4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Office blood pressure variability as a predictor of brain infarction in elderly hypertensive patients

期刊

HYPERTENSION RESEARCH
卷 23, 期 6, 页码 553-560

出版社

JAPANESE SOC HYPERTENSION CENT ACADEMIC SOC, PUBL OFFICE
DOI: 10.1291/hypres.23.553

关键词

elderly hypertension; long-term blood pressure variability; ischemic stroke; antihypertensive treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Large 24-h blood pressure (BP) variability and an excessive drop in BP during nighttime are associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events. Data are lacking regarding the prognostic significance of variability in BP measured during office visits. We analyzed the relationship between office BP variability and the risk of brain infarction in elderly patients receiving antihypertensive therapy. Patients who experienced their first-ever stroke at the age of 60 years or over were registered in the study. At least 2 sex- and age-matched control patients were registered for each case patient. Office BP at each clinic visit and known cardiovascular risk factors were recorded. The BP variability was defined as the variation coefficient (VC) of office BP. In this report, we analyze the data of brain infarction patients. The VC of both systolic and diastolic BPs was significantly higher in the brain infarction patients than in the control patients. Higher office BP variability was associated with a higher risk of brain infarction after adjustment for EP level and other confounding factors. Regarding diastolic BP, the association of brain infarction with the maximal value for the difference of office BPs taken at any consecutive two visits (Max-dBP) or the difference between the highest and lowest values of office BP (BP-range) recorded during a 1-year period prior to the event was also significant. In conclusion, a retrospective case-control study suggested that office BP variability was an independent predictor of brain infarction. Either the Max-dBP or the BP-range may be surrogate indices of diastolic BP variability.

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