4.7 Article

A Meta-Analysis of the Mechanism of Blood Pressure Change With Aging

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 54, 期 22, 页码 2087-2092

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.06.049

关键词

arteries; blood pressure; aging; wave reflection

资金

  1. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre
  2. Coronary Flow Trust
  3. British Heart Foundation
  4. Foundation for Circulatory Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives We undertook a meta-analysis to determine whether changes in wave reflection substantiate the consensus explanation of why blood pressure (BP) changes with aging. Background Consensus documents attribute the aging changes in BP to wave reflection moving progressively from diastole into systole. However, the extensive quantitative data on this phenomenon have never been systematically reviewed. Individual studies have been small, and limited to a narrow age range. Methods Using PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases, we identified 64 studies (including 13,770 subjects, age range 4 to 91 years) reporting the timing of wave reflection, defined as the time from the onset (foot) of the pressure waveform to the shoulder point (anachrotic notch). Results In subjects of all ages, reflection times were well within systole. There was a small tendency for younger subjects to have later reflection, but this was only 0.7 ms per year, whereas the weighted mean reflection time was 136 ms (99% confidence interval: 130 to 141 ms) and the mean duration of systole was 328 ms (99% confidence interval: 310 to 347 ms). At this rate of change with age, arrival of wave reflection would only be construed to be in diastole at an extrapolated age of -221 years. Conclusions These findings challenge the current consensus view that a shift in timing of wave reflection significantly contributes to the changes in the BP waveform with aging. We should re-evaluate the mechanisms of BP elevation in aging. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54: 2087-92) (C) 2009 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation

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

4.7
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