4.3 Review

Blood Pressure Response to Exercise and Cardiovascular Disease

Journal

CURRENT HYPERTENSION REPORTS
Volume 19, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11906-017-0787-1

Keywords

Hypertension; Cardiovascular risk; Exercise testing; Exercise physiology

Funding

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) [1104731]
  2. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [1104731] Funding Source: NHMRC

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose of Review This review aimed to provide a clinical update on exercise blood pressure (BP) and its relationship to cardiovascular disease (CVD), outlining key determinants of abnormal exercise BP responses. We also highlight current evidence gaps that need addressing in order to optimise the relevance of exercise BP as clinical CVD risk factor. Recent Findings Abnormal exercise BP manifests as either exercise hypotension (low BP response) or as exaggerated exercise BP (high BP response). Exercise hypotension is an established sign of existing and likely severe CVD, but exaggerated exercise BP also carries elevated CVD risk due to its association with sub-clinical hypertension. Although exaggerated exercise BP is related to heightened CVD risk at any exercise intensity, recent data suggest that the BP response to submaximal intensity exercise holds greater prognostic and clinical significance than BP achieved at peak/maximal intensity exercise. Cardiorespiratory fitness is a strong modifier of the exercise BP response, and should be taken into consideration when assessing the association with CVD. Summary Both exercise hypotension and exaggerated exercise BP serve as markers that should prompt evaluation for potential underlying CVD. However, the clinical utility of these markers is currently inhibited by the lack of consensus informing the definitions and thresholds for abnormalities in exercise BP.

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