Abstract
The study by Triantafyllidi et al. supports the view that regression of subclinical cardiac damage requires an effective 24‐hour blood pressure (BP) control along with a reduction in BP variability and suggests that the assessment of BPV and its modifications during the course of therapy may be an useful approach in predicting the beneficial effects of treatment on cardiac structure. However, some aspects and limitations of this study require caution in drawing firm conclusions. So, further investigation is needed to determine if reduction of BPV is actually associated with a regression in cardiac and extracardiac organ damage to identify which which classes of antihypertensive drugs are most effective in reducing BPV, and to elucidate whether those treatments provide additional clinical benefit, independent of the conventional BP targets.
Highlights
The implications of blood pressure (BP) variability (BPV) depend on the measurement method and sampling frequency
Population-based studies and large meta-analyses have shown that there is a continuous relationship between office blood pressure (BP) and cardiovascular risk starting from BP 115 mm Hg systolic and 75 mm Hg diastolic.[1]
Most studies have evaluated the clinical value of BPV based on the standard deviation (SD) of 24-hour average ambulatory BP monitoring recordings, but this measure is an rough marker of BP variations as it does not deal with many characteristics of BPV
Summary
The implications of BPV depend on the measurement method and sampling frequency. Most studies have evaluated the clinical value of BPV based on the standard deviation (SD) of 24-hour average ambulatory BP monitoring recordings, but this measure is an rough marker of BP variations as it does not deal with many characteristics of BPV.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call