Effect of non‐dipper pattern on echocardiographic myocardial work parameters in normotensive individuals

Background It is known that non‐dipper pattern (NDP) is associated with adverse outcomes in hypertensive patients. However, there is insufficient data on the outcome of NDP in normotensive individuals. Using myocardial work (MW) analysis, as a new echocardiographic examination method, this study aim...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) N.Y.), 2021-09, Vol.38 (9), p.1586-1595
Hauptverfasser: Efe, Süleyman Cagan, Cicek, Mahmut Buğrahan, Karagöz, Ali, Doğan, Cem, Bayram, Zübeyde, Guvendi, Busra, Akbal, Ozgur Yasar, Tokgoz, Hacer Ceren, Uysal, Samet, Karabağ, Turgut, Kaymaz, Cihangir, Ozdemir, Nihal
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background It is known that non‐dipper pattern (NDP) is associated with adverse outcomes in hypertensive patients. However, there is insufficient data on the outcome of NDP in normotensive individuals. Using myocardial work (MW) analysis, as a new echocardiographic examination method, this study aimed to determine the early myocardial effects of NDP in normotensive individuals. Methods This study included 70 normotensive individuals who were followed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). The subjects were divided into two groups according to dipper pattern (DP) and NDP. Conventional, strain, and MW findings were compared between the groups by making echocardiographic evaluations. Results The demographic characteristics, laboratory parameters, and measurements of cardiac chambers, and left ventricular (LV) walls were similar between the groups. There was no statistical difference between the groups in terms of LV 3‐2‐4 chambers strains and global longitudinal strain (GLS) values. LVMW parameters, global work index (GWI), and global constrictive work (GCW) were not statistically different between groups (2012 ± 127, 2069 ± 137, p = 0.16; 2327 ± 173, 2418 ± 296, p = 0.18, respectively). However, global waste work (GWW) and global work efficiency (GWE) parameters were different between the groups (144 ± 63.9, 104 ± 24.8, p 
ISSN:0742-2822
1540-8175
DOI:10.1111/echo.15177