BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare the predictive power of self-measured home blood pressure (HBP) and casual blood pressure (CBP) for stroke risk in relation to the Joint National Committee 7 (JNC-7) classification. METHODS: HBP and CBP measurements were taken in 1702 subjects (> or =40 years) without a history of stroke, who were followed up for an average of 11 years. Subjects were classified into 4 groups on the basis of either HBP or CBP, according to the JNC-7 criteria: group 1 (HBP <115/75 mm Hg; CBP <120/80 mm Hg); group 2 (115/75< or =HBP<135/85 mm Hg; 120/80< or =CBP<140/90 mm Hg); group 3 (135/85< or =HBP<150/95 mm Hg; 140/90< or =CBP<160/100 mm Hg); and group 4 (HBP> or =150/95 mm Hg; CBP > or =160/100 mm Hg). Groups 2, 3, and 4 were further divided into 2 subgroups (a and b): those without and with cardiovascular disease risks, respectively. The risk of the first stroke in these groups was examined by the Cox hazards model adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS: The stroke risk in groups 3b and 4b (defined by HBP and CBP) was 2 to 5x higher than that in group 1 with significant differences. The risk in groups 2a, 3a, and even 4a was not significantly different from that in group 1 by the CBP-based classification, but the risk in group 4a was significantly higher than that in group 1 by the HBP-based classification, which also showed a stepwise increase in risk from groups 2a to 4a. CONCLUSIONS: The JNC-7 classification had a stronger predictive power using HBP-based classification compared with CBP-based classification, suggesting the usefulness of HBP in the management of hypertension.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare the predictive power of self-measured home blood pressure (HBP) and casual blood pressure (CBP) for stroke risk in relation to the Joint National Committee 7 (JNC-7) classification. METHODS: HBP and CBP measurements were taken in 1702 subjects (> or =40 years) without a history of stroke, who were followed up for an average of 11 years. Subjects were classified into 4 groups on the basis of either HBP or CBP, according to the JNC-7 criteria: group 1 (HBP <115/75 mm Hg; CBP <120/80 mm Hg); group 2 (115/75< or =HBP<135/85 mm Hg; 120/80< or =CBP<140/90 mm Hg); group 3 (135/85< or =HBP<150/95 mm Hg; 140/90< or =CBP<160/100 mm Hg); and group 4 (HBP> or =150/95 mm Hg; CBP > or =160/100 mm Hg). Groups 2, 3, and 4 were further divided into 2 subgroups (a and b): those without and with cardiovascular disease risks, respectively. The risk of the first stroke in these groups was examined by the Cox hazards model adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS: The stroke risk in groups 3b and 4b (defined by HBP and CBP) was 2 to 5x higher than that in group 1 with significant differences. The risk in groups 2a, 3a, and even 4a was not significantly different from that in group 1 by the CBP-based classification, but the risk in group 4a was significantly higher than that in group 1 by the HBP-based classification, which also showed a stepwise increase in risk from groups 2a to 4a. CONCLUSIONS: The JNC-7 classification had a stronger predictive power using HBP-based classification compared with CBP-based classification, suggesting the usefulness of HBP in the management of hypertension.
Authors: Yan Li; Lutgarde Thijs; Zhen-Yu Zhang; Kei Asayama; Tine W Hansen; José Boggia; Kristina Björklund-Bodegård; Wen-Yi Yang; Teemu J Niiranen; Angeliki Ntineri; Fang-Fei Wei; Masahiro Kikuya; Takayoshi Ohkubo; Eamon Dolan; Atsushi Hozawa; Ichiro Tsuji; Katarzyna Stolarz-Skrzypek; Qi-Fang Huang; Jesus D Melgarejo; Valérie Tikhonoff; Sofia Malyutina; Edoardo Casiglia; Yuri Nikitin; Lars Lind; Edgardo Sandoya; Lucas Aparicio; Jessica Barochiner; Natasza Gilis-Malinowska; Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Kalina Kawecka-Jaszcz; Gladys E Maestre; Antti M Jula; Jouni K Johansson; Tatiana Kuznetsova; Jan Filipovský; George Stergiou; Ji-Guang Wang; Yutaka Imai; Eoin O'Brien; Jan A Staessen Journal: Hypertension Date: 2019-10-21 Impact factor: 10.190