Jeff Whittle1, Amy I Lynch2, Rikki M Tanner2, Lara M Simpson3, Barry R Davis3, Mahboob Rahman4, Paul K Whelton5, Suzanne Oparil6, Paul Muntner7. 1. Primary Care Division, Clement J. Zablocki Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; jeffrey.whittle@va.gov. 2. Departments of Epidemiology and. 3. Division of Biostatistics, University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, Texas; 4. Department of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio; Department of Medicine, Louis Stokes Cleveland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio; and. 5. Department of Epidemiology, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana. 6. Medicine, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama; 7. Departments of Epidemiology and Medicine, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama;
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Increased visit-to-visit variability of BP is associated with cardiovascular disease risk. We examined the association of visit-to-visit variability of BP with renal outcomes among 21,245 participants in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We measured mean BP and visit-to-visit variability of BP, defined as SD, across five to seven visits occurring 6-28 months after participants were randomized to chlorthalidone, amlodipine, or lisinopril. The composite outcome included incident ESRD after assessment of SD of systolic BP or ≥50% decline in eGFR between 24 months and 48 or 72 months after randomization. We repeated the analyses using average real variability and peak value of systolic BP and for visit-to-visit variability of diastolic BP. RESULTS: Over a mean follow-up of 3.5 years, 297 outcomes occurred. After multivariable adjustment, including baseline eGFR and mean systolic BP, the hazard ratios for the composite end point were 1.29 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.75 to 2.22), 1.76 (95% CI, 1.06 to 2.91), 1.46 (95% CI, 0.88 to 2.45), and 2.05 (95% CI, 1.25 to 3.36) for the second through fifth (SD of systolic BP =6.63-8.82, 8.83-11.14, 11.15-14.56, and >14.56 mmHg, respectively) versus the first (SD of systolic BP <6.63 mmHg) quintile of SD of systolic BP, respectively (P trend =0.004). The association was similar when ESRD and a 50% decline in eGFR were analyzed separately, for other measures of visit-to-visit variability of systolic BP, and for visit-to-visit variability of diastolic BP. CONCLUSIONS: Higher visit-to-visit variability of BP is associated with higher risk of renal outcomes independent of mean BP.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Increased visit-to-visit variability of BP is associated with cardiovascular disease risk. We examined the association of visit-to-visit variability of BP with renal outcomes among 21,245 participants in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We measured mean BP and visit-to-visit variability of BP, defined as SD, across five to seven visits occurring 6-28 months after participants were randomized to chlorthalidone, amlodipine, or lisinopril. The composite outcome included incident ESRD after assessment of SD of systolic BP or ≥50% decline in eGFR between 24 months and 48 or 72 months after randomization. We repeated the analyses using average real variability and peak value of systolic BP and for visit-to-visit variability of diastolic BP. RESULTS: Over a mean follow-up of 3.5 years, 297 outcomes occurred. After multivariable adjustment, including baseline eGFR and mean systolic BP, the hazard ratios for the composite end point were 1.29 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.75 to 2.22), 1.76 (95% CI, 1.06 to 2.91), 1.46 (95% CI, 0.88 to 2.45), and 2.05 (95% CI, 1.25 to 3.36) for the second through fifth (SD of systolic BP =6.63-8.82, 8.83-11.14, 11.15-14.56, and >14.56 mmHg, respectively) versus the first (SD of systolic BP <6.63 mmHg) quintile of SD of systolic BP, respectively (P trend =0.004). The association was similar when ESRD and a 50% decline in eGFR were analyzed separately, for other measures of visit-to-visit variability of systolic BP, and for visit-to-visit variability of diastolic BP. CONCLUSIONS: Higher visit-to-visit variability of BP is associated with higher risk of renal outcomes independent of mean BP.
Authors: B R Davis; J A Cutler; D J Gordon; C D Furberg; J T Wright; W C Cushman; R H Grimm; J LaRosa; P K Whelton; H M Perry; M H Alderman; C E Ford; S Oparil; C Francis; M Proschan; S Pressel; H R Black; C M Hawkins Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 1996-04 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Daichi Shimbo; Jonathan D Newman; Aaron K Aragaki; Michael J LaMonte; Anthony A Bavry; Matthew Allison; JoAnn E Manson; Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller Journal: Hypertension Date: 2012-07-02 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Alfonso Tatasciore; Marco Zimarino; Giulia Renda; Maria Zurro; Manola Soccio; Concetta Prontera; Michele Emdin; Mariarosaria Flacco; Giuseppe Schillaci; Raffaele DE Caterina Journal: Hypertens Res Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 3.872
Authors: M J Klag; P K Whelton; B L Randall; J D Neaton; F L Brancati; C E Ford; N B Shulman; J Stamler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-01-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jun Hata; Hisatomi Arima; Peter M Rothwell; Mark Woodward; Sophia Zoungas; Craig Anderson; Anushka Patel; Bruce Neal; Paul Glasziou; Pavel Hamet; Giuseppe Mancia; Neil Poulter; Bryan Williams; Stephen Macmahon; John Chalmers Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-08-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: T Reese; A L Dickson; M M Shuey; J S Gandelman; A Barnado; K A Barker; J E Neal; O A Khan; W D Dupont; C M Stein; C P Chung Journal: Lupus Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 2.911
Authors: Kwang-Il Kim; Nima Nikzad; Giorgio Quer; Nathan E Wineinger; Matthieu Vegreville; Alexis Normand; Nicolas Schmidt; Eric J Topol; Steven Steinhubl Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Christine B Sethna; Kevin E C Meyers; Laura H Mariani; Kevin J Psoter; Crystal A Gadegbeku; Keisha L Gibson; Tarak Srivastava; Matthias Kretzler; Tammy M Brady Journal: Hypertension Date: 2017-06-26 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Michael E Ernst; Michelle A Fravel; Katherine L Webb; James B Wetmore; Rory Wolfe; Enayet Chowdhury; Christopher M Reid; Robyn L Woods; Lawrence Beilin; Karen L Margolis; Anne M Murray; Kevan R Polkinghorne Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 3.080
Authors: Elvira O Gosmanova; Margit K Mikkelsen; Miklos Z Molnar; Jun L Lu; Lenar T Yessayan; Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh; Csaba P Kovesdy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-09-27 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Meaghan Lunney; Marinella Ruospo; Patrizia Natale; Robert R Quinn; Paul E Ronksley; Ioannis Konstantinidis; Suetonia C Palmer; Marcello Tonelli; Giovanni Fm Strippoli; Pietro Ravani Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-02-27