| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Hypertension. 2006;48:e9.)
© 2006 American Heart Association, Inc.
Letters to the Editor |
Istituto di Clinica Medica, Dipartimento di Medicina Clinica, Prevenzione e Biotecnologie Sanitarie, Universit
Milano-Bicocca, Ospedale San Gerardo, Milan, Italy, and, Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Milan, Italy, and, Centro Interuniversitario di Fisiologia Clinica e Ipertensione, Universit
di Milano, Milan-Bicocca, Italy
Istituto di Clinica Medica, Dipartimento di Medicina Clinica, Prevenzione e Biotecnologie Sanitarie, Universit
Milano-Bicocca, Ospedale San Gerardo, Milan, Italy
Istituto di Clinica Medica, Dipartimento di Medicina Clinica, Prevenzione e Biotecnologie Sanitarie, Universit
Milano-Bicocca, Ospedale San Gerardo, Milan, Italy, and, Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Milan, Italy, and, Centro Interuniversitario di Fisiologia Clinica e Ipertensione, Universit
di Milano, Milan-Bicocca, Italy
Istituto di Clinica Medica, Dipartimento di Medicina Clinica, Prevenzione e Biotecnologie Sanitarie, Universit
Milano-Bicocca, Ospedale San Gerardo, Milan, Italy
We thank Dr Ben-Dov for considering our data important for understanding the true nature of white-coat and masked hypertension and for agreeing with our conclusion that physicians should be alerted of any blood pressure increase, no matter where and how it is measured.1 We wish to point out, however, that we have by no means ignored the explanation he favors in his letter, that is, that the increased risk of white-coat and masked hypertension may be because of the fact that, as shown in Tables 1 to 3 of our article,2 when one blood pressure is elevated, the others, although in the normal range, are somewhat higher than those of truly normotensive individuals. We have indeed devoted to this explanation (often overlooked in previous studies) a large part of our discussion. Dr Ben-Dov is correct that the statistical significance of a trend may be affected by the extreme group, that is, the one with combined blood pressure elevation, and that the increased risk of white-coat and masked hypertension was in several instances not statistically significant, presumably because of the limited number of fatal events that we could count on in our population. Yet, the progressive increase in risk was nearly always obvious, and elevation in 1 or 2 blood pressures carried a significant increase in risk. Finally, Dr Ben-Dovs suggestion to adjust data for "in-office" and "out-of-office" blood pressure is a possibility, and we have indeed shown in a previous article3 that this did not cancel the increased prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy associated with white-coat and masked hypertension. We have grown more critical, however, of excessive use of "adjusting procedures" when dealing with complex and mechanistically interrelated clinical data, because they by no means guarantee that the role of individual factors is clarified and its contribution to a given phenomenon identified.
| Acknowledgments |
|---|
None.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hypertension Home | Subscriptions | Archives | Feedback | Authors | Help | AHA Journals Home | Search Copyright © 2006 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited. |