This study attempted to investigate the behavior of 24-hour central ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in adolescents and young adults. Adolescents and young adults (age 10-25 years) referred for elevated blood pressure (BP) and healthy volunteers had simultaneous 24-hour peripheral (brachial) and central (aortic) ABP monitoring using the same automated upper-arm cuff device (Mobil-O-Graph 24h PWA). Central BP was calculated by the device using two different calibration methods (C1SBP using peripheral systolic (pSBP)/diastolic BP and C2SBP using mean arterial/diastolic BP). A total of 136 participants (age 17.9 ± 4.7 years, 54% adolescents, 77% males, 25% volunteers, 34% with elevated peripheral ABP) were analyzed. Twenty-four-hour pSBP was higher than C1SBP, with this difference being more pronounced during daytime than nighttime (16.3 ± 4.5 and 10.5 ± 3.2 mm Hg, respectively, P < .001). Younger age, higher body height, and male gender were associated with greater systolic ABP amplification (pSBP-C1SBP difference). C1SBP followed the variation pattern of pSBP, yet with smaller nighttime dip (8.4 ± 6.0% vs 11.9 ± 4.6%, P < .001), whereas C2SBP increased (2.4 ± 7.2%) during nighttime sleep (P < .001 for comparison with pSBP change). Older age remained independent determinant of larger nighttime BP fall for pSBP and C1SBP, whereas male gender predicted a larger nighttime C2SBP rise. These data suggest that the calibration method of the BP monitor considerably influences the diurnal variation in central BP, showing a lesser nocturnal dip than pSBP or even nocturnal BP rise, which are determined by the individual's age and gender.

Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) is the gold standard method for assessing arterial stiffness. This study evaluated automated brachial-ankle PWV (baPWV) taken by a professional oscillometric blood pressure monitor (Microlife WatchBP Office Vascular) versus reference cfPWV (Complior device). Subjects recruited from a hypertension outpatient clinic had duplicate baPWV and cfPWV measurements (randomized crossover design) and carotid ultrasonography. Of 102 subjects recruited, 101 had valid baPWV measurements. Four subjects were excluded and 97 were analyzed (age 58.3 ± 11.4 years, men 70%, hypertensives 76%, diabetics 17%, cardiovascular disease 10%, smokers 23%). The mean difference between baPWV (13.1 ± 1.8 m/s) and cfPWV (9.1 ± 1.8 m/s) was 4.0 ± 1.4 m/s (P < .01) with close association between them (r = 0.70, P < .01). baPWV and cfPWV were correlated with age (r 0.54/0.49 respectively), systolic blood pressure (0.45/0.50), carotid intima-media thickness (0.31/0.44), and carotid distensibility coefficient (-0.47/-0.34) (all P < .05; no difference between the two methods, z test). There was reasonable agreement (77%) between the two methods in identifying subjects at the top quartile of their distributions (kappa 0.39, P < .01). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for the identification of carotid plaques were comparable for cfPWV and baPWV (0.79 and 0.74 respectively, P = NS). Automated baPWV measurement by a professional oscillometric blood pressure monitor is feasible and observer-independent. baPWV values differ from those by cfPWV, yet they are closely correlated, have reasonable agreement in detecting increased arterial stiffness and give similar associations with carotid stiffness and atherosclerosis.

High blood pressure (BP) is a highly prevalent modifiable cause of cardiovascular disease, stroke, and death. Accurate BP measurement is critical, given that a 5-mmHg measurement error may lead to incorrect hypertension status classification in 84 million individuals worldwide. This position statement summarizes procedures for optimizing observer performance in clinic BP measurement, with special attention given to low-tomiddle- income settings, where resource limitations, heavy workloads, time constraints, and lack of electrical power make measurement more challenging. Many measurement errors can be minimized by appropriate patient preparation and standardized techniques. Validated semi-automated/automated upper arm cuff devices should be used instead of auscultation to simplify measurement and prevent observer error. Task sharing, creating a dedicated measurement workstation, and using semi-automated or solar-charged devices may help. Ensuring observer training, and periodic re-training, is critical. Low-cost, easily accessible certification programs should be considered to facilitate best BP measurement practice.

Current literature suggests a higher risk of pregnancy-related complications in patients with renal fibromuscular dysplasia (FMD). The aim of our study was to assess the nature and prevalence of pregnancy-related complications in patients subsequently diagnosed with FMD. A call for participation was sent to centers contributing to the European/International FMD Registry. Patients with at least 1 pregnancy were included. Data on pregnancy were collected through medical files and FMD characteristics through the European/International FMD Registry. Data from 534 pregnancies were obtained in 237 patients. Despite the fact that, in 96% of cases, FMD was not diagnosed before pregnancy, 40% of women (n=93) experienced pregnancy-related complications, mostly gestational hypertension (25%) and preterm birth (20%), while preeclampsia was reported in only 7.5%. Only 1 patient experienced arterial dissection and another patient an aneurysm rupture. When compared with patients without pregnancy-related complications, patients with complicated pregnancies were younger at FMD diagnosis (43 versus 51 years old;

COVID-19 is associated with increased risk of venous thromboembolic events (VTE). However, there is significant heterogeneity in the thromboembolic phenotypes of COVID-19 patients (deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism/thrombosis). The latter might be partly attributed to the variation in VTE risk factors in COVID-19 patients including: (i) patients' characteristics; (ii) hospitalization conditions and interventions; and (iii) SARS-CoV-2-specific factors (coagulopathy, endothelial injury/microthrombosis). Furthermore, there is methodological heterogeneity in relation to the assessment of VTE (indications for screening, diagnostic methodology, etc). Physicians should be aware of the increased VTE risk, strongly consider VTE screening, and use thromboprophylaxis in all hospitalized patients.