Hemodynamic differences among hypertensive patients with and without heart failure using impedance cardiography

Background: Impedance cardiography is a reliable, well-tolerated, and non-invasive method used to obtain hemodynamic measurements and could potentially be useful in heart failure (HF) diagnosis, hemodynamic monitoring of critically ill patients, and help in the choice of antihypertensive therapy. Th...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Therapeutic advances in cardiovascular disease 2019, Vol.13, p.1753944719876517-1753944719876517
Hauptverfasser: Silva Lopes, Bruno, Craveiro, Nuno, Firmino-Machado, João, Ribeiro, Pedro, Castelo-Branco, Miguel
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background: Impedance cardiography is a reliable, well-tolerated, and non-invasive method used to obtain hemodynamic measurements and could potentially be useful in heart failure (HF) diagnosis, hemodynamic monitoring of critically ill patients, and help in the choice of antihypertensive therapy. The objective of this study was to determine the differences between hemodynamic parameters in a study population of hypertensive patients with and without HF, using impedance cardiography. Methods: A case-control study was designed and named the TARGET study. Participants were enrolled in two study groups: control group C, hypertensive patients without HF and the HF group, hypertensive patients with HF. A descriptive analysis was carried out to characterize the sample and differences in continuous variables were tested for statistical significance by independent sample t test. Results: The study included 102 hypertensive outpatients. The control group consisted of 77 individuals (58.4% males; mean age 63.9 ± 12.5 years old) and the HF group consisted of 25 individuals (44.0% males; mean age 74.2 ± 8.7 years old). The mean Cardiac Index (CI) was 2.70 ± 1.02 L.min.m−2 (2.89 ± 1.04 versus 2.12 ± 0.70; p 
ISSN:1753-9447
1753-9455
DOI:10.1177/1753944719876517