Non-invasive measures of central hemodynamics, such as augmentation index (AI), and central blood pressure (BP) have emerged as a novel and more sophisticated method than brachial BP measurements. For the evaluation of cardiovascular risks and efficacy of medications, central hemodynamics have been shown to be better parameters than peripheral BP. We have introduced these measures of central hemodynamics in our clinical trials and found that 1) patients with type 2 diabetes (DM) had lower rAI but a higher central PP compared to that in the non-diabetes patients, which suggested a proximal conduit-predominant arterial stiffening causing reduced reflection coefficients at the systemic reflection sites: 2) An increased wave reflection caused by the stiffened aorta could be a key factor in the pathophysiology of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: 3) Central BP compared to brachial clinic BP and home BP during antihypertensive treatment is better in predicting the measures of target organ damage: 4) a very aggressive antihypertensive therapy guided by home morning BP was effective for the change in the central SBP, and was correlated with the change in urinary albumin and PWV: 5) When beta-blockers were additionally used for the treatment of hypertension, bisoprolol achieved a greater reduction in pulse rate and improved baroreflex sensitivity and vascular stiffness, whereas celiprolol reduced the central BP. In conclusion, central hemodynamics might be useful for the evaluation of intra-individual changes, such as drug efficacy or that of some interventions, reflecting the pathophysiological mechanisms of cardiovascular diseases.
抄録全体を表示