Skip to main content
  • American Heart Association
  • Science Volunteer
  • Warning Signs
  • Advanced Search
  • Donate

  • Home
  • About this Journal
    • General Statistics
    • Editorial Board
    • Editors
    • Information for Advertisers
    • Author Reprints
    • Commercial Reprints
    • Customer Service and Ordering Information
  • All Issues
  • Subjects
    • All Subjects
    • Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research
    • Critical Care and Resuscitation
    • Epidemiology, Lifestyle, and Prevention
    • Genetics
    • Heart Failure and Cardiac Disease
    • Hypertension
    • Imaging and Diagnostic Testing
    • Intervention, Surgery, Transplantation
    • Quality and Outcomes
    • Stroke
    • Vascular Disease
  • Browse Features
    • AHA Guidelines and Statements
    • Acknowledgment of Reviewers
    • Clinical Implications
    • Clinical-Pathological Conferences
    • Controversies in Hypertension
    • Editors' Picks
    • Guidelines Debate
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Recent Advances in Hypertension
    • SPRINT Trial: the Conversation Continues
  • Resources
    • Instructions to Reviewers
    • Instructions for Authors
    • →Article Types
    • → Submission Guidelines
      • Research Guidelines
        • Minimum Information About Microarray Data Experiments (MIAME)
      • Abstract
      • Acknowledgments
      • Clinical Implications (Only by invitation)
      • Conflict(s) of Interest/Disclosure(s) Statement
      • Figure Legends
      • Figures
      • Novelty and Significance: 1) What Is New, 2) What Is Relevant?
      • References
      • Sources of Funding
      • Tables
      • Text
      • Title Page
      • Online/Data Supplement
    • →Tips for Easier Manuscript Submission
    • → General Instructions for Revised Manuscripts
      • Change of Authorship Form
    • → Costs to Authors
    • → Open Access, Repositories, & Author Rights Q&A
    • Permissions to Reprint Figures and Tables
    • Journal Policies
    • Scientific Councils
    • AHA Journals RSS Feeds
    • International Users
    • AHA Newsroom
  • AHA Journals
    • AHA Journals Home
    • Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology (ATVB)
    • Circulation
    • → Circ: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • → Circ: Genomic and Precision Medicine
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Imaging
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Interventions
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Quality & Outcomes
    • → Circ: Heart Failure
    • Circulation Research
    • Hypertension
    • Stroke
    • Journal of the American Heart Association
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

  • My alerts
  • Sign In
  • Join

  • Advanced search

Header Publisher Menu

  • American Heart Association
  • Science Volunteer
  • Warning Signs
  • Advanced Search
  • Donate

Hypertension

  • My alerts
  • Sign In
  • Join

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Home
  • About this Journal
    • General Statistics
    • Editorial Board
    • Editors
    • Information for Advertisers
    • Author Reprints
    • Commercial Reprints
    • Customer Service and Ordering Information
  • All Issues
  • Subjects
    • All Subjects
    • Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research
    • Critical Care and Resuscitation
    • Epidemiology, Lifestyle, and Prevention
    • Genetics
    • Heart Failure and Cardiac Disease
    • Hypertension
    • Imaging and Diagnostic Testing
    • Intervention, Surgery, Transplantation
    • Quality and Outcomes
    • Stroke
    • Vascular Disease
  • Browse Features
    • AHA Guidelines and Statements
    • Acknowledgment of Reviewers
    • Clinical Implications
    • Clinical-Pathological Conferences
    • Controversies in Hypertension
    • Editors' Picks
    • Guidelines Debate
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Recent Advances in Hypertension
    • SPRINT Trial: the Conversation Continues
  • Resources
    • Instructions to Reviewers
    • Instructions for Authors
    • →Article Types
    • → Submission Guidelines
    • →Tips for Easier Manuscript Submission
    • → General Instructions for Revised Manuscripts
    • → Costs to Authors
    • → Open Access, Repositories, & Author Rights Q&A
    • Permissions to Reprint Figures and Tables
    • Journal Policies
    • Scientific Councils
    • AHA Journals RSS Feeds
    • International Users
    • AHA Newsroom
  • AHA Journals
    • AHA Journals Home
    • Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology (ATVB)
    • Circulation
    • → Circ: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • → Circ: Genomic and Precision Medicine
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Imaging
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Interventions
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Quality & Outcomes
    • → Circ: Heart Failure
    • Circulation Research
    • Hypertension
    • Stroke
    • Journal of the American Heart Association
Brief Review

Unusual Hypertensive Phenotypes

What Is Their Significance?

Stanley S. Franklin, Ian B. Wilkinson, Carmel M. McEniery
Download PDF
https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.111.182956
Hypertension. 2012;59:173-178
Originally published January 18, 2012
Stanley S. Franklin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ian B. Wilkinson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carmel M. McEniery
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters

Jump to

  • Article
    • Introduction
    • Disclosures
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
Loading

Introduction

According to Webster,1 the terms “spurious,” “artifactual,” or “pseudo” denote false or deceptive resemblance. These terms when used specifically to hypertension refer to something that does not correspond with reality—a false perception; implicit in this definition is normalcy or a benign prognosis. Before discussion of the pros and cons of spurious, artifactual, or pseudohypertension, one should dispose of faulty technique (systematic error, terminal digit preference, or observer bias) in measuring blood pressure (BP), including cuff-inflation hypertension and failure to use the proper size cuff in obese arms as causes of erroneously high BP values. In this review, we limit our focus to the use of the terms “spurious,” “artifactual,” or “pseudohypertension” in relation to 3 unusual hypertensive phenotypes: (1) spurious isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) in late teenagers to young adults, defined as systolic BP (SBP) ≥140 mm Hg and diastolic BP (DBP) <90 mm Hg; (2) artifactual or benign isolated diastolic hypertension (IDH) in young to early middle-aged adults defined as a SBP <140 mm Hg and DBP ≥90 mm Hg; and (3) pseudohypertension in the elderly, presenting rarely with noncompressible artery syndrome and, more commonly, an elevated diastolic brachial artery pressure assessed indirectly with a cuff and sphygmomanometer, in the context of a “normal” intra-arterial pressure assessed invasively.

The purpose of this review is to present evidence for and against with regard to the validity of these 3 forms of unusual hypertensive phenotypes.

ISH in Late Teenagers to Young Adults

Although ISH is usually associated with the elderly, ISH is also the majority hypertensive subtype in adolescents2 and young adults.3 The phenomenon of spurious systolic hypertension in young individuals was first described by O'Rourke et al4 in 6 young males, aged 14 to 23 years. The investigators noted elevated brachial SBP (150–176 mm Hg) but normal brachial DBP (55–85 mm Hg), and all of these young subjects were relatively tall for their age. Using pulse wave analysis with the SphygmoCor system, a technique for measuring radial arterial waveforms and deriving central (aortic) pressure, they found a sharper-than-usual systolic peak and a normal mean arterial pressure and concluded that this was spurious (or pseudo-) hypertension secondary to exaggerated amplification of a normal central BP.

Mahmud and Feely5 identified ISH in 11 of 174 consecutively studied medical students (equally divided by sex), whose brachial BP averaged 147/70 mm Hg. All 11 of the subjects with ISH were tall men, nonsmokers, and active in sports. Using the SphygmoCor system, the difference between central and brachial SBPs was 31 mm Hg in those with ISH versus only 20 mm Hg in those with normotension. Following O'Rourke et al,4 they attributed this hypertension subtype to spurious systolic hypertension secondary to exaggerated pressure amplification in healthy, athletically active men with slow heart rates and highly elastic central arteries. Pickering,6 in reviewing the data on ISH in the young, concluded that this was probably a benign condition and perhaps in association with some degree of “athlete's heart.”

More recent investigations dispute the view that ISH in young subjects is benign. McEniery et al3 studied 1008 young adult university students (mean age: 20 years) in the Evaluation of Nitrous Oxide in the Gas Mixture for Anaesthesia Study. In keeping with previous investigations, they found that ISH in young adults had ≈90% male predominance. However, in the Evaluation of Nitrous Oxide in the Gas Mixture for Anaesthesia Study, ISH was associated with normal pulse pressure amplification but elevated brachial and central SBP, measured using the SphygmoCor technique. Hulsen et al,7 studying a population-based Utrecht cohort of 750 young adults also with the SphygmoCor technique, found 57 young men with ISH (versus only 3 women) who had higher brachial and central SBP and DBP than in their normotensive counterparts.

A key question in interpreting the findings of these studies is, what should be considered a normal central pressure? Pulse pressure widens moving from central to peripheral arteries because of a rise in systolic pressure. This so-called pressure amplification is attributed mainly to differences in vessel stiffness and wave reflections within the arterial tree and is present in all but the very oldest individuals. Because of this disparity between brachial and central pressure, applying brachial BP thresholds to define normal values of central pressure is inappropriate and misleading. Indeed, McEniery et al,8 found that, for a healthy cohort of 4000 individuals, the brachial pulse pressure was, on average, 1.7-fold higher than aortic pressure in 20- to 30-year–old men (95% CI=1.35 to 2.05). Using a brachial systolic pressure of <120 mm Hg as a reference, this would translate to a corresponding central SBP of ≈105±8 mm Hg for men and ≈101±9 mm Hg for women with a 95% CI of <110 mm Hg. In contrast, the mean central SBPs for subjects with ISH in the 4 studies mentioned above were 119,4 116,5 120,3 and 117 mm Hg,7 respectively. Moreover, the corresponding values in the normotensive controls in 3 of these studies were 100,5 98,3 and 105 mm Hg,7 in keeping with the observations described above. Therefore, there is clear evidence that central SBP is elevated along with brachial SBP in young subjects with ISH (Figure 1), suggesting that these individuals may be at significantly increased cardiovascular risk.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Comparison between central systolic blood pressure (BP; SBP) associated with “optimal” brachial BP (SBP <120 and diastolic BP [DBP] <80 mm Hg) and central SBP reported in published investigations of isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) in adolescents and young adults.

McEniery et al3 also observed that aortic stiffness and/or stroke volume was elevated in these young individuals, providing plausible physiological mechanisms underlying the observed elevations in central pressure. Moreover, based on work by Lund-Johannson9 and Julius et al,10 an increased stroke volume associated with systolic hypertension in youth is highly likely to transform into sustained hypertension in the future, suggesting that these individuals are in the very early stages of developing “fixed” hypertension. Thus, the preponderance of evidence is strongly against the existence of spurious hypertension in young persons with significant ISH. Nevertheless, future longitudinal studies will be necessary to determine causative pathways in the development, evolution, and ultimate prognosis of ISH in adolescents and very young adults.

Artifactual/Benign Isolated Diastolic Hypertension in Young Adults

The concept of artifactual or benign isolated diastolic hypertension arose from previous observations that individuals presenting with raised diastolic pressure and a narrow pulse pressure (by definition, isolated diastolic hypertension) had auscultatory BP measurements that overestimated the true, intra-arterial DBP.11 In support of these observations, Fang et al12 analyzed 1560 participants in a worksite hypertension control program and concluded that the relative risk of myocardial infarction was greater in those with systolic/diastolic hypertension than in those with IDH defined as SBP <160 and DBP ≥90 mm Hg (5.20 versus 2.21 per 1000 person-years, respectively). When IDH was defined as SBP <140 mm Hg, there were no myocardial infarctions recorded. However, the study was underpowered, with only 25 myocardial infarctions during a 4.5-year follow-up. However, subsequently, there have been 4 additional longitudinal outcome studies, which have largely concluded that IDH is benign and of minimal clinical importance. The Honolulu Heart Program13 and the Copenhagen City Heart Study14 defined IDH as SBP <160 and DBP ≥90 mm Hg, which would include stage 1 IDH in the current classification. The Japanese Ohasama Study15 used home BP monitoring, defining IDH as SBP <137 and DBP ≥84 mm Hg and with an 8.6 year follow-up, obtained a nonsignificant hazard ratio of 1.2 (95% CI: 0.16–8.96) for total cardiovascular disease events. All 3 of these studies were largely in middle-aged subjects. In contrast, in the Finnish Male Cohort Study,16 3267 initially healthy individuals were evaluated at ages 30 to 45 years and followed for up to 32 years. IDH subjects were subdivided into SBP <160 mm Hg and SBP <140 mm Hg. When SBP was <140 mm Hg, the hazard ratio was a nonsignificant 1.11 compared with the reference of 1.00 for normotensives. However, normotension was defined as SBP <160 and DBP <90 mm Hg, which would include subjects with stage 1 ISH, and, therefore, may have unfairly reduced the risk in the IDH group. Pickering17 reviewed all of the above studies and concluded that IDH, as currently defined, is either a measurement artifact or a benign state.

However, a number of lines of evidence suggest that IDH is likely to be associated with increased cardiovascular risk. The Framingham Heart Study showed that new-onset IDH developed primarily from normal and high-normal BP during a 10-year follow up.18 Furthermore, 82.5% of participants with baseline IDH developed systolic/diastolic hypertension during the ensuing 10 years of follow-up, suggesting that IDH was a frequent precursor for systolic/diastolic hypertension and, therefore, potentially not a benign condition.18 Further compelling evidence comes from a large meta-analysis of BP values from >1 million middle-aged and older individuals (all aged >40 years) demonstrating a continuous, positive relationship between DBP and vascular and all-cause mortality.19 Interestingly, the authors could not detect any threshold for risk down to DBP values of 75 mm Hg. Recently, these observations were extended in a large cohort study of Swedish men in whom baseline examinations were undertaken at a mean age of 18 years, with 24 years of follow-up.20 The authors noted a continuous and steep relationship between values of DBP >90 mm Hg and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, which was stronger than for SBP. In support of these observations, the Framingham Heart Study21 showed that DBP was a better predictor of future coronary heart disease events than SBP in adults <50 years of age; the reverse was true after 50 years of age.21 Finally, the Chinese Stroke Prevention Project,22 a community-based cohort study in 5 large cities across China, has provided a definitive answer to the importance of hypertension in general and IDH in particular in predisposing to stroke risk. A total of 26 587 subjects without a history of stroke were recruited in 1987 and were followed for a mean duration of 9.5 years, during which time 1107 stroke events occurred. Stroke etiology was determined as follows: 55.5% ischemic, 40.7% hemorrhagic, and 3.8% unclassified. A major finding of this study was that the IDH subtype (defined as SBP <140 mm Hg and DBP ≥90 mm Hg) was not an uncommon cause of stroke in the Chinese population. Furthermore, IDH (hazard ratio: 2.35 [95% CI: 1.91–2.90]) and ISH (hazard ratio: 2.16 [95% CI: 1.69–2.76]) had similar predictive values for stroke incidence. Thus, we now have definitive evidence in an Asian population that the IDH subtype is an important predictor of cardiovascular disease risk and should be treated vigorously. These findings are supported by ambulatory BP monitoring (ABM) findings that show pulse pressure is the dominant predictor of cardiac events; in contrast, mean BP is the major predictor of stroke risk.23 The failure of the previous IDH outcome studies to predict risk may have resulted from insufficient statistical power as a result of the following: (1) a small sample size; (2) poor precision of BP measurements; (3) a low IDH relative risk for future cardiovascular disease events; and (4) the manner in which the data were analyzed statistically. In conclusion, the preponderance of evidence now strongly excludes IDH as an artifactual or benign form of hypertension.

Pseudohypertension in the Elderly

This is most commonly used to describe an elevated brachial artery pressure assessed indirectly with a cuff and sphygmomanometer, in the context of a normal intra-arterial pressure assessed invasively. The underlying pathophysiology is often cited as stiffening of the brachial artery, which is much more common in elderly subjects, hence the term pseudohypertension in the elderly.

In an extreme form, there may be true incompressibility of the brachial artery because of calcification. Ectopic calcification (also known as Monckeberg sclerosis) can specifically affect the muscular arteries of both the upper and lower extremities; rare involvement of the upper extremity results in a mechanical problem whereby BP cannot be measured by sphygmomanometry because of severely calcified brachial arterial walls rendering them noncompressible.24 Much more commonly, medial artery calcification involves the lower extremity arteries and is manifest by a decreased (<0.9) or incompressible increased ankle brachial index of ≥1.4.25 Importantly, incompressible arteries, whether the rare form in the upper extremities or the more common form in the lower extremities, are frequently associated with chronic renal disease, with or without diabetes mellitus, and, hence, with increased cardiovascular disease risk.24–28 However, curiously, individuals with ectopic medial calcification of the muscular arteries of the lower extremities with elevated ankle brachial indices (markedly elevated ankle and minimally elevated brachial pressure) do not have the traditional risk factors associated with atherosclerosis; indeed, their age-adjusted prevalence of hypertension is generally no greater than persons with normal or low ankle brachial index values.25–28 Thus, the incompressible artery syndrome is not a true representation of pseudohypertension.

Perhaps more common is the situation of compressible but stiffened arteries, which was thought to lead to an overestimation of diastolic pressure by sphygmomanometer in comparison with true intra-arterial pressure.29,30 To fully appreciate how this became a clinical entity, one must understand its historical context. This entity was defined by the simultaneous measurement of brachial cuff and direct intra-arterial measurement in the 1970s and 1980s at a time when hypertension was classified almost exclusively by elevation in DBP; SBP was considered significantly elevated only with values of ≥160 mm Hg.31,32 Furthermore, observational studies had not yet proven that SBP was a more important cardiovascular risk factor than DBP in the older-aged population, with risk beginning at SBP values >115 mm Hg.19 Therefore, pseudohypertension was defined as a diastolic cuff pressure >100 mm Hg and with an intra-arterial pressure <90 mm Hg.30 This entity was thought to occur as often as 4% to 7% in elderly individuals who presented with hypertension.30 It was often considered to have a benign prognosis but was never tested for cardiovascular risk in a population study.29,30 Although, described by Spence et al31,32 as diastolic pseudohypertension in subjects suspected of having pseudohypertension, with DBP frequently increased by as high as 20 mm Hg above normal values, intra-arterial SBP measurements were consistently elevated (frequently as high as stage 2 or 3 hypertension). These observations regarding diastolic pseudohypertension have been largely confirmed. As summarized by Smulyan and Safar,33 the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation34 in 1993 evaluated 5 studies that compared cuff auscultatory brachial artery with the gold standard intra-arterial brachial BP; for SBP (Figure 2A), intra-arterial was 3 to 4 mm Hg higher than cuff auscultatory, whereas for DBP (Figure 2B), cuff auscultatory was ≈10 mm Hg higher than intra-arterial readings, thus confirming diastolic pseudohypertension and ruling out systolic pseudohypertension.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

A and B, References used by Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation33 to validate cuff auscultatory vs intra-arterial systolic blood pressure (A) and diastolic blood pressure (B) measurements. Plotted values indicate average differences for each reference. Horizontal lines with brackets indicate the SD of differences (when available). Despite large standard deviations, these findings show a small decrease in auscultatory brachial systolic blood pressure as compared with simultaneous intra- arterial readings. In contrast, there was an ≈10 mm Hg false elevation in auscultatory brachial diastolic blood pressure as compared with simultaneous intra-arterial readings. Adapted with permission from Smulyan and Safar.33

Interestingly, Messerli et al35 popularized the presence of pseudohypertension in older subjects by indicating that they could be identified on the basis of palpable thickening of the radial artery (Osler positive sign). Messerli et al35 identified 13 persons with palpable radial arteries and falsely elevated DBP by 16.4 and falsely elevated SBP by 15.8 mm Hg as compared with intra-arterial measurements; however, with correction, the mean intra-arterial BP was 181/78 mm Hg, indicating that these individuals actually had ISH. Subsequent studies have shown that the Osler sign is not a useful diagnostic test because of low sensitivity and selectivity.29

Therefore, the available evidence suggests that most individuals who have been labeled with the term pseudohypertension in the elderly actually have ISH, which is well accepted as a risk factor for cardiovascular events. The term pseudohypertension is, therefore, misleading in this context and ignores the considerable excess risk associated with ISH in older individuals. Moreover, stiffening of the brachial artery rarely occurs in isolation, and we now appreciate that aortic stiffening, which characterizes ISH in the elderly,36 is an independent predictor of cardiovascular events.37,38 Therefore, assessment of pulse wave velocity, the current gold standard measure of arterial stiffness,39 may be a better diagnostic test in these individuals. Furthermore, medial artery calcification of the elastic aorta and its branches may play an important role in the development of ISH in older persons. In this regard, quantitative high-resolution CT imaging has disclosed medial vascular calcification in the ascending, descending, and abdominal aortas in patients with ISH who are otherwise apparently healthy.40 Interestingly, the quantity of aortic calcification correlated with both the severity of ISH and with the resistance to achieving adequate control with antihypertensive therapy.40 Similar associations of calcification of thoracic aorta and ISH were noted in a study that evaluated large arteries for calcium content during routine health maintenance screening.41 Thus, it appears that vascular calcification, out of proportion to the normal aging process, may play an important role in the development of ISH.

During the past decade, validated devices for 24-hour ABM using the oscillometric method have become the gold standard for assessing and classifying hypertensive cardiovascular risk because of excellent correlation with target organ damage and with morbidity and mortality outcomes.42 Importantly, the use of ABM has identified the new hypertensive phenotypes of white-coat hypertension and white-coat effect,42 both of which are very common in the elderly and can simulate pseudohypertension. Indeed, white-coat hypertension is more likely to be observed in individuals with increased large artery stiffness, because the influence of the “alerting” or white-coat response on the measured BP is likely to be greater in individuals with stiffened arteries and a concomitant reduction in arterial buffering capacity. ABM is the ideal method of diagnosing both white-coat hypertension and white-coat effect, but other options are available that are less expensive and more easily repeatable for the additional assessment of the response to treatment, including home BP monitoring.42

Despite these new developments in assessing hypertensive cardiovascular risk, the concept of pseudohypertension in the elderly has been perpetuated in textbooks, journals,43 and even in a recent consensus statement for hypertension in the elderly,44 suggesting that it should be suspected if measured SBP values are inappropriately high in the absence of target organ damage or if antihypertensive drugs provoke symptoms of hypotension despite the persistence of elevated SBP; in retrospect, these clinical states should raise the likely possibility of white-coat hypertension, white-coat effect in the absence of target organ damage, and occasionally of treatment-induced or worsening of orthostatic hypotension, all masquerading as pseudohypertension. Furthermore, central aortic BP assessment of cardiovascular risk should also be dissociated from pseudohypertension. Indeed, central aortic pressure measurement may not only be superior to brachial BP45 but may also be comparable to ABM in predicting cardiovascular risk.46 However, until we have more definitive morbidity/mortality studies, ABM monitoring remains the gold standard for assessment of hypertensive cardiovascular risk.47

In summary, the term “pseudohypertension” in the elderly is misleading; it suggests a benign condition secondary to a false elevation in oscillometric or auscultatory DBP as compared with intra-arterial DBP, whereas, when white-coat hypertension and white-coat effect without target organ damage are ruled out, the finding of ISH with widened pulse pressure is associated with considerable cardiovascular risk. Thus, what has been perceived as false elevation in brachial BP, as compared with intra-arterial pressure, is the result of discrepancies in office/clinic BP versus home/ambulatory measurements. Indeed, “the emperor has no clothes” is an appropriate metaphor for the diagnosis of pseudohypertension in the elderly: there have been few if any further scientific reports of pseudohypertension in the elderly during the past 2 decades despite the continued inclusion of this entity as a hypertension phenotype in the medical literature. The myth lives on. Is it not time to give it a proper burial?

Perspectives

All 3 of the hypertensive phenotypic syndromes described in this review show mild-to-severe cardiovascular risk, and, therefore, cannot be described as having a benign cardiovascular prognosis. In young individuals, spurious systolic hypertension is actually associated with increased central and brachial SBP, rather than exaggerated central-to-peripheral BP amplification. Similarly, so-called artifactual isolated diastolic hypertension in young individuals is typically associated with additional cardiovascular risk factors and often precedes the development of systolic/diastolic hypertension in later life. In older individuals, the noncompressibility artery syndrome, predominately involving the lower extremities, is associated with severe medial calcification of muscular arteries, frequently an elevated ankle-brachial index, and typically no significant increase in age-adjusted BP. In contrast, diastolic pseudohypertension, representing wide pulse pressure ISH, is associated with calcification of the aorta and is accompanied by significantly increased cardiovascular risk. Indeed, using ABM as the new gold standard for assessing cardiovascular risk in the elderly, we conclude that white-coat hypertension and white-coat effect, in the absence of target organ damage, have been masquerading as pseudohypertension. In summary, there are no legitimate elevated BP phenotypes that should be labeled as spurious, artifactual, or as pseudohypertension.

Disclosures

None.

  • Received September 12, 2011.
  • Revision received October 16, 2011.
  • Accepted November 22, 2011.
  • © 2012 American Heart Association, Inc.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Mish FC
    Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Mish FC ed. Merriam-Webster: Springfield, MA; 1986.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Sorof JM
    . Systolic hypertension in children: benign or beware? Pediatric Nephrol. 2000;16:517–525.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. McEniery CM,
    2. Yasmin,
    3. Wallace S,
    4. Make-Petaja K,
    5. McDonnell B,
    6. Sharman JE,
    7. Retallick C,
    8. Franklin SS,
    9. Brown MJ,
    10. Lloyd RC,
    11. Cockcroft JR,
    12. Wilkinson IB
    . Increased stroke volume and aortic stiffness contribute to isolated systolic hypertension in young adults. Hypertension. 2005;46:221–226.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. O'Rourke MF,
    2. Vlachopoulos C,
    3. Graham RM
    . Spurious systolic hypertension in youth. Vasc Med. 2000;5:141–145.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Mahmud A,
    2. Feely J
    . Spurious systolic hypertension of youth: fit young men with elastic arteries Am J Hypertens. 2003;16:229–232.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Pickering TG
    . Isolated systolic hypertension in the young. J Clin Hypertens. 2004;6:47–48.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. 7.↵
    1. Hulsen HT,
    2. Nijdam ME,
    3. Bos WJ,
    4. Uiterwaal CS,
    5. Oren A,
    6. Grobbee DE,
    7. Bots M
    . Spurious systolic hypertension in young adults; prevalence of high brachial systolic blood pressure and low central pressure and its determinants. J Hypertens. 2006;24:1027–1032.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. McEniery CM,
    2. Wilkinson IB,
    3. Cockcroft JR
    . systolic hypertension in young adults: spurious definition or a genuine condition. J Hypertens. 2006;24:2316–2317.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Lund-Johansen P
    . State of the art review: haemodynamics in essential hypertension. Clin Sci. 1980;59:343s–355s.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Julius S,
    2. Krause L,
    3. Schork NJ,
    4. Mejia AD,
    5. Jones KA,
    6. van de Ven C,
    7. Johnson EH,
    8. Sekkarie MA,
    9. Kjeldsen SA,
    10. Petrin J
    . Hyperkinetic borderline hypertension in Tecumseh, Michigan. J Hypertens. 1991;9:77–84.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Blank SG,
    2. Mann SJ,
    3. James GD,
    4. West JE,
    5. Pickering TG
    . Isolated elevation of diastolic blood pressure: real or artifactual? Hypertension. 1995;26:383–389.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Fang J,
    2. Madhavan S,
    3. Cohen H,
    4. Alderman MH
    . Isolated diastolic hypertension: a favorable finding among young and middle-aged hypertensive subjects. Hypertension. 1995;26:377–382.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Petrovitch H,
    2. Curb JD,
    3. Bloom-Marcus E
    . Isolated systolic hypertension and risk of stroke in Japanese-American Men. Stroke. 1995;26:25–29.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Nielsen WB,
    2. Lindenstrom E,
    3. Vestbo J,
    4. Jensen GB
    . Is diastolic hypertension an independent risk factor for stroke in the presence of normal systolic blood pressure in the middle-aged and elderly? Am J Hypertens. 1997;10:634–639.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Hozawa A,
    2. Ohkubo T,
    3. Nagai K,
    4. Kikuya M,
    5. Matsubara M,
    6. Tsuji I,
    7. Ito S,
    8. Satoh H,
    9. Hisamichi S,
    10. Imai Y
    . Prognosis of isolated systolic and isolated diastolic hypertension as assessed by self-measurement of blood pressure at home: the Ohasama Study. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:3301–3306.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Strandberg TE,
    2. Salomaa VV,
    3. Vanhanen HT,
    4. Pitkala K,
    5. Miettinen TA
    . Isolated diastolic hypertension, pulse pressure, and mean arterial pressure as predictors of mortality during a follow-up of up to 32 years. J Hypertens. 2002;20:399–404.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Pickering TG
    . Isolated diastolic hypertension. J Clin Hypertens. 2003;5:411–413.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    1. Franklin SS,
    2. Pio JR,
    3. Wong ND,
    4. Larson MG,
    5. Leip EP,
    6. Vasan RS,
    7. Levy D
    . Predictors of new-onset diastolic and systolic hypertension: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 2005;111:1121–1127.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    Prospective Studies Collaboration. Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a met-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies. Lancet. 2002;360:1903–1913.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Sundstrom J,
    2. Neovius M,
    3. Tynelius P,
    4. Rasmussen F
    . Association of blood pressure in late adolescence with subsequent mortality: cohort study of Swedish male conscripts. BMJ. 2011;342:1–11.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    1. Franklin SS,
    2. Larson MG,
    3. Khan SA,
    4. Wong ND,
    5. Leip EP,
    6. Kannel WB,
    7. Levy D
    . Does the relation of blood pressure to coronary heart disease risk change with aging? The Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 2001;103:1245–1249.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Fang XH,
    2. Zhang XH,
    3. Yang QD,
    4. Dai XY,
    5. Su FZ,
    6. Rao ML,
    7. Wu SP,
    8. Du XL,
    9. Wang WZ,
    10. Li SC
    . Subtype hypertension and risk of stroke in middle-aged and older Chinese: a 10-year follow-up study. Stroke. 2006;37:38–43.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Verdecchia P,
    2. Schillaci G,
    3. Reboldi G,
    4. Franklin SS,
    5. Porcellati C
    . Different prognostic impact of 24-hour mean blood pressure and pulse pressure on stroke and coronary artery disease in essential hypertension. Circulation. 2001;103:2579–2584.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Taguchi JT,
    2. Suwangool P
    . Pipe-Stem brachial arteries: a new cause of pseudohypertension. JAMA. 1974;228:773.
  25. 25.↵
    1. Sutton-Tyrrell K,
    2. Venkitachalam L,
    3. Kanaya AM,
    4. Boudreau R,
    5. Harris T,
    6. Thompson T,
    7. Mackey RH,
    8. Visser M,
    9. Vaidean GD,
    10. Newmn AB
    . Relationship of ankle blood pressures to cardiovascular events in older adults. Stroke. 2008;39:863–869.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Allison MA,
    2. Hiatt WR,
    3. Hirsch AT,
    4. Coll JR,
    5. Criqui MD
    . A high ankle-brachial index is associated with increased cardiovascular disease morbidity and lower quality of life. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51:1292–1298.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Ix JH,
    2. Katz R,
    3. De Boer IH,
    4. Kestenbaum BR,
    5. Allison MA,
    6. Siscovidk DS,
    7. Newman AB,
    8. Sarnak MJ,
    9. Shlipak MG,
    10. Criqui MH
    . Association of chronic kidney disease with the spectrum of ankle brachial index. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:1176–1184.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Criqui MH,
    2. McClelland RL,
    3. McDermott MM,
    4. Allison MA,
    5. Blumenthal RS,
    6. Aboyans V,
    7. Ix JH,
    8. burke GL,
    9. Liu K,
    10. Shea S
    . The ankle-brachial index and incident cardiovascular events in the MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:1506–1512.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Zweifler AJ,
    2. Shahab ST
    . Pseudohypertension: a new assessment. J Hypertens. 1993;11:1–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Spence JD
    . Pseudo-hyperension in the elderly: still hazy, after all these years. J Hum Hypertens. 1997;11:621–623.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Spence JD,
    2. Sibbald WJ,
    3. Cape RD
    . Pseudohypertension in the elderly. Clin Sci Mol Med. 1978;55:399s–402s.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    1. Spence JD,
    2. Sibbald WJ,
    3. Cape RD
    . Direct, indirect, and mean blood pressure in hypertensive patients: the problem of cuff artifact due to arterial wall stiffness and a partial solution. Clin Invest med. 1980;2:165–173.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    1. Smulyan H,
    2. Safar ME
    . Blood pressure measurements: retrospective and prospective views. Am J Hyperten. 2011;22:628–634.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.↵
    Association for the Advancement of Medical Instramentation. American national standard for electronic or automated sphygmomometers. ANSI/AAMISP 10-1992. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instramentation: Arlington, VA; 1993:12.
  35. 35.↵
    1. Messerli FH,
    2. Ventura HO,
    3. Amodeo C
    . Osler's maneuveer and pseudohypertension. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:1548–1551.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Nichols WW,
    2. O'Rourke MF
    . McDonalds Blood Flow in Arteries. Theoretical, Experimental and Clinical Principals. 5th ed. Hodder Arnold, London, UK: Oxford University Press; 2005.
  37. 37.↵
    1. Benetos A,
    2. Safar M,
    3. Rudnichi A,
    4. Smulyan H,
    5. Richard JL,
    6. Ducimetiere P,
    7. Guize L
    . Pulse pressure: a predictor of long-term cardiovascular mortality in a French male population. Hypertension. 1997;30:1410–1415.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. Franklin SS,
    2. Lopez VA,
    3. Wong ND,
    4. Mitchell GF,
    5. Larson MG,
    6. Vasan RS,
    7. Levy D
    . Single versus combined blood pressure components and risk for cardiovascular disease: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 2009;119:243–250.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    1. Van Bortel L,
    2. Boutouyrie P,
    3. Giannattasio C,
    4. Hayoz D,
    5. Pannier B,
    6. Viachopoulos C,
    7. Wilkinson I,
    8. Struijker-Boudier
    1. Laurent S,
    2. Cockcroft J
    . Van Bortel L, Boutouyrie P, Giannattasio C, Hayoz D, Pannier B, Viachopoulos C, Wilkinson I, Struijker-Boudier on behalf of the European Nework for Non-Invasive Investigation of Large Arteries. Expert consenssus document on arterial stiffness: methodological issues and clinical applications. Eur Heart J. 2006;27:2588–2605.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. McEniery CM,
    2. McDonnell BJ,
    3. So A,
    4. Atken S,
    5. Bolton CE,
    6. Munnery M,
    7. Hickson SS,
    8. Yasmin,
    9. Maki-Petaja,
    10. Cockcroft JR,
    11. Dixon AK,
    12. Wilkinson IB
    . Aortic calcification is associated with aortic stiffness and isolated systolic hypertension in healthy individuals. Hypertension. 2009;53:524–531.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. 41.↵
    1. Jensky NE,
    2. Criqui MH,
    3. Wright MC,
    4. Wassel CL,
    5. Brody SA,
    6. Allison MA
    . Blood pressure and vascular calcification. Hypertension. 2010;55:990–997.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. 42.↵
    1. Staessen J,
    2. Stergiou G,
    3. Verdecchia P
    1. O'Brien E,
    2. Asmar R,
    3. Beilin L,
    4. Yutaka I,
    5. Mancia G,
    6. Mengden T,
    7. Myers M,
    8. Padfield P,
    9. Palatini P,
    10. Parati G,
    11. Pickering T,
    12. Redon J
    . Staessen J, Stergiou G, Verdecchia P. Practice guidelines of the European Society of Hypertension for clinic, ambulatory and self blood pressure measurement. J Hypertens. 2005;23:793–801.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Messerli FH,
    2. Williams B,
    3. Ritz E
    . Essential hypertension. Lancet. 2007;370:591–603.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Aronow WS,
    2. Feig JL,
    3. Pepine CJ,
    4. Artinian NT,
    5. Bakris G,
    6. Brown AS,
    7. Ferdinand KC,
    8. Ann Forciea M,
    9. Frishman WH,
    10. Jaigobin C,
    11. Kostis JB,
    12. Mancia G,
    13. Oparil S,
    14. Ortiz E,
    15. Reisin E,
    16. Rich MW,
    17. Schocken DD,
    18. Weber MA,
    19. Wesley DJ,
    20. Harrington RA,
    21. Bates ER,
    22. Bhatt DL,
    23. Bridges CR,
    24. Eisenberg MJ,
    25. Ferrari VA,
    26. Fisher JD,
    27. Gardner TJ,
    28. Gentile F,
    29. Gilson MF,
    30. Hlatky MA,
    31. Jacobs AK,
    32. Kaul S,
    33. Moliterno DJ,
    34. Mukherjee D,
    35. Rosenson RS,
    36. Stein JH,
    37. Weitz HH,
    38. Wesley DJ
    . ACCF/AHA 2011 Expert consensus document on hypertension in the elderly: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 57:2037–2114.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Baou K,
    2. Sefanadis C
    1. Viachopoulos C,
    2. Aznaouridis K,
    3. O'Rourke MF,
    4. Safar ME
    . Baou K, Sefanadis C. Prediction of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality with central haemodynamics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2010;31:1865–1871.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.↵
    1. Huang CM,
    2. Wang KL,
    3. Cheng HM,
    4. Chuang SY,
    5. Sung SH,
    6. Yu WC,
    7. Ting CT,
    8. Lakatta EG,
    9. Yin FCP,
    10. Chou P,
    11. Chen CH
    . Central versus ambulatory blood pressure in the prediction of all-cause and cardiovascular mortalities. J Hypertens. 2011;29:454–459.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Schillaci G,
    2. Pucci G
    . Central and 24-h blood pressure: dwarfs standing upon the shoulders of giants? J Hypertens. 2011;29:430–433.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

This Issue

Hypertension
February 2012, Volume 59, Issue 2
  • Table of Contents
Previous ArticleNext Article

Jump to

  • Article
    • Introduction
    • Disclosures
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters

Article Tools

  • Print
  • Citation Tools
    Unusual Hypertensive Phenotypes
    Stanley S. Franklin, Ian B. Wilkinson and Carmel M. McEniery
    Hypertension. 2012;59:173-178, originally published January 18, 2012
    https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.111.182956

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
  •  Download Powerpoint
  • Article Alerts
    Log in to Email Alerts with your email address.
  • Save to my folders

Share this Article

  • Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Hypertension.

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Unusual Hypertensive Phenotypes
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from Hypertension
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the Hypertension web site.
  • Share on Social Media
    Unusual Hypertensive Phenotypes
    Stanley S. Franklin, Ian B. Wilkinson and Carmel M. McEniery
    Hypertension. 2012;59:173-178, originally published January 18, 2012
    https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.111.182956
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Related Articles

Cited By...

Subjects

  • Cardiology
    • Etiology
      • Hypertension
        • Hypertension
  • Epidemiology, Lifestyle, and Prevention
    • Epidemiology
  • Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research
    • Clinical Studies

Hypertension

  • About Hypertension
  • Instructions for Authors
  • AHA CME
  • Guidelines and Statements
  • Permissions
  • Journal Policies
  • Email Alerts
  • Open Access Information
  • AHA Journals RSS
  • AHA Newsroom

Editorial Office Address:
7272 Greenville Ave.
Dallas, TX 75231
email: hypertension@heart.org

Information for:
  • Advertisers
  • Subscribers
  • Subscriber Help
  • Institutions / Librarians
  • Institutional Subscriptions FAQ
  • International Users
American Heart Association Learn and Live
National Center
7272 Greenville Ave.
Dallas, TX 75231

Customer Service

  • 1-800-AHA-USA-1
  • 1-800-242-8721
  • Local Info
  • Contact Us

About Us

Our mission is to build healthier lives, free of cardiovascular diseases and stroke. That single purpose drives all we do. The need for our work is beyond question. Find Out More about the American Heart Association

  • Careers
  • SHOP
  • Latest Heart and Stroke News
  • AHA/ASA Media Newsroom

Our Sites

  • American Heart Association
  • American Stroke Association
  • For Professionals
  • More Sites

Take Action

  • Advocate
  • Donate
  • Planned Giving
  • Volunteer

Online Communities

  • AFib Support
  • Garden Community
  • Patient Support Network
  • Professional Online Network

Follow Us:

  • Follow Circulation on Twitter
  • Visit Circulation on Facebook
  • Follow Circulation on Google Plus
  • Follow Circulation on Instagram
  • Follow Circulation on Pinterest
  • Follow Circulation on YouTube
  • Rss Feeds
  • Privacy Policy
  • Copyright
  • Ethics Policy
  • Conflict of Interest Policy
  • Linking Policy
  • Diversity
  • Careers

©2018 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited. The American Heart Association is a qualified 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization.
*Red Dress™ DHHS, Go Red™ AHA; National Wear Red Day ® is a registered trademark.

  • PUTTING PATIENTS FIRST National Health Council Standards of Excellence Certification Program
  • BBB Accredited Charity
  • Comodo Secured