{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03594009983361065, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01697171381031614, 'mean_word_length': 4.928994082840236, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Potential benefits of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in coarctation of aorta


 
 
 Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is more sensitive than resting BP assessment in detecting hypertension in patients with coarctation of aorta (COA). However, it is not known whether ABPM provides a better measure of left ventricular (LV) pressure load and LV remodeling as compared to resting BP. LV pressure overload is the lynchpin in the pathogenesis of cardiovascular mortality in COA patients, because it leads to LV remodeling, LV dysfunction and heart failure, which sets-the-stage for cardiovascular death. Therefore identifying a sensitive clinical metric that reflects LV pressure load and LV remodeling, is an important step towards optimizing antihypertensive therapy to prevent LV dysfunction and mortality. We hypothesized that ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) has better correlation with arterial load and LV remodeling indices as compared to resting SBP.
 
 
 
 Our study cohort comprised of adults with isolated COA without significant residual coarctation (Doppler peak velocity ≤2.5 m/sec), aortic or mitral valve disease. All patients underwent BP measurement at rest, followed by ABPM. Arterial load (LV pressure load) was assessed using Doppler-derived effective arterial elastance index (EAI). LV remodeling was assessed using: LV mass index (LVMI), and E/e'. We divided the cohorts into 4 categories (normotensive, masked, white-coat, and overt hypertension).
 
 
 
 Of the 106 patients (male 69 [65%); age 39±11 years), 98 (93%) had prior COA intervention at 6±5 years. Resting SBP was 132±17, daytime ambulatory SBP was 142±16, and nighttime ambulatory SBP was 128±12 mmHg. The mean arterial load and LV remodeling indices were: EAI 3.4±0.8 mmHg/ml·m2, LVMI 106±21 g/m2, and E/e'11±4. Compared to resting SBP, ambulatory SBP had better correlation with EAI, LVMI, and E/e'. EAI, LVMI and E/e' were significantly different between hypertension categories (Figure 1).
 
 
 
 In this study, we demonstrated that ambulatory SBP had better correlations with arterial load and LV remodeling indices as compared to resting SBP. This suggests that ambulatory SBP was a more robust metric of LV pressure overload and remodeling, and can improve detection of vascular stiffness, LV hypertrophy and elevated LV filling pressure as compared to resting SBP. The results of the current study have important clinical implications with regards to initiation and titration of antihypertensive therapy. If ABPM is used as the gold standard for diagnosis of hypertension, the masked hypertension group (who would have been misclassified as normotensive based on resting SBP alone) will qualify for antihypertensive therapy. Additionally, since ambulatory SBP had better correlation with LV remodeling indices, perhaps titration of antihypertensive therapy using ABPM will potentially reduce the risk of LV hypertrophy and dysfunction due to hypertension.
 Figure 1
 
 
 
 Type of funding source: None
