培哚普利及美托洛尔对中心动脉压的作用

目的比较培哚普利和美托洛尔对轻中度高血压病患者中心动脉压与肱动脉压的影响。方法在冠状动脉造影结束后,分别同步测量145例高血压病或(和)冠心病患者升主动脉根部(直接测量法)和肱动脉(袖带加压法)的血压,其中单药降压治疗二周以上的轻中度高血压病患者分为培哚普利组(4mg/d,62例)、美托洛尔组(25mg/d,39例)。结果升主动脉收缩压高于袖带加压法测量的肱动脉收缩压9.6mmHg(P<0.01),升主动脉舒张压低于袖带加压法肱动脉舒张压2.0mmHg(P<0.01),升主动脉脉压较肱动脉脉压大11.6mmHg(P<0.01)。虽然培哚普利组和美托洛尔组袖带加压法测得的肱动脉压相同,但是培哚普利组的升主动脉收缩压低于美托洛尔组(P<0.05)。结论升主动脉压与袖带加压法测得的肱动脉压差异有非常显著意义。虽然培哚普利和美托洛尔降低肱动脉压效果相似,但培哚普利降低升主动脉收缩压较美托洛尔更显著。     

Central pressure: variability and impact of cardiovascular risk factors: the Anglo-Cardiff Collaborative Trial II

Pulse pressure varies throughout the arterial tree, resulting in a gradient between central and peripheral pressure. Factors such as age, heart rate, and height influence this gradient. However, the relative impact of cardiovascular risk factors and atheromatous disease on central pressure and the normal variation in central pressure in healthy individuals are unclear. Seated peripheral (brachial) and central (aortic) blood pressures were assessed, and the ratio between aortic and brachial pulse pressure (pulse pressure ratio, ie, 1/amplification) was calculated in healthy individuals, diabetic subjects, patients with cardiovascular disease, and in individuals with only 1 of the following: hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, or smoking. The age range was 18 to 101 years, and data from 10 613 individuals were analyzed. Compared with healthy individuals, pulse pressure ratio was significantly increased (ie, central systolic pressure was relatively higher) in individuals with risk factors or disease (P<0.01 for all of the comparisons). Although aging was associated with an increased pulse pressure ratio, there was still an average+/-SD difference between brachial and aortic systolic pressure of 11+/-4 and 8+/-3 mm Hg for men and women aged >80 years, respectively. Finally, stratifying individuals by brachial pressure revealed considerable overlap in aortic pressure, such that >70% of individuals with high-normal brachial pressure had similar aortic pressures as those with stage 1 hypertension. These data demonstrate that cardiovascular risk factors affect the pulse pressure ratio, and that central pressure cannot be reliably inferred from peripheral pressure. However, assessment of central pressure may improve the identification and management of patients with elevated cardiovascular risk.     

Endothelial function in normotensive and high-normal hypertensive subjects

To evaluate the impact of a mild increment in blood pressure level on endothelial function, we evaluated 61 healthy volunteers (24 women, 37 men, and aged 35-50 years). All subjects underwent a blood chemistry panel to exclude any metabolic abnormalities and were submitted to a Doppler ultrasound of the brachial artery to assess endothelial function. We assessed the endothelial response to reactive hyperaemia and exogenous nitric oxide administration considering an increase in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at each 10-mm Hg interval. Our study population was divided as follows: SBP <115 mm Hg (SG1, n=13), SBP > or =115 mm Hg and <125 mm Hg (SG2, n=20), SBP > or = 125 mm Hg and <135 mm Hg (SG3, n=13) and SBP > or = 135 mm Hg and < 140 mm Hg (SG4, n=15). We found a significant difference in flow-mediated dilation among SG2, SG3 and SG4, 16.2+/-5.6, 13.4+/-5.2 and 11.5+/-3.6%, P<0.05, respectively). After nitrate administration, we observed a nonsignificant decrease in brachial artery dilation among groups, P=0.217. Our data showed in a healthy normotensive population, without any risk factor for atherosclerotic disease that small increases in SBP but not in diastolic blood pressure may impair endothelial function even in subjects considered as high-normal, meaning that this population deserves more attention than usually ascribed to intervene and prevent complications, as endothelial dysfunction may represent an early change in those who develop hypertension later in life.     

肱动脉袖带血压与中心动脉血压差异的分析

目的：比较肱动脉袖带血压与中心动脉血压的差异性,并探讨两者间差异的可能影响因素及机制。方法：选择住院行诊断性冠脉造影患者128例,平均（60．87±9．36）．岁。术前测量脉搏波传导速度（PWV）,容量顺应性（C1）,振荡顺应性（C2）,术中记录升主动脉压力（中心动脉血压,CAP）,并同步测量肱动脉袖带血压。结果：（1）根据中心动脉与肱动脉袖带收缩压（SBP）差异程度分为3组：相符组（两者相差≤4mmHg）21例（16．40％）,高估组（后者高于前者,差值〉4mmHg）14例（10．94％）,低估组（后者低于前者,差值〉4mmHg）93例（72．66％）;（2）低估组人群传统心血管危险因素多,多为老年,高血压、冠心病较多（P〈0．05）;（3）低估组PWV明显增快（P〈0．05）;（4）低估组C2明显降低（P〈0．05）。结论：中老年人肱动脉袖带血压大多数低于中心动脉压,中心动脉硬化可能与之有关。     

Mechanism(s) of selective systolic blood pressure reduction after a low-dose combination of perindopril/indapamide in hypertensive subjects: comparison with atenolol

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine if a low-dose combination of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor perindopril (Per) and the diuretic indapamide (Ind) reduces central (thoracic aorta, carotid artery) as well as brachial systolic blood pressure (SBP) more than the beta-blocker atenolol and to determine the hemodynamic factors influencing independently brachial and central SBP: pulse wave velocity (PWV) and pattern of wave reflections. BACKGROUND: In high cardiovascular risk populations, angiotensin blockade improves survival without affecting brachial SBP and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Whether central SBP, which is physiologically lower than brachial SBP, is significantly reduced has never been investigated. METHODS: This study was a double-blind randomized trial for one year in patients with essential hypertension. RESULTS: For a similar DBP reduction, Per/Ind decreased SBP significantly more than atenolol, with a more pronounced reduction for central than for brachial SBP. After one year, the difference between brachial and central SBP was maintained by Per/Ind (8.28 +/- 1.53 mm Hg) and significantly attenuated by atenolol (0.29 +/- 1.61 mm Hg). Under atenolol, the principal factor modulating SBP reduction was mean blood pressure. Under Per/Ind, this parameter played a minor role, and the central SBP reduction implied a major role for disturbed PWV and wave reflections. CONCLUSIONS: Under Per/Ind, but not atenolol, normalization of brachial SBP is achieved with a significantly greater reduction of central SBP. This hemodynamic profile reflects changes of wave reflections issued from distal arterial and arteriolar territory, where Per/Ind, but not atenolol, is known to improve vessel wall structure.     

Central hemodynamics and cardiovascular risk in nondippers

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2011;13:557–562. ©2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Failure of blood pressure (BP) to decline appropriately overnight (nondipping) is associated with increased risk. This may be due to inappropriately raised supine central BP and this study’s first aim was to examine this hypothesis. Secondly, aortic stiffness, central hemodynamics, and left ventricular (LV) mass were measured as other possible mechanisms of higher risk. Brachial and central BP (supine and seated), aortic stiffness, central hemodynamics, and LV dimensions were measured in 95 patients with hypertension (mean age 62±8 standard deviation). Central hemodynamics were recorded by combined radial tonometry and 3‐dimensional echocardiography. Seated brachial and central systolic BP (SBP) were similar between dippers (n=52) and nondippers (n=43). However, nondippers had higher supine brachial (132±14 mm Hg vs 126±11 mm Hg; P=.029) and central (121±15 mm Hg vs 115±11 mm Hg; P=.024) SBP. Aortic stiffness was not different between groups (P=.76), but LV mass index (33.0±6.2 vs 29.4±7.2 g/m^2.7; P=.019), stroke volume index (30.2±6.2 mL/m² vs 27.4±6.0 mL/m²; P=.040), and LV stroke work (3246±815 mm Hg/mL/m² vs 2778±615 mm Hg/mL/m²; P=.005) were all higher in nondippers. Dipper status independently predicted LV mass index (β=3.61; P=.001). Nondippers have higher supine brachial and central SBP, significantly different central hemodynamics, and elevated LV mass index compared with dippers. These cardiovascular anomalies possibly contribute to increased mortality risk.     

肱动脉血压与主动脉根部血压的相关性

目的:研究肱动脉血压与主动脉根部血压的相关性及其影响因素。方法:入选临床需要行冠状动脉(冠脉)造影的患者208例,在动脉穿刺成功后冠脉造影前同步测量主动脉根部血压和肱动脉血压各3次,取平均值,造影结果由2位以上专家判断,并测量身高、体重、臂围、腰围、臀围,计算体质指数(BMI)、腰围/臀围(WHR)、腰围/身高(WHtR)、平均血压(MBP)、主动脉根部收缩压(SBP)与肱动脉SBP的差值(S-S)、主动脉根部舒张压(DBP)与肱动脉DBP的差值(D-D)。结果:肱动脉血压与主动脉根部血压明显相关,SBP、MBP、DBP相关系数分别为0.88、0.76、0.58(P<0.01)。以血压正常和冠脉正常者肱动脉血压与主动脉根部血压相关性更高,SBP、MBP、DBP相关系数分别为0.87、0.80、0.64和0.92、0.84、0.68(P<0.01)。血压异常、冠脉狭窄、女性SBP相关性好,而DBP相关性较差,分别为0.52、0.48、0.49(P<0.01)。主动脉根部血压测值总体上高于肱动脉血压测值[S-S:-39～40(6.35±12.50)mmHg;D-D:-47～55(5.63±11.17)mmHg],多元线性回归分析发现:S-S与年龄、性别、臂围、WHR、WHtR、腰围、臀围均无关,D-D与WHR、WHtR、腰围、臀围、年龄相关,回归方程式为:D-D=329.74 76.88WHR 3.62腰围-3.42臀围-0.17年龄-375.82WHtR。结论:①主动脉根部血压与肱动脉血压有明显相关性;②WHR、WHtR、腰围、臀围、年龄影响主动脉根部与肱动脉DBP测值的差值。     

不同血压分级的原发性高血压患者心率变异性分析

目的 探讨不同高血压分级患者的心率变异性（HRV）特征,了解高血压对自主神经功能的影响.方法 纳入2011年6月-2012年6月我院心内科高血压患者（n=167）及健康对照组（n=50）,进一步根据〈中国高血压防治指南〉血压分级标准将高血压组分为：高血压1级组[140 mmHg≤收缩压（SBP）＜160 mmHg和/或90 mmHg≤舒张压（DBP）≤100 mmHg,n=45]、高血压2级组（160≤SBP＜180 mmHg和/或100 mmHg≤DBP≤110 mmHg,n=57）、高血压3级组（SBP≥180 mmHg和/或DBP≥110 mmHg,n=65）,采用24小时动态心电图记录的各组研究对象的HRV资料,分析和比较各组间HRV的5项时域指标SDNN、SDANN、HRV三角指数、RMSSD、PNN50之间的差异.结果 3组高血压组的5项HRV时域指标均低于健康对照组（P＜0.05）;高血压1级组、高血压2级组、高血压3级组三组之间的5项时域指标依次降低,其中SDNN、SDANN、HRV三角指数在对照组、高血压1级组、高血压2级组、高血压3级组任意两组之间比较,差异均具有统计学意义（P均＜0.05）.结论 高血压患者存在自主神经功能受损,并且随着血压分级水平的升高,自主神经受损逐渐加重.     

高血压与外周动脉疾病患病关系的横断面研究

目的探讨北京市年龄≥35岁人群高血压与外周动脉疾病(PAD)的关系。方法 2013年7月至2014年12月采用分层多阶段随机抽样的方法对北京四个区县年龄≥35岁居民进行上臂血压及踝臂血压测量,共检测5 126人。结果高血压组PAD的患病率明显高于无高血压组(6.5%比3.1%,P<0.05)。Logistic回归分析结果显示,在校正年龄、性别、体质量指数(BMI)、吸烟、糖尿病、血脂代谢异常以及降压药物的使用后,与正常血压人群相比,正常高值、1级高血压、2级高血压、3级高血压其患PAD的OR(95%CI)分别为1.38(0.87~2.19)、1.68(1.04~2.73)、2.10(1.18~3.73)、5.08(2.57~10.08)。将收缩压设定为连续变量分析,结果显示收缩压每升高10 mm Hg,PAD患病风险增加19%(OR=1.19,95%CI 1.09~1.30);收缩压为120~139、140~159、≥160 mm Hg组患PAD的风险分别为收缩压<120 mm Hg组的1.29(95%CI 0.83~2.01)、1.61(95%CI 1.01~2.60)、2.75(95%CI 1.65~4.60);趋势检验P<0.001;而PAD患病风险与舒张压则关系不明显。在高血压患者中,高血压未治疗组、治疗后未达标组、治疗达标组的PAD患病风险分别为无高血压组的1.45(0.98~2.14)、1.93(1.34~2.78)、1.23(0.83~1.82)。结论高血压可增加PAD患病风险,收缩压升高为PAD的独立危险因素;控制高血压患者升高的血压可以控制PAD患病的风险。     

正常高值血压人群动脉弹性功能的变化

目的　观察正常高值血压人群大小动脉弹性功能指数C1、C2的变化。方法　本研究分三组 ,(1)正常血压组 :收缩压 (SBP) <130mmHg ,且舒张压 (DBP) <85mmHg ,入选 72例 ,男 37例 ,女 35例 ;(2 )正常高值血压组 :SBP130～139mmHg和 /或DBP85～ 89mmHg ,入选 6 0例 ,男 31例 ,女 2 9例 ;(3)高血压组 :SBP≥ 14 0mmHg和 /或舒张压≥ 90mmHg ,入选 6 3例 ,男 31例 ,女 32例。采用HDICVProfilorDO - 2 0 2 0动脉功能检测仪测定大小动脉弹性功能指数C1、C2。结果　正常高值血压人群的C1、C2比正常血压组低 (C1:11 9± 3 4VS 15 3± 4 5 ;C2 :4 0± 2 1VS 5 6± 2 6 ) ,P <0 0 1;比高血压组高 (C1:11 9± 3 4VS 9 4± 3 1;C2 :4 0± 2 1VS 2 8± 1 3) ,P <0 0 1。C1、C2与血压呈负相关 ,即随着血压的升高而下降。结论　正常高值血压人群的动脉弹性功能下降 ,与血压水平呈负相关 ,随着血压的升高而降低     

The PHARAO study: prevention of hypertension with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ramipril in patients with high-normal blood pressure: a prospective, randomized, controlled prevention trial of the German Hypertension League

BACKGROUND: The prevention of hypertension with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ramipril in patients with high-normal blood pressure study addresses the issue of whether progression to manifest hypertension in patients with high-normal blood pressure can be prevented with treatment. METHODS: A total of 1008 participants with high-normal office blood pressure were randomized to ramipril treatment group (n = 505) and a control group (n = 503). The patients were followed up for 3 years. Primary endpoint was to prevent or delay the progression to manifest hypertension. Secondary endpoints were reduction in the incidence of cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events, as well as the development of hypertension as defined by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. FINDINGS: One hundred and fifty-five patients (30.7%) in the ramipril group, and 216 (42.9%) in the control group reached the primary endpoint (relative risk reduction 34.4%, P = 0.0001). Ramipril also proved to be more effective in reducing the incidence of manifest office hypertension in patients with baseline ambulatory blood pressure monitoring high-normal blood pressure. The incidence of cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events showed no statistically significant differences between the two groups. Cough was more frequent in the ramipril group (4.8 vs. 0.4%). INTERPRETATION: There is now good clinical evidence that patients with high-normal blood pressure (prehypertension) are more likely to progress to manifest hypertension than patients with optimal or normal blood pressure. Additional ambulatory blood pressure monitoring seems to be essential to achieve correct diagnosis. Treatment of patients with high-normal office blood pressure with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor was well tolerated, and significantly reduced the risk of progression to manifest hypertension.     

Peripheral and central blood pressure responses of combination aliskiren/hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine monotherapy in African American patients with stage 2 hypertension: the ATLAAST trial

Efficacy of antihypertensive agents on central blood pressure (BP) in African Americans is not well studied. The authors report on an 8-week double-blind, randomized study of African American patients with stage 2 hypertension that compared brachial and central BP responses (substudy of 53 patients) to combination aliskiren/hydrochlorthiazide (HCTZ) and amlodipine monotherapy. Following a 1- to 4-week washout, initial therapy was aliskiren/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg (n=166) or amlodipine 5 mg (n=166) for 1 week, forced-titrated to aliskiren/HCTZ 300/25 mg or amlodipine 10 mg for 7 weeks. Mean seated systolic BP reductions from baseline was similar with both treatments (-28.6 mm Hg with aliskiren/HCTZ vs -28.2 mm Hg with amlodipine). In the substudy, significantly greater reductions in central systolic BP was observed with aliskiren/HCTZ vs amlodipine (-30.1 mm Hg vs -21.2; P=.031), although 24-hour mean ambulatory BP reductions between the two groups were similar. Central pressure is considered an important risk factor in African Americans, and these findings may suggest a new treatment option for these patients.     

肾实质性高血压与原发性高血压昼夜节律对比分析

目的：比较肾实质性高血压与轻,中度原发性高血压的昼夜血压节律之差异,方法：实验组（A组）对象为经临床和实验室检查确诊的肾实质性高血压病人,共23例,对照组（B组）为同期随机抽取的我科23例轻,中度原发性高血压病人,两组均作动态血压检测（ABPM）,ABPM前1周均停服降压药物。结果：A,B两组24小时收缩压,舒张压,白天收缩压,舒张压无显性差异（P＞0．05）,夜间收缩压,舒张压则有高度显性差异（P＜0．01）,夜间血压下降率A组收缩压,舒张压均＜10％,B组则＞10％,两组间亦有高度显性差异（P＜0．01）。结论：肾实质性高血压夜间收缩压,舒张压下降较少,昼夜节律改变减弱,治疗时应重视恢复昼夜节律。     

不同血压人群ATⅠ、ATⅡ、肾上腺髓质素的水平比较

目的通过测定理想血压、血压正常高值及原发性高血压人群的血浆血管紧张素Ⅰ（ATⅠ）、血管紧张素Ⅱ（ATⅡ）和肾上腺髓质素（ADM）的水平,了解血压与血浆ATⅠ、ATⅡ及ADM水平的关系。方法分别纳入健康志愿者（理想血压组）40例、正常高值血压者（高值组）40例和原发性高血压（高血压组）患者30例,采用放射免疫法检测血浆ATⅠ、ATⅡ和ADM水平。结果三组间ATⅠ无统计学差异（P〉0.05）;与理想血压组相比,高值组和高血压组ATⅡ和ADM均较高（P〈0.05）,尤其以高血压组升高更为明显（P〈0.01）。结论 ATⅠ与血压无关ATⅡ和ADM随血压升高而水平呈上升趋势。     

Patients with type 2 diabetes have exaggerated brachial and central exercise blood pressure: relation to left ventricular relative wall thickness

BACKGROUND: A hypertensive response to exercise has prognostic significance. Patients with type 2 diabetes have vascular abnormalities which may predispose to exaggerated brachial and central blood pressure (BP) during exercise. This study aimed to test this hypothesis and to determine the clinical significance of high exercise BP by examining its relation to left ventricular (LV) mass. METHODS: Brachial and central BP were recorded at rest and in response to maximal exercise in 73 diabetic patients (aged 54 +/- 10 years) and 73 controls (aged 53 +/- 12 years). Brachial BP was recorded using mercury sphygmomanometry and LV mass using 2D-echocardiography. Central BP was estimated by radial tonometry using an exercise-validated generalized transfer function. RESULTS: At rest there were no significant (P > 0.05) differences between groups in brachial or central BP. The diabetic patients had significantly increased exercise brachial systolic BP (SBP: 199 +/- 25 mm Hg vs. 185 +/- 21 mm Hg; P = 0.002) and central SBP (158 +/- 17 mm Hg vs. 149 +/- 15 mm Hg; P = 0.002). There was a significantly higher prevalence of an exaggerated exercise BP response (> or =210/105 mm Hg; men and > or =190/105 mm Hg; women) in the diabetic patients (51% vs. 22%; P < 0.01). Compared with those with normal exercise BP, LV relative wall thickness (RWT) was significantly higher (0.41 +/- 0.09 vs. 0.36 +/- 0.08; P < 0.05) and LV hypertrophy was more prevalent (35% vs. 16%; P < 0.05) in those with a hypertensive response. After accounting for other confounding variables, exercise central SBP remained independently associated with LV RWT (beta = 0.22; P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Diabetic patients are more likely to exhibit exaggerated exercise BP. Regardless of disease status, high exercise central SBP may contribute to cardiovascular risk via adverse cardiac remodeling.     

依普利酮与氯沙坦对轻中度原发性高血压患者动脉僵硬度及中心动脉压的影响

目的探讨依普利酮与氯沙坦对收缩压及舒张压均增高的双期轻中度原发性高血压患者动脉僵硬度及中心动脉压(CAP)的影响。方法随机、双盲、双模拟、阳性药物平行对照设计,将84例轻中度原发性高血压患者[舒张压90～<110mm Hg(1mm Hg=0.133kPa)且收缩压140～<180mm Hg]分为依普利酮组和氯沙坦组,每组各42例,经服用安慰剂2周后进入12周的试验期,分别给予依普利酮50mg或氯沙坦50mg,口服1次/d,复诊1次/2周,4周后如舒张压≥90mm Hg,则改为依普利酮100mg分2次口服或氯沙坦100mg,口服1次/d。安慰剂治疗2周后及12周试验期结束前分别进行肝肾功能、电解质、血糖、血脂、血常规、尿常规、动态血压监测、臂踝脉搏波传导速度(baPWV)和CAP的测定。结果依普利酮组高血压患者完成试验37例,失访5例,氯沙坦组完成试验40例,失访2例;与治疗前相比,依普利酮组及氯沙坦组患者坐位收缩压及舒张压、动态血压参数、baPWV及CAP均明显降低;治疗12周末,两组患者的坐位收缩压及舒张压下降幅度差异无统计学意义[(18.3±8.6)比(21.4±9.4),(14.0±5.3)比(15.1±6.6)mm Hg,均P>0.05];依普利酮组的24h平均收缩压及平均舒张压、昼平均收缩压及平均舒张压、夜平均收缩压及平均舒张压、baPWV、CAP及总的不良事件发生率,与氯沙坦组相比差异无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。结论依普利酮与氯沙坦均能明显降低轻中度收缩压及舒张压均增高的双期原发性高血压患者的动脉僵硬度及中心动脉压。     

Real-world trends in pre-dialysis blood pressure levels of patients undergoing dialysis in Japan using a web-based national database

The prevalence of hypertension is high among patients undergoing dialysis. We extracted data of patients undergoing dialysis between 2012 and 2020 with recorded pre-dialysis systolic blood pressure (SBP) using a web-based national database in Japan. Following the 2019 Japanese Society of Hypertension guidelines, we classified SBP and assessed its trends over time based on sex, age, diabetes status, and the anti-hypertensive medication use. Using the 2020 database, we examined 336,759 Japanese patients undergoing dialysis (114,249 female; 222,510 male). The mean age was 69.4 ± 12.5 years, and the mean SBP was 152.3 ± 24.7 mm Hg. The prevalence rate of pre-dialysis hypertension was 70.2%, with 32.5%, 24.5%, and 13.2% of patients having grade I, grade II, and grade III hypertension, respectively. From 2014 to 2020, prevalence rate of pre-dialysis hypertension and absolute values of pre-dialysis SBP were higher in dialysis patients with diabetes than in those without diabetes across all age groups and sexes. Younger patients with diabetes or those on anti-hypertensive medication exhibited an SBP of approximately 160 mm Hg. Cerebrovascular death in patients with diabetes was associated with a higher rate of pre-dialysis hypertension than that in those without diabetes, and there was a significant difference in the prevalence of grade III hypertension between the two groups. In conclusion, the mean pre-dialysis SBP among patients undergoing dialysis remained high, and younger patients with diabetes or those receiving anti-hypertensive medications had poor blood pressure control. Optimal blood pressure management may be necessary to reduce the risk of cardiovascular mortality.     

Differences in exercise blood pressure response between dipper and non-dipper elderly patients with essential hypertension

We evaluated the circadian variation and exercise stress response patterns of blood pressure (BP) in elderly patients with essential hypertension. Ambulatory BP monitoring for 48 hours every 30 minutes, and treadmill exercise test using a Bruce protocol at PM 3 to 5 were performed in 49 untreated patients with hypertension. Mean daytime (awake), and night-time (sleeping) systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) values were analyzed by reviewing the patients' diaries, and the nocturnal reduction rate (NRR) of SBP and DBP were calculated according to the following formula. NRR (%) = [(daytime mean-nighttime mean)/daytime mean] x 100. The patients were divided into two groups according to the presence (dipper, n = 25) or absence (non-dipper, n = 24) of a reduction in both SBP and DBP during the night by an average of more than 10% of the daytime BP. Mean values of SBP and DBP measured over 48 hours in the dipper and non-dipper groups were similar. Responses of SBP to dynamic exercise at 2 to 5 minutes in the non-dipper group were significantly smaller than those in the dipper group (p < 0.05). Non-dipper patients with hypertension responded to dynamic exercise stress with smaller increases in SBP than did those in the dipper group. The differences in BP responses to exercise may affect the circadian blood pressure profile in dipper and non-dipper elderly patients with essential hypertension.     

The study of aortic stiffness in different hypertension subtypes in dialysis patients.

The aim of this study was to validate whether differences in aortic stiffness are responsible for the differences in cardiovascular mortality among hypertension subtypes. Twenty hundred and fifty continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis patients were included in the present study. They were classified into four groups: normotensives (n=92) with systolic blood pressure (SBP) <140 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) <90 mmHg; isolated systolic hypertensives (ISH, n=84) with SBP > or =140 mmHg and DBP <90 mmHg; isolated diastolic hypertensives (IDH, n=21) with SBP <140 mmHg and DBP > or =90 mmHg; and systolic-diastolic hypertensives (SDH, n=53) with SBP > or =140 mmHg and DBP > or =90 mmHg. Aortic stiffness was assessed by pulse pressure, central pressure parameters and pulse wave velocity. The IDH group had more male patients and a lower mean age than the other groups. The percentage of diabetes in the ISH group was higher than that in the other groups. The comparisons of aortic stiffness showed that the ISH and SDH groups had higher aortic stiffness than the normotension and IDH groups. The aortic stiffness in the ISH group was also higher than that in the SDH group, but there was no significant difference in aortic stiffness between the normotension and IDH groups. In conclusion, this study showed that aortic stiffness was significantly different among different hypertension subtypes, which might be an underlying cause of the differences in cardiovascular mortality among the hypertension subtypes.     

Relation of pulsatility of brachial artery pressure to resistant hypertension.

Few studies have examined predictors of resistant hypertension. The aim of this study was to observe the relationship between resistant hypertension and the pulsatility of the brachial artery pressure, which is characterized as pulse pressure/diastolic pressure (PP/DP) and is a simple index of aortic input impedance. We obtained home blood pressure (BP) measurements for 102 patients aged 40-75 years with either office systolic BP (SBP) > or =140 mmHg or office diastolic BP (DBP) > or =90 mmHg. Patients were given a single antihypertensive agent or left untreated during the 2-week baseline period. Thereafter, patients were treated with 1 to 3 antihypertensive drugs for 1 year with a goal of achieving a home BP of less than 135/85 mmHg. At follow-up, 72 patients were taking a single drug with good BP control, 21 were taking two drugs with good BP control, and 9 were taking three drugs with poor BP control. Although office SBP at baseline was similar among the three groups, home morning and evening SBP at baseline in the single drug group were lower than those of the two- or three-drug groups (p <0.01). Although office PP/DP at baseline did not differ among the three groups, home morning and evening PP/DP at baseline were highest in the three-drug group (p <0.01). In multivariate analysis, only mean home PP/DP at baseline was correlated with BP control. There is a correlation between the pulsatility of the brachial artery pressure and the degree of BP control.