4.2 Article

Blood Pressure Variability and Clinical Outcome in Patients with Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage

Journal

JOURNAL OF STROKE & CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES
Volume 24, Issue 7, Pages 1493-1499

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2015.03.014

Keywords

Stroke; intracerebral hemorrhage; blood pressure; blood pressure variability

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether fluctuations of blood pressure (BP) levels occurring in the acute stage of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) affect the 3-month clinical outcome. Methods: We retrospectively identified consecutive patients hospitalized for acute spontaneous ICH. BP measurements over the first 72 hours from the onset of symptoms were recorded, and standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), and maximum-minimum difference (max-min) were determined to characterize both systolic and diastolic BP variability (BPV). The measure of outcome was the 3-month functional status assessed by the modified Rankin Scale following a baseline severity-adjusted analysis. Results: Among the 138 enrolled patients with ICH, 67 (48.6%) were classified as having a poor 3-month functional recovery. A dose-response relationship with poor outcome was found for each measure of systolic BPV-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for the highest thirds of SD 7.95 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.88-21.90), CV 7.74 (95% CI, 2.88-20.80), and max-min 8.36 (95% CI, 2.72-25.62; P < .001). The strength of association with diastolic BPV turned out to be weaker and significant only for the higher values (adjusted ORs for the highest thirds of SD 6.74 [95% CI, 2.52-18.04], CV 4.57 [95% CI, 1.77-11.81], and max-min 4.34 [95% CI, 1.72-10.93]). Conclusions: In patients with acute ICH, BPV was a strong predictor of the 3-month clinical outcome and may represent a still neglected potential therapeutic target.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available