Abstract-In the Pressioni Arteriose Monitorate e Loro Associazioni (PAMELA) study, office, home, and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) values were measured contemporaneously between 1990 and 1993 in a large population sample (nϭ2051). Cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV death certificates were collected over the next 148 months, which allowed us to assess the prognostic value of selective and combined elevation in these 3 BPs over a long follow-up. There were 69 CV and 233 all-cause deaths. Compared with subjects with normal office and 24-hour BP, the hazard ratio for CV death showed a progressive increase in those with a selective office BP elevation (white-coat hypertension), a selective 24-hour BP elevation (masked hypertension), and elevation in both office and 24-hour BP. This was the case also when the above conditions were identified by office versus home BP values. Selective elevation in home versus ambulatory BP or vice versa also carried an increased risk. There was indeed a progressive increase in both CV and all-cause mortality risk from subjects in whom office, home, and ambulatory BP were all normal to those in whom 1, 2, or all 3 BPs were elevated, regardless of which BP was considered. The trends remained significant after adjustment for age and gender, as well as, in most instances, after further adjustment for other cardiovascular risk factors. Thus, white-coat hypertension and masked hypertension, both when identified by office and ambulatory or by office and home BPs, are not prognostically innocent. Indeed, each BP elevation (office, home, or ambulatory) carries an increase in risk mortality that adds to that of the other BP elevations.

Background-Studies in hypertensive patients suggest that ambulatory blood pressure (BP) is prognostically superior to office BP. Much less information is available in the general population, however. Obtaining this information was the purpose of the Pressioni Arteriose Monitorate e Loro Associazioni (PAMELA) study. Methods and Results-Office, home, and 24-hour ambulatory BP values were obtained in 2051 subjects between 25 and 74 years of age who were representative of the general population of Monza (Milan, Italy). Subjects were followed up for an average of 131 months, during which time cardiovascular and noncardiovascular fatal events were recorded (nϭ186). Office, home, and ambulatory BP values showed a significant exponential direct relationship with risk of cardiovascular or all-cause death. The goodness of fit of the relationship was greater for systolic than for diastolic BP and for night than for day BP, but its overall value was not better for home or ambulatory than for office BP. The slope of the relationship, however, was progressively greater from office to home and ambulatory BP. Home and night BP modestly improved the goodness of fit of the risk model when added to office BP. Conclusions-In the PAMELA population, risk of death increased more with a given increase in home or ambulatory than in office BP. The overall ability to predict death, however, was not greater for home and ambulatory than for office BP, although it was somewhat increased by the combination of office and outside-of-office values. Systolic BP was almost invariably superior to diastolic BP, and night BP was superior to day BP. (Circulation. 2005;111:1777-1783.)

Background-The prevalence and clinical significance of isolated office (or white coat) hypertension is controversial, and population data are limited. We studied the prevalence of this condition and its association with echocardiographic left ventricular mass in the general population of the PAMELA (Pressione Arteriose Monitorate E Loro Associazioni) Study. Methods and Results-The study involved a large, randomized sample (nϭ3200) representative of the Monza (Milan) population, 25 to 74 years of age. Participants in the study (64% of the sample) underwent measurements of office, home, 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure, and echocardiography. Isolated office hypertension was defined as systolic or diastolic values Ն140 mm Hg or Ն90 mm Hg, respectively. Home and ambulatory normotension were defined according to criteria previously established from the PAMELA Study, for example, Ͻ132/83 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic) for home and 125/79 mm Hg for 24-hour average blood pressure. Treated hypertensive subjects were excluded from analysis that was made on a total of 1637 subjects. Depending on normotension being established on systolic or diastolic blood pressure measured at home or over 24 hours, the prevalence of isolated office hypertension ranged from 9% to 12%. In these subjects, left ventricular mass index was greater (PϽ0.01) than in subjects with normotension both in and outside the office. This was the case also for prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy. Left ventricular mass index and hypertrophy were similarly greater in subjects found to have normal office but elevated home or ambulatory blood pressure (Ϸ10% of the population). Conclusions-Isolated office hypertension has a noticeable prevalence in the population and is accompanied by structural cardiac alterations, suggesting that it is not an entirely harmless phenomenon. This is the case also for the opposite condition, that is, normal office but elevated home or ambulatory blood pressure, which implies that limiting blood pressure measurements to office values may not suffice in identification of subjects at risk.