Singapore Med J 2008; 49(4):297-303
Blood pressure variability and arterial elasticity in hyperlipidaemic subjects
Rafidah HM, Azizi A, Noriah MN
Correspondence: Dr Rafidah Hanim Mokhtar, Email:firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Introduction It is debatable whether the assessment of low density lipoprotein or total cholesterol (TC) alone is sufficient to identify an individual's risk of having myocardial infarction. In the Framingham study, the risk of coronary artery disease was better indicated by an increase in the TC to high density lipoprotein cholesterol (TC: HDL) ratio. The aim of this study is to determine the relationship between blood pressure variability (BPV) and arterial compliances in hyperlipidaemics, which was defined as TC:HDL of more than 5.0 as compared to normolipidaemics.
Methods 22 subjects with hyperlipidaemia were age-, gender- and weight-matched with normolipidaemic controls. 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was recorded and arterial compliances were measured.
Results There were significantly higher 24-hour systolic (SBP) (19.9 +/- 6.1 mmHg vs. 16.1 +/- 4.4 mmHg, p-value is less than 0.01), diastolic (16.6 +/- 4.7 mmHg vs 13.9 +/- 4.8 mmHg, p-value is less than 0.05) and mean arterial (16.3 +/- 4.9 mmHg vs. 13.3 +/- 4.7 mmHg, p-value is less than 0.05) BPVs in the hyperlipidaemic group as compared to the normolipidaemic group. There were no significant differences in large and small arterial compliances between groups. There was a significant inverse relationship between SBP and large arterial compliance (r-value equals to -0.46, p-value is less than 0.05). There was no correlation between BPV and arterial compliances.
Conclusion The BPV was higher in hyperlipidaemic subjects as compared to normolipidaemic subjects. Large arterial compliance was negatively correlated with SBP in hyperlipidaemic subjects.
Keywords: ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, arterial compliance, blood pressure variability, coronary artery disease, hyperlipidaemia
Singapore Med J 2008; 49(4): 297-303