Sreekanth Vemulapalli1, Anne S Hellkamp2, W Schuyler Jones2, Jonathan P Piccini2, Kenneth W Mahaffey3, Richard C Becker4, Graeme J Hankey5, Scott D Berkowitz6, Christopher C Nessel7, Günter Breithardt8, Daniel E Singer9, Keith A A Fox10, Manesh R Patel2. 1. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. Electronic address: sreekanth.vemulapalli@duke.edu. 2. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. 3. Stanford University, Stanford, CA. 4. University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH. 5. University of Western Australia, Crawley, Perth, Australia. 6. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Whippany, NJ. 7. Janssen Research & Development, Raritan, NJ. 8. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, University Hospital of Münster, Münster, Germany. 9. Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 10. University of Edinburgh and Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We conducted a retrospective analysis examining the association between systolic blood pressure (SBP) or hypertension bracket and stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: The study included 14,256 anticoagulated patients in the ROCKET AF trial. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare the risk of adverse outcomes by European Society of Cardiology hypertension bracket and screening SBP. RESULTS: In total, 90.5% of patients had hypertension (55.8% controlled, 34.6% uncontrolled). The adjusted risk of stroke or systemic embolism (SE) increased significantly for every 10-mm Hg increase in screening SBP (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.13). There was a trend toward an increased adjusted risk of stroke or SE in patients with controlled (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.89-1.66) and uncontrolled hypertension (HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.03-1.95) (P = .06). In contrast, the adjusted risk of major bleeding was similar between hypertensive brackets and did not vary significantly by screening SBP. The benefit of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in preventing stroke or SE was consistent among patients regardless of SBP (P interaction = .69). CONCLUSIONS: In a trial of anticoagulated patients with AF, increasing screening SBP was independently associated with stroke and SE, and one-third of patients had uncontrolled hypertension. The relative effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin were consistent across all levels of screening SBP. A single SBP may be an important factor in reducing the overall risk of stroke and SE in anticoagulated patients with AF.
BACKGROUND: We conducted a retrospective analysis examining the association between systolic blood pressure (SBP) or hypertension bracket and stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: The study included 14,256 anticoagulated patients in the ROCKET AF trial. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare the risk of adverse outcomes by European Society of Cardiology hypertension bracket and screening SBP. RESULTS: In total, 90.5% of patients had hypertension (55.8% controlled, 34.6% uncontrolled). The adjusted risk of stroke or systemic embolism (SE) increased significantly for every 10-mm Hg increase in screening SBP (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.13). There was a trend toward an increased adjusted risk of stroke or SE in patients with controlled (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.89-1.66) and uncontrolled hypertension (HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.03-1.95) (P = .06). In contrast, the adjusted risk of major bleeding was similar between hypertensive brackets and did not vary significantly by screening SBP. The benefit of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in preventing stroke or SE was consistent among patients regardless of SBP (P interaction = .69). CONCLUSIONS: In a trial of anticoagulated patients with AF, increasing screening SBP was independently associated with stroke and SE, and one-third of patients had uncontrolled hypertension. The relative effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin were consistent across all levels of screening SBP. A single SBP may be an important factor in reducing the overall risk of stroke and SE in anticoagulated patients with AF.
Authors: Wioletta Dobkowska-Chudon; Miroslaw Wrobel; Pawel Karlowicz; Andrzej Dabrowski; Andrzej Krupienicz; Tomasz Targowski; Andrzej Nowicki; Robert Olszewski Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-07-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Maura M Zylla; Matthias Hochadel; Dietrich Andresen; Johannes Brachmann; Lars Eckardt; Ellen Hoffmann; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Thorsten Lewalter; Burghard Schumacher; Stefan G Spitzer; Stephan Willems; Jochen Senges; Hugo A Katus; Dierk Thomas Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-07-27 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Giuseppe Boriani; Marco Vitolo; Igor Diemberger; Marco Proietti; Anna Chiara Valenti; Vincenzo Livio Malavasi; Gregory Y H Lip Journal: Cardiovasc Res Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 13.081
Authors: Magdalena Paczkowska-Walendowska; Szymon Sip; Rafał Staszewski; Judyta Cielecka-Piontek Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Angela Lowenstern; Sana M Al-Khatib; Lauren Sharan; Ranee Chatterjee; Nancy M Allen LaPointe; Bimal Shah; Ethan D Borre; Giselle Raitz; Adam Goode; Roshini Yapa; J Kelly Davis; Kathryn Lallinger; Robyn Schmidt; Andrzej S Kosinski; Gillian D Sanders Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2018-10-30 Impact factor: 51.598