BACKGROUND: This article is a follow-up on a 1998 article in JADA. The blood pressure, or BP, of 23 of 24 normotensive patients was monitored at 15-minute intervals for a total of nine days, in three consecutive sessions of four, two and three days, respectively, separated by a few weeks. METHODS: Twelve patients were reached by phone seven years after the prior chronobiologically interpreted monitoring to ascertain their cardiovascular status since the initial monitoring. RESULTS: Only two of the 12 patients reached in follow-up had abnormalities in all three sessions, and only these two patients reported having experienced an adverse vascular event (one a myocardial infarction, the other coronary artery bypass graft surgery). The difference in outcome between the patients with chronobiological abnormality in all three sessions vs. the pool of those with abnormality in only two, one or none of the sessions is statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Even a five-day (and sometimes a longer) profile, while greatly preferred to single measurements, may not suffice for a definitive diagnosis of certain patients. Retrospectively, the 864 measurements, on the average, on each person in our study could have served for a recommendation to each person. Chronobiologically interpreted BP and heart rate monitoring for a week or longer as a start detects high-risk states that may be missed by conventional casual measurements that are rarely accompanied by one-day profiles. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The dentist has an important opportunity for conveying the importance of monitoring BP and heart rate for a week to detect an abnormal variability, and for implementing this monitoring. Dentists can educate patients regarding the need for screening and for interpreting the results for variability, and contribute to their overall health by referring them to their physicians when treatment is indicated.
BACKGROUND: This article is a follow-up on a 1998 article in JADA. The blood pressure, or BP, of 23 of 24 normotensive patients was monitored at 15-minute intervals for a total of nine days, in three consecutive sessions of four, two and three days, respectively, separated by a few weeks. METHODS: Twelve patients were reached by phone seven years after the prior chronobiologically interpreted monitoring to ascertain their cardiovascular status since the initial monitoring. RESULTS: Only two of the 12 patients reached in follow-up had abnormalities in all three sessions, and only these two patients reported having experienced an adverse vascular event (one a myocardial infarction, the other coronary artery bypass graft surgery). The difference in outcome between the patients with chronobiological abnormality in all three sessions vs. the pool of those with abnormality in only two, one or none of the sessions is statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Even a five-day (and sometimes a longer) profile, while greatly preferred to single measurements, may not suffice for a definitive diagnosis of certain patients. Retrospectively, the 864 measurements, on the average, on each person in our study could have served for a recommendation to each person. Chronobiologically interpreted BP and heart rate monitoring for a week or longer as a start detects high-risk states that may be missed by conventional casual measurements that are rarely accompanied by one-day profiles. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The dentist has an important opportunity for conveying the importance of monitoring BP and heart rate for a week to detect an abnormal variability, and for implementing this monitoring. Dentists can educate patients regarding the need for screening and for interpreting the results for variability, and contribute to their overall health by referring them to their physicians when treatment is indicated.
Authors: G Cornélissen; F Halberg; E E Bakken; Z Wang; R Tarquini; F Perfetto; G Laffi; C Maggioni; Y Kumagai; P Homolka; A Havelková; J Dušek; H Svačinová; J Siegelová; B Fišer Journal: Scr Med (Brno) Date: 2007-10
Authors: G Cornélissen; A Delcourt; G Toussaint; K Otsuka; Y Watanabe; J Siegelova; B Fiser; J Dusek; P Homolka; R B Singh; A Kumar; R K Singh; S Sanchez; C Gonzalez; D Holley; B Sundaram; Z Zhao; B Tomlinson; B Fok; M Zeman; K Dulkova; Franz Halberg Journal: Biomed Pharmacother Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 6.529
Authors: B Sundaram; D C Holley; G Cornélissen; D Naik; R Hanumansetty; R B Singh; K Otsuka; F Halberg Journal: Biomed Pharmacother Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 6.529
Authors: F Halberg; G Cornélissen; G Katinas; J Dušek; P Homolka; Z Karpíšek; R P P Sonkowsky; O Schwartzkopff; B Fišer; J Siegelová Journal: Scr Med (Brno) Date: 2007-10-01