OBJECTIVE: In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), the clinical relevance of office blood pressure (OBP) measurement in terms of predicting morbidity and mortality is questionable, mainly because such measurements in these patients are variable and uncertain. This study reviewed the evidence on the prognostic value of OBP in AF. METHODS: A systematic PubMed/Embase search was performed for prospective trials in AF patients on oral anticoagulants, reporting OBP measurements or hypertension diagnosis and outcome. A meta-analysis of the predictive ability of OBP values or hypertension diagnosis for stroke/systemic embolism, major haemorrhage and all-cause mortality was performed. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included nine studies (n = 65 637; 126 926 person-years). There was considerable heterogeneity in the OBP methodology, which was not standardized in most studies. Five studies reported baseline OBP or hypertension diagnosis, two average OBP control during follow-up, and two both baseline and follow-up OBP control. Meta-analysis of six studies (n = 61 055; 105 373 person-years) showed elevated vs. low OBP or hypertension vs. normotension to predict stroke and/or systemic embolism [hazard ratio (HR) 1.29; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.12, 1.47]. Meta-analysis of three studies (n = 29 233, 51 528 person-years) showed a worse follow-up OBP control to predict higher stroke/systemic embolism risk (HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.38, 2.32). OBP and hypertension diagnosis did not appear to predict major haemorrhagic events (HR 1.10; 95% CI 0.97, 1.25) or all-cause mortality (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.89, 1.05). CONCLUSION: In AF patients, OBP and hypertension diagnosis predict stroke or systemic embolism, and follow-up OBP control appears to have even stronger predictive ability.
OBJECTIVE: In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), the clinical relevance of office blood pressure (OBP) measurement in terms of predicting morbidity and mortality is questionable, mainly because such measurements in these patients are variable and uncertain. This study reviewed the evidence on the prognostic value of OBP in AF. METHODS: A systematic PubMed/Embase search was performed for prospective trials in AFpatients on oral anticoagulants, reporting OBP measurements or hypertension diagnosis and outcome. A meta-analysis of the predictive ability of OBP values or hypertension diagnosis for stroke/systemic embolism, major haemorrhage and all-cause mortality was performed. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included nine studies (n = 65 637; 126 926 person-years). There was considerable heterogeneity in the OBP methodology, which was not standardized in most studies. Five studies reported baseline OBP or hypertension diagnosis, two average OBP control during follow-up, and two both baseline and follow-up OBP control. Meta-analysis of six studies (n = 61 055; 105 373 person-years) showed elevated vs. low OBP or hypertension vs. normotension to predict stroke and/or systemic embolism [hazard ratio (HR) 1.29; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.12, 1.47]. Meta-analysis of three studies (n = 29 233, 51 528 person-years) showed a worse follow-up OBP control to predict higher stroke/systemic embolism risk (HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.38, 2.32). OBP and hypertension diagnosis did not appear to predict major haemorrhagic events (HR 1.10; 95% CI 0.97, 1.25) or all-cause mortality (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.89, 1.05). CONCLUSION: In AFpatients, OBP and hypertension diagnosis predict stroke or systemic embolism, and follow-up OBP control appears to have even stronger predictive ability.