Extreme dippers showed lower levels of cardiac remodeling and impairment of echocardiographic indexes compared to hypertensive patients with physiological nocturnal pressure reduction.
Cohort (n=510)
Does an extreme dipper nocturnal blood pressure profile affect cardiac remodeling in patients with essential hypertension compared to a physiological dipping profile?
Extreme dippers among hypertensive patients may have the lowest 24-hour pressure load and consequently less cardiac remodeling compared to those with physiological dipping.
OBJECTIVE: Several epidemiological studies suggest that the preservation of the physiological circadian rhythm of blood pressure or its disruption affects the extent of the organ damage developed by the patient. If we classify the circadian rhythm of blood pressure into four nocturnal profiles, significant differences emerge in terms of organ damage burden and prognosis: reverse dippers have the worst prognosis while dippers and mild dippers fall into an intermediate risk range. The risk profile of extreme dippers is still debated, and the available data are very conflicting and inconclusive. Starting from this gap of knowledge, we aimed to evaluate, retrospectively, in a cohort of hypertensive subjects, the degree of cardiac involvement in relation to the different nocturnal blood pressure profiles. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 900 patients with essential hypertension, of whom 510 met our study criteria. We graded the 510 patients in relation to the percentage of reduction in mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) at night-time compared with day-time, considering this as a continuous variable, and then compared the extreme quintiles with each other and with the middle quintile (considered as reference). RESULTS: Patients with less (or no) reduction in nocturnal SBP (reverse dipper) showed a higher level of organ damage and comorbidities. With regard to echocardiographic indexes, patients with maximum nocturnal pressure reduction (extreme dipper) showed a lower level of remodeling and/or impairment of E/e' ratio, Right Atrium Area, Basal Right Ventricular Diameter, Inferior Vena Cava Average Diameter, and Tricuspidal Anular Plane Systolic Excursion compared also with hypertensive patients with a physiological nocturnal pressure reduction, even after correction for the main confounders. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that extreme dippers may constitute the subgroup of hypertensive patients with the lowest 24-h pressure load and, therefore, less cardiac remodeling.
Raimondo et al. (Wed,) conducted a cohort in Essential hypertension (n=510). Extreme dipper nocturnal blood pressure profile vs. Physiological nocturnal pressure reduction (middle quintile) and reverse dippers was evaluated on Degree of cardiac involvement (echocardiographic indexes of remodeling). Extreme dippers showed lower levels of cardiac remodeling and impairment of echocardiographic indexes compared to hypertensive patients with physiological nocturnal pressure reduction.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: