BACKGROUND: International recommendations have classified brachial blood pressure (BP) in subgroups enabling better cardiovascular risk stratification. Central BP is an independent predictor of cardiovascular risk, differing from brachial BP through the predominant influence of arterial stiffness and wave reflections. Central BP has never been studied in relation to international guidelines for brachial BP classification. METHODS: In 580 chronically treated hypertensive subjects we measured: carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV), carotid artery augmentation index (AI) and carotid blood pressures, using applanation tonometry and pulse wave analysis, and using brachial BP for carotid pressure wave calibration. RESULTS: For each given brachial value, carotid systolic blood pressure (SBP) and PP were significantly lower than the corresponding brachial SBP and PP. This pressure amplification was significantly lower in the 'optimal' and 'normal' BP ranges (6.8-7.4 mmHg) than in the higher BP ranges (10.1-11.3 mmHg), mainly depending on heart rate (HR) and PWV levels. PWV gradually increased as a function of brachial BP classification and was a significant predictor of this classification independently of age, drug treatment, atherosclerotic lesions and even mean BP. Finally, PWV was a highly sensitive marker of the effective BP control throughout all decades of age. CONCLUSION: Under chronic antihypertensive therapy, central BP does not strictly parallel the corresponding brachial BP classification, depending on differences in aortic stiffness and HR. Whether aortic PWV might predict the brachial BP classification and/or the presence of effective BP control, as suggested in this study, needs further confirmation.
BACKGROUND: International recommendations have classified brachial blood pressure (BP) in subgroups enabling better cardiovascular risk stratification. Central BP is an independent predictor of cardiovascular risk, differing from brachial BP through the predominant influence of arterial stiffness and wave reflections. Central BP has never been studied in relation to international guidelines for brachial BP classification. METHODS: In 580 chronically treated hypertensive subjects we measured: carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV), carotid artery augmentation index (AI) and carotid blood pressures, using applanation tonometry and pulse wave analysis, and using brachial BP for carotid pressure wave calibration. RESULTS: For each given brachial value, carotid systolic blood pressure (SBP) and PP were significantly lower than the corresponding brachial SBP and PP. This pressure amplification was significantly lower in the 'optimal' and 'normal' BP ranges (6.8-7.4 mmHg) than in the higher BP ranges (10.1-11.3 mmHg), mainly depending on heart rate (HR) and PWV levels. PWV gradually increased as a function of brachial BP classification and was a significant predictor of this classification independently of age, drug treatment, atherosclerotic lesions and even mean BP. Finally, PWV was a highly sensitive marker of the effective BP control throughout all decades of age. CONCLUSION: Under chronic antihypertensive therapy, central BP does not strictly parallel the corresponding brachial BP classification, depending on differences in aortic stiffness and HR. Whether aortic PWV might predict the brachial BP classification and/or the presence of effective BP control, as suggested in this study, needs further confirmation.
Authors: Georges Khoueiry; Basem Azab; Estelle Torbey; Nidal Abi Rafeh; Jean-Paul Atallah; Kathleen Ahern; James Malpeso; Donald McCord; Elie R Chemaly Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Oana-Florentina Tautu; Roxana Darabont; Sebastian Onciul; Alexandru Deaconu; Ioana Comanescu; Radu Dan Andrei; Bogdan Dragoescu; Mircea Cinteza; Maria Dorobantu Journal: Maedica (Buchar) Date: 2014-06
Authors: Elaine M Urbina; Philip R Khoury; Connie E McCoy; Stephen R Daniels; Lawrence M Dolan; Thomas R Kimball Journal: Blood Press Monit Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 1.444
Authors: Rebecca F Rosenwasser; Niren K Shah; Steven M Smith; Xuerong Wen; Yan Gong; John G Gums; Wilmer W Nichols; Arlene B Chapman; Eric Boerwinkle; Julie Johnson; Benjamin Epstein Journal: J Am Soc Hypertens Date: 2014-01-03
Authors: Elaine M Urbina; Philip R Khoury; Connie McCoy; Stephen R Daniels; Thomas R Kimball; Lawrence M Dolan Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Paolo Palatini; Edoardo Casiglia; Jerzy Gąsowski; Jerzy Głuszek; Piotr Jankowski; Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Francesca Saladini; Katarzyna Stolarz-Skrzypek; Valérie Tikhonoff; Luc Van Bortel; Wiktoria Wojciechowska; Kalina Kawecka-Jaszcz Journal: Vasc Health Risk Manag Date: 2011-12-07