Literature DB >> 9160766

Does orthostatic testing have any role in the evaluation of the young subject with mild hypertension?: an insight from the HARVEST study.

O Vriz1, G Soon, H Lu, A B Weder, C Canali, P Palatini.   

Abstract

The aim of the study was to assess the clinical significance of the blood pressure (BP) reaction to standing in 1029 stage I hypertensives. Office BP was measured six times in the supine position and six times after 2 min of standing. All subjects underwent 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring, and measurements of 24-h urinary epinephrine and norepinephrine excretion. Echocardiography was performed in 636 patients. With use of mixture analysis we could single out a population with abnormal diastolic BP response to standing (hyperreactors, n = 95). These subjects had a diastolic BP increase from lying to standing of >11 mm Hg. The other subjects were defined as normoreactors (n = 934). Office systolic BP was similar in the two groups. Diastolic BP was lower (91 +/- 6 mm Hg v 95 +/- 5 mm Hg, P < .0001) and heart rate was higher in the hyperreactors (77 +/- 10 beats/min v 75 +/- 9 beats/min, P = .004). After adjusting for age, gender, and smoking habits the statistical significance did not change. Adjusted 24-h systolic BP (P = .02) and diastolic BP (P = .02) were higher in the hyperreactors than in the normoreactors. Hyperreactors were characterized by higher cardiac index (3.2 +/- 0.8 L/min/m2 v 3.0 +/- 0.7 L/min/m2, P = .008 for adjusted values), lower total peripheral resistance (1420 +/- 330 dyne/sec/cm(-5) v 1600 +/- 380 dyne/sec/cm(-5), P = .003), and higher urinary norepinephrine output (114.9 +/- 80.3 microg/24 h v 90.6 +/- 78.5 microg/24 h, P = .03). Dimensional echocardiographic data and albumin excretion rate did not differ between the two groups. In conclusion, mixture analysis allowed us to identify a population of young mild hypertensives with exaggerated BP response to standing. Hyperreactors were characterized by higher whole-day BP and by a hyperkinetic hemodynamic pattern as a result of increased sympathetic tone.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9160766     DOI: 10.1016/s0895-7061(96)00489-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Hypertens        ISSN: 0895-7061            Impact factor:   2.689


  8 in total

Review 1.  How should we manage a patient with masked hypertension?

Authors:  Paolo Palatini
Journal:  High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev       Date:  2014-02-06

2.  Orthostatic hypotension and orthostatic hypertension in American veterans.

Authors:  Jill M Wecht; Joseph P Weir; Stephanie Martinez; Mastanna Eraifej; William A Bauman
Journal:  Clin Auton Res       Date:  2015-12-22       Impact factor: 4.435

3.  An Emerging Role for Understanding Orthostatic Hyp'er'tension in the Cardiorenal Syndrome.

Authors:  Jaya P Buddineni; Laxmi Chauhan; Syed T Ahsan; Adam Whaley-Connell
Journal:  Cardiorenal Med       Date:  2011-04-15       Impact factor: 2.041

Review 4.  Orthostatic hypertension-a new haemodynamic cardiovascular risk factor.

Authors:  Kazuomi Kario
Journal:  Nat Rev Nephrol       Date:  2013-11-05       Impact factor: 28.314

5.  Orthostatic hypertension: From pathophysiology to clinical applications and therapeutic considerations.

Authors:  Nikolaos Magkas; Costas Tsioufis; Costas Thomopoulos; Polychronis Dilaveris; Georgios Georgiopoulos; Michael Doumas; Dimitris Papadopoulos; Dimitrios Tousoulis
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2019-02-06       Impact factor: 3.738

6.  Orthostatic Hypertension and Intensive Blood Pressure Control; Post-Hoc Analyses of SPRINT.

Authors:  Mahboob Rahman; Nishigandha Pradhan; Zhengyi Chen; Radhika Kanthety; Raymond R Townsend; Curtis Tatsuoka; Jackson T Wright
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2020-11-09       Impact factor: 10.190

7.  Combined exercise training in postmenopausal women: implications for vascular hemodynamics.

Authors:  Costas Thomopoulos; Carolina Lombardi; Gianfranco Parati
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2013-02-01       Impact factor: 3.738

8.  Predictors of blood pressure response to ultrasound renal denervation in the RADIANCE-HTN SOLO study.

Authors:  Manish Saxena; Roland E Schmieder; Ajay J Kirtane; Felix Mahfoud; Joost Daemen; Jan Basile; Philipp Lurz; Philippe Gosse; Kintur Sanghvi; Naomi D L Fisher; Lars C Rump; Atul Pathak; Peter J Blankestijn; Anthony Mathur; Yale Wang; Michael A Weber; Andrew S P Sharp; Michael J Bloch; Neil C Barman; Lisa Claude; Yang Song; Michel Azizi; Melvin D Lobo
Journal:  J Hum Hypertens       Date:  2021-05-24       Impact factor: 2.877

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.