OBJECTIVES: Central systolic (SBP-C) and/or pulse pressure (PP-C) better predicts cardiovascular events than does peripheral blood pressure. The present study compared the prognostic significance of office central blood pressure with multiple measurements of out-of-office ambulatory peripheral blood pressure, with reference to office peripheral systolic (SBP-B) or pulse pressure (PP-B). METHODS: In a community-based population of 1014 healthy participants, SBP-C and PP-C were estimated using carotid tonometry, and 24-h systolic (SBP-24 h) and pulse pressure (PP-24 h) were obtained from 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Associations of SBP-B, PP-B, SBP-C, PP-C, SBP-24 h, and PP-24 h with all-cause and cardiovascular mortalities over a median follow-up of 15 years were examined by Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: In multivariate analyses accounting for age, sex, BMI, smoking, fasting plasma glucose, and total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio, only PP-C (hazard ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.32, per one standard deviation increment) was significantly predictive of all-cause mortality, whereas all but PP-B were significantly predictive of cardiovascular mortality. When SBP-B was simultaneously included in the models, SBP-24 h (2.01, 1.42-2.85) and SBP-C (1.71, 1.21-2.40) remained significantly predictive of cardiovascular mortality. When SBP-C was simultaneously included in the models, SBP-24 h (1.71, 1.16-2.52) remained significantly predictive of cardiovascular mortality. CONCLUSION: Office central blood pressure is more valuable than office peripheral blood pressure in the prediction of all-cause and cardiovascular mortalities. Out-of-office ambulatory peripheral blood pressure (SBP-24 h) may be superior to central blood pressure in the prediction of cardiovascular mortality, but PP-C may better predict all-cause mortality than SBP-24 h or PP-24 h.
OBJECTIVES: Central systolic (SBP-C) and/or pulse pressure (PP-C) better predicts cardiovascular events than does peripheral blood pressure. The present study compared the prognostic significance of office central blood pressure with multiple measurements of out-of-office ambulatory peripheral blood pressure, with reference to office peripheral systolic (SBP-B) or pulse pressure (PP-B). METHODS: In a community-based population of 1014 healthy participants, SBP-C and PP-C were estimated using carotid tonometry, and 24-h systolic (SBP-24 h) and pulse pressure (PP-24 h) were obtained from 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Associations of SBP-B, PP-B, SBP-C, PP-C, SBP-24 h, and PP-24 h with all-cause and cardiovascular mortalities over a median follow-up of 15 years were examined by Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: In multivariate analyses accounting for age, sex, BMI, smoking, fasting plasma glucose, and total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio, only PP-C (hazard ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.32, per one standard deviation increment) was significantly predictive of all-cause mortality, whereas all but PP-B were significantly predictive of cardiovascular mortality. When SBP-B was simultaneously included in the models, SBP-24 h (2.01, 1.42-2.85) and SBP-C (1.71, 1.21-2.40) remained significantly predictive of cardiovascular mortality. When SBP-C was simultaneously included in the models, SBP-24 h (1.71, 1.16-2.52) remained significantly predictive of cardiovascular mortality. CONCLUSION: Office central blood pressure is more valuable than office peripheral blood pressure in the prediction of all-cause and cardiovascular mortalities. Out-of-office ambulatory peripheral blood pressure (SBP-24 h) may be superior to central blood pressure in the prediction of cardiovascular mortality, but PP-C may better predict all-cause mortality than SBP-24 h or PP-24 h.
Authors: Alberto P Avolio; Luc M Van Bortel; Pierre Boutouyrie; John R Cockcroft; Carmel M McEniery; Athanase D Protogerou; Mary J Roman; Michel E Safar; Patrick Segers; Harold Smulyan Journal: Hypertension Date: 2009-06-29 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: C H Chen; C T Ting; S J Lin; T L Hsu; S J Ho; P Chou; M S Chang; F O'Connor; H Spurgeon; E Lakatta; F C Yin Journal: Circulation Date: 1998-08-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Anthony M Dart; Christoph D Gatzka; Bronwyn A Kingwell; Kristyn Willson; James D Cameron; Yu-Lu Liang; Karen L Berry; Lindon M H Wing; Christopher M Reid; Philip Ryan; Lawrence J Beilin; Garry L R Jennings; Colin I Johnston; John J McNeil; Graham J Macdonald; Trefor O Morgan; Malcolm J West Journal: Hypertension Date: 2006-02-27 Impact factor: 10.190
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: Gailing Chen; Kevin P Bliden; Rahul Chaudhary; Fang Liu; Himabindu Kaza; Eliano P Navarese; Udaya S Tantry; Paul A Gurbel Journal: J Thromb Thrombolysis Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 2.300
Authors: D Vrachatis; T G Papaioannou; A Konstantopoulou; E G Nasothimiou; S Millasseau; J Blacher; M E Safar; P P Sfikakis; G S Stergiou; A D Protogerou Journal: J Hum Hypertens Date: 2013-10-24 Impact factor: 3.012
Authors: Susan Cheng; Deepak K Gupta; Brian Claggett; A Richey Sharrett; Amil M Shah; Hicham Skali; Madoka Takeuchi; Hanyu Ni; Scott D Solomon Journal: Hypertension Date: 2013-07-22 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Christian Ott; Rolf Janka; Axel Schmid; Stephanie Titze; Tilmann Ditting; Paul A Sobotka; Roland Veelken; Michael Uder; Roland E Schmieder Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2013-04-04 Impact factor: 8.237