Literature DB >> 26372320

Within-visit BP variability, cardiovascular risk factors, and BP control in central and eastern Europe: findings from the BP-CARE study.

Guido Grassi1, Gino Seravalle, Alessandro Maloberti, Rita Facchetti, Cesare Cuspidi, Michele Bombelli, Stephane Laurent, Josep Redon, Giuseppe Mancia.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND
OBJECTIVE: Blood pressure variability (BPV) within 24 h or between visits has been found to represent an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease. The present study was aimed at determining whether a clinical significance can be given also to the BP variations occurring within a single clinical visit.
METHODS: BPV was quantified as coefficient of variation and as standard deviation (SD) of the mean of three systolic SBP values within a visit in the context of a large-cross subclinical survey (BP-CARE) of treated hypertensive patients living in Eastern European countries. The study population was divided into coefficient of variation and SD quartiles and for each quartile a relationship was sought with a large number of cardiovascular risk factors based on patients' history, physical and laboratory examinations.
RESULTS: The 6425 hypertensive patients had an age of 59.2 ± 11 years (mean ± SD); they were equally distributed by sex and displayed an average SD and coefficient of variation amounting to 5.1 ± 6.2 mmHg and 3.5 ± 4.0%, respectively. Compared with the lowest coefficient of variation quartile (Q1), patients in the highest quartile (Q4) showed a significantly greater prevalence of several cardiovascular risk factors, such as age (Q1: 58.5 ± 11 vs. Q4: 60.3 ± 11 years, P < 0.001), serum total cholesterol (Q1: 213.0 ± 46 vs. Q4: 216.4 ± 51 mg/dl, P < 0.05), blood glucose (Q1: 106.2 ± 35 vs. Q4: 109.8 ± 39 mg/dl, P < 0.005), previous cardiovascular events (Q1: 57.4 vs. Q4: 63.9%, P < 0.001), and resistant hypertension (Q1: 26.3 vs. Q4: 34.1%, P < 0.001). They also showed higher office (Q1: 143.2 ± 18 vs. Q4: 154.3 ± 19 mmHg, P < 0.001) and 24-h ambulatory SBP values (Q1: 134.8 ± 17 vs. Q4: 141.2 ± 18 mmHg, P < 0.001). Similar results were obtained when BPV was expressed as SD.
CONCLUSION: Our study provides evidence that greater within-visit BP variabilities are associated with a worse cardiovascular risk profile. This suggests that even this type of BPV may have clinical significance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26372320     DOI: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000000700

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


  4 in total

1.  Relationship between Within-Visit Blood Pressure Variability and Skeletal Muscle Mass.

Authors:  K-I Kim; M-G Kang; S-J Yoon; J-Y Choi; S-W Kim; C-H Kim
Journal:  J Nutr Health Aging       Date:  2019       Impact factor: 4.075

Review 2.  A Divide between the Western European and the Central and Eastern European Countries in the Peripheral Vascular Field: A Narrative Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Endre Kolossváry; Martin Björck; Christian-Alexander Behrendt
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-08-12       Impact factor: 4.964

3.  Within-Visit Blood Pressure Variability and Cardiovascular Risk in ELSA-Brasil Study Participants.

Authors:  André Sant'Anna Zarife; Helena Fraga-Maia; José Geraldo Mill; Paulo Lotufo; Rosane Harter Griep; Maria de Jesus Mendes da Fonseca; Luciara Leite Brito; Maria da Conceição Almeida; Roque Aras; Sheila Maria Alvim Matos
Journal:  Arq Bras Cardiol       Date:  2022-09-02       Impact factor: 2.667

4.  Association between B-type natriuretic peptide and within-visit blood pressure variability.

Authors:  Ana Beatriz Rodrigues; Ronaldo Altenburg Gismondi; Antonio Lagoeiro; Angela Mendes Cecilio; Delvo Vasques; Rafael Arita; Thabata Folegatti; Maria Luiza Rosa
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2018-05-10       Impact factor: 2.882

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.