↓ Skip to main content

Relationship of short-term blood pressure variability with carotid intima-media thickness in hypertensive patients

Overview of attention for article published in BioMedical Engineering OnLine, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Relationship of short-term blood pressure variability with carotid intima-media thickness in hypertensive patients
Published in
BioMedical Engineering OnLine, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12938-015-0059-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yujie Chen, Huahua Xiong, Dan Wu, Sandeep Pirbhulal, Xiaohong Tian, Ruiqin Zhang, Minhua Lu, Wanqing Wu, Wenhua Huang

Abstract

High blood pressure (BP) is among significant risk factor for stroke and other vascular occurrences, it experiences nonstop fluctuations over time as a result of a complex interface among cardiovascular control mechanisms. Large blood pressure variability (BPV) has been proved to be promising in providing potential regulatory mechanisms of the cardiovascular system. Although the previous studies also showed that BPV is associated with increased carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) and plaque, whether the correlation between variability in blood pressure and left common carotid artery-intima-media thickness (LCCA-IMT) is stronger than right common carotid artery-intima-media thickness (RCCA-IMT) remains uncertain in hypertension. We conduct a study (78 hypertensive subjects, aged 28-79) to evaluate the relationship between BPV and carotid intima-media thickness in Shenzhen. The blood pressure was collected using the 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, and its variability was evaluated using standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), and average real variability (ARV) during 24 h, daytime and nighttime. All the IMT measurements are collected by ultrasound. As the results showed, 24 h systolic blood pressure variability (SBPV) evaluated by SD and ARV were significantly related to LCCA-IMT (r(1) = 0.261, P = 0.021; r(1) = 0.262, P = 0.021, resp.). For the daytime diastolic blood pressure variability (DBPV), ARV indices were significantly related to LCCA-IMT (r(1) = 0.239, P = 0.035), which differed form BPV evaluated by SD and CV. For the night time, there is no significant correlation between the BPV and IMT. Moreover, for all the subjects, there is no significant correlation between the BPV and RCCA-IMT/number of plaques, whereas, the SD, CV, and ARV of daytime SBP showed a positive correlation with LCCA-IMT (r(1) = 0.312, P = 0.005; r(1) = 0.255, P = 0.024; r(1) = 0.284, P = 0.012, resp.). Moreover, the ARV of daytime SBPV, 24 h SBPV and nighttime DBPV showed a positive correlation with the number of plaques of LCCA (r(1) = 0.356, P = 0.008; r(1) = 0.297, P = 0.027; r(1) = 0.278, P = 0.040, resp.). In addition, the number of plaques in LCCA had higher correlation with pulse pressure and diastolic blood pressure than that in RCCA. And multiple regression analysis indicated LCCA-IMT might not only be influenced by age or smoking but also by the SD index of daytime SBPV (p = 0.035). The results show that SBPV during daytime and 24 h had significant correlation with IMT, for the hypertensive subjects from the southern area of China. Moreover, we also found the daytime SBPV to be the best predictor for the progression of IMT in multivariate regression analysis. In addition, the present study suggests that the correlation between BPV and left common carotid artery-intima-media thickness/number of plaques is stronger than right common carotid artery-intima-media thickness/number of plaques.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 22%
Student > Master 7 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 45%
Engineering 3 6%
Computer Science 2 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 13 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 July 2015.
All research outputs
#13,441,810
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#338
of 824 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,572
of 263,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#9
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 824 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,414 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.