Blood pressure monitoring · 2022
Paradoxical increase in ambulatory SBP in coarctation of aorta a compared to essential hypertension.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Egbe Alexander C, Miranda William R, Shaik Likhita, Katta Renuka Reddy, Goda Sakr Ahmed, Devara Janaki, Connolly Heidi M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The relationship between office vs. ambulatory blood pressure (BP) indices are well-studied in patients with essential hypertension and based on these data, it is known that the average 24-h ambulatory BP is typically lower than office BP. However, emerging data show that office SBP underestimates arterial afterload in patients with coarctation of aorta (COA), and a minimal increase in stroke volume during low-intensity exercise results in an exaggerated rise in SBP as compared to those with essential hypertension. We hypothesized that COA patients will have higher ambulatory SBP and a higher prevalence of masked hypertension compared to patients with essential hypertension.
METHODS: Case-control study of 118 COA patients and 118 patients with essential hypertension matched by age, sex, BMI and office SBP.
RESULTS: Although both groups had similar office SBP (132 ± 17 mmHg) by design, the COA group had paradoxical increases in 24-h ambulatory SBP (135 ± 14 vs. 126 ± 13; P < 0.001) and daytime ambulatory SBP (142 ± 16 vs. 130 ± 13; P < 0.001), and less nocturnal dipping (-3 ± 5 vs. -9 ± 4; P < 0.001). The COA group also had a higher prevalence of masked hypertension [36 (31%) vs 14 (12%); P < 0.001), and worse arterial function indices.
CONCLUSION: These findings underscore the potential limitations of relying on office SBP for screening/monitoring of hypertension in COA and potential pitfalls in extrapolating essential hypertension guidelines recommendations to the treatment of COA. It also provides the rationale for further studies to determine if pharmacologic BP interventions guided by ambulatory BP data will improve clinical outcomes in the COA population.
METHODS: Case-control study of 118 COA patients and 118 patients with essential hypertension matched by age, sex, BMI and office SBP.
RESULTS: Although both groups had similar office SBP (132 ± 17 mmHg) by design, the COA group had paradoxical increases in 24-h ambulatory SBP (135 ± 14 vs. 126 ± 13; P < 0.001) and daytime ambulatory SBP (142 ± 16 vs. 130 ± 13; P < 0.001), and less nocturnal dipping (-3 ± 5 vs. -9 ± 4; P < 0.001). The COA group also had a higher prevalence of masked hypertension [36 (31%) vs 14 (12%); P < 0.001), and worse arterial function indices.
CONCLUSION: These findings underscore the potential limitations of relying on office SBP for screening/monitoring of hypertension in COA and potential pitfalls in extrapolating essential hypertension guidelines recommendations to the treatment of COA. It also provides the rationale for further studies to determine if pharmacologic BP interventions guided by ambulatory BP data will improve clinical outcomes in the COA population.