Comparison between central and ambulatory blood pressure measurements in early detection of end organ damage: a single-center prospective non-randomized controlled trial

Background Both ambulatory blood pressure (AMBP) and non-invasive central blood pressure (NCBP) monitoring could be used as predictors for early detection of hypertensive end organ damage (EOD). However, the comparison between these two methods needs more clarification. Our cross-sectional study inc...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Egyptian heart journal 2019-09, Vol.71 (1), p.14-14, Article 14
Main Authors: Fouad, Doaa A., Al Araby, Hosam Hassan, Ashraf, Mohammad, El-Kousy, Ahmed El-Sherif
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Blood pressure
Body mass index
Cardiology
Comparative analysis
Hypertension
Measurement
Medical research
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Medicine, Experimental
Statistical analysis
Ultrasonic imaging
Variables
Veins & arteries
Wave propagation
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Both ambulatory blood pressure (AMBP) and non-invasive central blood pressure (NCBP) monitoring could be used as predictors for early detection of hypertensive end organ damage (EOD). However, the comparison between these two methods needs more clarification. Our cross-sectional study included 100 hypertensive patients with a mean age of 47.52 ± 8.35 years on regular antihypertensive treatment for ≥ 1 year (50 controlled, 50 uncontrolled). We compared associations, sensitivity, and specificity of EOD parameters with office, AMBP, and NCBP measurements. We measured left ventricular mass index (LVMI), carotid intimal medial thickness (CIMT), ankle-brachial index (ABI), serum creatinine, glomerular filtration rate (GFR), and pulse wave velocity (PWV). Results We found a significant relation between SBP of NCBP, AMBP and LVMI, and CIMT, PWV, and GFR respectively ( P < 0.05) while office SBP showed no significant relation. Systolic AMBP showed a high sensitivity to ABI (98%) and CIMT (92%) while systolic NCBP had 92% specificity and DBP showed 90% sensitivity for ABI. Conclusion AMBP and NCBP show a significant relation to LVMI, CIMT, PWV, and GFR with little superiority of central BP while office BP does not. Systolic ABPM has high sensitivity to ABI and CIMT and systolic NCBP has a high sensitivity and specificity to ABI.
ISSN:2090-911X
1110-2608
2090-911X
DOI:10.1186/s43044-019-0013-3