This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Parati, G. Articles by Mancia, G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Parati, G. Articles by Mancia, G. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information High Blood Pressure

(Hypertension. 1998;31:1185-1189.)
© 1998 American Heart Association, Inc.

Scientific Contributions

Difference Between Clinic and Daytime Blood Pressure Is Not a Measure of the White Coat Effect

Gianfranco Parati; Luisa Ulian; Cinzia Santucciu; Stefano Omboni; ; Giuseppe Mancia

From the Cattedra di Medicina Interna, Ospedale S Gerardo, Monza, University of Milano (G.P., G.M.); Istituto Scientifico Ospedale S Luca, Centro Auxologico Italiano, Milano (G.P., L.U., S.O., G.M.); Centro di Fisiologia Clinica e Ipertensione, IRCCS, Ospedale Maggiore and University of Milano (G.P., L.U., C.S., G.M.), Italy.

Correspondence to Dr Gianfranco Parati, Istituto Scientifico Ospedale S Luca, Via Spagnoletto 3, 20149 Milano, Italy. E-mail gparati{at}imiucca.csi.unimi.it

Abstract—The purpose of the present study was to evaluate whether the difference between blood pressure measured in the clinic or physician's office and the average daytime blood pressure accurately reflects the blood pressure response of the patient to the physician ("white coat effect" or "white coat hypertension"). We studied 28 hypertensive outpatients (mean age, 41.8±11.2 years; age range, 21 to 64 years) of 35 consecutive patients attending our hypertension clinic, in whom (1) continuous noninvasive finger blood pressure was recorded before and during the visit, (2) blood pressure was measured according to the Riva-Rocci-Korotkoff method (mercury sphygmomanometer) with the patient in the supine position, and (3) daytime ambulatory blood pressure was monitored with a SpaceLabs 90207 device. The peak blood pressure increase recorded directly during the visit was compared with the difference between clinic and daytime average ambulatory blood pressures. Compared with previsit values, peak increases in finger systolic and diastolic blood pressures during the visit to the clinic were 38.2±3.1 and 20.7±1.6 mm Hg, respectively (mean±SEM, P<.01 for both). Daytime average systolic and diastolic blood pressures were 135.5±2.5 and 89.2±1.9 mm Hg, with both lower than the corresponding clinic blood pressure values (146.6±3.6 and 94.9±2.2 mm Hg, P<.01). These differences, however, were <30% of the peak finger blood pressure increases during the physician's visit, to which these increases showed no relation. Although the visit to the physician's office was associated with tachycardia (9.0±1.6 bpm, P<.01), there was no difference between clinic and daytime average heart rates. These data indicate that the clinic-daytime average blood pressure difference does not reflect the alerting reaction and the pressure response elicited by the physician's visit and thus is not a reliable measure of the white coat effect.

Key Words: blood pressure monitoring, ambulatory • stress • risk factors • hypertension, white coat • blood pressure

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. E. Kjeldsen, T. A. Aksnes, R. H. Fagard, and G. Mancia CHAPTER 13 Hypertension ESC Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine, January 1, 2009; 2(1): med-9780199566990-chapter - med-9780199566990-chapter. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Authors/Task Force Members:, G. Mancia, G. De Backer, A. Dominiczak, R. Cifkova, R. Fagard, G. Germano, G. Grassi, A. M. Heagerty, S. E. Kjeldsen, et al. 2007 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., June 11, 2007; (2007) ehm236v1. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. W. Franks White-Coat Hypertension and Risk of Stroke: Do the Data Really Tell Us What We Need to Know? Hypertension, February 1, 2005; 45(2): 183 - 184. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Verdecchia, F. Angeli, and R. Gattobigio Clinical Usefulness of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., January 1, 2004; 15(90010): S30 - 33. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				W. T Hamilton, D. Sharp, T. Marshall, P. Palatini, M. Brueren, and A. Bissery Comparison of different measures of blood pressure BMJ, December 7, 2002; 325(7376): 1360 - 1360. [Full Text]

				G. Mancia and G. Parati Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring and Organ Damage Hypertension, November 1, 2000; 36(5): 894 - 900. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Mancia White coat effect. Innocuous or adverse phenomenon? Eur. Heart J., October 2, 2000; 21(20): 1647 - 1648. [PDF]

				P. Verdecchia Prognostic Value of Ambulatory Blood Pressure : Current Evidence and Clinical Implications Hypertension, March 1, 2000; 35(3): 844 - 851. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Parati, L. Ulian, L. Sampieri, P. Palatini, A. Villani, A. Vanasia, and G. Mancia Attenuation of the "White-Coat Effect" by Antihypertensive Treatment and Regression of Target Organ Damage Hypertension, February 1, 2000; 35(2): 614 - 620. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Fossum, A. Hoieggen, A. Moan, M. Rostrup, and S. E. Kjeldsen Insulin Sensitivity Is Related to Physical Fitness and Exercise Blood Pressure to Structural Vascular Properties in Young Men Hypertension, March 1, 1999; 33(3): 781 - 786. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]