Zuo Junli, Chu Shaoli, Tan Isabella, Butlin Mark, Zhao Jiehui, Avolio Alberto
Department of Hypertension, Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, PR China.
Department of Geriatrics, Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, PR China.
Pulse (Basel). 2018 Mar;5(1-4):133-143. doi: 10.1159/000484441. Epub 2017 Nov 25.
Central aortic pressure has often been shown to be more closely associated with markers of vascular function and incidence of cardiovascular events compared to peripheral pressure. However, the potential clinical use of central aortic or peripheral haemodynamic indices as markers of target organ damage (TOD) has not been fully established.
We evaluated associations of TOD with central aortic and peripheral haemodynamic indices (central aortic [cPP] and peripheral pulse pressure [pPP], central aortic augmentation index, and central and peripheral waveform factor) in 770 hospital inpatients (age 60 ± 10 years, 473 males) with primary hypertension. TOD was quantified in terms of arterial stiffness as measured by carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV), carotid intima-media thickness (IMT), and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR). Subclinical TOD was defined as carotid IMT >0.9 mm, urine ACR >3.5 mg/mmol in females and >2.5 mg/mmol in males and/or cfPWV >12 m/s.
Both cPP and pPP showed significant correlation with cfPWV ( 0.41 vs. 0.40; < 0.01), ACR ( 0.24 vs. 0.27; < 0.01) and carotid IMT ( = 0.14 vs. 0.15; < 0.01). Each SD increase in pPP and cPP was associated with increased risk of cfPWV >12 m/s (odds ratio [OR] = 2.7 and 2.9 for pPP and cPP, respectively), ACR >2.5 mg/mmol (OR = 1.2 and 1.4, respectively), and carotid IMT >0.9 mm (OR = 1.46 and 1.53, respectively). Compared to pPP, cPP had higher predictive power for TOD for age ≥60 years (OR = 3.07, < 0.001).
Although both pPP and cPP show an association with TOD in a hypertensive population, cPP provides additional information beyond pPP associated with TOD in a hypertensive cohort. Central aortic haemodynamic indices as potential biomarkers of subclinical TOD need to be validated by further prospective studies.
与外周血压相比,中心主动脉压常被证明与血管功能标志物及心血管事件发生率的关联更为密切。然而,中心主动脉或外周血流动力学指标作为靶器官损害(TOD)标志物的潜在临床应用尚未完全确立。
我们评估了770例原发性高血压住院患者(年龄60±10岁,男性473例)的TOD与中心主动脉和外周血流动力学指标(中心主动脉收缩压[cPP]和外周脉压[pPP]、中心主动脉增强指数以及中心和外周波形因子)之间的关联。TOD通过颈动脉-股动脉脉搏波速度(cfPWV)、颈动脉内膜中层厚度(IMT)和尿白蛋白与肌酐比值(ACR)来量化动脉僵硬度。亚临床TOD定义为颈动脉IMT>0.9 mm、女性尿ACR>3.5 mg/mmol且男性>2.5 mg/mmol和/或cfPWV>12 m/s。
cPP和pPP均与cfPWV(分别为0.41对0.40;P<0.01)、ACR(分别为0.24对0.27;P<0.01)和颈动脉IMT(分别为0.14对0.15;P<0.01)显著相关。pPP和cPP每增加1个标准差,cfPWV>12 m/s的风险增加(pPP和cPP的比值比[OR]分别为2.7和2.9)、ACR>2.5 mg/mmol(OR分别为1.2和1.4)以及颈动脉IMT>0.9 mm(OR分别为1.46和1.53)。与pPP相比,cPP对年龄≥60岁的TOD具有更高的预测能力(OR = 3.07,P<0.001)。
虽然pPP和cPP在高血压人群中均与TOD相关,但在高血压队列中,cPP提供了超出pPP与TOD相关的额外信息。中心主动脉血流动力学指标作为亚临床TOD的潜在生物标志物需要通过进一步的前瞻性研究来验证。