Key result
24-hour ABPM predicts carotid and femoral intima-media thickness beyond standardized manual blood pressure.
Why the study?
Studies directly comparing the associations of intima-media thickness with blood pressure measured by manual sphygmomanometric and 24-h ambulatory methods are scarce and mostly cross-sectional.
Does 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurement predict carotid and femoral intima-media thickness better than manual sphygmomanometric measurement in a general population?
Cohort (n=532)
Does 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurement predict carotid and femoral intima-media thickness better than manual sphygmomanometric measurement in a general population?
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring predicts future carotid and femoral intima-media thickness better than highly standardized manual sphygmomanometric measurements.
Supports ambulatory BP superiority for intima-media thickness prediction; leaves open whether routine adoption improves outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: Studies directly comparing the associations of intima-media thickness with blood pressure (BP) on manual sphygmomanometric blood pressure measurement (SBPM) and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM) are scarce and have a cross-sectional design. METHODS: At baseline, we measured systolic and diastolic blood pressures, pulse pressure, and mean arterial pressure in 532 randomly recruited patients (women, 48.3%; mean age, 38.9 years) by SBPM and ABPM. SBPM was the average of five consecutive readings obtained by trained observers at the patients' homes. We measured carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) and femoral intima-media thickness (FIMT) by a wall-tracking ultrasound system, 26 months (median) after BP measurement (interquartile range, 21-29 months). We adjusted all analyses for observer, sex, age, BMI, smoking, and total/high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol ratio. RESULTS: The multivariable-adjusted associations of CIMT and FIMT with all BP components on SBPM were not significant (P >or= 0.12). In multivariable-adjusted models, CIMT increased with 24-h systolic blood pressure (effect size per SD increase, +0.131 mm; P = 0.003) and 24-h pulse pressure (+0.139 mm; P = 0.001), whereas FIMT increased with 24-h diastolic blood pressure (+0.091 mm; P = 0.03) and 24-h mean arterial pressure (+0.090 mm; P = 0.04). Models including the ambulatory blood pressure components additionally adjusted for SBPM and more covariables than those listed above were confirmatory. CONCLUSION: In a general population, BP on ABPM predicts CIMT and FIMT over and beyond highly standardized SBPM. At the elastic carotid artery, CIMT increased predominantly with the pulsatile component of BP, whereas at the muscular femoral artery, FIMT increased with the steady component of BP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dechering et al. (2009) conducted a cohort in General population (n=532). 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurement vs. Manual sphygmomanometric blood pressure measurement was evaluated on Carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) association with 24-h systolic blood pressure (beta 0.131, p=0.003). In a general population, 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure predicted carotid and femoral intima-media thickness over and beyond highly standardized manual blood pressure measurements.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: