Literature DB >> 21263119

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in 9357 subjects from 11 populations highlights missed opportunities for cardiovascular prevention in women.

José Boggia1, Lutgarde Thijs, Tine W Hansen, Yan Li, Masahiro Kikuya, Kristina Björklund-Bodegård, Tom Richart, Takayoshi Ohkubo, Jørgen Jeppesen, Christian Torp-Pedersen, Eamon Dolan, Tatiana Kuznetsova, Agnieszka Olszanecka, Valérie Tikhonoff, Sofia Malyutina, Edoardo Casiglia, Yuri Nikitin, Lars Lind, Gladys Maestre, Edgardo Sandoya, Kalina Kawecka-Jaszcz, Yutaka Imai, Jiguang Wang, Hans Ibsen, Eoin O'Brien, Jan A Staessen.   

Abstract

To analyze sex-specific relative and absolute risks associated with blood pressure (BP), we performed conventional and 24-hour ambulatory BP measurements in 9357 subjects (mean age, 52.8 years; 47% women) recruited from 11 populations. We computed standardized multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios for associations between outcome and systolic BP. During a course of 11.2 years (median), 1245 participants died, 472 of cardiovascular causes. The number of fatal combined with nonfatal events was 1080, 525, and 458 for cardiovascular and cardiac events and for stroke, respectively. In women and men alike, systolic BP predicted outcome, irrespective of the type of BP measurement. Women compared with men were at lower risk (hazard ratios for death and all cardiovascular events=0.66 and 0.62, respectively; P<0.001). However, the relation of all cardiovascular events with 24-hour BP (P=0.020) and the relations of total mortality (P=0.023) and all cardiovascular (P=0.0013), cerebrovascular (P=0.045), and cardiac (P=0.034) events with nighttime BP were steeper in women than in men. Consequently, per a 1-SD decrease, the proportion of potentially preventable events was higher in women than in men for all cardiovascular events (35.9% vs 24.2%) in relation to 24-hour systolic BP (1-SD, 13.4 mm Hg) and for all-cause mortality (23.1% vs 12.3%) and cardiovascular (35.1% vs 19.4%), cerebrovascular (38.3% vs 25.9%), and cardiac (31.0% vs 16.0%) events in relation to systolic nighttime BP (1-SD, 14.1 mm Hg). In conclusion, although absolute risks associated with systolic BP were lower in women than men, our results reveal a vast and largely unused potential for cardiovascular prevention by BP-lowering treatment in women.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21263119     DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.110.156828

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hypertension        ISSN: 0194-911X            Impact factor:   10.190


  39 in total

Review 1.  Gender Differences in Antihypertensive Treatment: Myths or Legends?

Authors:  Maria Lorenza Muiesan; Massimo Salvetti; Claudia Agabiti Rosei; Anna Paini
Journal:  High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev       Date:  2016-04-22

Review 2.  Isometric Handgrip as an Adjunct for Blood Pressure Control: a Primer for Clinicians.

Authors:  Cheri L McGowan; David N Proctor; Ian Swaine; Robert D Brook; Elizabeth A Jackson; Phillip D Levy
Journal:  Curr Hypertens Rep       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 5.369

3.  Endothelial function in postmenopausal women with nighttime systolic hypertension.

Authors:  Faye S Routledge; Alan L Hinderliter; Judith McFetridge-Durdle; James A Blumenthal; Nicola J Paine; Andrew Sherwood
Journal:  Menopause       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 2.953

Review 4.  Hypertension and Organ Damage in Women.

Authors:  Maria Lorenza Muiesan; Anna Paini; Carlo Aggiusti; Fabio Bertacchini; Claudia Agabiti Rosei; Massimo Salvetti
Journal:  High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev       Date:  2018-06-26

Review 5.  Opposing Age-Related Trends in Absolute and Relative Risk of Adverse Health Outcomes Associated With Out-of-Office Blood Pressure.

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

Review 6.  Sex Differences in Hypertension: Recent Advances.

Authors:  Ellen E Gillis; Jennifer C Sullivan
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2016-10-24       Impact factor: 10.190

Review 7.  Gender differences in hypertension: myths and reality.

Authors:  Michael Doumas; Vasilios Papademetriou; Charles Faselis; Peter Kokkinos
Journal:  Curr Hypertens Rep       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 5.369

Review 8.  Summary of Updated Recommendations for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Women: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.

Authors:  Leslie Cho; Melinda Davis; Islam Elgendy; Kelly Epps; Kathryn J Lindley; Puja K Mehta; Erin D Michos; Margo Minissian; Carl Pepine; Viola Vaccarino; Annabelle Santos Volgman
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2020-05-26       Impact factor: 24.094

Review 9.  T-cell involvement in sex differences in blood pressure control.

Authors:  G Ryan Crislip; Jennifer C Sullivan
Journal:  Clin Sci (Lond)       Date:  2016-05-01       Impact factor: 6.124

Review 10.  Endothelin, sex, and pregnancy: unique considerations for blood pressure control in females.

Authors:  Ellen E Gillis; Jennifer M Sasser; Jennifer C Sullivan
Journal:  Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol       Date:  2016-03-02       Impact factor: 3.619

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.