BACKGROUND: Although the clinical significance of systolic-diastolic hypertension and isolated systolic hypertension has been established, the significance of isolated diastolic hypertension has not been fully investigated. OBJECTIVE: To clarify the prognostic significance of isolated systolic and isolated diastolic hypertension as assessed by self-measurement of blood pressure (BP) at home (home BP measurements), which has a better reproducibility and prognostic value than casual BP measurements in the general population. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We obtained home BP measurements for 1913 subjects aged 40 years or older, then followed up their survival status (mean, 8.6 years). We classified the subjects into the following 4 groups according to their home BP levels: systolic-diastolic hypertension, isolated systolic hypertension, isolated diastolic hypertension, and normotension. The prognostic significance of each type of hypertension for the risk of cardiovascular mortality risk was investigated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusted for possible confounding factors. RESULTS: The risk for isolated systolic hypertension and systolic-diastolic hypertension were significantly higher than the relative hazard for normotension, while isolated diastolic hypertension was associated with no significant increase in risk. Home pulse pressure measurement was also independently associated with an increase in the risk of cardiovascular mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Isolated diastolic hypertension, as assessed by home BP measurements, carried a low risk of cardiovascular mortality, similar to that found in subjects with normotension, suggesting that the prognosis of hypertension would be improved by treatment focused on systolic rather than on diastolic home BP measurements. To our knowledge, this study is the first to demonstrate the clinical significance of pulse pressure as assessed by home BP measurement. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:3301-3306.
BACKGROUND: Although the clinical significance of systolic-diastolic hypertension and isolated systolic hypertension has been established, the significance of isolated diastolic hypertension has not been fully investigated. OBJECTIVE: To clarify the prognostic significance of isolated systolic and isolated diastolic hypertension as assessed by self-measurement of blood pressure (BP) at home (home BP measurements), which has a better reproducibility and prognostic value than casual BP measurements in the general population. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We obtained home BP measurements for 1913 subjects aged 40 years or older, then followed up their survival status (mean, 8.6 years). We classified the subjects into the following 4 groups according to their home BP levels: systolic-diastolic hypertension, isolated systolic hypertension, isolated diastolic hypertension, and normotension. The prognostic significance of each type of hypertension for the risk of cardiovascular mortality risk was investigated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusted for possible confounding factors. RESULTS: The risk for isolated systolic hypertension and systolic-diastolic hypertension were significantly higher than the relative hazard for normotension, while isolated diastolic hypertension was associated with no significant increase in risk. Home pulse pressure measurement was also independently associated with an increase in the risk of cardiovascular mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Isolated diastolic hypertension, as assessed by home BP measurements, carried a low risk of cardiovascular mortality, similar to that found in subjects with normotension, suggesting that the prognosis of hypertension would be improved by treatment focused on systolic rather than on diastolic home BP measurements. To our knowledge, this study is the first to demonstrate the clinical significance of pulse pressure as assessed by home BP measurement. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:3301-3306.
Authors: Seamus P Whelton; John W McEvoy; Leslee Shaw; Bruce M Psaty; Joao A C Lima; Matthew Budoff; Khurram Nasir; Moyses Szklo; Roger S Blumenthal; Michael J Blaha Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Apostolos Tsimploulis; Helen M Sheriff; Phillip H Lam; Daniel J Dooley; Markus S Anker; Vasilios Papademetriou; Ross D Fletcher; Charles Faselis; Gregg C Fonarow; Prakash Deedwania; Michel White; Miroslava Valentova; Marc R Blackman; Maciej Banach; Charity J Morgan; Kannayiram Alagiakrishnan; Richard M Allman; Wilbert S Aronow; Stefan D Anker; Ali Ahmed Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Seamus P Whelton; John W McEvoy; Leslee Shaw; Bruce M Psaty; Joao A C Lima; Matthew Budoff; Khurram Nasir; Moyses Szklo; Roger S Blumenthal; Michael J Blaha Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: John W McEvoy; Natalie Daya; Faisal Rahman; Ron C Hoogeveen; Roger S Blumenthal; Amil M Shah; Christie M Ballantyne; Josef Coresh; Elizabeth Selvin Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-01-28 Impact factor: 56.272