4.3 Article

Blood Pressure Instability in Persons With SCI: Evidence From a 30-Day Home Monitoring Observation

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
Volume 32, Issue 10, Pages 938-944

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ajh/hpz089

Keywords

autonomic dysreflexia; blood pressure; hypertension; hypotension; orthostatic hypotension; spinal cord injury

Funding

  1. Craig H. Neilsen Foundation [284196]
  2. Department of Veterans Affairs, Rehabilitation Research & Development Service [1382-P]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND To determine the degree of blood pressure instability over a 30-day home observation in participants with spinal cord injury grouped by level of injury pertaining to cardiovascular autonomic regulation. METHODS This is an observational study completed at the Kessler Foundation and James J. Peters Veterans Medical Center. Seventy-two participants with tetraplegia (C1-T1), 13 with high thoracic (T2-T4), and 28 with low thoracic (T5-T12) injury participated in this study. Participants were asked to record their blood pressure using an ambulatory blood pressure monitor three times a day for 30 days. RESULTS The number of blood pressure fluctuations was significantly increased in the tetraplegia group compared with the paraplegia groups. Age and duration of injury contributed to an increase in the observation of 30-day blood pressure instability; however, completeness of injury did not. CONCLUSION The data indicate significant blood pressure instability that may not be exclusive to persons with tetraplegia; in fact, individuals with low thoracic injuries demonstrated severe blood pressure fluctuations. The use of a monitor at home for an extended period may help document dangerous and extreme fluctuations in blood pressure and should be considered an important adjunctive clinical practice for tracking of the secondary consequences in the spinal cord injury population.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available