This study validated a hybrid mercury-free device as a replacement of the mercury sphygmomanometer for professional use, and also as a standard for future validations. A validation study was performed according to the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol 2010 (ESH-IP) in 33 subjects using simultaneous blood pressure (BP) measurements. A total of six BP measurements were taken per participant simultaneously by a supervisor (S; hybrid auscultatory device Nissei DM3000) and two observers (A and B; mercury sphygmomanometers). ESH-IP analysis (99 BP readings): mean device-observer systolic/diastolic BP difference 0.2±2.0/0.1±2.0 mm Hg; systolic BP differences ≤5/10/15 mm Hg in 97/99/99 readings, respectively (diastolic 98/99/99). All 33 subjects had 2 of 3 BP differences ≤5 mm Hg and none without a difference ≤5 mm Hg. Further analysis (198 BP readings): mean differences S-A 0.1±2.4/0.2±2.4 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic), S-B 0.3±2.1/0.2±2.2, A-B 0.2±2.4/0.0±2.3; differences ≤2 mm Hg S-A in 88/84% (systolic/diastolic), S-B 87/85%, A-B 87/86% and ≤4 mm Hg S-A 95/96%, S-B 95/96%, A-B 95/98%. In conclusion, a hybrid mercury-free auscultatory BP monitor comfortably passed the ESH-IP 2010 requirements and has the same level of accuracy as the mercury sphygmomanometer. This device appears to be a reliable alternative to the mercury sphygmomanometer for professional use and also as a standard for future validations.

The ankle-brachial index (ABI) is a method used widely for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) diagnosis and cardiovascular risk prediction. This study validated automated ABI measurements taken using an oscillometric blood pressure (BP) monitor allowing simultaneous arm-leg BP measurements. A total of 93 patients (hypertension 83%; dyslipidemia 72%; diabetes 45%; cardiovascular disease 23%; smoking 15%) were submitted to Doppler and automated ABI measurements, performed using a professional oscillometric BP monitor (Microlife WatchBP Office; triplicate simultaneous arm-leg BP measurements), in a randomized order. The mean difference between the Doppler reading (1.08 ± 0.17) and (1) the first oscillometric ABI reading was 0.03 ± 0.11, (2) the average of two oscillometric readings was 0.02 ± 0.10 and (3) the average of three oscillometric readings was 0.02 ± 0.09 (P < 0.01 for all). Strong correlations were found between oscillometric and Doppler ABI (r 0.80, 0.85 and 0.86 for single and average of two and three oscillometric readings, respectively; P < 0.001 for all). Agreement between oscillometric and Doppler ABI in diagnosing PAD (Doppler ABI < 0.9) was found in 95% of cases (κ 0.79; agreement in diabetics: 94%, κ 0.79). A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve revealed area under the curve at 0.98, with a 0.97 oscillometric ABI cutoff for optimal sensitivity (92%) and specificity (92%) in diagnosing PAD. Average time for automated ABI measurement was 5.8 vs. 9.3 min for Doppler (P < 0.001). Doppler and oscillometric ABI were associated and predicted (multivariate regression analysis) by the same cardiovascular risk factors (pulse pressure, smoking and cardiovascular disease history). Automated ABI measurement using a professional BP monitor allowing simultaneous arm-leg BP measurements appears to be a reliable and faster alternative to Doppler measurement.

The objective of this study was to compare home blood pressure (HBP) vs. ambulatory (ABP) and clinic (CBP) measurements in terms of their association with target-organ damage in children and adolescents. A total of 81 children and adolescents (mean age 13 ± 3 years, 53 boys) referred for elevated CBP had measurements of CBP (1 visit), HBP (6 days) and ABP (24-h). Seventy-six participants were also assessed with carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) and 54 with echocardiography. Average CBP was 122.1 ± 15.1/71 ± 12.9 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic), HBP 121.3 ± 11.5/69.4 ± 6.6 mm Hg and 24-h ABP 118.9 ± 12/66.6 ± 6.1 mm Hg. Left ventricular mass (LVM) was correlated with systolic blood pressure (BP) (coefficient r = 0.55/0.54/0.45 for 24-h/daytime/nighttime ABP, 0.53 for HBP and 0.41 for CBP; all P< 0.01). No significant correlations were found for diastolic BP. PWV was also significantly correlated with systolic BP (r = 0.52/0.50/0.48 for 24-h/daytime/nighttime ABP, 0.50 for HBP and 0.47 for CBP; all P < 0.01). Only diastolic ABP and HBP were significantly correlated with PWV (r = 0.30 and 0.28, respectively, P<0.05). In multivariate stepwise regression analysis (with age, gender, body mass index [BMI], clinic, home and 24-h ambulatory systolic/diastolic BP and pulse pressure, clinic, home and 24-h heart rate as independent variables), PWV was best predicted by systolic HBP (R(2) = 0.22, beta ± s.e. = 0.06 ± 0.01), whereas LVM was determined (R(2) = 0.67) by 24-h pulse pressure (beta = 1.21 ± 0.41), age (beta = 2.93 ± 1.32), 24-h heart rate (beta = -1.27 ± 0.41) and BMI (beta = 1.78 ± 0.70). These data suggest that, in children and adolescents, ABP as well as HBP measurements appear to be superior to the conventional CBP measurements in predicting the presence of subclinical end-organ damage.

At present, clinic blood pressure (BP) evaluation is being increasingly complemented by ambulatory BP measurements for the evaluation of haemodynamic patterns during daily activities and sleep. Nondipping pattern, a measure of decreased attenuation of nighttime over daytime BP, has been correlated with enhanced target organ damage and adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in different clinical settings beyond pure hypertensive cohorts. As the nondipping pattern is a derivative extract of both daytime and nighttime BP, it is yet questionable whether the crude estimate of nocturnal BP is superior to daytime BP and nondipping pattern in the prediction of subclinical damage and CV events. In this review, we aimed at comparing the CV predictive value of the nondipping pattern with that of nocturnal BP using cross-sectional and longitudinal data obtained from different cohort studies within the past 10 years. Our findings suggest that nocturnal BP including the phenotype of isolated nocturnal hypertension is better associated with CV target organ damage and 'hard end points' as compared with the nondipping pattern.

Oscillometric devices are being widely used for ambulatory, home and office blood pressure (BP) measurement, and several of them have been validated using established protocols. This cross-sectional study assessed the impact on antihypertensive treatment decisions of replacing the mercury sphygmomanometer by a validated oscillometric device. Consecutive subjects attending a hypertension clinic had triplicate simultaneous same-arm BP measurements using a mercury sphygmomanometer and a validated professional oscillometric device. For each device, uncontrolled hypertension was defined as average BP ≥140/90 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic). A total of 5108 simultaneous BP measurements were obtained from 763 subjects in 1717 clinic visits. In 24% of all visits, the mercury and the oscillometric BP measurements led to different conclusion regarding the diagnosis of uncontrolled hypertension. In 4.9% of the visits, the diagnostic disagreement was considered as 'clinically important' (BP exceeding the diagnostic threshold by >5 mm Hg). These data suggest that the replacement of the mercury sphygmomanometer by a validated professional oscillometric device will result into different treatment decisions in about 5% of the cases. Therefore, and because of the known problems when using mercury devices and the auscultatory technique in clinical practise, the oscillometric devices are regarded as reliable alternatives to the mercury sphygmomanometer for office use.

There is an increasing interest in pediatric hypertension, the prevalence of which is rising in parallel with the obesity epidemic. Traditionally the assessment of hypertension in children has relied on office blood pressure (BP) measurements by the physician. However, as in adults, office BP might be misleading in children mainly due to the white coat and masked hypertension phenomena. Thus, out-of-office BP assessment, using ambulatory or home monitoring, has gained ground for the accurate diagnosis of hypertension and decision-making. Ambulatory monitoring is regarded as indispensable for the evaluation of pediatric hypertension. Preliminary data support the usefulness of home monitoring, yet more evidence is needed. Office, ambulatory and home BP normalcy tables providing thresholds for diagnosis have been published and should be used for the assessment of elevated BP in children.

Arterial stiffness, assessed by carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) or indirectly by pulse pressure (PP) or ambulatory arterial stiffness index (AASI), is an independent predictor of cardiovascular disease in adults. However, in children limited evidence is available. This study investigated the usefulness of AASI and PP as indices of arterial stiffness in children and adolescents, by taking PWV as the reference method. Eighty-two children and adolescents (mean age 13.1±2.9 years) had 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring, PWV measurement and echocardiography. Compared with normotensives, subjects with hypertension (n=16) had higher 24-h ABP, 24-h PP and PWV, but not AASI. 24-h, PP was strongly correlated with age, weight, height, 24-h systolic ABP, PWV, left ventricular mass (LVM), LVM index, stroke volume and inversely with 24-h heart rate. AASI was also correlated with weight, height, systolic ABP and LVM, yet these associations were weaker than those of PP, and no significant correlations were found with PWV or LVM index. Moreover, closer agreement of PWV was observed with 24-h PP (71%, kappa 0.21) than with 24-h AASI (61%, kappa -0.06) in detecting subjects at the top quartile of the respective distributions. In children and adolescents, 24-h PP compared with AASI appears to be more closely associated with: (i) arterial stiffness assessed by PWV; (ii) target organ damage assessed by LVM index; and (iii) the presence of essential hypertension. These data suggest that the usefulness of AASI as an index of arterial stiffness in the pediatric population is questionable.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most common cause of death in industrialized nations. Type 2 diabetes is a CVD risk factor that confers risk similar to a previous myocardial infarction in an individual who does not have diabetes. In addition, the most common cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is diabetes. Together, diabetes and hypertension account for more than two-thirds of CVD risk, and other risk factors such as dyslipidemia contribute to the remainder of CVD risk. CKD, particularly with presence of significant albuminuria, should be considered an additional cardiovascular risk factor. There is no consensus on how to assess and stratify risk for patients with kidney disease across subspecialties that commonly treat such patients. This paper summarizes the results of a consensus conference utilizing a patient case to discuss the integrated management of hypertension, kidney disease, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and heart failure across disciplines.

Cost-containment measures in healthcare provision include the implementation of therapeutic and generic drug substitution strategies in patients whose condition is already well controlled with pharmacotherapy. Treatment for hypertension is frequently targeted for such measures. However, drug acquisition costs are only part of the cost-effectiveness equation, and a variety of other factors need to be taken into account when assessing the impact of switching antihypertensives. From the clinical perspective, considerations include maintenance of an appropriate medication dose during the switching process; drug equivalence in terms of clinical effectiveness; and safety issues, including the diverse adverse-event profiles of available alternative drugs, differences in the 'inactive' components of drug formulations and the quality of generic formulations. Patients' adherence to and persistence with therapy may be negatively influenced by switching, which will also impact on treatment effectiveness. From the economic perspective, the costs that are likely to be incurred by switching antihypertensives include those for additional clinic visits and laboratory tests, and for hospitalization if required to address problems arising from adverse events or poorly controlled hypertension. Indirect costs and the impact on patients' quality of life also require assessment. Substitution strategies for antihypertensives have not been tested in large outcome trials and there is little available clinical or economic evidence on which to base decisions to switch drugs. Although the cost of treatment should always be considered, careful assessment of the human and economic costs and benefits of antihypertensive drug substitution is required before this practice is recommended.