Hao-Min Cheng1, Shao-Yuan Chuang, Shih-Hsien Sung, Wen-Chung Yu, Alan Pearson, Edward G Lakatta, Wen-Harn Pan, Chen-Huan Chen. 1. Joanna Briggs Institute, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia; Department of Medical Research and Education, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; Cardiovascular Research Center, National Yang-Ming University, Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; Department of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to derive and validate outcome-driven thresholds of central blood pressure (CBP) for diagnosing hypertension. BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for managing patients with hypertension mainly rely on blood pressure (BP) measured at brachial arteries (cuff BP). However, BP measured at the central aorta (central BP [CBP]) may be a better prognostic factor for predicting future cardiovascular events than cuff BP. METHODS: In a derivation cohort (1,272 individuals and a median follow-up of 15 years), we determined diagnostic thresholds for CBP by using current guideline-endorsed cutoffs for cuff BP with a bootstrapping (resampling by drawing randomly with replacement) and an approximation method. To evaluate the discriminatory power in predicting cardiovascular outcomes, the derived thresholds were tested in a validation cohort (2,501 individuals with median follow-up of 10 years). RESULTS: The 2 analyses yielded similar diagnostic thresholds for CBP. After rounding, systolic/diastolic threshold was 110/80 mm Hg for optimal BP and 130/90 mm Hg for hypertension. Compared with optimal BP, the risk of cardiovascular mortality increased significantly in subjects with hypertension (hazard ratio: 3.08, 95% confidence interval: 1.05 to 9.05). Of the multivariate Cox proportional hazards model, incorporation of a dichotomous variable by defining hypertension as CBP ≥ 130/90 mm Hg was associated with the largest contribution to the predictive power. CONCLUSIONS: CBP of 130/90 mm Hg was determined to be the cutoff limit for normality and was characterized by a greater discriminatory power for long-term events in our validation cohort. This report represents an important step toward the application of the CBP concept in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to derive and validate outcome-driven thresholds of central blood pressure (CBP) for diagnosing hypertension. BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for managing patients with hypertension mainly rely on blood pressure (BP) measured at brachial arteries (cuff BP). However, BP measured at the central aorta (central BP [CBP]) may be a better prognostic factor for predicting future cardiovascular events than cuff BP. METHODS: In a derivation cohort (1,272 individuals and a median follow-up of 15 years), we determined diagnostic thresholds for CBP by using current guideline-endorsed cutoffs for cuff BP with a bootstrapping (resampling by drawing randomly with replacement) and an approximation method. To evaluate the discriminatory power in predicting cardiovascular outcomes, the derived thresholds were tested in a validation cohort (2,501 individuals with median follow-up of 10 years). RESULTS: The 2 analyses yielded similar diagnostic thresholds for CBP. After rounding, systolic/diastolic threshold was 110/80 mm Hg for optimal BP and 130/90 mm Hg for hypertension. Compared with optimal BP, the risk of cardiovascular mortality increased significantly in subjects with hypertension (hazard ratio: 3.08, 95% confidence interval: 1.05 to 9.05). Of the multivariate Cox proportional hazards model, incorporation of a dichotomous variable by defining hypertension as CBP ≥ 130/90 mm Hg was associated with the largest contribution to the predictive power. CONCLUSIONS: CBP of 130/90 mm Hg was determined to be the cutoff limit for normality and was characterized by a greater discriminatory power for long-term events in our validation cohort. This report represents an important step toward the application of the CBP concept in clinical practice.
Authors: Carmel M McEniery; Ian R Hall; Ahmad Qasem; Ian B Wilkinson; John R Cockcroft Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-10-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Bryan Williams; Peter S Lacy; Simon M Thom; Kennedy Cruickshank; Alice Stanton; David Collier; Alun D Hughes; H Thurston; Michael O'Rourke Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-02-13 Impact factor: 29.690
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: Mary J Roman; Richard B Devereux; Jorge R Kizer; Elisa T Lee; James M Galloway; Tauqeer Ali; Jason G Umans; Barbara V Howard Journal: Hypertension Date: 2007-05-07 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Giuseppe Mancia; Guy De Backer; Anna Dominiczak; Renata Cifkova; Robert Fagard; Giuseppe Germano; Guido Grassi; Anthony M Heagerty; Sverre E Kjeldsen; Stephane Laurent; Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Luis Ruilope; Andrzej Rynkiewicz; Roland E Schmieder; Harry A J Struijker Boudier; Alberto Zanchetti; Alec Vahanian; John Camm; Raffaele De Caterina; Veronica Dean; Kenneth Dickstein; Gerasimos Filippatos; Christian Funck-Brentano; Irene Hellemans; Steen Dalby Kristensen; Keith McGregor; Udo Sechtem; Sigmund Silber; Michal Tendera; Petr Widimsky; Jose Luis Zamorano; Sverre E Kjeldsen; Serap Erdine; Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Wolfgang Kiowski; Enrico Agabiti-Rosei; Ettore Ambrosioni; Renata Cifkova; Anna Dominiczak; Robert Fagard; Anthony M Heagerty; Stephane Laurent; Lars H Lindholm; Giuseppe Mancia; Athanasios Manolis; Peter M Nilsson; Josep Redon; Roland E Schmieder; Harry A J Struijker-Boudier; Margus Viigimaa; Gerasimos Filippatos; Stamatis Adamopoulos; Enrico Agabiti-Rosei; Ettore Ambrosioni; Vicente Bertomeu; Denis Clement; Serap Erdine; Csaba Farsang; Dan Gaita; Wolfgang Kiowski; Gregory Lip; Jean-Michel Mallion; Athanasios J Manolis; Peter M Nilsson; Eoin O'Brien; Piotr Ponikowski; Josep Redon; Frank Ruschitzka; Juan Tamargo; Pieter van Zwieten; Margus Viigimaa; Bernard Waeber; Bryan Williams; Jose Luis Zamorano Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2007-06-11 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: C H Chen; C T Ting; A Nussbacher; E Nevo; D A Kass; P Pak; S P Wang; M S Chang; F C Yin Journal: Hypertension Date: 1996-02 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Masahiro Kikuya; Tine W Hansen; Lutgarde Thijs; Kristina Björklund-Bodegård; Tatiana Kuznetsova; Takayoshi Ohkubo; Tom Richart; Christian Torp-Pedersen; Lars Lind; Hans Ibsen; Yutaka Imai; Jan A Staessen Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-04-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Lee Stoner; Keeron Stone; Gabriel Zieff; EriK D Hanson; Daniel Credeur; James Faulkner; Anna Kucharska-Newton; Simon Fryer Journal: J Hum Hypertens Date: 2019-02-25 Impact factor: 3.012
Authors: Jenny Theorell-Haglöw; Camilla M Hoyos; Craig L Phillips; Brendon J Yee; Kerri L Melehan; Peter Y Liu; Peter A Cistulli; Ronald R Grunstein Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 4.062