4.5 Article

Association of ambulatory arterial stiffness index and brachial pulse pressure is restricted to dippers

Journal

JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
Volume 26, Issue 2, Pages 210-214

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e3282f25b6e

Keywords

ambulatory arterial stiffness index; brachial pulse pressure; dippers; nocturnal blood pressure fall; nondippers

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The ambulatory arterial stiffness index (AASI) is a new index that reflects the dynamic relation between diastolic and systolic blood pressure through the circadian blood pressure rhythm. It was the aim of this study to investigate the association between AASI, dipping status and pulse pressure as a classical indicator of arterial stiffness in normotensive and hypertensive subjects. Methods One hundred and twelve individuals were evaluated for a kidney donation to a relative at the University Hospital Essen, Germany. In this context routine 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurements were performed. A nocturnal reduction in diastolic blood pressure of > 10% was defined as `dipping'. We determined the diurnal and nocturnal blood pressure and brachial pulse pressure values and computed AASI for each participant. Results AASI was a strong predictor for diastolic and systolic nocturnal blood pressure fall (r = -0.55 and -0.48, respectively; P < 0.001). Additionally, AASI predicted the status of ` dipping/nondipping'. ` Dippers' showed significantly lower AASI than ` nondippers' in both normotensive and hypertensive subjects. Dippers, but not nondippers, demonstrated an association between AASI and brachial pulse pressure. Discussion AASI is strongly correlated with nocturnal blood pressure fall and is increased in nondipping independent of blood pressure. The role of AASI as a potential marker for arterial stiffness depends, in this study, on the characterization of the dipping status.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available