Literature DB >> 10516737

Relation of ambulatory blood pressure load with left ventricular geometry in untreated patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.

C Tsioufis1, C Stefanadis, G Goumas, C Pitsavos, P Toutouzas.   

Abstract

Whether ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) load is associated with left ventricular (LV) geometry was assessed in 335 patients (range 32-72 years) with stage I-II essential hypertension by performing 24-h ABP monitoring and echocardiographic examination. Of these 335 hypertensive subjects, 116 (34.5%) had normal LV geometry, 136 (40.5%) had concentric LV remodelling, 37 (11%) had eccentric LV hypertrophy and 46 (14%) had concentric LV hypertrophy according to the relative wall thickness and left ventricular mass index. Subjects with concentric LV hypertrophy had significantly increased 24-h systolic BP (SBP), diastolic BP (DBP) and mean arterial pressure as well as increased 24-h SBP and DBP load compared to those with normal LV geometry or concentric LV remodelling while there was no difference in the above parameters in comparison with the subjects with eccentric LV hypertrophy. The incidence of patients with normal LV geometry was significantly decreasing and the incidence of patients with LV-CH was significantly increasing as the degree of ABP loads were increasing. Using multiple regression analysis models with each type of LV geometry as a dependent variable and various degree of ABP loads as independent variables, it was revealed that normal LV geometry was significantly related with normal values of 24-h SBP and DBP load (P < 0.05) while there was not any significant relation between concentric LV remodelling and 24-h SBP or DBP load values. Concentric LV hypertrophy was significantly related with increased values of both 24-h SBP and DBP load (P < 0.05) while eccentric LV hypertrophy was significantly related with increased values of 24-h DBP load only (P < 0.05). In conclusion normal LV geometry is associated with normal values of SBP and DBP load while concentric LV hypertrophy is associated with increased values of both SBP and DBP load.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10516737     DOI: 10.1038/sj.jhh.1000912

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hum Hypertens        ISSN: 0950-9240            Impact factor:   3.012


  7 in total

1.  Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: mean blood pressure and blood pressure load.

Authors:  Susan Koshy; Colin Macarthur; Sanjeev Luthra; Mukesh Gajaria; Denis Geary
Journal:  Pediatr Nephrol       Date:  2005-08-04       Impact factor: 3.714

2.  Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and blood pressure load in obese children.

Authors:  Yu Kyung Kim; Hee Un Kim; Jin Young Song
Journal:  Korean Circ J       Date:  2009-11-30       Impact factor: 3.243

3.  Left ventricular diastolic function and circadian variation of blood pressure in essential hypertension.

Authors:  Mustafa Aydin; Ali Ozeren; Mehmet Bilge; Hulusi Atmaca; Murat Unalacak; Aydin Dursun; Mehmet Ali Elbey
Journal:  Tex Heart Inst J       Date:  2005

4.  Comparison of ambulatory blood pressure and Task Force criteria to identify pediatric hypertension.

Authors:  Leila N Díaz; Eduardo H Garin
Journal:  Pediatr Nephrol       Date:  2006-11-23       Impact factor: 3.714

5.  Left ventricular cardiac geometry and ambulatory blood pressure in children.

Authors:  Steffi Shilly; Kumail Merchant; Pamela Singer; Rachel Frank; Shari Gurusinghe; Lulette Infante; Christine B Sethna
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2019-04-13       Impact factor: 3.738

6.  Ambulatory blood pressure profile and left ventricular geometry in Nigerian hypertensives.

Authors:  O E Ajayi; E A Ajayi; O A Akintomide; R A Adebayo; S A Ogunyemi; A T Oyedeji; M O Balogun
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Dis Res       Date:  2011-07

7.  The cumulative blood pressure load and target organ damage in patients with essential hypertension.

Authors:  Bingqing Zhou; Chuanwei Li; Jialing Shou; Yu Zhang; Chunlan Wen; Chunyu Zeng
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2020-05-19       Impact factor: 3.738

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.