R S Khattar1, J D Swales, A Banfield, C Dore, R Senior, A Lahiri. 1. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Northwick Park and St Mark's Hospital NHS Trust and Institute for Medical Research, Harrow, Middlesex, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to assess the prognostic value of ambulatory versus clinic blood pressure measurement and to relate cardiovascular risk to ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population consisted of 688 patients 51+/-11 years of age who had undergone pretreatment 24-hour intra-arterial ambulatory blood pressure monitoring on the basis of elevated clinic blood pressure. A total of 157 first events were recorded during a 9.2+/-4.1-year follow-up period. The predictive value of a regression model containing age, sex, race, body mass index, smoking, diabetes mellitus, fasting cholesterol level, and previous history of cardiovascular disease was significantly improved by the addition of any ambulatory systolic or diastolic blood pressure parameter (whether 24-hour, daytime, or nighttime mean) or pulse pressure, whereas inclusion of baseline clinic blood pressure variables did not enhance the prediction of events. The most predictive models contained the ambulatory systolic blood pressure parameters. In the model containing 24-hour mean ambulatory systolic blood pressure (P=0.001), age (P<0.001), male sex (P<0.001), South Asian origin (P=0.008), diabetes mellitus (P=0. 05), and previous cardiovascular disease (P<0.001) were additional independent predictors of events. Whereas 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure was linearly related to the incidence of both coronary and cerebrovascular events, 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure exhibited a positive linear relationship with cerebrovascular events but a curvilinear relationship with coronary events. CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory blood pressure is superior to clinic measurement for the assessment of cardiovascular risk; there is no reduction in coronary risk at lower levels of ambulatory diastolic blood pressure.
BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to assess the prognostic value of ambulatory versus clinic blood pressure measurement and to relate cardiovascular risk to ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population consisted of 688 patients 51+/-11 years of age who had undergone pretreatment 24-hour intra-arterial ambulatory blood pressure monitoring on the basis of elevated clinic blood pressure. A total of 157 first events were recorded during a 9.2+/-4.1-year follow-up period. The predictive value of a regression model containing age, sex, race, body mass index, smoking, diabetes mellitus, fasting cholesterol level, and previous history of cardiovascular disease was significantly improved by the addition of any ambulatory systolic or diastolic blood pressure parameter (whether 24-hour, daytime, or nighttime mean) or pulse pressure, whereas inclusion of baseline clinic blood pressure variables did not enhance the prediction of events. The most predictive models contained the ambulatory systolic blood pressure parameters. In the model containing 24-hour mean ambulatory systolic blood pressure (P=0.001), age (P<0.001), male sex (P<0.001), South Asian origin (P=0.008), diabetes mellitus (P=0. 05), and previous cardiovascular disease (P<0.001) were additional independent predictors of events. Whereas 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure was linearly related to the incidence of both coronary and cerebrovascular events, 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure exhibited a positive linear relationship with cerebrovascular events but a curvilinear relationship with coronary events. CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory blood pressure is superior to clinic measurement for the assessment of cardiovascular risk; there is no reduction in coronary risk at lower levels of ambulatory diastolic blood pressure.