BACKGROUND: The double product (DP), consisting of the systolic blood pressure (SBP) multiplied by the pulse rate (PR), is an index of myocardial oxygen consumption, but its prognostic value in the general population remains unknown. METHODS: We recorded health outcomes in 9,937 subjects (median age, 53.2 years; 47.3% women) randomly recruited from 11 populations and enrolled in the International Database on Ambulatory blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes (IDACO) study. We obtained the SBP, PR, and DP for these subjects as determined through 24-hour ambulatory monitoring. RESULTS: Over a median period of 11.0 years, 1,388 of the 9,937 study subjects died, of whom 536 and 794, respectively, died of cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV causes, and a further 1,161, 658, 494, and 465 subjects, respectively, experienced a CV, cardiac, coronary, or cerebrovascular event. In multivariate-adjusted Cox models, not including SBP and PR, DP predicted total, CV, and non-CV mortality (standardized hazard ratio [HR], ≥ 1.10; P ≤ 0.02), and all CV, cardiac, coronary, and stroke events (HR, ≥ 1.21; P < 0.0001). For CV mortality (HR, 1.34 vs. 1.30; P = 0.71) and coronary events (1.28 vs. 1.21; P = 0.26), SBP and the DP were equally predictive. As compared with DP, SBP was a stronger predictor of all CV events (1.39 vs. 1.27; P = 0.002) and stroke (1.61 vs. 1.36; P < 0.0001), and a slightly stronger predictor of cardiac events (1.32 vs. 1.22; P = 0.06). In fully adjusted models, including both SBP and PR, the predictive value of DP disappeared for fatal endpoints (P ≥ 0.07), coronary events (P = 0.06), and stroke (P = 0.12), or DP was even inversely associated with the risk of all CV and cardiac events (both P ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSION: In the general population, we did not observe DP to add to risk stratification over and beyond SBP and PR.
BACKGROUND: The double product (DP), consisting of the systolic blood pressure (SBP) multiplied by the pulse rate (PR), is an index of myocardial oxygen consumption, but its prognostic value in the general population remains unknown. METHODS: We recorded health outcomes in 9,937 subjects (median age, 53.2 years; 47.3% women) randomly recruited from 11 populations and enrolled in the International Database on Ambulatory blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes (IDACO) study. We obtained the SBP, PR, and DP for these subjects as determined through 24-hour ambulatory monitoring. RESULTS: Over a median period of 11.0 years, 1,388 of the 9,937 study subjects died, of whom 536 and 794, respectively, died of cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV causes, and a further 1,161, 658, 494, and 465 subjects, respectively, experienced a CV, cardiac, coronary, or cerebrovascular event. In multivariate-adjusted Cox models, not including SBP and PR, DP predicted total, CV, and non-CV mortality (standardized hazard ratio [HR], ≥ 1.10; P ≤ 0.02), and all CV, cardiac, coronary, and stroke events (HR, ≥ 1.21; P < 0.0001). For CV mortality (HR, 1.34 vs. 1.30; P = 0.71) and coronary events (1.28 vs. 1.21; P = 0.26), SBP and the DP were equally predictive. As compared with DP, SBP was a stronger predictor of all CV events (1.39 vs. 1.27; P = 0.002) and stroke (1.61 vs. 1.36; P < 0.0001), and a slightly stronger predictor of cardiac events (1.32 vs. 1.22; P = 0.06). In fully adjusted models, including both SBP and PR, the predictive value of DP disappeared for fatal endpoints (P ≥ 0.07), coronary events (P = 0.06), and stroke (P = 0.12), or DP was even inversely associated with the risk of all CV and cardiac events (both P ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSION: In the general population, we did not observe DP to add to risk stratification over and beyond SBP and PR.
Authors: Fu Wang; Yingxiao Hua; Paul K Whelton; Tao Zhang; Camilo Alonso Fernandez; Huijie Zhang; Lydia Bazzano; Jiang He; Wei Chen; Shengxu Li Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2017-06-28 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Dirceu S Melo; Liliane V Costa-Pereira; Carina S Santos; Bruno F Mendes; Karine B Costa; Cynthia Fernandes F Santos; Etel Rocha-Vieira; Flávio C Magalhães; Elizabethe A Esteves; Anderson J Ferreira; Sílvia Guatimosim; Marco F Dias-Peixoto Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 4.566