Key result
Hemodynamically-guided therapy yields ~80% more patients achieving ≥20 mm Hg 24-hour SBP reductions vs empiric care.
Why the study?
Does impedance cardiography (ICG)-guided therapy improve blood pressure reduction and echocardiographic features in hypertensive patients compared to empiric therapy?
Population
144 hypertensive patients
Comparison
Impedance cardiography-guided hypotensive… vs Empiric hypotensive therapy for 12 months
Design
RCT, randomly assigned
Follow-up
12 months
Authors
Loading...
ICG-guided therapy may enhance BP control and diastolic function in hypertension; extends hemodynamic personalization beyond empiric approaches.
RCT (n=121)
Single-blind (outcome assessment blinded)
1:1 using randomly permuted blocks
No
Does impedance cardiography (ICG)-guided therapy improve blood pressure reduction and echocardiographic features in hypertensive patients compared to empiric therapy?
Absolute Event Rate: 49.1% vs 27.3%
p-value: p=0.013
Impedance cardiography-guided antihypertensive therapy provides sustained blood pressure lowering and improves left ventricular diastolic function over 12 months compared to empiric therapy.
Krzesiński et al. (2016) conducted an RCT in Arterial hypertension (n=121). Hemodynamically-guided hypotensive therapy (impedance cardiography) vs. Empiric hypotensive therapy was evaluated on Percentage of patients achieving mean 24-h systolic blood pressure reduction of minimum 20 mm Hg (p=0.013). Hemodynamically-guided hypotensive therapy significantly increased the percentage of patients achieving a mean 24-h systolic blood pressure reduction of at least 20 mm Hg compared to empiric therapy (49.1% vs. 27.3%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: