Why the study?
Detection of masked uncontrolled hypertension remains challenging, and this study aimed to evaluate the association between the cardio-ankle vascular index and masked uncontrolled hypertension.
Is the cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI) associated with masked uncontrolled hypertension in treated hypertensive patients?
Is the cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI) associated with masked uncontrolled hypertension in treated hypertensive patients?
CAVI is an independent risk factor for masked uncontrolled hypertension and may serve as a noninvasive indicator to identify patients needing 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring.
CAVI may help identify MUCH in treated hypertensives with normal office BP; leaves open whether it improves risk stratification or warrants routine use.
Detection of masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) that was defined for treated hypertensive individuals who had normal office blood pressure (BP) but elevated ambulatory BP remains largely challenging. Arterial stiffness is one of the leading risk markers for hypertension and can be clinically assessed by the cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI). This study aimed to evaluate the association between CAVI and MUCH. A total of 155 hypertensive patients were included with their office BP levels and ambulatory BP monitoring measurements, which were divided into controlled hypertension (CH), MUCH, and sustained uncontrolled hypertension (SUCH) groups, respectively. There were 48 patients with CH, 56 patients with MUCH, and 51 patients with SUCH. Both MUCH and SUCH groups had a significantly higher CAVI than the CH group (9.05 (8.20–9.91) vs. 8.33 (7.75–9.15), <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"> <a:mi>p</a:mi> <a:mo>=</a:mo> <a:mn>0.017</a:mn> </a:math> , and 9.75 (8.35–10.50) vs. 8.33 (7.75–9.15), <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"> <c:mi>p</c:mi> <c:mo>=</c:mo> <c:mn>0.002</c:mn> </c:math> , respectively). There was no significant difference in CAVI values between the MUCH and SUCH groups. Multinomial logistic regression analysis exhibited that compared with the CH group, increased CAVI levels were positively associated with the presence of MUCH and SUCH (OR 2.046, 95% CI (1.239–3.381), <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"> <e:mi>p</e:mi> <e:mo>=</e:mo> <e:mn>0.005</e:mn> </e:math> ; OR 2.215, 95% CI (1.310–3.747), <g:math xmlns:g="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M4"> <g:mi>p</g:mi> <g:mo>=</g:mo> <g:mn>0.003</g:mn> </g:math> ) after adjusting for confounders. However, there was a similar trend of the CAVI in the MUCH and SUCH groups (OR 0.924, 95% CI (0.629–1.356), <i:math xmlns:i="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M5"> <i:mi>p</i:mi> <i:mo>=</i:mo> <i:mn>0.686</i:mn> </i:math> ). In summary, our findings support, for the first time, the novel notion that CAVI as an arterial stiffness parameter is an independent risk factor for MUCH, being equally important to MUCH and SUCH. When the assessed CAVI is high in hypertensive patients with normotensive office BP levels, it is necessary to further investigate with a 24 h ambulatory BP monitoring to estimate the longstanding BP control. CAVI may be used as a noninvasive indicator to identify patients with MUCH earlier.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: