Key result
Skin capillary density does not differ among normotensive controls, nondiabetic hypertensives, and diabetic hypertensives.
Cross-Sectional (n=67)
OBJECTIVES: Capillary rarefaction is a hallmark of untreated hypertension. Recent data indicate that rarefaction may be reversed by antihypertensive treatment in nondiabetic hypertensive patients. Despite the frequent association of diabetes with hypertension, nothing is known on the capillary density of treated diabetic patients with hypertension. METHODS: We enrolled 21 normotensive healthy, 25 hypertensive only, and 21 diabetic (type 2) hypertensive subjects. All hypertensive patients were treated with a blocker of the renin-angiotensin system, and a majority had a home blood pressure ≤135/85 mmHg. Capillary density was assessed with videomicroscopy on dorsal finger skin and with laser Doppler imaging on forearm skin (maximal vasodilation elicited by local heating). RESULTS: There was no difference between any of the study groups in either dorsal finger skin capillary density (controls 101 ± 11 capillaries/mm(2) , nondiabetic hypertensive 99 ± 16, diabetic hypertensive 96 ± 18, p > 0.5) or maximal blood flow in forearm skin (controls 666 ± 114 perfusion units, nondiabetic hypertensive 612 ± 126, diabetic hypertensive 620 ± 103, p > 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of the presence or not of type 2 diabetes, capillary density is normal in hypertensive patients with reasonable control of blood pressure achieved with a blocker of the renin-angiotensin system.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aellen et al. (2012) conducted a cross-sectional in Hypertension and Type 2 Diabetes (n=67). Hypertension with or without type 2 diabetes vs. Normotensive healthy controls was evaluated on Dorsal finger skin capillary density (p=> 0.5). Dorsal finger skin capillary density was similar among normotensive controls, nondiabetic hypertensives, and diabetic hypertensives (101, 99, and 96 capillaries/mm2, respectively; p > 0.5).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: