响应:Pavšič等人关于“主动脉缩窄修复后成人患者运动对高血压的反应”的对应文章

T. A. Meijs, M. Voskuil
{"title":"响应:Pavšič等人关于“主动脉缩窄修复后成人患者运动对高血压的反应”的对应文章","authors":"T. A. Meijs, M. Voskuil","doi":"10.1136/heartjnl-2022-321350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Authors' reply: We thank Pavšič et al for their remarks regarding our recent article. They raise some important points. First, the definition of a hypertensive response to exercise varies between studies in patients with coarctation of the aorta (CoA), which limits their comparability. We used a cutoff value of 210 mm Hg in men and 190 mm Hg in women for systolic blood pressure (SBP) during peak exercise, since these values correspond to the 90th percentile in both sexes in a healthy population. Although this definition is most widely used, we acknowledge that there are potential drawbacks when extrapolating this definition to a relatively young cohort of patients with CoA. As noted by Pavšič et al, contemporary data indicate that peak exercise SBP increases with age in a pattern similar to resting SBP. Since most patients in our cohort were between 18 and 40 years old, we may have detected an even higher prevalence of a hypertensive response to exercise using ageadjusted cutoff values. However, we believe we should be cautious in comparing patients with CoA with apparently healthy individuals. Patients with CoA represent a very distinct group with a high prevalence of hypertension and signs of a generalised arteriopathy, which are often already present from a young age. At this moment, there is insufficient evidence how this generalised arteriopathy progresses over time. Interestingly, our presented data show a trend towards a lower peak exercise SBP with increasing age, even when corrected for workload (table 2 in original article). This may be partly explained by differences in surgical era. Repair techniques have improved over the last decades, which has most benefited the younger patients in our cohort. Consequently, even the patients with the most severe forms of arteriopathy, who presumably have the highest risk of a hypertensive response to exercise, survive into adulthood in reasonable condition. In contrast, patients >50 years whose exercise tolerance is well enough to undergo exercise stress testing may represent a subgroup with a relatively mild arteriopathy. These era differences are likely to introduce some degree of selection bias, which should be taken into account when interpreting exercise stress testing in patients with CoA. Pavšič et al argue that workloadindexed SBP better reflects an abnormal blood pressure response than SBP alone. Workload may indeed confound the relationship between exercise and SBP, which is why we reported workload in metabolic equivalents (METs) and adjusted for this factor in multivariable analysis. It is plausible to adjust for workload, since there is a nearly linear relationship between workload and cardiac output during exercise. However, it has not yet been demonstrated that workloadindexed SBP is superior to SBP alone in predicting adverse cardiovascular events. The importance of preventing cardiovascular events in adult patients with CoA was emphasised by our recent study, showing a substantial burden of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in this patient cohort. Since the most optimal marker to predict cardiovascular complications is not yet known, we propose to evaluate various exercise measures in upcoming studies. For instance, SBP recovery after exercise may have additional value in predicting future cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, MRIergometry and computational fluid dynamics bear a great potential to characterise flow profiles and pressure gradients during exercise. In conclusion, although it is desirable to have a uniform definition of a hypertensive response to exercise in patients with CoA, more studies are needed to determine which exercise measures are most strongly associated with the development of hypertension, cardiovascular events and mortality in this specific patient population. One should be cautious to extrapolate findings in a healthy population to patients with CoA, since patients with CoA have a distinct pathophysiology of hypertension and there may be a substantial effect of surgical era.","PeriodicalId":9311,"journal":{"name":"British Heart Journal","volume":"108 1","pages":"1328 - 1329"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Response to: Correspondence on ‘Hypertensive response to exercise in adult patients with repaired aortic coarctation’ by Pavšič et al\",\"authors\":\"T. A. Meijs, M. Voskuil\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/heartjnl-2022-321350\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Authors' reply: We thank Pavšič et al for their remarks regarding our recent article. They raise some important points. First, the definition of a hypertensive response to exercise varies between studies in patients with coarctation of the aorta (CoA), which limits their comparability. We used a cutoff value of 210 mm Hg in men and 190 mm Hg in women for systolic blood pressure (SBP) during peak exercise, since these values correspond to the 90th percentile in both sexes in a healthy population. Although this definition is most widely used, we acknowledge that there are potential drawbacks when extrapolating this definition to a relatively young cohort of patients with CoA. As noted by Pavšič et al, contemporary data indicate that peak exercise SBP increases with age in a pattern similar to resting SBP. Since most patients in our cohort were between 18 and 40 years old, we may have detected an even higher prevalence of a hypertensive response to exercise using ageadjusted cutoff values. However, we believe we should be cautious in comparing patients with CoA with apparently healthy individuals. Patients with CoA represent a very distinct group with a high prevalence of hypertension and signs of a generalised arteriopathy, which are often already present from a young age. At this moment, there is insufficient evidence how this generalised arteriopathy progresses over time. Interestingly, our presented data show a trend towards a lower peak exercise SBP with increasing age, even when corrected for workload (table 2 in original article). This may be partly explained by differences in surgical era. Repair techniques have improved over the last decades, which has most benefited the younger patients in our cohort. Consequently, even the patients with the most severe forms of arteriopathy, who presumably have the highest risk of a hypertensive response to exercise, survive into adulthood in reasonable condition. In contrast, patients >50 years whose exercise tolerance is well enough to undergo exercise stress testing may represent a subgroup with a relatively mild arteriopathy. These era differences are likely to introduce some degree of selection bias, which should be taken into account when interpreting exercise stress testing in patients with CoA. Pavšič et al argue that workloadindexed SBP better reflects an abnormal blood pressure response than SBP alone. Workload may indeed confound the relationship between exercise and SBP, which is why we reported workload in metabolic equivalents (METs) and adjusted for this factor in multivariable analysis. It is plausible to adjust for workload, since there is a nearly linear relationship between workload and cardiac output during exercise. However, it has not yet been demonstrated that workloadindexed SBP is superior to SBP alone in predicting adverse cardiovascular events. The importance of preventing cardiovascular events in adult patients with CoA was emphasised by our recent study, showing a substantial burden of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in this patient cohort. Since the most optimal marker to predict cardiovascular complications is not yet known, we propose to evaluate various exercise measures in upcoming studies. For instance, SBP recovery after exercise may have additional value in predicting future cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, MRIergometry and computational fluid dynamics bear a great potential to characterise flow profiles and pressure gradients during exercise. In conclusion, although it is desirable to have a uniform definition of a hypertensive response to exercise in patients with CoA, more studies are needed to determine which exercise measures are most strongly associated with the development of hypertension, cardiovascular events and mortality in this specific patient population. One should be cautious to extrapolate findings in a healthy population to patients with CoA, since patients with CoA have a distinct pathophysiology of hypertension and there may be a substantial effect of surgical era.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9311,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Heart Journal\",\"volume\":\"108 1\",\"pages\":\"1328 - 1329\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Heart Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2022-321350\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Heart Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2022-321350","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

作者回复:我们感谢Pavšič等人对我们最近文章的评论。他们提出了一些重要的观点。首先,对运动引起的高血压反应的定义因主动脉缩窄(CoA)患者的研究而异,这限制了它们的可比性。我们在运动高峰期使用了男性210毫米汞柱和女性190毫米汞柱的收缩压(SBP)临界值,因为这些值对应于健康人群中男女的第90百分位。尽管这一定义被广泛使用,但我们承认,将这一定义外推到相对年轻的CoA患者群体中存在潜在的缺陷。正如Pavšič等人所指出的,当代数据表明,峰值运动收缩压随着年龄的增长而增加,其模式与静息收缩压相似。由于我们队列中的大多数患者年龄在18至40岁之间,我们可能已经检测到,使用年龄调整的临界值,对运动的高血压反应的患病率甚至更高。然而,我们认为在将CoA患者与明显健康的个体进行比较时应该谨慎。CoA患者是一个非常独特的群体,高血压患病率高,有全身性动脉病变的迹象,这些症状通常从很小的时候就已经存在。目前,还没有足够的证据表明这种全身性动脉病是如何随着时间的推移而发展的。有趣的是,我们提供的数据显示,随着年龄的增长,即使在校正工作量的情况下,运动SBP的峰值也会降低(原文章中的表2)。这在一定程度上可以解释为手术时代的差异。在过去的几十年里,修复技术得到了改进,这对我们队列中的年轻患者受益最大。因此,即使是患有最严重动脉疾病的患者,可能对运动产生高血压反应的风险最高,也能在合理的条件下存活到成年。相反,年龄大于50岁的患者,其运动耐受性良好,足以接受运动压力测试,可能代表相对轻度动脉病变的亚组。这些时代差异可能会引入一定程度的选择偏差,在解释CoA患者的运动压力测试时应考虑到这一点。Pavšič等人认为,工作负荷指数SBP比单独SBP更好地反映异常血压反应。工作量确实可能混淆运动和收缩压之间的关系,这就是为什么我们报告了代谢当量(METs)的工作量,并在多变量分析中对此因素进行了调整。调整工作量是合理的,因为运动期间工作量和心输出量之间几乎呈线性关系。然而,尚未证明工作负荷指数SBP在预测心血管不良事件方面优于单独SBP。我们最近的研究强调了预防CoA成年患者心血管事件的重要性,表明该患者队列的心血管发病率和死亡率有很大负担。由于预测心血管并发症的最佳标志物尚不清楚,我们建议在即将进行的研究中评估各种运动措施。例如,运动后收缩压的恢复可能对预测未来的心血管疾病有额外的价值。此外,核磁共振成像和计算流体动力学在表征运动过程中的流动剖面和压力梯度方面具有巨大的潜力。总之,尽管对CoA患者对运动的高血压反应有一个统一的定义是可取的,但还需要更多的研究来确定哪些运动措施与该特定患者群体的高血压、心血管事件和死亡率的发展最密切相关。应该谨慎地将健康人群中的研究结果外推到CoA患者身上,因为CoA患者有明显的高血压病理生理学,并且手术时代可能会产生实质性影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Response to: Correspondence on ‘Hypertensive response to exercise in adult patients with repaired aortic coarctation’ by Pavšič et al
The Authors' reply: We thank Pavšič et al for their remarks regarding our recent article. They raise some important points. First, the definition of a hypertensive response to exercise varies between studies in patients with coarctation of the aorta (CoA), which limits their comparability. We used a cutoff value of 210 mm Hg in men and 190 mm Hg in women for systolic blood pressure (SBP) during peak exercise, since these values correspond to the 90th percentile in both sexes in a healthy population. Although this definition is most widely used, we acknowledge that there are potential drawbacks when extrapolating this definition to a relatively young cohort of patients with CoA. As noted by Pavšič et al, contemporary data indicate that peak exercise SBP increases with age in a pattern similar to resting SBP. Since most patients in our cohort were between 18 and 40 years old, we may have detected an even higher prevalence of a hypertensive response to exercise using ageadjusted cutoff values. However, we believe we should be cautious in comparing patients with CoA with apparently healthy individuals. Patients with CoA represent a very distinct group with a high prevalence of hypertension and signs of a generalised arteriopathy, which are often already present from a young age. At this moment, there is insufficient evidence how this generalised arteriopathy progresses over time. Interestingly, our presented data show a trend towards a lower peak exercise SBP with increasing age, even when corrected for workload (table 2 in original article). This may be partly explained by differences in surgical era. Repair techniques have improved over the last decades, which has most benefited the younger patients in our cohort. Consequently, even the patients with the most severe forms of arteriopathy, who presumably have the highest risk of a hypertensive response to exercise, survive into adulthood in reasonable condition. In contrast, patients >50 years whose exercise tolerance is well enough to undergo exercise stress testing may represent a subgroup with a relatively mild arteriopathy. These era differences are likely to introduce some degree of selection bias, which should be taken into account when interpreting exercise stress testing in patients with CoA. Pavšič et al argue that workloadindexed SBP better reflects an abnormal blood pressure response than SBP alone. Workload may indeed confound the relationship between exercise and SBP, which is why we reported workload in metabolic equivalents (METs) and adjusted for this factor in multivariable analysis. It is plausible to adjust for workload, since there is a nearly linear relationship between workload and cardiac output during exercise. However, it has not yet been demonstrated that workloadindexed SBP is superior to SBP alone in predicting adverse cardiovascular events. The importance of preventing cardiovascular events in adult patients with CoA was emphasised by our recent study, showing a substantial burden of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in this patient cohort. Since the most optimal marker to predict cardiovascular complications is not yet known, we propose to evaluate various exercise measures in upcoming studies. For instance, SBP recovery after exercise may have additional value in predicting future cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, MRIergometry and computational fluid dynamics bear a great potential to characterise flow profiles and pressure gradients during exercise. In conclusion, although it is desirable to have a uniform definition of a hypertensive response to exercise in patients with CoA, more studies are needed to determine which exercise measures are most strongly associated with the development of hypertension, cardiovascular events and mortality in this specific patient population. One should be cautious to extrapolate findings in a healthy population to patients with CoA, since patients with CoA have a distinct pathophysiology of hypertension and there may be a substantial effect of surgical era.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A retrospective review of empiric acyclovir prescribing practices for suspected viral central nervous system infections: A single-centre study. Cortical Morphology in Cannabis Use Disorder: Implications for Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Treatment. Socioeconomic status and entrepreneurial networking responses to the COVID-19 crisis. Cardiac microstructural alterations measured by echocardiography identify sex-specific risk for heart failure. Aspirin
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1