W B White1, P Lund-Johansen, P Omvik. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington 06030.
Abstract
AIM: To examine the relationships among ambulatory blood pressure, blood pressure load (proportion of elevated blood pressure values over 24-h recording) and indices of hypertensive heart disease (left ventricular mass and left ventricular function) in untreated hypertensive patients. A secondary aim was to evaluate the usefulness of ambulatory blood pressure load in assessing the long-term effects of antihypertensive drug therapy. METHODS: Data were obtained from a study of 15 men with moderate to severe essential hypertension who had been treated with aplacebo followed by 6-8 months of carvedilol monotherapy (25-75 mg/day). Blood pressure was evaluated by 24-h ambulatory monitoring. RESULTS: In studies of office or 'white-coat' hypertensives, ambulatory blood pressure has proved a better predictor of target organ involvement than casual (clinic) pressure. Blood pressure loads of > 50% for systolic pressure and > 40% for diastolic pressure are superior to clinic pressures, and also to the usual ambulatory monitoring parameters of mean 24-h, awake and sleeping blood pressure, in predicting left ventricular hypertrophy and abnormal diastolic performance. In the carvedilol study, the mean awake systolic blood pressure load fell from 94 to 43% and the diastolic blood pressure load fell from 84 to 27% with carvedilol treatment (P < 0.001 in both cases). Of the patients treated with carvedilol monotherapy, 60% fell into the lower risk category (< 50% systolic blood pressure and < 40% diastolic blood pressure load). CONCLUSIONS: These data support the use of blood pressure load in clinical studies of mild to moderate essential hypertension as a measure of the efficacy of antihypertensive drugs.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To examine the relationships among ambulatory blood pressure, blood pressure load (proportion of elevated blood pressure values over 24-h recording) and indices of hypertensive heart disease (left ventricular mass and left ventricular function) in untreated hypertensivepatients. A secondary aim was to evaluate the usefulness of ambulatory blood pressure load in assessing the long-term effects of antihypertensive drug therapy. METHODS: Data were obtained from a study of 15 men with moderate to severe essential hypertension who had been treated with a placebo followed by 6-8 months of carvedilol monotherapy (25-75 mg/day). Blood pressure was evaluated by 24-h ambulatory monitoring. RESULTS: In studies of office or 'white-coat' hypertensives, ambulatory blood pressure has proved a better predictor of target organ involvement than casual (clinic) pressure. Blood pressure loads of > 50% for systolic pressure and > 40% for diastolic pressure are superior to clinic pressures, and also to the usual ambulatory monitoring parameters of mean 24-h, awake and sleeping blood pressure, in predicting left ventricular hypertrophy and abnormal diastolic performance. In the carvedilol study, the mean awake systolic blood pressure load fell from 94 to 43% and the diastolic blood pressure load fell from 84 to 27% with carvedilol treatment (P < 0.001 in both cases). Of the patients treated with carvedilol monotherapy, 60% fell into the lower risk category (< 50% systolic blood pressure and < 40% diastolic blood pressure load). CONCLUSIONS: These data support the use of blood pressure load in clinical studies of mild to moderate essential hypertension as a measure of the efficacy of antihypertensive drugs.