scholarly journals Novel Indices of Home Blood Pressure Variability and Hypertension-Mediated Organ Damage in Treated Hypertensive Patients

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Barochiner ◽  
Rocío Martínez ◽  
Lucas S. Aparicio
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Blood Pressure Variability ◽  
Organ Damage ◽  
Home Blood Pressure ◽  
Hypertensive Patients

scholarly journals The Importance of Home Versus 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring and Assessment of Blood Pressure Variability in Hypertension

2016 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-242
Author(s):  
Annamária Magdás ◽  
Boglárka Belényi ◽  
Adina Gaburoi ◽  
Alexandru Incze
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Ambulatory Blood Pressure ◽  
Blood Pressure Variability ◽  
Blood Pressure Monitoring ◽  
Home Blood Pressure ◽  
Home Blood Pressure Monitoring ◽  
Pressure Monitoring ◽  
Hypertensive Patients ◽  
Variability Index

AbstractBackground: A number of studies reveal that home blood pressure variability is associated with cardiovascular risk factors. However, we do not have a consensus regarding the variability index and the frequency of measurements.Objective: The aim of the study was to assess home blood pressure variability for a period of 7 consecutive days and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure variability using the average real variability index and to test whether home blood pressure variability represents a suitable parameter for long-term monitoring of the hypertensive patients.Material and methods: A number of 31 hypertensive patients were included in the study, 8 male, 23 female, mean age 60.19±7.35 years. At the inclusion ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was performed, home blood pressure monitoring was carried out for 7 consecutive days with 2 measurements daily. We compared ambulatory blood pressure values, variability using paired t-test. We were looking for correlations between HBP values and cardiovascular risk factors.Results: Ambulatory versus home blood pressure derived mean blood pressure was 131.38±15.2 versus 131.93±8.25, p=0.81. Ambulatory derived variability was 10.65±2.05 versus home variability 10.56±4.83, p=0.91. Home versus ambulatory pulse pressure was 51.8± 9.06 mmHg vs. 54.9±11.9 mmHg, p=0.046. We found positive correlation between HBPV and home BP values, p=0.027, r2=0.1577, (CI: 0.04967 to 0.6588). Home, as well as ambulatory derived variability were positively correlated to age p=0.043, r2=0.1377 (CI: 0.01234 to 0.6451) versus p<0.0001, CI: 0.3870 to 0.8220, r2=0.4302.Conclusion: Assessment of home blood pressure monitoring and variability could represent a well-tolerated alternative for long-term follow-up of hypertension management.

scholarly journals Comparison of Blood Pressure Variability Between Losartan and Amlodipine in Essential Hypertension (COMPAS-BPV)

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (8) ◽  
pp. 748-755
Author(s):  
Jun-Won Lee ◽  
Eunhee Choi ◽  
Jung-Woo Son ◽  
Young Jin Youn ◽  
Sung-Gyun Ahn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Blood Pressure Variability ◽  
Renin Angiotensin System ◽  
Office Visit ◽  
Home Blood Pressure ◽  
Channel Blockers ◽  
Hypertensive Patients ◽  
Amlodipine Group ◽  
Losartan Group ◽  
Average Real Variability

Abstract BACKGROUND Antihypertensive therapy using renin–angiotensin system blockers and calcium channel blockers to target blood pressure variability (BPV) has not yet been established. We aimed to compare the ability of losartan and amlodipine to lower BPV and systolic blood pressure (SBP) in essential hypertensive patients. METHODS Patients were randomly assigned either losartan 50 mg or amlodipine 5 mg. Medications were uptitrated and hydrochlorothiazide was added according to protocol for 6 months. The primary endpoint was the office visit-to-visit SD of SBP. The secondary endpoints included average real variability (ARV), office SBP, and home SBP. RESULTS The losartan group (n = 71) and amlodipine group (n = 73) finished the scheduled visits between April 2013 and May 2017. The office visit-to-visit SD of SBP was comparable between the losartan and amlodipine groups (11.0 ± 4.2 vs. 10.5 ± 3.8, P = 0.468). The office visit-to-visit ARV of SBP was significantly elevated in the losartan group (10.6 ± 4.3 vs. 9.1 ± 3.4, P = 0.02). The absolute SBP decrement from baseline to 6 months was similar between groups, although the office mean SBP at 6 months was higher in the losartan group (132.3 ± 12.9 vs. 127.5 ± 9.0 mm Hg, P = 0.011). In home blood pressure analysis, evening day-to-day BPV indexes (SD and ARV) were significantly higher in the losartan group at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS The lowering effect of the office visit-to-visit SD of SBP was similar between losartan and amlodipine. However, the losartan group showed a higher office visit-to-visit ARV of SBP and evening day-to-day home BPV indexes. Therefore, amlodipine may be better to lower BPV in essential hypertensive patients.

P804The significance of 24h blood pressure variability improvement regarding target organ damage indices three years after medical treatment initiation in essential hypertension

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
H Triantafyllidi ◽  
A Schoinas ◽  
D Benas ◽  
D Birba ◽  
D Voutsinos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Blood Pressure Variability ◽  
Treatment Initiation ◽  
Target Organ Damage ◽  
Organ Damage ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Target Organ ◽  
Hypertensive Patients ◽  
Damage Indices

Abstract Background Blood pressure variability (BPV) has been associated with development, progression and severity of cardiac and vascular organ damage and with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and mortality, independently adding to cardiovascular risk, over and above the contribution of elevated mean BP levels. We aimed to explore any correlation between differences in BPV and target organ damage indices (TOD) in hypertensive patients three years after medical treatment initiation. Methods At baseline and before medical treatment initiation, we measured 24h average SBP and DBP as well as 24h systolic BPV after 24h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in newly diagnosed and never treated hypertensive patients (n=171, mean age=52+12 years, 110 males, 24h average SBP/DBP=138+10/87+9 mmHg, 24h systolic BPV=15+3) who were also subjected to arterial stiffness by carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV), left ventricular hypertrophy by left ventricular mass index (LVMI) and coronary flow reserve (CFR) estimations. All the above tests were repeated approximately three years later after treatment initiation. Results Patients were characterized as controlled (n=113, mean age=54+12 years, 62 males, 24h average SBP/DBP=118+6/71+6 mmHg) or non-controlled hyperensives (n=58, mean age=48+11 years, 48 males, 24h average SBP/DBP=133+8/83+7 mmHg) based on ABPM results three years later (controlled BP=24h average BP<130/80 mmHg). In the whole population, 24h average SBP/DBP, systolic BPV (p<0.001) and LVMI (p=0.01) were decreased while systolic BPV difference was related with LVMI difference (r=0.27, p<0.001). In controlled hypertensives, 24h average SBP/DBP, systolic BPV (p<0.001) and LVMI (p=0.02) were decreased while systolic BPV difference was related with LVMI difference (r=0.35, p<0.001). In non-controlled hypertensives, 24h average SBP (p=0.001), DBP p<0.001) and systolic BPV (p=0.04) were decreased while PWV was increased (p=0.03) and no correlations were found between systolic BPV and TOD. Correlation between BPV and LVMI Conclusions It seems that antihypertensive-induced systolic BPV improvement relate with cardiovascular risk decrease occur only in the setting of blood pressure treated within normal limits and confirmed by ABPM. Our study confirms that left ventricular mass between other TOD primarily improves due to successful antihypertensive treatment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document