The phenomenon of variability of blood pressure (BP) has been studied for a long time, but recently, it has made a comeback in scientifi  c literature. This is mostly due to the fact that numerous studies have confirmed the importance of BP variability in predicting cardiovascular risk, although the effect of various parameters of variability does not have the same level of cardiovascular risk due to different underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. Interest in BP variability is due to and based on a series of studies carried out by P. Rothwell et al., who analyzed variability in BP in heterogeneous populations. In particular, the analysis of the ASCOT-BPLA trial showed high signifi  cance of intervisit variability of ВР and predicted stroke and coronary events. In light ofthese data, the variability of ВР is a promising new target for antihypertensive therapy. A statistically significant decrease of this index indicates the stability of the achieved results following treatment. The most convincing evidence in this respect, are those for the combination of amlodipine and perindopril.

The article discusses ventricular-vascular interaction that is a key factor of cardiovascular functioning and heart energy proile in healthy individuals, in aging, and in different pathological states.

The recent interest to plasma renin activity (PRA) is due to the opportunity of antihypertensive therapy choice that is based on the understanding of the interrelation between renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and mechanisms of water balance mediated by the renal sodium absorption and water retention. PRA is the way to understand the primary mechanism of blood pressure elevation. PRA < 0,65 ng/ml/h indicates the water retention, and hypertension is considered low-renin and «volume-dependent». If PRA is more than 0,65 ng/ml/h hypertension results from excessive renin secretion and RAAS activation.

Ambulatory 24-hour blood pressure (BP) monitoring (24-h BPM) occupies its right place as one of the greatest advances in cardiology. By paying a well-deserved tribute to the evident advantages of this technique, is the question of whether this expensive labor-intensive method that is burdensome for a patient and provides very much information is optimally used in clinical practice and whether we always consider the findings critically rightful? Many cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have demonstrated that ambulatory BP is closer correlated with target organ lesions than clinical BP and it is of greater prognostic value for the development of cardiovascular complications. By interpreting the data of these studies, it should be remembered that while on the subject of clinical BP, we mean the mean value of less than 10 measurements of BP over a short period of time while 24-h BPM provides information on several tens of BP measurements. There is evidence for the fact that only patients with a good reproducibility of 24-h BPM exhibit a closer correlation of the latter with lesion to target organs than that with clinical BP. Most patients with arterial hypertension may be followed up with repeated clinical measurements of BP or its self-control. But 24-h BPM is the method of choice in assessing patients with wide variations in clinical and domestic BP, the symptoms of hypotension, sporadic hypertension, unexplained target organ lesions. 24-h BPM preserves its leading role in evaluating the antihypertensive efficacy of novel drugs under the conditions of clinical studies.