Thomas A Bouwmeester1, Lennart van de Velde1,2, Henrike Galenkamp3, Pieter G Postema4, Berend E Westerhof5, Bert-Jan H van den Born1,3, Didier Collard1. 1. Department of Vascular Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam. 2. Faculty of Science and Technology, Multi-Modality Medical Imaging Group, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede. 3. Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam. 4. Department of Cardiology, Heart Center, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences. 5. Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
AIMS: Reflection magnitude (RM), the ratio of the amplitudes of the backward and forward central arterial pressure waves, has been shown to predict cardiovascular events. However, the association with blood pressure (BP) and hypertension is unclear. METHODS: We assessed RM in 10 195 individuals of Dutch, South-Asian Surinamese, African Surinamese, Ghanaian, Turkish and Moroccan origin aged between 18 and 70 years (54.2% female) participating in the Healthy Life in an Urban Setting study. To determine RM, central arterial pressure and flow were reconstructed from finger BP. Hypertension was defined based on office-BP and medication. Associations with BP, hypertension, and hypertensive organ damage were assessed using linear regression models with correction for relevant covariates. RESULTS: Mean RM was 62.5% (standard deviation [SD] 8.0) in men and 63.8% (SD 8.1) in women. RM was lowest in Dutch and highest in South-Asian and African participants. RM increased linearly with 1.35 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23-1.46) for every 10 mmHg increase in systolic BP from 120 mmHg onwards, while the relation with diastolic BP was nonlinear. RM was 2.40 (95% CI 2.04-2.76) higher in hypertensive men and 3.82 (95% CI 3.46-4.19) higher in hypertensive women compared to normotensive men and women. In hypertensive men and women with ECG-based left ventricular hypertrophy or albuminuria RM was 1.64 (95% CI 1.09-2.20) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.37-1.52) higher compared to hypertensive participants without hypertensive organ damage. CONCLUSION: RM is associated with BP, hypertension and hypertensive organ damage, and may in part explain disparities in hypertension associated cardiovascular risk.
AIMS: Reflection magnitude (RM), the ratio of the amplitudes of the backward and forward central arterial pressure waves, has been shown to predict cardiovascular events. However, the association with blood pressure (BP) and hypertension is unclear. METHODS: We assessed RM in 10 195 individuals of Dutch, South-Asian Surinamese, African Surinamese, Ghanaian, Turkish and Moroccan origin aged between 18 and 70 years (54.2% female) participating in the Healthy Life in an Urban Setting study. To determine RM, central arterial pressure and flow were reconstructed from finger BP. Hypertension was defined based on office-BP and medication. Associations with BP, hypertension, and hypertensive organ damage were assessed using linear regression models with correction for relevant covariates. RESULTS: Mean RM was 62.5% (standard deviation [SD] 8.0) in men and 63.8% (SD 8.1) in women. RM was lowest in Dutch and highest in South-Asian and African participants. RM increased linearly with 1.35 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23-1.46) for every 10 mmHg increase in systolic BP from 120 mmHg onwards, while the relation with diastolic BP was nonlinear. RM was 2.40 (95% CI 2.04-2.76) higher in hypertensive men and 3.82 (95% CI 3.46-4.19) higher in hypertensive women compared to normotensive men and women. In hypertensive men and women with ECG-based left ventricular hypertrophy or albuminuria RM was 1.64 (95% CI 1.09-2.20) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.37-1.52) higher compared to hypertensive participants without hypertensive organ damage. CONCLUSION: RM is associated with BP, hypertension and hypertensive organ damage, and may in part explain disparities in hypertension associated cardiovascular risk.
Authors: Rebecca C Chester; Jeff A Gornbein; W Gregory Hundley; Preethi Srikanthan; Karol E Watson; Tamara Horwich Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2017-01-16 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Alexander C Flint; Carol Conell; Xiushui Ren; Nader M Banki; Sheila L Chan; Vivek A Rao; Ronald B Melles; Deepak L Bhatt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-07-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Thais Coutinho; Barry A Borlaug; Patricia A Pellikka; Stephen T Turner; Iftikhar J Kullo Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-11-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Ljuba Bacharova; Haiying Chen; E Harvey Estes; Anton Mateasik; David A Bluemke; Joao A C Lima; Gregory L Burke; Elsayed Z Soliman Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2014-11-29 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: C Cato Ter Haar; Jan A Kors; Ron J G Peters; Michael W T Tanck; Marieke B Snijder; Arie C Maan; Cees A Swenne; Bert-Jan H van den Born; Jonas S S G de Jong; Peter W Macfarlane; Pieter G Postema Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Henry Fok; Antoine Guilcher; Ye Li; Sally Brett; Ajay Shah; Brian Clapp; Phil Chowienczyk Journal: Hypertension Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 10.190