["White-coat hypertension": variation of normality or of hypertension?].

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies have demonstrated a high prevalence of "white coat" hypertension (20%), but it is still controversial if it implies an increase in cardiovascular risk.

PATIENTS

Between 1992 and 95 we prospectively studied 175 untreated hypertensive patients aged over 18 years (V Joint National Committee's stage I-II), and 91 controls.

DESIGN AND METHODS

The subjects were submitted to clinical evaluation, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, 24-hour Holter monitoring, signal-averaged ECG, echocardiography/Doppler and ergometry. "White coat" hypertension was defined as mean daytime (6.00-22.00 H) ambulatory blood pressure < 136/87 mm Hg (males) and < 131/86 mm Hg (females).

RESULTS

"White coat" hypertension was present in 29 patients (18%). "White coat" hypertension patients had an identical prevalence of smoking, family history of cardiovascular disease, abnormal ECG and retinopathy (> Keith-Wagener II) as patients with daytime hypertension. Ambulatory blood pressure values (24 hour, 6.00-22.00 h, 22.00-6.00 h, sleep, blood pressure load, heart rate) were all significantly different from controls (p < 0.03 to 0.0007). In patients with daytime hypertension, only 24 hour and daytime diastolic ambulatory blood pressure (p < 0.005) were different from "white coat" hypertension patients. Exercise testing blood pressure values (6 min exercise, maximal, 3 min recovery) were significantly different between "white coat" hypertension patients and the control group (n = 70) (p varying from 0.05 to 0.005) but not between "white coat" hypertension and daytime hypertension (n = 33) patients. Diastolic function was studied only in 39 daytime hypertension patients, 10 individuals with "white coat" hypertension and 34 controls (for technical reasons and because we only analyzed individuals younger than 55 years). E velocity and E/A ratio were similar in "white coat" hypertension and daytime hypertension, but only in daytime hypertension patients they reached a significant difference from controls (p = 0.04; p = 0.01), probably due to the small number of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

These data (clinical, ambulatory blood pressure, ergometric, diastolic function) suggest that "white coat" hypertension might not be a benign entity.