Why the study?
Is serum procollagen type I propeptide (PIP) a useful marker of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction in patients with white-coat hypertension?
Is serum procollagen type I propeptide (PIP) a useful marker of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction in patients with white-coat hypertension?
White-coat hypertension is associated with intermediate target organ damage compared to normotension and essential hypertension, and serum PIP may serve as a marker for diastolic dysfunction in these patients.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PIP may mark diastolic dysfunction in white-coat hypertension; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical use.
BACKGROUND: Myocardial fibrosis is a feature of diastolic dysfunction and target organ damage, which was compared among subjects with normotension (NT), white-coat hypertension (WCH) and essential hypertension (EH). Serum procollagen type I propeptide (PIP) level was assessed as a marker of diastolic dysfunction in WCH. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 90 subjects, 30 had NT and 30 had WCH (ambulatory daytime blood pressure <135/85 mmHg) and 30 had EH (untreated mild to moderate hypertension); all underwent biochemical and echocardiographic examinations. Those with WCH had a lower left ventricular (LV) mass index than those with EH, but it was higher than in the NT group. WCH patients had a lower mitral valve E/A ratio and a higher LV E/E' (E': septal mitral annular peak velocity) ratio than NT patients, whereas these values were higher and lower respectively than in the EH group. The LV E/E' ratio, an estimate of LV diastolic function, correlated with the serum PIP concentration in WCH patients (r=0.39, P=0.03). CONCLUSION: WCH is an intermediate group between NT and EH in respect of target organ damage. These results show a relationship between LV diastolic function and serum PIP in WCH, so the serum PIP level may be a useful marker of diastolic dysfunction and target organ damage in such patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ihm et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: