4.0 Article

Nocturnal blood pressure in untreated essential hypertensives

Journal

BLOOD PRESSURE
Volume 20, Issue 6, Pages 335-341

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/08037051.2011.587280

Keywords

nocturnal hypertension; non-dipping; organ damage

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim. Prevalence, correlates and reproducibility of nocturnal hypertension (NH) as defined by fixed cut-off limits in uncomplicated essential hypertension are poorly defined. Therefore, we assessed such issue in a cohort of 658 untreated hypertensives. Methods. All subjects underwent procedures including cardiac and carotid ultrasonography, 24-h urine collection for microalbuminuria, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), over two 24-h periods within 4 weeks. NH was defined according to current guidelines (i.e. night-time blood pressure, BP >= 120/70 mmHg) and non-dipping status as a reduction in average systolic (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) at night lower than 10% compared with daytime values. Results. A total of 477 subjects showed NH during the first and second ABPM period; 62 subjects had normal nocturnal BP (NN) in both ABPM sessions. Finally, 119 subjects changed their pattern from one ABPM session to the other. Overall, 72.5% of subjects had reproducible NH, 18% variable pattern (VP) and 9.5% reproducible NN. In the same group, figures of reproducible non-dipping, variable dipping and reproducible dipping pattern were 24%, 24% and 52%, respectively. Among NH patients, 56% of whom were dippers, subclinical cardiac organ damage was more pronounced than in their NN counterparts. Conclusions. In uncomplicated essential hypertensives, NH is a more frequent pattern than non-dipping; NH is associated with organ damage, independently of dipping/non-dipping status. This suggests that options aimed at restoring a blunted nocturnal BP fall may be insufficient to prevent cardiovascular complications unless night-time BP values are fully normalized

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available