OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to facilitate clinical use of central pulse pressure (PP). We sought to determine a value that might predict adverse outcome and thereby provide a target for assessment of intervention strategies. BACKGROUND: We previously documented that central PP more strongly relates to carotid hypertrophy and extent of atherosclerosis and, more importantly, better predicts incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) than brachial PP. METHODS: Radial applanation tonometry was performed in the third Strong Heart Study examination to determine central blood pressure. Cox regression analyses were performed using pre-specified covariates and quartiles of central and brachial PP. RESULTS: Among 2,405 participants without prevalent CVD, 344 suffered CVD events during 5.6 +/- 1.7 years. Quartiles of central PP (p < 0.001) predicted outcome more strongly than quartiles of brachial PP (p = 0.052). With adjustment for covariates, only the event rate in the fourth quartile of central PP (> or =50 mm Hg) was significantly higher than that in the first quartile (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20 to 2.39, p = 0.003). Central PP > or =50 mm Hg was related to outcome in both men (HR: 2.06, 95% CI: 1.39 to 3.04, p < 0.001) and women (HR: 2.03, 95% CI: 1.55 to 2.65, p < 0.001); in participants with (HR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.41 to 2.39, p < 0.001) and without diabetes (HR: 1.91, 95% CI: 1.29 to 2.83, p = 0.001); and in individuals younger (HR: 2.51, 95% CI: 1.59 to 3.95, p < 0.001) and older (HR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.19 to 1.97, p = 0.001) than the age of 60 years. CONCLUSIONS: Central PP > or =50 mm Hg predicts adverse CVD outcome and may serve as a target in intervention strategies if confirmed in other populations and in prospective studies.
OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to facilitate clinical use of central pulse pressure (PP). We sought to determine a value that might predict adverse outcome and thereby provide a target for assessment of intervention strategies. BACKGROUND: We previously documented that central PP more strongly relates to carotid hypertrophy and extent of atherosclerosis and, more importantly, better predicts incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) than brachial PP. METHODS: Radial applanation tonometry was performed in the third Strong Heart Study examination to determine central blood pressure. Cox regression analyses were performed using pre-specified covariates and quartiles of central and brachial PP. RESULTS: Among 2,405 participants without prevalent CVD, 344 suffered CVD events during 5.6 +/- 1.7 years. Quartiles of central PP (p < 0.001) predicted outcome more strongly than quartiles of brachial PP (p = 0.052). With adjustment for covariates, only the event rate in the fourth quartile of central PP (> or =50 mm Hg) was significantly higher than that in the first quartile (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20 to 2.39, p = 0.003). Central PP > or =50 mm Hg was related to outcome in both men (HR: 2.06, 95% CI: 1.39 to 3.04, p < 0.001) and women (HR: 2.03, 95% CI: 1.55 to 2.65, p < 0.001); in participants with (HR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.41 to 2.39, p < 0.001) and without diabetes (HR: 1.91, 95% CI: 1.29 to 2.83, p = 0.001); and in individuals younger (HR: 2.51, 95% CI: 1.59 to 3.95, p < 0.001) and older (HR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.19 to 1.97, p = 0.001) than the age of 60 years. CONCLUSIONS: Central PP > or =50 mm Hg predicts adverse CVD outcome and may serve as a target in intervention strategies if confirmed in other populations and in prospective studies.
Authors: Neil R Poulter; Hans Wedel; Björn Dahlöf; Peter S Sever; D Gareth Beevers; Mark Caulfield; Sverre E Kjeldsen; Arni Kristinsson; Gordon T McInnes; Jesper Mehlsen; Markku Nieminen; Eoin O'Brien; Jan Ostergren; Stuart Pocock Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Sep 10-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Björn Dahlöf; Richard B Devereux; Sverre E Kjeldsen; Stevo Julius; Gareth Beevers; Ulf de Faire; Frej Fyhrquist; Hans Ibsen; Krister Kristiansson; Ole Lederballe-Pedersen; Lars H Lindholm; Markku S Nieminen; Per Omvik; Suzanne Oparil; Hans Wedel Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-03-23 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Michel E Safar; Jacques Blacher; Bruno Pannier; Alain P Guerin; Sylvain J Marchais; Pierre-Marie Guyonvarc'h; Gérard M London Journal: Hypertension Date: 2002-03-01 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Riccardo Pini; M Chiara Cavallini; Vittorio Palmieri; Niccolò Marchionni; Mauro Di Bari; Richard B Devereux; Giulio Masotti; Mary J Roman Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-06-24 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Aram V Chobanian; George L Bakris; Henry R Black; William C Cushman; Lee A Green; Joseph L Izzo; Daniel W Jones; Barry J Materson; Suzanne Oparil; Jackson T Wright; Edward J Roccella Journal: Hypertension Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Carmel M McEniery; Barry McDonnell; Margaret Munnery; Sharon M Wallace; Chloe V Rowe; John R Cockcroft; Ian B Wilkinson Journal: Hypertension Date: 2008-04-21 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Enrico Agabiti-Rosei; Giuseppe Mancia; Michael F O'Rourke; Mary J Roman; Michel E Safar; Harold Smulyan; Ji-Guang Wang; Ian B Wilkinson; Bryan Williams; Charalambos Vlachopoulos Journal: Hypertension Date: 2007-06-11 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Isabelle Fabry; Peter De Paepe; Jan Kips; Sebastian Vermeersch; Luc Van Bortel Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2010-11-16 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: O Cseprekál; J Egresits; Á Tabák; J Nemcsik; Z Járai; L Babos; E Fodor; K Farkas; G Godina; K I Kárpáthi; L Kerkovits; A Marton; Z Nemcsik-Bencze; Z Németh; L Sallai; I Kiss; A Tislér Journal: J Hum Hypertens Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 3.012
Authors: Ginger J Winston; Walter Palmas; Joao Lima; Joseph F Polak; Alain G Bertoni; Gregory Burke; John Eng; Rebecca Gottesman; Steven Shea Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2013-02-06 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Nicole L Spartano; Jacqueline A Augustine; Wesley K Lefferts; Brooks B Gump; Kevin S Heffernan Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 5.162