Dataset Information

Comparsion of central aortic pressure to brachial artery pressure in hypertensive patients on drug treatment: An observational study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:High brachial blood pressure (BP) is an important cardiovascular risk factor. However major differences in central systolic BP can occur among people with similar brachial systolic BP. It is known that central aortic pressure responses to antihypertensive therapy can differ substantially from brachial BP responses, such that true treatment effects cannot be gauged from conventional brachial BP. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to examine if adequate control of brachial BP was concordant with central BP control in treated hypertensive subjects. METHODS:Non-invasive acquisition of brachial and central pressures and wave forms was obtained from 100 subjects with systemic arterial hypertension on drug therapy and 50 healthy individuals. After all necessary precautions according to the guidelines, brachial and central pressures and wave forms were measured 3 times at 5 min intervals using an upper arm cuff (AGEDIO K900 HDP Stolberg, Germany). The mean of the last two measurements of each was recorded as representative of brachial and central aortic pressures and wave forms. RESULTS:In 45 of 50 healthy subjects with normotension (41 male, 9 female, mean age 38 years), central systolic BP was <120 mmHg. Five healthy subjects (10%) had falsely normal brachial systolic BP, but raised central systolic BP. Out of 100 patients with known hypertension and on various anti-hypertensive drug combinations, 9 had uncontrolled hypertension (defined as brachial BP of >140/90 mmHg and central systolic BP > 120 mmHg). Ninety-one patients had controlled hypertension as estimated by brachial BP of whom, 37 patients had uncontrolled central BP (systolic BP > 120 mmHg). Thus, brachial BP estimation over-estimated control of hypertension in 41% patients (p < 0.01). Central systolic BP control was inadequate in 9 out of 41 patients (22%) on angiotensin receptor blocking therapy versus 27 out of 31 (87%) patients on beta-blocking therapy (p < 0.05). Thus, there was a marked mismatch with regard to control of hypertension between central and peripheral measurements. CONCLUSION:Central BP measurement provides important information on true prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension in the outpatient setting which is higher than current estimates from brachial BP measurement. Optimal BP control by central BP is far less than observed from peripheral pressure measurement. Residual cardiovascular risk despite adequate control of brachial BP can also be explained by the substantial frequency of uncontrolled hypertension as determined by the central BP in patients with apparently controlled hypertension. Both these conclusions have significant impact on prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension and its proper management. Further studies are required to confirm the current data and to provide evidence that treatment decisions based on measurements of central BP result in better outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Baba BA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6309878 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparsion of central aortic pressure to brachial artery pressure in hypertensive patients on drug treatment: An observational study.

Baba Bilal Ahmad BA Johan Pandit Tafiq PT Mohan Jagdish C JC

Indian heart journal 20181114

<h4>Background</h4>High brachial blood pressure (BP) is an important cardiovascular risk factor. However major differences in central systolic BP can occur among people with similar brachial systolic BP. It is known that central aortic pressure responses to antihypertensive therapy can differ substantially from brachial BP responses, such that true treatment effects cannot be gauged from conventional brachial BP.<h4>Objective</h4>The purpose of this study was to examine if adequate control of br ...[more]

PMID: 30595260

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Arterial hypertension affects cardiovascular outcome in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). We hypothesized that angioplasty of peripheral arterial stenoses decreases aortic (aBP) and brachial blood pressure (bBP). Methods and Results In an index cohort (n=30), we simultaneously measured aBP, bBP, augmentation index (AIx), and aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) before and after angioplasty of the iliac and femoropopliteal arteries; diagnostic angiography served as a control. In an all-comer registry cohort (n=381), we prospectively measured bBP in patients scheduled for angioplasty of the iliac, femoral, and crural arteries or diagnostic angiography. Systolic aBP decreased after iliac (Δ-25 mmHg; 95% CI, -30 to -20; P<0.0001) and femoropopliteal angioplasty (Δ-12 mmHg; 95% CI, -17 to -5; P<0.0001) as compared with diagnostic angiography. Diastolic aBP decreased after iliac (Δ-9 mmHg; 95% CI, -13 to -1; P=0.01) but not femoropopliteal angioplasty. In parallel, AIx significantly dropped, whereas PWV remained stable. In the registry cohort, systolic bBP decreased after angioplasty of the iliac (Δ-17 mmHg; 95% CI, -31 to -8; P=0.0005) and femoropopliteal arteries (Δ-10 mmHg; 95% CI, -23 to -1; P=0.04) but not the crural arteries, as compared with diagnostic angiography. Diastolic bBP decreased after iliac (Δ-10 mmHg; 95% CI, -17 to -2; P=0.01) and femoropopliteal angioplasty (Δ-9 mmHg; 95% CI, -15 to -1; P=0.04). Multivariate analysis identified baseline systolic bBP and site of lesion as determinants of systolic bBP drop after endovascular treatment. Conclusions Angioplasty of flow-limiting stenoses in patients with peripheral artery disease lowers aortic and brachial blood pressure with more pronounced effects at more proximal lesion sites and elevated baseline systolic blood pressure. These data indicate a role of endovascular treatment to acutely optimize blood pressure in patients with peripheral artery disease. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02728479.

Project description:IntroductionUltrasound measurements of brachial artery reactivity in response to stagnant ischemia provide estimates of microvascular function and conduit artery endothelial function. We hypothesized that brachial artery reactivity would independently predict severe sepsis and severe sepsis mortality.MethodsThis was a combined case-control and prospective cohort study. We measured brachial artery reactivity in 95 severe sepsis patients admitted to the medical and surgical intensive care units of an academic medical center and in 52 control subjects without acute illness. Measurements were compared in severe sepsis patients versus control subjects and in severe sepsis survivors versus nonsurvivors. Multivariable analyses were also conducted.ResultsHyperemic velocity (centimeters per cardiac cycle) and flow-mediated dilation (percentage) were significantly lower in severe sepsis patients versus control subjects (hyperemic velocity: severe sepsis = 34 (25 to 48) versus controls = 63 (52 to 81), P < 0.001; flow-mediated dilation: severe sepsis = 2.65 (0.81 to 4.79) versus controls = 4.11 (3.06 to 6.78), P < 0.001; values expressed as median (interquartile range)). Hyperemic velocity, but not flow-mediated dilation, was significantly lower in hospital nonsurvivors versus survivors (hyperemic velocity: nonsurvivors = 25 (16 to 28) versus survivors = 39 (30 to 50), P < 0.001; flow-mediated dilation: nonsurvivors = 1.90 (0.68 to 3.41) versus survivors = 2.96 (0.91 to 4.86), P = 0.12). Lower hyperemic velocity was independently associated with hospital mortality in multivariable analysis (odds ratio = 1.11 (95% confidence interval = 1.04 to 1.19) per 1 cm/cardiac cycle decrease in hyperemic velocity; P = 0.003).ConclusionsBrachial artery hyperemic blood velocity is a noninvasive index of microvascular function that independently predicts mortality in severe sepsis. In contrast, brachial artery flow-mediated dilation, reflecting conduit artery endothelial function, was not associated with mortality in our severe sepsis cohort. Brachial artery hyperemic velocity may be a useful measurement to identify patients who could benefit from novel therapies designed to reverse microvascular dysfunction in severe sepsis and to assess the physiologic efficacy of these treatments.

Project description:Meta-analyses have shown that supervised isometric handgrip training reduces blood pressure in hypertensives. However, the mechanism(s) underlying these effects in medicated hypertensive patients, as well as the effects from home-based exercise training, is uncertain. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of supervised and home-based isometric handgrip training on cardiovascular parameters in medicated hypertensives. In this randomized controlled trial, 72 hypertensive individuals (38-79 years old, 70% female) were randomly assigned to three groups: home-based, supervised isometric handgrip training or control groups. Home-based and supervised isometric handgrip training was completed thrice weekly (4 × 2 min at 30% of maximal voluntary contraction, with 1-min rest between bouts, alternating the hands). Before and after 12 weeks brachial, central and ambulatory blood pressures (BP), arterial stiffness, heart rate variability, vascular function, oxidative stress and inflammation markers were obtained. No significant (p > 0.05) effect was observed for ambulatory BP, arterial stiffness, heart rate variability, vascular function and oxidative stress and inflammatory markers in all three groups. Brachial BP decreased in the supervised group (Systolic: 132 ± 4 vs. 120 ± 3 mmHg; Diastolic: 71 ± 2 vs. 66 ± 2 mmHg, p < 0.05), whereas no significant differences were observed in the home-based (Systolic: 130 ± 4 vs. 126 ± 3 mmHg; diastolic: 73 ± 3 vs. 71 ± 3 mmHg) and control groups (p > 0.05). Supervised handgrip exercise also reduced central BP systolic (120 ± 5 vs. 109 ± 5 mmHg), diastolic (73 ± 2 vs. 67 ± 2 mmHg); and mean BP (93 ± 3 vs. 84 ± 3 mmHg), whereas no significant effects were found in the home-based (Systolic: 119 ± 4 vs. 115 ± 3 mmHg; Diastolic: 74 ± 3 vs. 71 ± 3 mmHg) and control groups (p > 0.05). In conclusion, supervised, but not home-based, isometric training lowered brachial and central BP in hypertensives.

Project description:BackgroundWhether cardiovascular risk is more tightly associated with central (cSBP) than brachial (bSBP) systolic pressure remains debated, because of their close correlation and uncertain thresholds to differentiate cSBP into normotension versus hypertension.MethodsIn a person-level meta-analysis of the International Database of Central Arterial Properties for Risk Stratification (n=5576; 54.1% women; mean age 54.2 years), outcome-driven thresholds for cSBP were determined and whether the cross-classification of cSBP and bSBP improved risk stratification was explored. cSBP was tonometrically estimated from the radial pulse wave using SphygmoCor software.ResultsOver 4.1 years (median), 255 composite cardiovascular end points occurred. In multivariable bootstrapped analyses, cSBP thresholds (in mm Hg) of 110.5 (95% CI, 109.1-111.8), 120.2 (119.4-121.0), 130.0 (129.6-130.3), and 149.5 (148.4-150.5) generated 5-year cardiovascular risks equivalent to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association bSBP thresholds of 120, 130, 140, and 160. Applying 120/130 mm Hg as cSBP/bSBP thresholds delineated concordant central and brachial normotension (43.1%) and hypertension (48.2%) versus isolated brachial hypertension (5.0%) and isolated central hypertension (3.7%). With concordant normotension as reference, the multivariable hazard ratios for the cardiovascular end point were 1.30 (95% CI, 0.58-2.94) for isolated brachial hypertension, 2.28 (1.21-4.30) for isolated central hypertension, and 2.02 (1.41-2.91) for concordant hypertension. The increased cardiovascular risk associated with isolated central and concordant hypertension was paralleled by cerebrovascular end points with hazard ratios of 3.71 (1.37-10.06) and 2.60 (1.35-5.00), respectively.ConclusionsIrrespective of the brachial blood pressure status, central hypertension increased cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risk indicating the importance of controlling central hypertension.

Project description:Hypertension guidelines advocate treating systolic blood pressure (BP) to less than 130 mm Hg for patients with diabetes mellitus; however, data are lacking for the growing population who also have coronary artery disease (CAD).To determine the association of systolic BP control achieved and adverse cardiovascular outcomes in a cohort of patients with diabetes and CAD.Observational subgroup analysis of 6400 of the 22,576 participants in the International Verapamil SR-Trandolapril Study (INVEST). For this analysis, participants were at least 50 years old and had diabetes and CAD. Participants were recruited between September 1997 and December 2000 from 862 sites in 14 countries and were followed up through March 2003 with an extended follow-up through August 2008 through the National Death Index for US participants.Patients received first-line treatment of either a calcium antagonist or beta-blocker followed by angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, a diuretic, or both to achieve systolic BP of less than 130 and diastolic BP of less than 85 mm Hg. Patients were categorized as having tight control if they could maintain their systolic BP at less than 130 mm Hg; usual control if it ranged from 130 mm Hg to less than 140 mm Hg; and uncontrolled if it was 140 mm Hg or higher.Adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including the primary outcomes which was the first occurrence of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.During 16,893 patient-years of follow-up, 286 patients (12.7%) who maintained tight control, 249 (12.6%) who had usual control, and 431 (19.8%) who had uncontrolled systolic BP experienced a primary outcome event. Patients in the usual-control group had a cardiovascular event rate of 12.6% vs a 19.8% event rate for those in the uncontrolled group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-1.71; P < .001). However, little difference existed between those with usual control and those with tight control. Their respective event rates were 12.6% vs 12.7% (adjusted HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.93-1.32; P = .24). The all-cause mortality rate was 11.0% in the tight-control group vs 10.2% in the usual-control group (adjusted HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.99-1.45; P = .06); however, when extended follow-up was included, risk of all-cause mortality was 22.8% in the tight control vs 21.8% in the usual control group (adjusted HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .04).Tight control of systolic BP among patients with diabetes and CAD was not associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes compared with usual control.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00133692.

Dataset Information

Comparsion of central aortic pressure to brachial artery pressure in hypertensive patients on drug treatment: An observational study.

Publications

Comparsion of central aortic pressure to brachial artery pressure in hypertensive patients on drug treatment: An observational study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets