P1.13 THE ASSESSMENT OF VASCULAR AGE IS A USEFUL TOOL TO DEMONSTRATE SUBCLINICAL ARTERIAL DISEASE IN TREATED HYPERTENSIVE PATIENTS

Abstract

Background: Vascular age may be a more reasonable conception to the patient than the information about the percentage of risk. Objective: To compare degrees of correlation between biological and vascular age with subclinical evidence of arterial disease in treated hypertensive patients. Methods: Subjects in anti-hypertensive treatment, aged 30 to 75 years, were evaluated. Carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT), carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cf-PWV), and central parameters were assessed. Vascular age was calculated by the Framingham risk score for general cardiovascular disease. All the patients (n=165) were initially divided in tertiles (T1,T2,T3) according to biological age, and then in relation to vascular age. Results: When divided by biological age, the difference between T3 and T1 was not significant for cIMT (0.91±0.14 vs 0.88±0.38mm) and aortic systolic blood pressure (aSBP; 136±20 vs 129±17mmHg) although cf-PWV (11.1±2.0 vs 9.7±1.5m/s, p<0.001) and augmentation pressure (AP; 19±9 vs 13±5mmHg, p<0.01) were significantly higher in T3. When separated by vascular age, the difference between T3 and T1 was significant for all the vascular parameters such as cf-PWV (11.9±2.0 vs 9.6±1.2m/s), cIMT (1.10±0.38 vs 0.76±0.13mm, p<0.01), aSBP (150±18 vs 123±15mmHg, p<0.001) and AP (21±9 vs 13±6mmHg, p<0.001). The correlation was stronger to vascular age than to biological age for AP (r=0.46 vs r=0.29), aSBP (r=0.57 vs r=0.14) and cIMT (r=0.59 vs r=0.39) although similar for cf-PWV (r=0.44 vs r=0.40). Conclusion: The assessment of vascular age may be a useful tool to demonstrate the individual cardiovascular risk in treated hypertensive patients.