Key result
24-hour central blood pressure was not significantly superior to peripheral blood pressure in associating with left ventricular hypertrophy (present in 37%) or diastolic dysfunction (present in 58%).
Why the study?
Does 24-hour central blood pressure measurement better associate with left ventricular hypertrophy or diastolic dysfunction compared to peripheral blood pressure in hypertensive patients?
Cross-Sectional (n=208)
Does 24-hour central blood pressure measurement better associate with left ventricular hypertrophy or diastolic dysfunction compared to peripheral blood pressure in hypertensive patients?
24-hour central blood pressure does not appear to be significantly superior to peripheral blood pressure in its association with hypertensive cardiac target organ damage.
Central BP monitoring adds no edge for LVH or DD detection in hypertension; leaves open whether it improves risk stratification beyond peripheral ABPM.
BACKGROUND: Central blood pressure (BP) is considered as a better estimator of hypertension-associated risks than peripheral BP. We aimed to evaluate the association of 24-hour central BP, in comparison with 24-hour peripheral BP, with the presence of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), or diastolic dysfunction (DD). METHODS: The cross-sectional study consisted of 208 hypertensive patients, aged 57 ± 12 years, of which 34% were women. Office and 24-hour central and peripheral BP were measured by the oscillometric Mobil-O-Graph device. We performed echocardiography-Doppler measurements to calculate LVH and DD, defined as left atrium volume ≥34 ml/m2 or septal e' velocity <8 cm/s or lateral e' velocity <10 cm/s. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients (37%) had LVH, and 110 patients (58%) had DD. Systolic and pulse BP estimates (office, 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime) were associated with the presence of LVH or DD, after adjustment for age, gender, and antihypertensive treatment, with higher odds ratios for ambulatory-derived values. The comparison between central and peripheral BP estimates did not reveal a statistically significant superiority of the former neither in multiple regression models with simultaneous adjustments nor in the comparison of areas under receiver-operating curves. Correlation coefficients of BP estimates with left ventricular mass, although numerically higher for central BP, did not significantly differ between central and peripheral BP. CONCLUSIONS: We have not found a significant better association of 24-hour central over peripheral BP, with hypertensive cardiac alterations, although due to the sample size, these results require further confirmation in order to assess the possible role of routine 24-hour central BP measurement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Blanch et al. (2018) conducted a cross-sectional in Hypertension (n=208). 24-hour central blood pressure vs. 24-hour peripheral blood pressure was evaluated on Presence of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) or diastolic dysfunction (DD). 24-hour central blood pressure was not significantly superior to peripheral blood pressure in associating with left ventricular hypertrophy (present in 37%) or diastolic dysfunction (present in 58%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: