Literature DB >> 24462238

Effect of change in systolic blood pressure between clinic visits on estimated 10-year cardiovascular disease risk.

Siqin Ye1, Y Claire Wang2, Daichi Shimbo3, Jonathan D Newman3, Emily B Levitan4, Paul Muntner4.   

Abstract

Systolic blood pressure (SBP) often varies between clinic visits within individuals, which can affect estimation of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. We analyzed data from participants with two clinic visits separated by a median of 17 days in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (n = 808). Ten-year CVD risk was calculated with SBP obtained at each visit using the Pooled Cohort Equations. The mean age of participants was 46.1 years, and 47.3% were male. The median SBP difference between the two visits was -1 mm Hg (1st to 99th percentiles: -23 to 32 mm Hg). The median estimated 10-year CVD risk was 2.5% and 2.4% at the first and second visit, respectively (1st to 99th percentiles -5.2% to +7.1%). Meaningful risk reclassification (ie, across the guideline recommended 7.5% threshold for statin initiation) occurred in 12 (11.3%) of 106 participants whose estimated CVD risk was between 5% and 10%, but only in two (0.3%) of 702 participants who had a 10-year estimated CVD risk of <5% or >10%. SBP variability can affect CVD risk estimation, and can influence statin eligibility for individuals with an estimated 10-year CVD risk between 5% and 10%.
Copyright © 2014 American Society of Hypertension. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Systolic blood pressure; adults; risk assessment; statins

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24462238      PMCID: PMC3959282          DOI: 10.1016/j.jash.2013.12.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Soc Hypertens        ISSN: 1878-7436


  20 in total

Review 1.  Cardiovascular risk prediction: basic concepts, current status, and future directions.

Authors:  Donald M Lloyd-Jones
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2010-04-20       Impact factor: 29.690

2.  Medium-term variability of blood pressure and potential underdiagnosis of hypertension in patients with previous transient ischemic attack or minor stroke.

Authors:  Robert L Cuffe; Sally C Howard; Ale Algra; Charles P Warlow; Peter M Rothwell
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2006-09-28       Impact factor: 7.914

3.  2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.

Authors:  David C Goff; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Glen Bennett; Sean Coady; Ralph B D'Agostino; Raymond Gibbons; Philip Greenland; Daniel T Lackland; Daniel Levy; Christopher J O'Donnell; Jennifer G Robinson; J Sanford Schwartz; Susan T Shero; Sidney C Smith; Paul Sorlie; Neil J Stone; Peter W F Wilson; Harmon S Jordan; Lev Nevo; Janusz Wnek; Jeffrey L Anderson; Jonathan L Halperin; Nancy M Albert; Biykem Bozkurt; Ralph G Brindis; Lesley H Curtis; David DeMets; Judith S Hochman; Richard J Kovacs; E Magnus Ohman; Susan J Pressler; Frank W Sellke; Win-Kuang Shen; Sidney C Smith; Gordon F Tomaselli
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2013-11-12       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  Screening for cardiovascular risk in asymptomatic patients.

Authors:  Jeffrey S Berger; Courtney O Jordan; Donald Lloyd-Jones; Roger S Blumenthal
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2010-03-23       Impact factor: 24.094

5.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Plan and operation of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-94. Series 1: programs and collection procedures.

Authors: 
Journal:  Vital Health Stat 1       Date:  1994-07

7.  Development and validation of improved algorithms for the assessment of global cardiovascular risk in women: the Reynolds Risk Score.

Authors:  Paul M Ridker; Julie E Buring; Nader Rifai; Nancy R Cook
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-02-14       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  The distribution of 10-Year risk for coronary heart disease among US adults: findings from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III.

Authors:  Earl S Ford; Wayne H Giles; Ali H Mokdad
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2004-05-19       Impact factor: 24.094

9.  Predicting cardiovascular risk in England and Wales: prospective derivation and validation of QRISK2.

Authors:  Julia Hippisley-Cox; Carol Coupland; Yana Vinogradova; John Robson; Rubin Minhas; Aziz Sheikh; Peter Brindle
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-06-23

10.  Prognostic significance of visit-to-visit variability, maximum systolic blood pressure, and episodic hypertension.

Authors:  Peter M Rothwell; Sally C Howard; Eamon Dolan; Eoin O'Brien; Joanna E Dobson; Bjorn Dahlöf; Peter S Sever; Neil R Poulter
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2010-03-13       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Using Predicted Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Conjunction With Blood Pressure to Guide Antihypertensive Medication Treatment.

Authors:  Paul Muntner; Paul K Whelton
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2017-05-16       Impact factor: 24.094

2.  The impact of multiple single day blood pressure readings on cardiovascular risk estimation: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study.

Authors:  Abayomi N Ogunwale; Alanna C Morrison; Wensheng Sun; Rhiannon C Dodge; Salim S Virani; Addison Taylor; Rebecca F Gottesman; Eric Yang; Peng Wei; John W McEvoy; Gerardo Heiss; Eric Boerwinkle; Christie M Ballantyne; Vijay Nambi
Journal:  Eur J Prev Cardiol       Date:  2016-02-11       Impact factor: 7.804

3.  Medical decision making and the counting of uncertainty.

Authors:  Siqin Ye
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2014-04-17       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  J-shaped relationship between cardiovascular risk and efficacy of intensive blood pressure reduction: A post-hoc analysis of the SPRINT trial.

Authors:  Armin Attar; Fatemeh Nouri; Roham Borazjani; Mehrab Sayadi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  The potential for overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis because of blood pressure variability: a comparison of the 2017 ACC/AHA, 2018 ESC/ESH and 2019 NICE hypertension guidelines.

Authors:  Katy Bell; Jenny Doust; Kevin McGeechan; Andrea Rita Horvath; Alexandra Barratt; Andrew Hayen; Christopher Semsarian; Les Irwig
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  2021-02-01       Impact factor: 4.776

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.