Uncontrolled blood pressure as an independent risk factor of early impaired left ventricular systolic function in treated hypertension

Autor:	B M Xi-Lian Gao, B M Jing Jiang, Qing Zhang, B M Yu Kang, Cheuk-Man Yu, Xiao-Jing Chen, Yu-Jia Liang, B M Zhi Zeng, Yu-Cheng Chen, B M Xiao-Lin Sun
Rok vydání:	2016
Předmět:	Male China medicine.medical_specialty Blood Pressure Comorbidity 030204 cardiovascular system & hematology Left ventricular hypertrophy Ventricular Dysfunction Left 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Afterload Risk Factors Internal medicine Prevalence medicine Humans Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging Treatment Failure 030212 general & internal medicine Risk factor Antihypertensive Agents Ejection fraction business.industry Blood Pressure Determination Stroke Volume Stroke volume Middle Aged Prognosis medicine.disease Causality Early Diagnosis Treatment Outcome Blood pressure Echocardiography Heart failure Hypertension Cardiology Female Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine business
Zdroj:	Echocardiography. 33:1488-1494
ISSN:	0742-2822
DOI:	10.1111/echo.13289
Popis:	Background Uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) is commonly observed in patients receiving antihypertensive agents. However, its relationship with early left ventricular (LV) dysfunction has not been elucidated. Methods This study enrolled 276 patients with treated hypertension and 85 healthy controls. The 140/90 mm Hg was used to define controlled (HT1 group, n=145) or uncontrolled BP (HT2 group, n=131) according to the concurrent guidelines. LV myocardial function was assessed by two-dimensional speckle tracking imaging, and the circumferential end-systolic wall stress (cESS)-corrected mid-wall fraction shortening (MWFS), systolic longitudinal (eLs-18), circumferential (eCs-18), and radial (eRs-18) strain were measured. Results Despite similar ejection fraction, the HT1 and HT2 groups displayed an overall reduction in the cESS-corrected MWFS (13.4±2.7 vs 11.7±1.7 vs 15.5±1.2), eLs-18 (15.6±2.8 vs 13.0±2.2 vs 17.4±2.8), eCs-18 (17.3±3.4 vs 14.1±2.7 vs 18.9±3.3), and eRs-18 (18.4±4.0 vs 14.8±3.1 vs 20.5±4.5) %·cm2/kdyne·10−2 when compared with the control group (all P
Databáze:	OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz:	https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_dedup___::73e044ca30415ddffd2e92b30aed7cb3 https://doi.org/10.1111/echo.13289 Zobrazit plný text záznamu Plný text ve formátu PDF Plný text ve formátu HTML
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje	K zobrazení výsledku je třeba se přihlásit.