BACKGROUND: The influence of systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) on incident atrial fibrillation (AF) is not well studied among initially healthy, middle-aged women. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 34,221 women participating in the Women's Health Study were prospectively followed up for incident AF. The risk of AF across categories of systolic and diastolic BP was compared by use of Cox proportional-hazards models. During 12.4 years of follow-up, 644 incident AF events occurred. Using BP measurements at baseline, we discovered that the long-term risk of AF was significantly increased across categories of systolic and diastolic BP. Multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios for systolic BP categories (<120, 120 to 129, 130 to 139, 140 to 159, and > or =160 mm Hg) were 1.0, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.78 to 1.28), 1.28 (95% CI, 1.00 to 1.63), 1.56 (95% CI, 1.22 to 2.01), and 2.74 (95% CI, 1.77 to 4.22) (P for trend <0.0001). Adjusted hazard ratios across baseline diastolic BP categories (<65, 65 to 74, 75 to 84, 85 to 89, 90 to 94, and > or =95 mm Hg) were 1.0, 1.17 (95% CI, 0.81 to 1.69), 1.18 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.65), 1.53 (95% CI, 1.05 to 2.23), 1.35 (95% CI, 0.82 to 2.22), and 2.15 (95% CI, 1.21 to 3.84) (P for trend=0.004). When BP changes over time were accounted for in updated models, multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios were 1.0, 1.14 (95% CI, 0.89 to 1.46), 1.37 (95% CI, 1.07 to 1.76), 1.71 (95% CI, 1.33 to 2.21), and 2.21 (95% CI, 1.45 to 3.36) (P for trend <0.0001) for systolic BP categories and 1.0, 1.12 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.52), 1.13 (95% CI, 0.83 to 1.52), 1.30 (95% CI, 0.89 to 1.88), 1.50 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.88), and 1.54 (95% CI, 0.75 to 3.14) (P for trend=0.026) for diastolic BP categories. CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of initially healthy women, BP was strongly associated with incident AF, and systolic BP was a better predictor than diastolic BP. Systolic BP levels within the nonhypertensive range were independently associated with incident AF even after BP changes over time were taken into account.
BACKGROUND: The influence of systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) on incident atrial fibrillation (AF) is not well studied among initially healthy, middle-aged women. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 34,221 women participating in the Women's Health Study were prospectively followed up for incident AF. The risk of AF across categories of systolic and diastolic BP was compared by use of Cox proportional-hazards models. During 12.4 years of follow-up, 644 incident AF events occurred. Using BP measurements at baseline, we discovered that the long-term risk of AF was significantly increased across categories of systolic and diastolic BP. Multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios for systolic BP categories (<120, 120 to 129, 130 to 139, 140 to 159, and > or =160 mm Hg) were 1.0, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.78 to 1.28), 1.28 (95% CI, 1.00 to 1.63), 1.56 (95% CI, 1.22 to 2.01), and 2.74 (95% CI, 1.77 to 4.22) (P for trend <0.0001). Adjusted hazard ratios across baseline diastolic BP categories (<65, 65 to 74, 75 to 84, 85 to 89, 90 to 94, and > or =95 mm Hg) were 1.0, 1.17 (95% CI, 0.81 to 1.69), 1.18 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.65), 1.53 (95% CI, 1.05 to 2.23), 1.35 (95% CI, 0.82 to 2.22), and 2.15 (95% CI, 1.21 to 3.84) (P for trend=0.004). When BP changes over time were accounted for in updated models, multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios were 1.0, 1.14 (95% CI, 0.89 to 1.46), 1.37 (95% CI, 1.07 to 1.76), 1.71 (95% CI, 1.33 to 2.21), and 2.21 (95% CI, 1.45 to 3.36) (P for trend <0.0001) for systolic BP categories and 1.0, 1.12 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.52), 1.13 (95% CI, 0.83 to 1.52), 1.30 (95% CI, 0.89 to 1.88), 1.50 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.88), and 1.54 (95% CI, 0.75 to 3.14) (P for trend=0.026) for diastolic BP categories. CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of initially healthy women, BP was strongly associated with incident AF, and systolic BP was a better predictor than diastolic BP. Systolic BP levels within the nonhypertensive range were independently associated with incident AF even after BP changes over time were taken into account.
Authors: V L Burt; P Whelton; E J Roccella; C Brown; J A Cutler; M Higgins; M J Horan; D Labarthe Journal: Hypertension Date: 1995-03 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Roberto Pastor-Barriuso; José R Banegas; Javier Damián; Lawrence J Appel; Eliseo Guallar Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-11-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: G A Colditz; P Martin; M J Stampfer; W C Willett; L Sampson; B Rosner; C H Hennekens; F E Speizer Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1986-05 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: David Conen; Paul M Ridker; Brendan M Everett; Usha B Tedrow; Lynda Rose; Nancy R Cook; Julie E Buring; Christine M Albert Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2010-05-25 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: David Conen; Jorge A Wong; Roopinder K Sandhu; Nancy R Cook; I-Min Lee; Julie E Buring; Christine M Albert Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Dominik Linz; Arne van Hunnik; Christian Ukena; Sebastian Ewen; Felix Mahfoud; Stephan H Schirmer; Matthias Lenski; Hans-Ruprecht Neuberger; Ulrich Schotten; Michael Böhm Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2014-03-29 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Teresa M Seccia; Brasilina Caroccia; Gail K Adler; Giuseppe Maiolino; Maurizio Cesari; Gian Paolo Rossi Journal: Hypertension Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Hugh Calkins; Gerhard Hindricks; Riccardo Cappato; Young-Hoon Kim; Eduardo B Saad; Luis Aguinaga; Joseph G Akar; Vinay Badhwar; Josep Brugada; John Camm; Peng-Sheng Chen; Shih-Ann Chen; Mina K Chung; Jens Cosedis Nielsen; Anne B Curtis; D Wyn Davies; John D Day; André d'Avila; N M S Natasja de Groot; Luigi Di Biase; Mattias Duytschaever; James R Edgerton; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; Patrick T Ellinor; Sabine Ernst; Guilherme Fenelon; Edward P Gerstenfeld; David E Haines; Michel Haissaguerre; Robert H Helm; Elaine Hylek; Warren M Jackman; Jose Jalife; Jonathan M Kalman; Josef Kautzner; Hans Kottkamp; Karl Heinz Kuck; Koichiro Kumagai; Richard Lee; Thorsten Lewalter; Bruce D Lindsay; Laurent Macle; Moussa Mansour; Francis E Marchlinski; Gregory F Michaud; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Andrea Natale; Stanley Nattel; Ken Okumura; Douglas Packer; Evgeny Pokushalov; Matthew R Reynolds; Prashanthan Sanders; Mauricio Scanavacca; Richard Schilling; Claudio Tondo; Hsuan-Ming Tsao; Atul Verma; David J Wilber; Teiichi Yamane Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Hugh Calkins; Karl Heinz Kuck; Riccardo Cappato; Josep Brugada; A John Camm; Shih-Ann Chen; Harry J G Crijns; Ralph J Damiano; D Wyn Davies; John DiMarco; James Edgerton; Kenneth Ellenbogen; Michael D Ezekowitz; David E Haines; Michel Haissaguerre; Gerhard Hindricks; Yoshito Iesaka; Warren Jackman; José Jalife; Pierre Jais; Jonathan Kalman; David Keane; Young-Hoon Kim; Paulus Kirchhof; George Klein; Hans Kottkamp; Koichiro Kumagai; Bruce D Lindsay; Moussa Mansour; Francis E Marchlinski; Patrick M McCarthy; J Lluis Mont; Fred Morady; Koonlawee Nademanee; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Andrea Natale; Stanley Nattel; Douglas L Packer; Carlo Pappone; Eric Prystowsky; Antonio Raviele; Vivek Reddy; Jeremy N Ruskin; Richard J Shemin; Hsuan-Ming Tsao; David Wilber Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2012-03-01 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Alvaro Alonso; Elsayed Z Soliman; Lin Y Chen; David A Bluemke; Susan R Heckbert Journal: J Electrocardiol Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 1.438
Authors: Nicholas S Roetker; Lin Y Chen; Susan R Heckbert; Saman Nazarian; Elsayed Z Soliman; David A Bluemke; João A C Lima; Alvaro Alonso Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2014-06-06 Impact factor: 2.778