Stiffness of elastic arteries like the aorta predicts cardiovascular risk. By directly reflecting arterial stiffness, having the best predictive value for cardiovascular outcome and the ease of its measurement, carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity is now considered the gold standard for arterial stiffness assessment in daily practice. Many different measurement procedures have been proposed. Therefore, standardization of its measurement is urgently needed, particularly regarding the distance measurement. This consensus document advises on the measurement procedures in general and provides arguments for the use of 80% of the direct carotid-femoral distance as the most accurate distance estimate. It also advises the use of 10 m/s as new cut-off value for carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity.

To determine the prognostic significance of ambulatory blood pressure, we prospectively followed for up to 7.5 years (mean, 3.2) 1187 subjects with essential hypertension and 205 healthy normotensive control subjects who had baseline off-therapy 24-hour noninvasive ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Prevalence of white coat hypertension, defined by an average daytime ambulatory blood pressure lower than 131/86 mm Hg in women and 136/87 mm Hg in men in clinically hypertensive subjects, was 19.2%. Cardiovascular morbidity, expressed as the number of combined fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events per 100 patient-years, was 0.47 in the normotensive group, 0.49 in the white coat hypertension group, 1.79 in dippers with ambulatory hypertension, and 4.99 in nondippers with ambulatory hypertension. After adjustment for traditional risk markers for cardiovascular disease, morbidity did not differ between the normotensive and white coat hypertension groups (P = .83). Compared with the white coat hypertension group, cardiovascular morbidity increased in ambulatory hypertension in dippers (relative risk, 3.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.13 to 12.5), with a further increase of morbidity in nondippers (relative risk, 6.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.92 to 20.32). After adjustment for age, sex, diabetes, and echocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy (relative risk versus subjects with normal left ventricular mass, 1.82; 95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 3.22), cardiovascular morbidity in ambulatory hypertension was higher (P = .0002) in nondippers than in dippers in women (relative risk, 6.79; 95% confidence interval, 2.45 to 18.82) but not in men (P = .91). Our findings suggest that ambulatory blood pressures stratifies cardiovascular risk in essential hypertension independent of clinic blood pressure and other traditional risk markers including echocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Our data suggest that forearm endothelial dysfunction is a marker of future cardiovascular events in patients with essential hypertension.

The effects of circadian blood pressure (BP) changes on the echocardiographic parameters of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy were investigated in 235 consecutive subjects (137 unselected untreated patients with essential hypertension and 98 healthy normotensive subjects) who underwent 24-hour noninvasive ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and cross-sectional and M-mode echocardiography. In the hypertensive group, LV mass index correlated with nighttime (8:00 PM to 6:00 AM) systolic (r = 0.51) and diastolic (r = 0.35) blood pressure more closely than with daytime (6:00 AM to 8:00 PM) systolic (r = 0.38) and diastolic (r = 0.20) BP, or with casual systolic (r = 0.33) and diastolic (r = 0.27) BP. Hypertensive patients were divided into two groups by presence (group 1) and absence (group 2) of a reduction of both systolic and diastolic BP during the night by an average of more than 10% of the daytime pressure. Casual BP, ambulatory daytime systolic and diastolic BP, sex, body surface area, duration of hypertension, prevalence of diabetes, quantity of sleep during monitoring, funduscopic changes, and serum creatinine did not differ between the two groups. LV mass index, after adjustment for the age, the sex, the height, and the daytime BP differences between the two groups (analysis of covariance) was 82.4 g/m2 in the normotensive patient group, 83.5 g/m2 in hypertensive patients of group 1 and 98.3 g/m2 in hypertensive patients of group 2 (normotensive patients vs. group 1, p = NS; group 1 vs. group 2, p = 0.002).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)