Entity

Time filter

Source Type

Assisi, Italy

Verdecchia P.,Hospital of Assisi | Angeli F.,Struttura Dipartimentale di Cardiologia | Mazzotta G.,University of Perugia | Garofoli M.,University of Perugia | And 4 more authors.
Hypertension | Year: 2012

We investigated the relationship between the day-night blood pressure (BP) dip and the early morning BP surge in an cohort of 3012 initially untreated subjects with essential hypertension. The day-night reduction in systolic BP showed a direct association with the sleep trough (r=0.564; P<0.0001) and the preawakening (r=0.554; P<0.0001) systolic BP surge. Over a mean follow-up period of 8.44 years, 268 subjects developed a major cardiovascular event (composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and heart failure requiring hospitalization) and 220 subjects died. In a Cox model, after adjustment for predictive covariates, including age, sex, diabetes mellitus, cigarette smoking, total cholesterol, left ventricular hypertrophy on ECG, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and average 24-hour systolic BP, a blunted sleep trough (≤19.5 mm Hg; quartile 1) and preawakening (≤9.5 mm Hg; quartile 1) BP surge was associated with an excess risk of events (hazard ratio, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.14-2.42]; P=0.009; hazard ratio, 1.71 [95% CI, 1.12-2.71]; P=0.013). After adjustment for the same covariates, neither the dipping pattern nor the measures of early morning BP surge were independent predictors of mortality. In conclusion, in initially untreated subjects with hypertension, a blunted day-night BP dip was associated with a blunted morning BP surge and vice versa. In these subjects, a blunted morning BP surge was an independent predictor of cardiovascular events, whereas an excessive BP surge did not portend an increased risk of events. © 2012 American Heart Association, Inc. Source


Persu A.,Catholic University of Louvain | O'Brien E.,University College Dublin | Verdecchia P.,Hospital of Assisi
Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension | Year: 2014

Resistant hypertension as defined by the European Society of Hypertension and American Heart Association is a blood pressure that remains uncontrolled despite concomitant intake of at least three antihypertensive drugs (one of them preferably being a diuretic) at full doses. This definition is still based on office rather than out-of-office blood pressure measurement. In this review we propose a new, stricter definition of resistant hypertension based on ambulatory blood pressure measurement. The main arguments in favor of this are: (1) in patients with resistant hypertension, ambulatory blood pressure is an independent predictor of cardiovascular morbidity whereas, after adjustment for conventional risk factors, conventional blood pressure has little added value; (2) white-coat resistant hypertension (uncontrolled office with normal ambulatory blood pressure) is frequent (30-40% of patients with apparently resistant hypertension) carrying a prognosis similar to that of controlled hypertension, and intensification of blood pressure lowering treatment, or the use of nondrug treatment strategies such as renal denervation or carotid baroreceptor stimulation, is not justified; (3) masked resistant hypertension (controlled office with elevated ambulatory blood pressure) is frequent (approximately one-third of patients with controlled office blood pressure on triple antihypertensive therapy) and associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events; in such patients, treatment intensification should be considered; (4) the current definition of resistant hypertension (office blood pressure ⩾ 140/90 mm Hg on triple antihypertensive therapy) allows a substantial proportion of patients with spurious or white-coat resistant hypertension to undergo renal denervation in the absence of proven long-term benefits. Source


Mancia G.,University of Milan Bicocca | Verdecchia P.,Hospital of Assisi
Circulation Research | Year: 2015

This article reviews the clinical value of ambulatory blood pressure (BP) vis-à-vis the traditional BP measurements taken in the physician's office or in the hospital. Mention is initially made that longitudinal studies conducted in the general population or in hypertensive cohorts have shown that ambulatory BP provides a more accurate prediction of outcome than office BP. Namely, that (1) the risk of cardiovascular events increases in a less steep fashion with office than with 24-hour mean BP, (2) the 24-hour BP-dependent prediction is maintained after adjustment for office BP values, and (3) among individuals with normal office BP, those with increased ambulatory BP (masked hypertension) have an increased prevalence of organ damage, a more frequent unfavorable metabolic profile and a higher risk of new onset sustained hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular events than those with normal ambulatory BP. It is further mentioned, however, that more recently similar observations have been made for individuals with high office but normal ambulatory BP (white coat hypertension) suggesting a complementary role of out-of-office and office BP values in the determination of patients' prognosis. The evidence in favor of an independent prognostic value also of some within 24-hour BP phenomena (night BP reduction or absolute values, short-term BP variations, and morning BP surge) is then critically appraised for its elements of strength and weakness. Finally, whether the clinical advantages of ambulatory BP make this approach necessary for all patients with hypertension is discussed. The conclusion is that this is at present still premature because crucial evidence pro or against routine use of this approach in untreated and treated hypertensives is not yet available. It will be crucial for future studies to determine whether, compared with a treatment guided by office BP, a treatment tailored on ambulatory BP allows to improve prevention or regression of organ damage as well as protection from major cardiovascular complications to a degree that justifies the complexity and cost of the procedure. © 2015 American Heart Association, Inc. Source


Angeli F.,Clinical Research Unit Preventive Cardiology | Reboldi G.,University of Perugia | Verdecchia P.,Hospital of Assisi
American Journal of Hypertension | Year: 2010

Blood pressure (BP) may be high during usual daily life in one out of 7-8 individuals with normal BP in the clinic or doctor's office. This condition is usually defined as masked hypertension (MH). Prevalence of MH varied across different studies depending on patient characteristics, populations studied, and different definitions of MH. Self-measured BP and ambulatory BP (ABP) have been widely used to identify subjects with MH. Various factors have been identified as possible determinants of MH. Cigarette smoking, alcohol, physical activity, job, and psychological stress may increase BP out of the clinical environment in otherwise normotensive individuals, leading to MH. In most studies, target organ damage was comparable in subjects with MH and those with sustained hypertension, and greater than in those with true normotension. Subjects with MH showed a 1.5-to 3-fold higher risk of major cardiovascular (CV) disease than those with normotension, and their risk was not different from that of patients with sustained hypertension. In an overview of literature, we found that the risk of major CV disease was higher in subjects with MH than in the normotensive subjects regardless of the definition of MH based on self-measured BP (hazard ratio (HR) 2.13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.35-3.35; P = 0.001) or 24-h ABP (HR 2.00; 95% CI: 1.54-2.60; P < 0.001). MH is an insidious and prognostically adverse condition that can be reliably diagnosed by self-measured BP and ABP. MH should be searched for in subjects who appear to be more likely to have this condition. Antihypertensive treatment is envisaged in these subjects, although the associated outcome benefits are still undetermined. © 2010 American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd. Source


Reboldi G.,University of Perugia | Angeli F.,Hospital Media Valle Del Tevere | Verdecchia P.,Hospital of Assisi
Cerebrovascular Diseases | Year: 2013

The term 'multivariate analysis' is often used when one is referring to a multivariable analysis. 'Multivariate', however, implies a statistical analysis with multiple outcomes. In contrast, multivariable analysis is a statistical tool for determining the relative contributions of various factors to a single event or outcome. The purpose of this article is to focus on analyses where multiple predictors are considered. Such an analysis is in contrast to a univariable (or 'simple') analysis, where single predictor variables are considered. We review the basics of multivariable analyses, what assumptions underline them and how they should be interpreted and evaluated. Copyright © 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel. Source

Discover hidden collaborations