopriland indapamide on macrovascular and microvascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (the ADVANCE trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2007;370:829–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Parving HH, Persson F, Lewis JB, Lewis EJ, Hollenberg NK, AVOID Study Investigators. Aliskiren combined with losartan in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2433–46.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    ONTARGET Investigators. Telmisartan, ramipril, or both in patients at high risk for vascular events. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1547–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Redon J, Mancia G, Sleight P, Schumacher H, Gao P, Pogue J, et al. Safety and efficacy of low blood pressures among patients with diabetes: subgroup analyses from the ONTARGET (ONgoing Telmisartan Alone and in combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:74–83.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Teo K, Yusuf S, Sleight P, Anderson C, Mookadam F, Ramos B, et al. Rationale, design, and baseline characteristics of 2 large, simple, randomized trials evaluating telmisartan, ramipril, and their combination in high-risk patients: the Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial/Telmisartan randomized assessment study in ACE intolerant subjects with cardiovascular disease (ONTARGET/TRANSCEND) trials. Am Heart J. 2004;148:52–61.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Jamerson K, Weber MA, Bakris GL, Dahlof B, Pitt B, Shi V, et al. Benazepril plus amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2417–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Jamerson KA, Bakris GL, Wun CC, Dahlöf B, Lefkowitz M, Manfreda S, et al. Rationale and design of the Avoiding Cardiovascular events through COMbination therapy in Patients LIving with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial: the first randomized controlled trial to compare the clinical outcome effects of first-line combination therapies in hypertension. Am J Hypertens. 2004;17:793–801.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Weber MA, Bakris GL, Dahlöf B, Pitt B, Velazquez E, Gupte J, et al. Baseline characteristics in the Avoiding Cardiovascular events through Combination therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial: a hypertensive population at high cardiovascular risk. Blood Press. 2007;16:13–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    JATOS Study Group. Principal results of the Japanese trial to assess optimal systolic blood pressure in elderly hypertensive patients (JATOS). Hypertens Res. 2008;31:2115–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    JATOS Study Group. The Japanese Trial to Assess Optimal Systolic Blood Pressure in Elderly Hypertensive patients (JATOS): protocol, patient characteristics, and blood pressure during the first 12 months. Hypertens Res. 2005;28:513–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Ogihara T, Nakao K, Fukui T, Fukiyama K, Ueshima K, Oba K, et al. Effects of candesartan compared with amlodipine in hypertensive patients with high cardiovascular risks: candesartan antihypertensive survival evaluation in Japan trial. Hypertension. 2008;51:393–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Kasanuki H, Hagiwara N, Hosoda S, Sumiyoshi T, Honda T, Haze K, et al. Angiotensin II receptor blocker-based vs. non-angiotensin II receptor blocker based therapy in patients with angiographically documented coronary artery disease and hypertension: the Heart Institute of Japan Candesartan Randomized Trial for Evaluation in Coronary Artery Disease (HIJCREATE). Eur Heart J. 2009;30:1203–12.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    The ACCORD Study Group. Effects of intensive blood-pressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1575–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Cushman WC, Grimm RH Jr, Cutler JA, Evans GW, Capes S, Corson MA, et al. Rationale and design for the blood pressure intervention of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99(Suppl 12A):44i–55i.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Matsuzaki M, Ogihara T, Umemoto S, Rakugi H, Matsuoka H, Shimada K, et al. Prevention of cardiovascular events with calcium channel blocker-based combination therapies in patients with hypertension: a randomized controlled trial. J Hypertens. 2011;29:1649–59.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Ogawa H, Kim-Mitsuyama S, Matsui K, Jinnouchi T, Jinnouchi H, Arakawa K. Angiotensin II receptor blocker-based therapy in Japanese elderly, high-risk, hypertensive patients. Am J Med. 2012;125:981–90.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Ogawa H, Kim-Mitsuyama S, Jinnouchi T, Matsui K, Arakawa K. Rationale, design and patient baseline characteristics of OlmeSartan and calcium antagonists randomized (OSCAR) study: a study comparing the incidence of cardiovascular events between high-dose angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) monotherapy and combination therapy of ARB with calcium channel blocker in Japanese elderly high-risk hypertensive patients. Hypertens Res. 2009;32:575–80.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Muramatsu T, Matsushita K, Yamashita K, Kondo T, Maeda K, Shintani S, et al. Comparison between valsartan and amlodipine regarding cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients with glucose intolerance: NAGOYA HEART study. Hypertension. 2012;59:580–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Matsushita K, Muramatsu T, Kondo T, Maeda K, Shintani S, Murohara T, et al. Rationale and design of the NAGOYA HEART study: comparison between valsartan and amlodipine regarding morbidity and mortality in patients with hypertension and glucose intolerance. J Cardiol. 2010;56:111–7.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    SPRINT Research Group, Wright JT Jr, Williamson JD, Whelton PK, Snyder JK, Sink KM, et al. A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2103–16.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Kjeldsen SE, Lund-Johansen P, Nilsson PM, Mancia G. Unattended blood pressure measurements in the systolic blood pressure intervention trial: implications for entry and achieved blood pressure values compared with other trials. Hypertension. 2016;67:808–12.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Drawz PE, Pajewski NM, Bates JT, Bello NA, Cushman WC, Dwyer JP, et al. Effect of intensive versus standard clinic-based hypertension management on ambulatory blood pressure: results from the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) ambulatory blood pressure study. Hypertension. 2017;69:42–50.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Lonn E, Bosch J, Pogue J, Avezum A, Chazova I, Dans A, et al. Novel approaches in primary cardiovascular disease prevention: the HOPE-3 trial rationale, design, and Participants' baseline characteristics. Can J Cardiol. 2016;32:311–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Lonn EM, Bosch J, López-Jaramillo P, Zhu J, Liu L, Pais P, et al. Blood-pressure lowering in intermediate-risk persons without cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:2009–20.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Grim CE, Li J, Grim CM. Poor retention of blood pressure measurement knowledge and practice by medical students (abstract). Am J Hypertens. 1999;12:150A.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Graves JW, Sheps SG. Does evidence-based medicine suggest that physicians should not be measuring blood pressure in the hypertensive patient? Am J Hypertens. 2004;17:354–60.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Myers MG. The great myth of office blood pressure measurement. J Hypertens. 2012;39:1894–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Andreadis EA, Agaliotis GD, Angelopoulos ET, Tsakanikas AP, Chaveles IA, Mousoulis GP. Automated office blood pressure and 2h ambulatory measurements are equally associated with left ventricular mass index. Am J Hypertens. 2011;24:661–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Filipovský J, Seidlerová J, Kratochvíl Z, Karnosová P, Hronová M, Mayer O Jr. Automated compared to manual office blood pressure and to home blood pressure in hypertensive patients. Blood Press. 2016;25:228–34.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Myers MG, Godwin M, Dawes M, Kiss A, Tobe SW, Kaczorowski J. Measurement of blood pressure in the office: recognizing the problem and proposing the solution. Hypertension. 2010;55:195–200.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Mancia G, Fagard R, Narkiewicz K, Redon J, Zanchetti A, Böhm M, et al. 2013 ESH/ESC guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: the task force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2013;34:2159–219.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Stergiou GS, Parati G, Asmar R, O’Brien E. European Society of Hypertension Working Group on blood pressure monitoring. Requirements for professional office blood pressure monitors. J Hypertens. 2012;30:537–42.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Medaval. The standard for medical device evaluation. Blood pressure monitors. www.medaval.org. Assessed 4 Nov 2015.
  92. 92.
    Stergiou GS, Kollias A, Destounis A, Tzamouranis D. Automated blood pressure measurement in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hypertens. 2012;30:2074–82.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Feig PU, Roy S, Cody RJ. Antihypertensive drug development: current challenges and future opportunities. J Am Soc Hypertens. 2010;4:163–73.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Stergiou GS, Parati G, Vlachopoulos C, Achimastos A, Andreadis E, Asmar R, et al. Methodology and technology for peripheral and central blood pressure and blood pressure variability measurement: current status and future directions - Position statement of the European Society of Hypertension Working Group on blood pressure monitoring and cardiovascular variability. J Hypertens. 2016;34:1665–77.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Myers MG, Tobe SW, McKay D, Bolli P, Hemmelgarn BR, McAlister FA. New algorithm for the diagnosis of hypertension. Am J Hypertens. 2005;18:1369–74.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Hypertension, NICE clinical guidelines 127. London, UK: National Clinical Guidelines Centre; 2011.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Myers MG, Kaczorowski J, Paterson JM, Dolovich L, Tu K. Thresholds for diagnosing hypertension based on automated office blood pressure measurements and cardiovascular risk. Hypertension. 2015;66:489–95.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Li Y, Staessen JA, Lu L, Li LH, Wang GL, Wang JG. Is isolated nocturnal hypertension a novel clinical entity? Findings from a Chinese population study. Hypertension. 2007;50:333–9. PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    O’Brien E, Parati G, Stergiou G, Asmar R, Beilin L, Bilo G, et al. European Society of Hypertension position paper on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. J Hypertens. 2013;31:1731–68.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Parati G, Stergiou GS, Asmar R, Bilo G, de Leeuw P, Imai Y, et al. European Society of Hypertension guidelines for blood pressure monitoring at home: a summary report of the second international consensus conference on home blood pressure monitoring. J Hypertens. 2008;26:1505–26.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yi Chen
    • 1
  • Lei Lei
    • 1
  • Ji-Guang Wang
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical TrialsThe Shanghai Institute of Hypertension, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of MedicineShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations