水野 裕之

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive assessment of cardiac function is useful in the management of heart failure (HF). OBJECTIVES: We developed a novel pulse waveform index, 'Sf/Am', from cuff-oscillometric ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring (ABPM), to estimate cardiac function. This study aimed to investigate the usefulness of square forward pulse wave/amplitude measure pulse wave (Sf/Am), which reflects cardiac systolic function in ambulatory settings, for estimating echocardiographic left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with HF. METHODS: A cuff volumetric waveform was obtained from the diastolic phase of each BP measurement with a multisensor-ABPM (TM-2441, A&D). The area of the ejection is the Sf. Sf is divided by the Am, that is, Sf/Am, to eliminate the effects of arterial and cuff compliance. This index was hypothesized to represent left ventricular systolic function. LVEF was determined using the modified Simpson's method. RESULTS: A total of 195 participants with HF completed ABPM and echocardiogram. After excluding 76 participants with atrial fibrillation, 119 participants (mean age, 70.0 ± 15.9 years; 58.8% male) were included in the analysis. Sf/Am was correlated with LVEF (r = 0.550, P < 0.001). This relationship remained significant in a multivariable linear regression model adjusted for BP level and other confounders (β = 0.603, P < 0.001). The area under the curve values 95% confidence interval (CI) for Sf/Am in predicting LVEF < 40% and <30% were 0.814 (0.738-0.890) and 0.897 (0.840-0.953), respectively. CONCLUSION: Pulse waveform analysis using ABPM has potential for noninvasive estimation of echocardiographic LVEF.

Hypertension increases the risk of cerebrovascular disease and death. In addition to aerobic exercise, which is currently recommended for its antihypertensive effects, recent studies have suggested that dynamic and isometric resistance exercises also have antihypertensive effects. However, the magnitude of the antihypertensive effect of such resistance exercises is not well known. To clarify the differences in these effects, we conducted an umbrella review of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A systematic search was performed on the Ovid MEDLINE and Cochrane Library, covering the period from inception to August 1, 2023. Eligible studies were RCTs comparing the effects of exercise and non-exercise on office, home, or ambulatory blood pressure (BP) in hypertensive patients aged 18 years or older. A random effects model meta-analysis was performed to estimate the effect size across multiple studies. A sub-analysis determined outcomes by the type of exercise (aerobic exercise, dynamic resistance exercise, isometric resistance exercise, and combined exercise). Eighty-four RCTs with 5065 hypertensive patients were included in the study. All exercise significantly reduced systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) compared to non-exercise (SBP:-7.52 mmHg, 95% confidence interval [CI] -8.77 to -6.27, p < 0.001; DBP: -4.36 mmHg, 95% CI - 5.15 to -3.57, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the magnitude of the reduction in BP between the types of exercise (p for interaction = 0.815 for SBP, p = 0.417 for DBP). These data from 84 RCTs showed that exercise intervention significantly reduced BP and that resistance exercise has a similar antihypertensive effect to aerobic exercise in hypertensive patients. This meta-analysis showed that exercise significantly reduced blood pressure in hypertensive patients. There were no significant differences in the magnitude of this reduction in BP between the types of exercise.