Aortic pressure

About: Aortic pressure is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 3565 publications have been published within this topic receiving 120061 citations. The topic is also known as: AP.

Use of blood pressure lowering drugs in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: meta-analysis of 147 randomised trials in the context of expectations from prospective epidemiological studies

Abstract: Objectives To determine the quantitative efficacy of different classes of blood pressure lowering drugs in preventing coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke, and who should receive treatment. Design Meta-analysis. Data source Medline (1966-2007). Study selection Randomised trials of blood pressure lowering drugs recording CHD events and strokes. 108 trials studied differences in blood pressure between study drug and placebo (or control group not receiving the study drug) (“blood pressure difference trials”), and 46 trials compared drugs (“drug comparison trials”). Seven trials with three randomised groups fell into both categories. The results were interpreted in the context of those expected from the largest published meta-analysis of cohort studies, totalling 958 000 people. Participants 464 000 people defined into three mutually exclusive categories: participants with no history of vascular disease, a history of CHD, or a history of stroke. Results In the blood pressure difference trials β blockers had a special effect over and above that due to blood pressure reduction in preventing recurrent CHD events in people with a history of CHD: risk reduction 29% (95% confidence interval 22% to 34%) compared with 15% (11% to 19%) in trials of other drugs. The extra effect was limited to a few years after myocardial infarction, with a risk reduction of 31% compared with 13% in people with CHD with no recent infarct (P=0.04). In the other blood pressure difference trials (excluding CHD events in trials of β blockers in people with CHD), there was a 22% reduction in CHD events (17% to 27%) and a 41% (33% to 48%) reduction in stroke for a blood pressure reduction of 10 mm Hg systolic or 5 mm Hg diastolic, similar to the reductions of 25% (CHD) and 36% (stroke) expected for the same difference in blood pressure from the cohort study meta-analysis, indicating that the benefit is explained by blood pressure reduction itself. The five main classes of blood pressure lowering drugs (thiazides, β blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and calcium channel blockers) were similarly effective (within a few percentage points) in preventing CHD events and strokes, with the exception that calcium channel blockers had a greater preventive effect on stroke (relative risk 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 0.98). The percentage reductions in CHD events and stroke were similar in people with and without cardiovascular disease and regardless of blood pressure before treatment (down to 110 mm Hg systolic and 70 mm Hg diastolic). Combining our results with those from two other studies (the meta-analyses of blood pressure cohort studies and of trials determining the blood pressure lowering effects of drugs according to dose) showed that in people aged 60-69 with a diastolic blood pressure before treatment of 90 mm Hg, three drugs at half standard dose in combination reduced the risk of CHD by an estimated 46% and of stroke by 62%; one drug at standard dose had about half this effect. The present meta-analysis also showed that drugs other than calcium channel blockers (with the exception of non-cardioselective β blockers) reduced the incidence of heart failure by 24% (19% to 28%) and calcium channel blockers by 19% (6% to 31%). Conclusions With the exception of the extra protective effect of β blockers given shortly after a myocardial infarction and the minor additional effect of calcium channel blockers in preventing stroke, all the classes of blood pressure lowering drugs have a similar effect in reducing CHD events and stroke for a given reduction in blood pressure so excluding material pleiotropic effects. The proportional reduction in cardiovascular disease events was the same or similar regardless of pretreatment blood pressure and the presence or absence of existing cardiovascular disease. Guidelines on the use of blood pressure lowering drugs can be simplified so that drugs are offered to people with all levels of blood pressure. Our results indicate the importance of lowering blood pressure in everyone over a certain age, rather than measuring it in everyone and treating it in some.

Differential impact of blood pressure-lowering drugs on central aortic pressure and clinical outcomes: principal results of the Conduit Artery Function Evaluation (CAFE) study.

Abstract: Background— Different blood pressure (BP)–lowering drugs could have different effects on central aortic pressures and thus cardiovascular outcome despite similar effects on brachial BP. The Conduit Artery Function Evaluation (CAFE) study, a substudy of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT), examined the impact of 2 different BP lowering-regimens (atenolol±thiazide-based versus amlodipine±perindopril-based therapy) on derived central aortic pressures and hemodynamics. Methods and Results— The CAFE study recruited 2199 patients in 5 ASCOT centers. Radial artery applanation tonometry and pulse wave analysis were used to derive central aortic pressures and hemodynamic indexes on repeated visits for up to 4 years. Most patients received combination therapy throughout the study. Despite similar brachial systolic BPs between treatment groups (Δ0.7 mm Hg; 95% CI, −0.4 to 1.7; P=0.2), there were substantial reductions in central aortic pressures with the amlodipine regimen (central aortic systolic ...

Estimation of Central Aortic Pressure Waveform by Mathematical Transformation of Radial Tonometry Pressure Validation of Generalized Transfer Function

Abstract: Background Central aortic pressures and waveform convey important information about cardiovascular status, but direct measurements are invasive. Peripheral pressures can be measured noninvasively, and although they often differ substantially from central pressures, they may be mathematically transformed to approximate the latter. We tested this approach, examining intersubject and intrasubject variability and the validity of using a single averaged transformation, which would enhance its applicability. Methods and Results Invasive central aortic pressure by micromanometer and radial pressure by automated tonometry were measured in 20 patients at steady state and during hemodynamic transients (Valsalva maneuver, abdominal compression, nitroglycerin, or vena caval obstruction). For each patient, transfer functions (TFs) between aortic and radial pressures were calculated by parametric model and results averaged to yield individual TFs. A generalized TF was the average of individual functions. TFs varied among patients, with coefficients of variation for peak amplitude and frequency at peak amplitude of 24.9% and 16.9%, respectively. Intrapatient TF variance with altered loading (>20% variation in peak amplitude) was observed in 28.5% of patients. Despite this, the generalized TF estimated central arterial pressures to ≤0.2±3.8 mm Hg error, arterial compliance to 6±7% accuracy, and augmentation index to within −7% points (30±45% accuracy). Individual TFs were only marginally superior to the generalized TF for reconstructing central pressures. Conclusions Central aortic pressures can be accurately estimated from radial tonometry with the use of a generalized TF. The reconstructed waveform can provide arterial compliance estimates but may underestimate the augmentation index because the latter requires greater fidelity reproduction of the wave contour.

Prospective Evaluation of a Method for Estimating Ascending Aortic Pressure From the Radial Artery Pressure Waveform

Abstract: Pressure wave reflection in the upper limb causes amplification of the arterial pulse so that radial systolic and pulse pressures are greater than in the ascending aorta. Wave transmission properti...