Fusako Sera1, Zhezhen Jin2, Cesare Russo1, Edward S Lee1, Joseph E Schwartz1,3, Tatjana Rundek4,5, Mitchell S V Elkind6,7, Shunichi Homma1, Ralph L Sacco4,5,8, Marco R Di Tullio1. 1. Department of Medicine, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, USA. 4. Department of Neurology, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA. 5. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA. 6. Department of Neurology, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA. 7. Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA. 8. Department of Human Genetics, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) global longitudinal strain (GLS) is an early indicator of subclinical cardiac dysfunction, even when LV ejection fraction (LVEF) is normal, and is an independent predictor of cardiovascular events. Ambulatory blood pressure (BP) is a better predictor of cardiovascular events, including heart failure, than office BP. We investigated the association of office and ambulatory BP measurements with subclinical LV systolic dysfunction in a community-based cohort with normal LVEF. METHODS: Two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring were performed in 577 participants (mean age 70±9 years; 60% women) with LVEF ≥50% from the Cardiovascular Abnormalities and Brain Lesions (CABL) study. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were used to assess the associations of BP measures with GLS. RESULTS: Higher ambulatory and office BP values were consistently associated with impaired GLS. After adjustment for pertinent covariates (age, sex, race/ethnicity, body mass index, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, LV mass index, and antihypertensive medication), office diastolic BP and ambulatory systolic and diastolic BPs (24-hour, daytime and nighttime) were independently associated with GLS (P = 0.003 for office DBP, P ≤ 0.001 for all ambulatory BPs). When ambulatory and office BP values were included in the same model, all ambulatory BP measures remained significantly associated with GLS (all P < 0.01), whereas office BP values were not. CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory BP values are significantly associated with impaired GLS and the association is stronger than for office BP. Ambulatory BP monitoring might have a role in the risk stratification of hypertensive patients for early LV dysfunction.
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) global longitudinal strain (GLS) is an early indicator of subclinical cardiac dysfunction, even when LV ejection fraction (LVEF) is normal, and is an independent predictor of cardiovascular events. Ambulatory blood pressure (BP) is a better predictor of cardiovascular events, including heart failure, than office BP. We investigated the association of office and ambulatory BP measurements with subclinical LV systolic dysfunction in a community-based cohort with normal LVEF. METHODS: Two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring were performed in 577 participants (mean age 70±9 years; 60% women) with LVEF ≥50% from the Cardiovascular Abnormalities and Brain Lesions (CABL) study. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were used to assess the associations of BP measures with GLS. RESULTS: Higher ambulatory and office BP values were consistently associated with impaired GLS. After adjustment for pertinent covariates (age, sex, race/ethnicity, body mass index, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, LV mass index, and antihypertensive medication), office diastolic BP and ambulatory systolic and diastolic BPs (24-hour, daytime and nighttime) were independently associated with GLS (P = 0.003 for office DBP, P ≤ 0.001 for all ambulatory BPs). When ambulatory and office BP values were included in the same model, all ambulatory BP measures remained significantly associated with GLS (all P < 0.01), whereas office BP values were not. CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory BP values are significantly associated with impaired GLS and the association is stronger than for office BP. Ambulatory BP monitoring might have a role in the risk stratification of hypertensivepatients for early LV dysfunction.
Authors: Y Zhang; G Kollias; A A Argyris; T G Papaioannou; C Tountas; G D Konstantonis; A Achimastos; J Blacher; M E Safar; P P Sfikakis; A D Protogerou Journal: J Hum Hypertens Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 3.012
Authors: Zi Ye; Thais Coutinho; Patricia A Pellikka; Hector R Villarraga; Barry A Borlaug; Iftikhar J Kullo Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2015-04-03 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Shinichi Iwata; Zhezhen Jin; Joseph E Schwartz; Shunichi Homma; Mitchell S V Elkind; Tatjana Rundek; Ralph L Sacco; Marco R Di Tullio Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2012-01-10 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: R Sega; G Trocino; A Lanzarotti; S Carugo; G Cesana; R Schiavina; F Valagussa; M Bombelli; C Giannattasio; A Zanchetti; G Mancia Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-09-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Vitantonio Di Bello; Enrica Talini; Giulia Dell'Omo; Cristina Giannini; Maria Grazia Delle Donne; Maria Laura Canale; Carmela Nardi; Caterina Palagi; Frank Lloyd Dini; Giuseppe Penno; Stefano Del Prato; Mario Marzilli; Roberto Pedrinelli Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2009-12-31 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Arumugam Narayanan; Gerard P Aurigemma; Marcello Chinali; Jeffrey C Hill; Theo E Meyer; Dennis A Tighe Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2009-07-21 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Jian L Yeo; Gaurav S Gulsin; Emer M Brady; Abhishek Dattani; Joanna M Bilak; Anna-Marie Marsh; Manjit Sian; Lavanya Athithan; Kelly S Parke; Joanne Wormleighton; Matthew P M Graham-Brown; Anvesha Singh; J Ranjit Arnold; Claire Lawson; Melanie J Davies; Hui Xue; Peter Kellman; Gerry P McCann Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2022-05-28 Impact factor: 8.949
Authors: Pei-Lun Han; Xue-Ming Li; Li Jiang; Wei-Feng Yan; Ying-Kun Guo; Yuan Li; Kang Li; Zhi-Gang Yang Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-03-24
Authors: Wang Ningning; Hu Ying; Lin Shudong; Zhang Zhilong; Cai Qibo; Deng Yuting; Zhang Hao; Wu Nan; Qiu Changchun; Yang Xiujing; Jin Ming; Li Jingping Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2022-09-23 Impact factor: 1.817