10.10 Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Evaluation of Aortic Distensibility in Essential Hypertensive Patients
- PDF / 46,235 Bytes
- 1 Pages / 592.441 x 751.181 pts Page_size
- 63 Downloads / 220 Views
High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev 2007; 14 (3): 145-196 1120-9879/07/0003-0145/$44.95/0 © 2007 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
Vessels and Endothelium 10.10 Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Evaluation of Aortic Distensibility in Essential Hypertensive Patients S. Maestroni,1 E. Fantini,1 F. Bianchi,1 L. Viscardi,1 M. Rigoldi,1 F. Zerboni,2 S. Sironi,2 M. Failla,1 A. Capra,1 G. Grosso,1 C. Giannattasio,1 G. Mancia1 ` Milano Bicocca, Mo (1) Clinica Medica, Ospedale san Gerardo e Universita ` Degli Studi Milano Bicocca, Monza; (2) Divisione di Radiologia, Universita Ospedale san Gerardo, Monza, It Italy Introduction: It is known that large artery distensibility (Dist) is considered a marker of target organ damage in chronic hypertension. Arterial Dist may be directly assessed by echotracking derived aortic diameter changes during the cardiac cycle versus concomitant blood pressure changes. Anyway, arterial Dist can be assessed also by NMR in a more precise and less operator dependent way. Aims: To compare aortic (Ao) Dist obtained by echotracking and NMR in normotensive and hypertensive patients. Methods: Thoracic (1 cm over celiac tripode, TA) and abdominal AO (1 cm over iliac bifurcation AA) Dist were evaluated by two non invasive techniques, echotracking and NMR in 14 mild hypertensive patients (H) chronically treated with a low dose ACE inhibitor or ARB (age 36±3.5 years, Blood Pressure 126+3/78+1.8 mmHg means±SE) and in 15 age and sex matched controls (C,age 32+2 years, BP 116+3/73+2.4 mmHg). Systo-diastolic changes in aortic diameter were measured by an echotracking device (WTS) and by NMR (Philips Achieva 1.5 tesla, ECG gated) separately in different days. Dist was calculated by Reneman formula using carotid artery pulse pressure (Pulse Pen tonometer). Results: Using a central tonometric blood pressure in every case, both in H and C, AT and AA ao dist were significantly higher when measured by RMN (H,AT: 7.2+0.5, AA 6.0+0.6; C, AT 8.6+0.5, AA 7.5+0.5 1/mmHg10-1) than by echotracking (H, AT 3.0+05, AA 2.9+0.4, C, AT5.2+0.5, AA 3.6+0.3 1/mmHg 10-1). Ao dist was, however, systematically and significantly lower in hypertensive than in C, with both methods and in both site of measurement. Conclusions: NMR certainly is an operator and subject independent technique and allows a more precise way of determining arterial Dist if compared to echotracking. However, being the underestimation operated with ultrasound systematic the results are qualitatively similar and obtained in a less expensive way.
Data Loading...
