[PP.04.16] ARTERIAL STIFFNESS, VENTRICLE-ARTERIAL COUPLING AND LV FUNCTION IN PATIENTS WITH MODERATE TO SEVERE AH. (September 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Torbas, O.; Sirenko, Y.U.; Radchenko, G.; Rekovets, O.; Granich, V.; Kushnir, S.; Dobrokhod, A.; Sidorenko, P.; Polischuk, S.
• Is Part Of: Journal of hypertension. Volume 35(2017)Supplement 2
• Publication Date: 2017-09
• Subjects: Hypertension -- Periodicals; Hypertension -- Periodicals; 616.132005
• DOI: 10.1097/01.hjh.0000523287.56087.36
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1473-5598

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate which factors linked to the LV function profile in patients with hypertension and what is the role of ventricular-arterial coupling (VAC). Design and method: We included 61 patients with moderate to severe AH. We performed office BP (oBP) and heart rate (HR) measurements, ambulatory BP monitoring, central systolic BP (cSBP), augmentation index (Aix@75) and PWV measurement, CAVI index and ankle-brachial index (ABI) measurements. Echocardiography was performed according to local protocol with measurements of peak E velocity, peak A, the E/A ratio, peak E' and E/E' ratio, deceleration time (Dt), isovolumetric relaxation time (IVRT), LV myocardium mass index (LVMMI) evaluated with the ASE formula, ventricle-arterial coupling (VAC) was evaluated according to standard method. We also measured intima-media thickness (IMT). To find interactions we used Spearman correlation analysis. Results: Mean characteristics: BMI 29, 6 ± 0, 7 km/m 2, mean age 53, 6 ± 1, 9 years, men/women 53/47%, oSBP 158, 8 ± 3, 4 mmHg, oDBP 95, 3 ± 2, 2 mmHg, oPBP 61, 3 ± 2, 9 mmHg, HR 79, 1 ± 2, 5 beats/min, 24hSBP 146, 0 ± 2, 3 mmHg, 24hDBP 89, 5 ± 1, 8 mmHg, 24hPBP 60, 1 ± 3, 5 mmHg, cSBP 130, 4 ± 3, 7 mmHg, cDBP 87, 2 ± 2, 0 mmHg, cPBP 44, 2 ± 2, 8 mmHg, PWV 11, 8 ± 0, 5 m/s, CAVId 8, 5 ± 0, 3, CAVIs 8, 4 ± 0, 3, LVMMI (w/m) 91, 9 ± 3, 5 (86, 7 ± 1, 9 / 97, 7 ± 1, 6) g/m 2, E/A 1, 2 ± 0, 2, E/E' 7, 7 ± 0, 4 Dt 253, 2 ± 13, 4 ms, IVRT 90, 7 ± 5, 5 ms. E/A correlated with ejection fraction (r = −0, 868), end-systolic volume (r = 0, 823), end-diastolic volume (r = 0, 527), LVMMI (r = 0, 42), gender (r = 0, 345), p < 0, 05 for all. There were no significant correlation of VAC with indicators of target organ vessel damage (CAVI, PWV, ABI and IMT). From all indicators of LV DF significant correlation of VAC was found only for IVRT (r = 0, 346; p < 0, 05). Conclusions: In this study VAC did not correlate with any of indicators of target organ vessel damage. Perhaps VAC evaluation methodologies should be checked and possibly reviewed.