4.5 Review

Clinical significance of stress-related increase in blood pressure: current evidence in office and out-of-office settings

期刊

HYPERTENSION RESEARCH
卷 41, 期 8, 页码 553-569

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41440-018-0053-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. Japan Organization of Occupational Health and Safety

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High blood pressure is the most significant risk factor of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases worldwide. Blood pressure and its variability are recognized as risk factors. Thus, hypertension control should focus not only on maintaining optimal levels but also on achieving less variability in blood pressure. Psychosocial stress is known to contribute to the development and worsening of hypertension. Stress is perceived by the brain and induces neuroendocrine responses in either a rapid or long-term manner. Moreover, endothelial dysfunction and inflammation might be further involved in the modulation of blood pressure elevation associated with stress. White-coat hypertension, defined as high clinic blood pressure but normal out-of-office blood pressure, is the most popular stress-related blood pressure response. Careful follow-up is necessary for this type of hypertensive patients because some show organ damage or a worse prognosis. On the other hand, masked hypertension, defined as high out-of-office blood pressure but normal office blood pressure, has received considerable interest as a poor prognostic condition. The cause of masked hypertension is complex, but evidence suggests that chronic stress at the workplace or home could be involved. Chronic psychological stress could be associated with distorted lifestyle and mental distress as well as long-lasting allostatic load, contributing to the maintenance of blood pressure elevation. Stress issues are common in patients in modern society. Considering psychosocial stress as the pathogenesis of blood pressure elevation is useful for achieving an individual-focused approach and 24-h blood pressure control.

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