Is metabolic syndrome associated with a higher burden of multiple organ damage markers in patients with essential hypertension?
Metabolic syndrome in essential hypertension is strongly associated with a clustering of multiple markers of organ damage, highlighting the need for systematic evaluation of cardiac and extracardiac damage in these patients.
AIM: We investigated the prevalence of the metabolic syndrome (MS) in hypertensive patients categorized according to the number of markers of organ damage (OD) in order to assess the value of a systematic search for cardiac and extra-cardiac OD in the MS setting. METHODS: A total of 3119 untreated and treated essential hypertensives included in the Evaluation of Target Organ Damage in Hypertension (ETODH), an observational registry of hypertension-related OD, were considered for this analysis. All patients underwent extensive investigation for left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) or LV concentric remodeling (cardiac OD), carotid plaques and/or intima-media thickening (vascular OD) and microalbuminuria (MA) and/or increased serum creatinine (renal OD). Subjects were classified as: positive for none (group 0), one (group I), two (group II) or three markers (group III) of OD. RESULTS: MS prevalence rates progressively rose across the groups stratified according to the OD score, reaching a 2.3-fold increase in group III compared with their MS counterparts in group 0. The distribution of subjects with and without the MS across the groups was 15% vs 29% (group 0), 32% vs 38% (group I), 39% vs 26% (group II) and 14% vs 7% (group III), respectively. Thus, subjects having two or three markers of OD were 53% among those with MS and 33% (p<0.01) among those without it. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate a strong association between the MS and OD by showing that a clustering of two or three markers of OD is the prevalent cardiovascular phenotype in MS hypertensives referred to a specialist center and call for a systematic evaluation of cardiac and extracardiac OD in this setting.
Cuspidi et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: