These data suggest that aortic ABPM, when compared to brachial ABPM, improves the individualized assessment of the BP-associated heart damage.

To assess the differences among seven different methods for the calculation of mean arterial pressure (MAP) and to identify the formula that provides MAP values that are more closely associated with target organ deterioration as expressed by the carotid cross-sectional area (CSA), carotid-to-femoral pulse-wave velocity (cf-PWV) and left ventricular mass (LVM). The study population consisted of 1878 subjects who underwent noninvasive cardiovascular risk assessment. Blood pressure (BP) was assessed in all subjects, and MAP was calculated by direct oscillometry and six different formulas. Carotid artery ultrasound imaging was performed in 1628 subjects. The CSA of the right and left common carotid artery (CCA) were calculated and used as surrogates of arterial wall mass and hypertrophy. Aortic stiffness was evaluated in 1763 subjects by measuring the cf-PWV. Finally, 218 subjects underwent echocardiographic examination for the assessment of LVM. Among the examined methods of MAP calculation, the formula MAP1=[diastolic BP]+0.412 × [pulse pressure] yielded the strongest correlations with the LVM, cf-PWV and CSA of the right and left CCA, even after adjusting for age and gender. The MAP calculation using the 0.412 was superior compared with the traditional formula that uses the 0.33 for the discrimination of subjects with left ventricular and carotid wall hypertrophy, as well as subjects with increased aortic stiffness. MAP estimated with the 0.412 is better correlated with target organ deterioration compared with other formulas. Future studies are needed to explore the accuracy of these formulas for MAP estimation compared with direct intra-arterial BP measurement.

No abstract

Aortic blood pressure (BP) and 24-h ambulatory BP are both better associated with target organ damage than office brachial BP. However, it remains unclear whether a combination of these two techniques would be the optimal methodology to evaluate patients' BP in terms of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) prevention. In 230 participants, office brachial and aortic BPs were measured by a validated BP monitor and a tonometry-based device, respectively. 24-h ambulatory brachial and aortic BPs were measured by a validated ambulatory BP monitor (Mobil-O-Graph, Germany). Systematic assessment of patients' LVDD was performed. After adjustment for age, gender, hypertension and antihypertensive treatment, septum and lateral E/Ea were significantly associated with office aortic systolic BP (SBP) and pulse pressure (PP) and 24-h brachial and aortic SBP and PP (P ⩽ 0.04), but not with office brachial BP (P ⩾ 0.09). Similarly, 1 standard deviation in SBP was significantly associated with 97.8 ± 20.9, 86.4 ± 22.9, 74.1 ± 23.3 and 51.3 ± 22.6 in septum E/Ea and 68.6 ± 2 0.1, 54.2 ± 21.9, 37.9 ± 22.4 and 23.1 ± 21.4 in lateral E/Ea, for office and 24-h aortic and brachial SBP, respectively. In qualitative analysis, except for office brachial BP, office aortic and 24-h brachial and aortic BPs were all significantly associated with LVDD (P ⩽ 0.03), with the highest odds ratio in 24-h aortic SBP. Furthermore, aortic BP, no matter in the office or 24-h ambulatory setting, showed the largest area under receiver operating characteristic curves (P ⩽ 0.02). In conclusion, 24-h aortic BP is superior to other BPs in the association with LVDD.