CENTRAL BLOOD PRESSURE IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONVENTIONAL BLOOD PRESSURE MAY EXPLAIN TARGET ORGAN CHANGES BETTER THAN CONVENTIONAL PRESSURE ALONE IN HYPERTENSIVE PATIENTS.

Background: Although, it is well-recognized that conventional BP alone may not be enough to determine target organ changes associated with hypertension and in cardiovascular events risk assessment, there is scarcity of data on this topic.

Objectives: To determine how central BP compares with conventional BP in their association with left ventricular mass index (LVMI), among hypertensive patients.

Methods: Ninety-five participants were evaluated. Conventional office BP were measured following standard procedures. And central BP was assessed using a well-validated, noninvasive pulsepen tonometric device employing generalized transfer function (GTF) interfaced with a computer. The BP parameters of both procedures were evaluated and the beta-coefficient and the corresponding coefficient of determination (R2) against the LVMI which was determined by echocardiography method and the results compared.

Results: The respective β-coefficient and R2 were as follows; for the systolic BPs, central vs office BP (0.2278, .0299 vs 0.0541, .0018). Diastolic BPs, central vs office BP (0.2030, .0651 vs 0.2050, .0075). For pulse pressure (PP), central vs office PP (0.2673,.0133 vs 0.182, .0100). For Mean arterial pressure (MAP) central vs office BPs (0.2253, .0161 vs 0.2048, .0107). Also evaluated were the central forward pressure (Pf) (β-coefficient =0.2073, and R2 = .0086), backward/reflected pressure wave (Pb) (β-coefficient =0.7034, and R2 = .0133,), the reflection magnitude (RM =Pb/Pf) (β-coefficient =0.8073, and R2 = .0986) and the pulse wave velocity (PWV) (β-coefficient =0.7408, and R2 = .0047).

Conclusions: Central BP indices may have association with LVM-indexed to the height2.7, beyond that shown by conventional BP parameters taken at the arm.