4.8 Article

Determinants of accelerated progression of arterial stiffness in normotensive subjects and in treated hypertensive subjects over a 6-year period

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 105, 期 10, 页码 1202-1207

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/hc1002.105135

关键词

aging; heart rate; elasticity; hypertension

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Elastic artery stiffness, a result of arterial aging, is an independent indicator Of Cardiovascular risk. The aim of the present longitudinal study was to compare the progression of aortic stiffness over a 6-year period in treated hypertensive subjects and normotensive subjects, and to evaluate the determinants of this progression. Methods and Results-Data for the present analysis were gathered from 483 subjects who had 2 health checkups at the Centre d'Investigations Preventives et Cliniques, the First one in 1992-1993 and the second one in 1998-1999. Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) was used to evaluate aortic stiffness in 187 hypertensive subjects who were under treatment at the time of the first visit and throughout the follow-up period, and in 296 subjects who were classified as normotensive during the first visit and who remained treatment-free throughout the follow-up period. In both populations, PWV progression was higher in older subjects. Annual rates of progression in PWV in treated hypertensives were significantly higher than in normotensives. Only treated hypertensives with well-controlled blood pressure levels at the time of both visits had a PWV progression similar to that of normotensives. In treated hypertensives, high heart rate and high creatinine during the first visit were associated with an accelerated progression in PWV. Conclusions-The presence of high blood pressure, high heart rate, and high serum creatinine were the major determinants of accelerated progression of aortic stiffness in treated hypertensives. This is the first longitudinal study to evaluate the determinants of arterial aging over an extended period of time.

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

4.8
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