Why the study?
Although orthostatic hypotension and orthostatic hypertension independently predict cardiovascular events, the underlying mechanisms remain controversial.
Does orthostatic hypotension or orthostatic hypertension correlate with subclinical target organ damage in subjects over 60 years old?
Does orthostatic hypotension or orthostatic hypertension correlate with subclinical target organ damage in subjects over 60 years old?
Orthostatic hypotension is independently associated with increased carotid atherosclerosis, arterial stiffness, and renal damage, while orthostatic hypertension is associated only with carotid atherosclerosis in older adults.
Orthostatic BP changes may flag subclinical damage in older adults; leaves open causal role and need for prospective outcome trials.
BACKGROUND: Although recent studies have indicated that both orthostatic hypotension and orthostatic hypertension independently predict cardiovascular events, the underlying mechanisms are still controversial. The aim of the study was to investigate the relationships between orthostatic changes and organ damage in subjects over 60 years old. METHODS: This is a prospective observational cohort study. One thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven subjects over 60 years old were enrolled. Participants were grouped according to whether they had a drop ≥ 20 mmHg in systolic or ≥ 10 mmHg in diastolic BP (orthostatic hypotension), an increase in mean orthostatic systolic blood pressure ≥ 20 mm Hg (orthostatic hypertension), or normal changes within 3 min of orthostatism. Multiple regression modeling was used to investigate the relationship between orthostatic hypotension, orthostatic hypertension and subclinical organ damage with adjustment for confounders. RESULTS: = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Orthostatic hypotension seems to be independently correlated with increased carotid atherosclerosis, arterial stiffness and renal damage in subjects over 60 years old. Orthostatic hypertension correlates with carotid atherosclerosis only.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chi et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: