Hoffmann, R. A wiki for the life sciences where authorship matters. Nature Genetics (2008)

Editor

Personal info

View

About

Terms

Javascript disabled

Please enable Javascript support in your browser to use this application.

Instructions on how to enable JavaScript on different browsers can be found here: http://www.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=23852.

[edit this page]

Mancia, G. et al.

Ambulatory blood pressure is superior to clinic blood pressure in predicting treatment-induced regression of left ventricular hypertrophy. SAMPLE Study Group. Study on Ambulatory Monitoring of Blood Pressure and Lisinopril Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: In cross-sectional studies, ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) correlates more closely than clinic BP with the organ damage of hypertension. Whether ABP predicts development or regression of organ damage over time better than clinic BP, however, is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 206 essential hypertensive subjects with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), we measured clinic supine BP, 24-hour ABP, and left ventricular mass index (LVMI, echocardiography) before and after 12 months of treatment with lisinopril (20 mg UID) without or with hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 or 25 mg UID). Measurements included random-zero, clinic orthostatic, and home BP. In all, 184 subjects completed the 12-month treatment period. Before treatment, clinic supine BP was 165 +/- 15/105 +/- 5 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic), 24-hour average BP was 149 +/- 16/95 +/- 11 mm Hg, and LVMI was 158 +/- 32 g/m2. At the end of treatment, they were 139 +/- 12/87 +/- 7 mm Hg, 131 +/- 12/83 +/- 10 mm Hg, and 133 +/- 26 g/m2, respectively (P < .01 for all). Before treatment, LVMI did not correlate with clinic BP, but it showed a correlation with systolic and diastolic 24-hour average BP (r = .34/.27, P < .01). The LVMI reduction was not related to the reduction in clinic BP, but it was related to the reduction in 24-hour average BP (r = .42/.38, P < .01). Treatment-induced changes in average daytime and nighttime BPs correlated with LVMI changes as strongly as 24-hour BP changes. No substantial advantage over clinic supine BP was shown by clinic orthostatic, random-zero, and home BP. CONCLUSIONS: In hypertensive subjects with LVH, regression of LVH was predicted much more closely by treatment-induced changes in ABP than in the clinic BP. This provides the first longitudinally controlled evidence that ABP may be clinically superior to traditional BP measurements.[1]

References

Ambulatory blood pressure is superior to clinic blood pressure in predicting treatment-induced regression of left ventricular hypertrophy. SAMPLE Study Group. Study on Ambulatory Monitoring of Blood Pressure and Lisinopril Evaluation. Mancia, G., Zanchetti, A., Agabiti-Rosei, E., Benemio, G., De Cesaris, R., Fogari, R., Pessina, A., Porcellati, C., Rappelli, A., Salvetti, A., Trimarco, B., Agebiti-Rosei, E., Pessino, A. Circulation (1997) [Pubmed]

Annotations and hyperlinks in this abstract are from individual authors of WikiGenes or automatically generated by the WikiGenes Data Mining Engine. The abstract is from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.About WikiGenes Open Access Licence Privacy Policy Terms of Use apsburg

The world's first wiki where authorship really matters (Nature Genetics, 2008). Due credit and reputation for authors. Imagine a global collaborative knowledge base for original thoughts. Search thousands of articles and collaborate with scientists around the globe.