4.5 Article

Central aortic blood pressure and augmentation index during normal pregnancy

期刊

HYPERTENSION RESEARCH
卷 35, 期 6, 页码 633-638

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/hr.2012.1

关键词

arterial stiffness; pregnancy; pulse wave analysis

资金

  1. Smoking Research Foundation
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23592402, 22591823] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current study tested the hypothesis that pregnancy-related changes are more pronounced in central hemodynamics, and both central aortic systolic blood pressure (cSBP) and augmentation index (AIx) are independent from brachial systolic blood pressure (bSBP) in normal pregnant subjects. In 830 healthy pregnant women from 12 to 36 weeks gestation, we measured cSBP and AIx-75 (AIx at heart rate of 75 beats per minute) non-invasively by pulse waveforms of the radial artery using an automated applanation tonometric system. In 69 pregnant women, we recorded these data longitudinally. cSBP and AIx-75 significantly declined during pregnancy, reaching its nadir in mid-pregnancy and rising towards term. Pregnancy-related changes were more pronounced in AIx-75 compared with cSBP, but less evident in bSBP. AIx-75, but not cSBP, was independent from bSBP throughout pregnancy. cSBP and AIx-75, but not bSBP, were significantly increased in healthy pregnant women older than 35 years. This study established normal values for pulse wave analysis parameters throughout pregnancy, and indicated that pulse wave analysis might offer additional and independent information about maternal arterial compliance to conventional brachial blood pressure measurements. These data may be used as the basis for further investigation into the role of pulse wave analysis in the assessment, management and prediction of disorders, which might interfere with pregnancy-related cardiovascular adaptations. Hypertension Research (2012) 35, 633-638; doi:10.1038/hr.2012.1; published online 2 February 2012

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据