Blood pressure variability (BPV) and arterial stiffness show an association with increased cardiovascular events. Evidences demonstrated an association between higher short-term systolic BPV and stiffer arteries. There is no previous study assessed the correlation between BPV and arterial stiffness measured by a Mobil-O-Graph device. We issued to evaluate the correlation between short-term BPV parameters and Mobil-O-Graph pulse wave velocity (PWV) among suspected hypertensive individuals under treatment. Mobil-O-Graph device estimated arterial stiffness (oscillometric PWV [oPWV]) in 649 individuals, and they recorded 24-h ambulatory BP; 428 had suspected hypertension and 221 under treatment. We analyzed the correlation between oPWV and measures of BPV: SD of 24 h BP (24-h SD), SD of daytime BP (daytime-SD), and SD of nighttime BP (nighttime-SD), weighted SD of 24-h BP (wSD), coefficient of variation of 24-h BP (CV 24-h) and average real variability (ARV). Oscillometric PWV showed a positive correlation with all systolic BPV measures, in both groups. Among suspected hypertensives: 24-h SD, r = 0.30; SD daytime-SD, r = 0.34; nighttime-SD, r = 0.16; wSD, r = 0.30; CV 24-h, r = 0.24; ARV, r = 0.22. In the treated individuals: 24-h SD, r = 0.46; daytime-SD, r = 0.47; nighttime-SD, r = 0.35; wSD, r = 0.50; CV 24-h, r = 0.43; ARV, r = 0.37, all P < 0.001. Diastolic BPV demonstrated association with some measures of BPV. In suspected hypertensive group: nighttime-SD, r = 0.13; wSD, r = 0.10, both P < 0.001. And in treated individuals: daytime-SD, r = 0.23; wSD, r = 0.22; CV 24-h, r = 0.19 (all P < 0.001), ARV, r = 0.15 (P < 0.05). Systolic daytime-SD in suspected and diastolic CV 24-h in treated group independently predicted oPWV. We observed a positive and independent correlation between Mobil-O-Graph pulse wave velocity and BPV measures, strong to systolic BPV and weak to diastolic BP.

Introduction: Pulse wave analysis is an emerging approach that analyzes parameters comprising strong predictors of cardiovascular (CV) events and all-cause mortality, especially in patients with high CV risk based on established risk factors. This study used the oscillometric method, provided by the Mobil-o-Graph (PWA-EMI GmbH, Stolberg, Germany) device, to compare data regarding the pulse wave analysis parameters in hypertensive nondiabetic and diabetic patients. Material and methods: In this cross-sectional study, 276 individuals were examined in the academic hypertension outpatient care unit of the Federal University of the Triângulo, in Mineiro, Brazil, from January to December 2016. The pulse wave analysis was performed by oscillometry, and its parameters were acquired from all patients. Results: Of the 276 patients, 99 were diabetic and 177 nondiabetic. The mean systolic and pulse central blood pressure were significantly higher in diabetic patients than in nondiabetic patients (P = .008 and.0003, respectively). The mean peripheral systolic blood pressure and pulse pressure were also significantly higher in the diabetic group (P = .001 and P < .0001, respectively). The average pulse wave velocity (PWV, m/s) was 9.4 ± 1.6 and 8.8 ± 1.6 in the diabetic and nondiabetic groups, respectively (P = .003). Conclusion: The group of hypertensive diabetic patients had significantly higher central blood pressure, peripheral blood pressure, and PWV than the hypertensive nondiabetic patients. The patients with overlapping established CV risk factors presented values of the pulse wave analysis parameters consistent with higher central pressure and greater arterial stiffness.

Resistant hypertension (RH) is characterized by being difficult to control, even with the use of various antihypertensive drugs and is associated with target organ lesions and other comorbidities. Thus, new treatment alternatives such as transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) can offer benefits to resistant hypertensive patients by reducing blood pressure (BP) in a non-invasive way and without the need for the association of more antihypertensive drugs. In this case, a patient with RH was submitted to three weekly applications of TENS on the stellate ganglion lasting 40 min each for 1 month. Peripheral and central hemodynamic assessments were performed by 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) before and after TENS applications. After completion of the TENS applications, significant reductions in office systolic (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) were observed. There was also a decrease in peripheral SBP and DBP in the 24‐h ABPM and sleep and SBP during wakefulness. Additionally, central parameters including central SBP and pulse wave velocity presented a significant reduction in the 24‐h ABPM, during the wakefulness and sleep. TENS is able to attenuate the sympathetic hyperactivity present in RH cases and decrease the peripheral and central hemodynamic parameters of a resistant hypertensive patient.

Equations can calculate pulse wave velocity (ePWV) from blood pressure values (BP) and age. The ePWV predicts cardiovascular events beyond carotid-femoral PWV. We aimed to evaluate the correlation between four different equations to calculate ePWV. The ePWV was estimated utilizing mean BP (MBP) from office BP (MBP_OBP) or 24-hour ambulatory BP (MBP_24-hBP). We separated the whole sample into two groups: individuals with risk factors and healthy individuals. The e-PWV was calculated as follows: We calculated the concordance correlation coefficient (Pc) between e1-PWV_OBP vs e2-PWV_OBP, e1-PWV_24-hBP vs e2-PWV_24-hBP, and mean values of e1-PWV_OBP, e2-PWV_OBP, e1-PWV_24-hBP and e2-PWV_24-hBP. The multilevel regression model determined how much the ePWVs are influenced by age and MBP values. We analyzed data from 1541 individuals; 1374 ones with risk factors and 167 healthy ones. The values are presented for the entire sample, for risk-factor patients and for healthy individuals respectively. The correlation between e1-PWV_OBP with e2-PWV_OBP and e1-PWV_24-hBP with e2-PWV_24-hBP was almost perfect. The Pc for e1-PWV_OBP vs e2-PWV_OBP was 0.996 (0.995–0.996), 0.996 (0.995–0.996), and 0.994 (0.992–0.995); furthermore, it was 0.994 (0.993–0.995), 0.994 (0.994–0.995), 0.987 (0.983–0.990) to the e1-PWV_24-hBP vs e2-PWV_24-hBP. There were no significant differences between mean values (m/s) for e1-PWV_OBP vs e2-PWV_OBP 8.98±1.9 vs 8.97±1.8; p = 0.88, 9.14±1.8 vs 9.13±1.8; p = 0.88, and 7.57±1.3 vs 7.65±1.3; p = 0.5; mean values are also similar for e1-PWV_24-hBP vs e2-PWV_24-hBP, 8.36±1.7 vs 8.46±1.6; p = 0.09, 8.50±1.7 vs 8.58±1.7; p = 0.21 and 7.26±1.3 vs 7.39±1.2; p = 0.34. The multiple linear regression showed that age, MBP, and age² predicted more than 99.5% of all four e-PWV. Our data presents a nearly perfect correlation between the values of two equations to calculate the estimated PWV, whether utilizing office or ambulatory blood pressure.

Studies have separately compared the association of age with blood pressure variability (BPV) or pulse wave velocity (PWV). We aimed to establish the association between age and metrics of short-term BPV and PWV in the same sample. 508 under 60 years (< 60) and 141 in their sixties (≥ 60) measured blood pressure (OBP), and PWV using the oscillometric technique (br-PWV). They recorded an ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) to obtain variables for systolic (SBPV) and diastolic BPV (DBPV). We also estimated PWV using formulas. We calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) and determination coefficient (R²) of all parameters with age. The correlation between age and PWV was very strong (br-PWV; r = 0.901; p < 0.001). It was poor for SBPV, 24-h weighted SD r = 0.492; p < 0.001, and not significant for DBPV, 24-h weighted SD r = 0.220; p < 0.001. The correlation and determination values were generally better in the group comprising ≥ 60-years, with R² values robust for PWV (br-PWV = 0.812) weaker for SBPV (24-h weighted SD = 0.243) and deemed irrelevant for DBPV (24-h weighted SD = 0.048). Our study shows that PWV metrics are firmly and significantly more influenced by age than short-term BPV.

Introduction: A greater association of systemic arterial hypertension with worse prognosis in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was described. Early in the pandemic, concerns were raised that the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) could lead to unfavorable outcomes. Objective: To evaluate whether there is an association between the use of the ACEi and ARB medications with unfavorable outcomes in hypertensive patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods: This is a descriptive and retrospective study, collecting data through electronic medical records of patients with COVID-19 admitted to a University Hospital in 2020. Demographic data, use of ACEi or ARB medications, comorbidities, and outcomes, defined by the use of invasive ventilatory support (IVS), renal failure with progression to renal replacement therapy, and death were evaluated. Results: 700 medical records were analyzed, 374 were of hypertensive individuals. The mean age of the patients was 66 ± 14 years, 51% were male, and 89% were white. There was a significantly higher prevalence of hospital discharge among patients who received ACEi/ARB compared to those who did not take these medications, (p-value = 0.027). There was no statistically significant difference in the use of ACEi/ARB for IVS (p-value = 0.062) and for renal replacement therapy (p-value = 0.587). Conclusion: The use of ACEi/ARB drugs is not associated with worse outcomes in individuals with COVID-19. The present study demonstrated lower mortality rate associated with the use of these classes of drugs, similar to recent studies.