Why the study?
Hypertensive adults with LVH often present with exaggerated exercise blood pressure, but whether the change in SBP with exercise is also greater when normalized for workload or VO2 was unknown.
Does normalizing exercise systolic blood pressure to oxygen uptake alter the assessment of exaggerated exercise blood pressure in adults with high-risk left ventricular hypertrophy compared to healthy controls?
Does normalizing exercise systolic blood pressure to oxygen uptake alter the assessment of exaggerated exercise blood pressure in adults with high-risk left ventricular hypertrophy compared to healthy controls?
The higher incidence of exaggerated exercise blood pressure in adults with high-risk LVH reflects higher resting blood pressure rather than an exaggerated response to exercise workload.
INTRODUCTION: Exaggerated exercise blood pressure (EEBP) is typically defined using systolic blood pressure (SBP) thresholds at maximal exercise of ≥190 (women) and ≥210 mmHg (men). However, SBP/workload and SBP/oxygen uptake (V̇O 2 ) slopes have been shown to be more sensitive predictors of all-cause mortality and/or cardiovascular morbidity than peak exercise SBP. Hypertensive adults with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) often present with EEBP; whether the change in SBP with exercise is also greater when normalized for workload/V̇O 2 is unknown. Therefore, we compared absolute and normalized exercise SBP in adults with LVH and age-matched healthy controls. METHODS: We measured BP (brachial electrosphygmomanometry) and V̇O 2 (indirect calorimetry) during treadmill exercise in middle-aged adults who were either healthy ( n = 52) or had LVH and elevated cardiac biomarkers ( n = 48). Data were compared using Welch's t-tests and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: Absolute V̇O 2 max was not different between groups (LVH: 2.24 ± 0.61 vs. Healthy: 2.21 ± 0.69 l/min, P = 0.862). Baseline ( P < 0.001) and max SBP were higher in LVH (196 ± 25 vs. 173 ± 26 mmHg, P < 0.001); as such EEBP incidence was higher in LVH (48 vs. 11%, P < 0.001) when measured using the SBP thresholds. However, there was no difference in the change in SBP from rest ( P = 0.174) nor the SBP/V̇O 2 slope between groups (LVH: 37 ± 18 vs. Healthy: 33 ± 17 mmHg/l/min, P = 0.334). CONCLUSION: The greater EEBP incidence in LVH using traditional thresholds reflects differences in resting BP, not an exaggerated SBP response. Therefore, those with high-risk LVH have a normal SBP response to exercise despite achieving a higher max SBP for the same absolute V̇O 2 max.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wakeham et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: