J-H Park1, B Ovbiagele2. 1. Department of Neurology, Seonam University Myongji Hospital, Goyang, South Korea. 2. Department of Neurology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Recent clinical trials and expert consensus guidelines have typically focused on the issue of systolic blood pressure (SBP) targets for reducing vascular risk. However, little is known about the relationship of the diastolic BP (DBP) level with vascular outcomes after a stroke. METHODS: A multicenter trial dataset involving 3680 recent (<4 months) non-cardioembolic stroke patients followed for 2 years was analyzed. Subjects were categorized per mean DBP level (mmHg) during follow-up: low-normal (<70), normal (70 to <80), high-normal (80-89) and high (≥90). Pulse pressure (PP) was prespecified by three categories of <60, 60 to <70, and ≥70 mmHg. Independent associations of mean DBP level with major vascular events (MVEs) and ischaemic stroke were assessed. RESULTS: Major vascular events occurred in 20.7% of the low-normal, 15.1% of the normal, 16.9% of the high-normal and 19.2% of the high DBP groups, whilst stroke occurred in 9.9%, 6.8%, 8.5% and 10.8%, respectively. Compared with the normal DBP group, risk of MVEs was higher in the low-normal DBP group (adjusted hazard ratio 1.33; 95% confidence interval 1.04-1.71). Amongst those with SBP 120 to <140 mmHg, risk of MVEs (1.89; 1.13-3.15) and stroke (2.87; 1.48-5.53) was higher in subjects with PP ≥70 (mean DBP 62.4 ± 3.8) than those with the lowest PP (mean DBP 78.0 ± 5.9) whilst, amongst those with SBP <120 mmHg, PP 60 to <70 (mean DBP 52.7 ± 2.5) was associated with increased risk of stroke (5.85; 1.25-27.5). CONCLUSION: Diastolic BP levels in the low-normal range, particularly accompanied by an increased PP of >60, confer increased risk of MVEs and stroke amongst patients after recent non-cardioembolic stroke.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Recent clinical trials and expert consensus guidelines have typically focused on the issue of systolic blood pressure (SBP) targets for reducing vascular risk. However, little is known about the relationship of the diastolic BP (DBP) level with vascular outcomes after a stroke. METHODS: A multicenter trial dataset involving 3680 recent (<4 months) non-cardioembolic strokepatients followed for 2 years was analyzed. Subjects were categorized per mean DBP level (mmHg) during follow-up: low-normal (<70), normal (70 to <80), high-normal (80-89) and high (≥90). Pulse pressure (PP) was prespecified by three categories of <60, 60 to <70, and ≥70 mmHg. Independent associations of mean DBP level with major vascular events (MVEs) and ischaemic stroke were assessed. RESULTS: Major vascular events occurred in 20.7% of the low-normal, 15.1% of the normal, 16.9% of the high-normal and 19.2% of the high DBP groups, whilst stroke occurred in 9.9%, 6.8%, 8.5% and 10.8%, respectively. Compared with the normal DBP group, risk of MVEs was higher in the low-normal DBP group (adjusted hazard ratio 1.33; 95% confidence interval 1.04-1.71). Amongst those with SBP 120 to <140 mmHg, risk of MVEs (1.89; 1.13-3.15) and stroke (2.87; 1.48-5.53) was higher in subjects with PP ≥70 (mean DBP 62.4 ± 3.8) than those with the lowest PP (mean DBP 78.0 ± 5.9) whilst, amongst those with SBP <120 mmHg, PP 60 to <70 (mean DBP 52.7 ± 2.5) was associated with increased risk of stroke (5.85; 1.25-27.5). CONCLUSION: Diastolic BP levels in the low-normal range, particularly accompanied by an increased PP of >60, confer increased risk of MVEs and stroke amongst patients after recent non-cardioembolic stroke.
Authors: Alan S Go; Dariush Mozaffarian; Véronique L Roger; Emelia J Benjamin; Jarett D Berry; Michael J Blaha; Shifan Dai; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Sheila Franco; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Rachel H Mackey; David J Magid; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Michael E Mussolino; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Dilip K Pandey; Nina P Paynter; Matthew J Reeves; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Nathan D Wong; Daniel Woo; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Franz H Messerli; Giuseppe Mancia; C Richard Conti; Ann C Hewkin; Stuart Kupfer; Annette Champion; Rainer Kolloch; Athanase Benetos; Carl J Pepine Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-06-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: John W McEvoy; Yuan Chen; Andreea Rawlings; Ron C Hoogeveen; Christie M Ballantyne; Roger S Blumenthal; Josef Coresh; Elizabeth Selvin Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Bruce Ovbiagele; Hans-Christophe Diener; Salim Yusuf; Reneé H Martin; Daniel Cotton; Richard Vinisko; Geoffrey A Donnan; Philip M Bath Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-11-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: James F Toole; M René Malinow; Lloyd E Chambless; J David Spence; L Creed Pettigrew; Virginia J Howard; Elizabeth G Sides; Chin-Hua Wang; Meir Stampfer Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-02-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: O R Benavente; C S Coffey; R Conwit; R G Hart; L A McClure; L A Pearce; P E Pergola; J M Szychowski Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Tracy E Madsen; George Howard; Dawn O Kleindorfer; Karen L Furie; Suzanne Oparil; JoAnn E Manson; Simin Liu; Virginia J Howard Journal: Hypertension Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Marilyn MacKay-Lyons; Gordon Gubitz; Stephen Phillips; Nicholas Giacomantonio; Wanda Firth; Kara Thompson; Chris Theriault; Howard Wightman; Sharon Slipp; David Marsters; Gail Eskes; Fiona Peacock; Chris Blanchard; Judy Dewolfe Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 3.919