Teemu J Niiranen1, Harri Rissanen, Jouni K Johansson, Antti M Jula. 1. aPopulation Studies Unit, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Turku bPopulation Health Research Unit, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The overall cardiovascular prognosis of isolated systolic hypertension, isolated diastolic hypertension and pulse pressure defined with home blood pressure (BP) measurements remains unclear. METHODS: A prospective nationwide study was initiated in 2000-2001 on 1924 randomly selected participants aged 44-74 years. We determined home and office BP at baseline and classified the individuals into four groups according to their home BP levels: normotension, isolated diastolic hypertension, isolated systolic hypertension and systolic-diastolic hypertension. The primary endpoint was incidence of a composite cardiovascular event. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 11.2 years, 236 individuals had suffered a cardiovascular event. In multivariable Cox proportional hazard models, the relative hazards and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for cardiovascular events were significantly higher in participants with isolated diastolic hypertension (relative hazard 1.95; 95% CI, 1.06-3.57; P=0.03), isolated systolic hypertension (relative hazard 2.08; 95% CI, 1.42-3.05; P<0.001) and systolic-diastolic hypertension (relative hazard 2.79; 95% CI, 2.02-3.86; P<0.001) than in participants with normotension. Home (relative hazard 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05-1.40; P=0.009 per 10 mmHg increase), but not office (relative hazard 1.10; 95% CI, 1.00-1.21, P=0.06) pulse pressure, adjusted for mean arterial pressure, was an independent predictor of cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSION: Isolated diastolic and systolic hypertension defined with home measurements are associated with an increased cardiovascular risk. Close follow-up and possible treatment of these patients is therefore warranted. Home-measured pulse pressure is an independent predictor of cardiovascular events while office-measured pulse pressure is not, which fortifies the view that home BP provides more accurate risk prediction than office BP.
OBJECTIVE: The overall cardiovascular prognosis of isolated systolic hypertension, isolated diastolic hypertension and pulse pressure defined with home blood pressure (BP) measurements remains unclear. METHODS: A prospective nationwide study was initiated in 2000-2001 on 1924 randomly selected participants aged 44-74 years. We determined home and office BP at baseline and classified the individuals into four groups according to their home BP levels: normotension, isolated diastolic hypertension, isolated systolic hypertension and systolic-diastolic hypertension. The primary endpoint was incidence of a composite cardiovascular event. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 11.2 years, 236 individuals had suffered a cardiovascular event. In multivariable Cox proportional hazard models, the relative hazards and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for cardiovascular events were significantly higher in participants with isolated diastolic hypertension (relative hazard 1.95; 95% CI, 1.06-3.57; P=0.03), isolated systolic hypertension (relative hazard 2.08; 95% CI, 1.42-3.05; P<0.001) and systolic-diastolic hypertension (relative hazard 2.79; 95% CI, 2.02-3.86; P<0.001) than in participants with normotension. Home (relative hazard 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05-1.40; P=0.009 per 10 mmHg increase), but not office (relative hazard 1.10; 95% CI, 1.00-1.21, P=0.06) pulse pressure, adjusted for mean arterial pressure, was an independent predictor of cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSION: Isolated diastolic and systolic hypertension defined with home measurements are associated with an increased cardiovascular risk. Close follow-up and possible treatment of these patients is therefore warranted. Home-measured pulse pressure is an independent predictor of cardiovascular events while office-measured pulse pressure is not, which fortifies the view that home BP provides more accurate risk prediction than office BP.
Authors: Corinna S Bürgin-Maunder; Peter R Brooks; Deborah Hitchen-Holmes; Fraser D Russell Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-08-02 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Yanchun Wang; Fengjun Xing; Rongjuan Liu; Li Liu; Yu Zhu; Yufeng Wen; Wenjie Sun; Ziwei Song Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 3.390