ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2018
24-hour aortic blood pressure variability showed a stronger association with carotid damage than 24-hour brachial blood pressure variability: The SAFAR study.
Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharmacological treatment of hypertension guided by peripheral or central blood pressure: a comparison between the two strategies.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Central hemodynamics and arterial stiffness by oscillometric pulse-wave analysis in treated Gujarati euglycemic hypertensives: A case-control study.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2019Article
- 24-hour aortic blood pressure variability showed a stronger association with carotid damage than 24-hour brachial blood pressure variability: The SAFAR study.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aim to compare 24-hour aortic blood pressure variability (BPV) with brachial BPV in relation to carotid damage as estimated by carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) and cross-sectional area (CCSA). Four hundred and forty five individuals received brachial and aortic 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring with a validated device (Mobil-O-Graph). Systolic BPV was estimated by average real variability (ARV) and time-weighted standard deviation (wSD). In multiple logistic regression analysis, CIMT > 900 μm was significantly and independently associated with aortic ARV (OR = 1.38; 95% CI: 1.04-1.84), aortic wSD (OR = 1.65; 95% CI: 1.19-2.29) and brachial ARV (OR = 1.53; 95% CI: 1.07-2.18), but not with brachial wSD. CCSA > 90th percentile was significantly and independently associated with aortic ARV (OR = 1.50; 95% CI: 1.07-2.10) and wSD (OR = 1.70; 95% CI: 1.12-2.56), but not with brachial BPVs. In receiver operator characteristics curve analysis, aortic wSD identified CCSA > 90th percentile better than brachial wSD (AUC: 0.73 vs 0.68, P < .01). In conclusion, aortic 24-hour systolic BPV showed a slightly stronger association with carotid damage than brachial BPV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.