Literature DB >> 22499291

Visit-to-visit blood pressure variability in the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis: methodological aspects and effects of antihypertensive treatment.

Giuseppe Mancia1, Rita Facchetti, Gianfranco Parati, Alberto Zanchetti.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have reported that in patients under antihypertensive treatment visit-to-visit (or long-term) variability of clinic BP within a given patient has an independent prognostic significance. Partly based on between-patient dispersion of BP values during treatment (interindividual variability) it has also been reported that long-term clinic BP variability is greater for β-blocker than for calcium antagonist and other types of treatment. GOALS: To measure visit-to-visit intraindividual variations of both clinic and 24-h mean BP in the hypertensive patients of the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis (ELSA) trial treated for 4 years with either atenolol or lacidipine, and to check whether interindividual clinic and 24-h BP variabilities during treatment can really be considered a surrogate of intraindividual variabilities in exploring differences between β-blocker and calcium antagonist treatments.
METHODS: Long-term intraindividual BP variability was defined as the coefficient of variation of the average systolic or diastolic values of clinic and 24-h BP measured at each visit throughout the treatment period. Patients in whom at least seven clinic (6-month intervals) or at least three (yearly intervals) 24-h values were available from the end of the drug titration phase to the end of the study were considered.
RESULTS: Visit-to-visit 24-h SBP/DBP variabilities were 20-25% smaller than, and loosely correlated with clinic BP variability (r(2) < 0.022). There was also a very limited relationship (r (2)< 0.026) between visit-to-visit and within 24-h ambulatory BP variabilities, the latter being two to three times greater than the former. Visit-to-visit intraindividual clinic SBP variability was only slightly lower on calcium antagonist than on β-blocker treatment but little or no between-treatment difference was found for visit-to-visit clinic DBP and ambulatory SBP/DBP particularly in patients under monotherapy throughout the study. Interindividual BP variability was markedly greater than the intra-individiual one of which it did not precisely reflect the treatment-induced changes.
CONCLUSION: In mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients, visit-to-visit BP variability does not differ substantially between β-blocker and calcium antagonist treatment. Major discrepancies exist between visit-to-visit BP variability as quantified by 24-h vs. clinic BP, making investigation of which of these indices is clinically more relevant important. Interindividual BP variability during treatment shows marked quantitative differences with intraindividual BP variability questioning whether its use can accurately reflect individual BP variations from one visit to another.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22499291     DOI: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e32835339ac

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hypertens        ISSN: 0263-6352            Impact factor:   4.844


  30 in total

Review 1.  Is It Daily, Monthly, or Yearly Blood Pressure Variability that Enhances Cardiovascular Risk?

Authors:  Eamon Dolan; Eoin O'Brien
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 2.  Visit-to-visit variability of blood pressure and cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Keith M Diaz; Rikki M Tanner; Louise Falzon; Emily B Levitan; Kristi Reynolds; Daichi Shimbo; Paul Muntner
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2014-07-28       Impact factor: 10.190

Review 3.  Blood pressure variability: assessment, predictive value, and potential as a therapeutic target.

Authors:  Gianfranco Parati; Juan Eugenio Ochoa; Carolina Lombardi; Grzegorz Bilo
Journal:  Curr Hypertens Rep       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 5.369

Review 4.  Assessment and management of blood-pressure variability.

Authors:  Gianfranco Parati; Juan E Ochoa; Carolina Lombardi; Grzegorz Bilo
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2013-02-12       Impact factor: 32.419

Review 5.  Visit-to-Visit Variability of Systolic Blood Pressure and Cardiovascular Disease.

Authors:  Wael F Hussein; Tara I Chang
Journal:  Curr Hypertens Rep       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 5.369

Review 6.  Labile and Paroxysmal Hypertension: Common Clinical Dilemmas in Need of Treatment Studies.

Authors:  Samuel J Mann
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 2.931

7.  Stroke outcomes among participants randomized to chlorthalidone, amlodipine or lisinopril in ALLHAT.

Authors:  José-Miguel Yamal; Suzanne Oparil; Barry R Davis; Michael H Alderman; David A Calhoun; William C Cushman; Herbert F Fendley; Stanley S Franklin; Gabriel B Habib; Sara L Pressel; Jeffrey L Probstfield; Sithiporn Sastrasinh
Journal:  J Am Soc Hypertens       Date:  2014-08-19

Review 8.  Blood pressure variability, cardiovascular risk, and risk for renal disease progression.

Authors:  Gianfranco Parati; Juan E Ochoa; Grzegorz Bilo
Journal:  Curr Hypertens Rep       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 5.369

9.  Visit-to-Visit Variability of Blood Pressure and Coronary Heart Disease, Stroke, Heart Failure, and Mortality: A Cohort Study.

Authors:  Paul Muntner; Jeff Whittle; Amy I Lynch; Lisandro D Colantonio; Lara M Simpson; Paula T Einhorn; Emily B Levitan; Paul K Whelton; William C Cushman; Gail T Louis; Barry R Davis; Suzanne Oparil
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-09-01       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Visit-to-visit variability of systolic blood pressure predicts all-cause mortality in patients received percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents.

Authors:  Suk Min Seo; Woo-Baek Chung; Ik Jun Choi; Yoon-Seok Koh; Sang-Hyun Ihm; Pum-Jun Kim; Wook Sung Chung; Ki-Bae Seung
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2017-11-18       Impact factor: 2.037

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.