Published Online
on April 30, 2007

A more recent version of this article appeared on June 1, 2007

This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 49/6/1242    most recent HYPERTENSIONAHA.106.085803v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Dart, A. M. Articles by Kingwell, B. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Dart, A. M. Articles by Kingwell, B. A. Related Collections Clinical Studies

Submitted on December 7, 2006
Revised on December 29, 2006

Similar Effects of Treatment on Central and Brachial Blood Pressures in Older Hypertensive Subjects in the Second Australian National Blood Pressure Trial

Anthony M. Dart^*; James D. Cameron; Christoph D. Gatzka; Kristyn Willson; Yu-Lu Liang; Karen L. Berry; Lindon M.H. Wing; Christopher M. Reid; Philip Ryan; Lawrence J. Beilin; Garry L.R. Jennings; Colin I. Johnston; John J. McNeil; Graham J. Macdonald; Trefor O. Morgan; Malcolm J. West; and Bronwyn A. Kingwell

From the Baker Heart Research Institute (A.M.D., Y-L.L., K.L.B., G.L.R.J., C.I.J., B.A.K.), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; the University of Melbourne (C.D.G.), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; the Second Australian National Blood Pressure Study Group (K.W., L.M.H.W., CM.R., P.R., L.J.B., G.L.R.J., C.I.J., J.J.M., G.J.M., T.O.M., M.J.W.), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; and LaTrobe University (J.D.C.), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: a.dart{at}alfred.org.au.

Abstract--The Second Australian National Blood Pressure Trial reported better prognosis for hypertensive subjects randomly assigned to an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I) compared with a diuretic-based regimen despite no difference in brachial blood pressure control. A possible explanation is that there was a difference in central aortic pressures despite similar brachial pressure reductions. We examined this hypothesis in a subset of the Second Australian National Blood Pressure Trial cohort evaluated both before and after 4 years of treatment. The average age of the 479 subjects was 71.6±4.7 years (mean±SD), and 56% were women. Brachial systolic and pulse pressures after treatment were 145±1 (mean±SEM), 143±1, 72±1, and 70±1 mm Hg for diuretic and ACE-I groups, respectively. The respective changes from pretreatment values were -17±2, -16±2, -9±1, and -7±1 mm Hg. None of the differences between diuretic and ACE-I groups were significant. Central arterial pressure waveforms were acquired from carotid tonometry and calibrated from brachial pressures. Central systolic and pulse pressures posttreatment were 144±2, 144±2, 71±2, and 72±2 mm Hg for diuretic and ACE-I groups, respectively. The respective changes from pretreatment values were -15±2, -17±2, -6±2, and -8±2 mm Hg. None of the differences between diuretic and ACE-I groups were significant. The similarity of central and brachial pressures in this cohort of older hypertensive subjects is most likely because of the influences of age and hypertension in increasing arterial stiffness. There is no evidence that the better prognosis for patients randomly assigned to ACE-I in Second Australian National Blood Pressure Trial resulted from a disproportionate lowering of central blood pressure.

Key words: central blood pressure • brachial blood pressure • ACE inhibition • diuretic • clinical science • antihypertensive drugs • elderly

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. D. Cameron Wave Intensity Analysis and Central Blood Pressure Hypertension, November 1, 2009; 54(5): 958 - 959. [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. H. Manisty, A. Zambanini, K. H. Parker, J. E. Davies, D. P. Francis, J. Mayet, S. A. McG Thom, A. D. Hughes, and on behalf of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcom Differences in the Magnitude of Wave Reflection Account for Differential Effects of Amlodipine- Versus Atenolol-Based Regimens on Central Blood Pressure: An Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcome Trial Substudy Hypertension, October 1, 2009; 54(4): 724 - 730. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. M. McEniery, Yasmin, B. McDonnell, M. Munnery, S. M. Wallace, C. V. Rowe, J. R. Cockcroft, I. B. Wilkinson, and on Behalf of the Anglo-Cardiff Collaborative Trial Central Pressure: Variability and Impact of Cardiovascular Risk Factors: The Anglo-Cardiff Collaborative Trial II Hypertension, June 1, 2008; 51(6): 1476 - 1482. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Shimizu and K. Kario Review: Role of the augmentation index in hypertension Therapeutic Advances in Cardiovascular Disease, February 1, 2008; 2(1): 25 - 35. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. F. O'Rourke, W. W. Nichols, and M. E. Safar Effects of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors on Central Blood Pressure Hypertension, September 1, 2007; 50(3): e63 - e63. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. V. Chobanian Isolated Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly N. Engl. J. Med., August 23, 2007; 357(8): 789 - 796. [Full Text] [PDF]

				V. Palmieri, R. Pini, and M. Chiara Cavallini Pulsology Reloaded: Commentary on Similar Effects of Treatment on Central and Brachial Blood Pressure in Older Hypertensive Subjects Hypertension, June 1, 2007; 49(6): 1210 - 1212. [Full Text] [PDF]