Key result
Ambulatory BP is linked to increased LV mass beyond ~131 mm Hg daytime systolic.
Why the study?
What are the determinants of left ventricular mass in unmedicated mildly hypertensive subjects?
Cross-Sectional (n=176)
What are the determinants of left ventricular mass in unmedicated mildly hypertensive subjects?
Ambulatory blood pressure, but not marital or job stress, is a determinant of left ventricular mass in early hypertension, with specific inflection points identified.
Ambulatory BP assessment may inform LV mass evaluation in mild hypertension independent of stress; leaves open causal inference and prospective validation.
One hundred seventy-six unmedicated mildly hypertensive subjects (113 men, 63 women) underwent M-mode echocardiography to determine left ventricular mass (LVM) and relative wall thickness (RWT), 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, and completed standardized questionnaires measuring marital and job stress. Subjects were aged 46 +/- 9 years old; 45.4% had daytime diastolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg; 96.1% of LVM results were in the normal range. We found that neither marital distress nor job strain was a determinant of LVM. However, a segmental regression approach revealed inflection points of 131 mm Hg systolic daytime blood pressure and 83 and 87 mm Hg nighttime diastolic blood pressure in the relation between LVM and RWT, respectively, and ambulatory BP. In addition, we found that the variability of LVM was best explained by indexing LVM by height, rather than body surface area.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Baker et al. (1998) conducted a cross-sectional in Early hypertension (n=176). Marital distress, job strain, and ambulatory blood pressure was evaluated on Left ventricular mass (LVM) and relative wall thickness (RWT). Ambulatory blood pressure, but not marital distress or job strain, was a determinant of left ventricular mass, with inflection points at 131 mm Hg daytime systolic and 83 mm Hg nighttime diastolic BP.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: