John W McEvoy1,2,3, Natalie Daya3, Faisal Rahman2, Ron C Hoogeveen4, Roger S Blumenthal2, Amil M Shah5, Christie M Ballantyne4, Josef Coresh3, Elizabeth Selvin3. 1. National Institute for Prevention and Cardiovascular Health, School of Medicine, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland. 2. Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology and Clinical Research, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, Department of Medicine, Section of Cardiovascular Research, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. 5. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: In the 2017 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guideline, the definition of hypertension was lowered from a blood pressure (BP) of greater than or equal to 140/90 to greater than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg. The new diastolic BP threshold of 80 mm Hg was recommended based on expert opinion and changes the definition of isolated diastolic hypertension (IDH). OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence of IDH in the United States, by 2017 ACC/AHA and 2003 Joint National Committee (JNC7) definitions, and to characterize cross-sectional and longitudinal associations of IDH with outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional analyses of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES 2013-2016) and longitudinal analyses of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study (baseline 1990-1992, with follow-up through December 31, 2017). Longitudinal results were validated in 2 external cohorts: (1) the NHANES III (1988-1994) and NHANES 1999-2014 and (2) the Give Us a Clue to Cancer and Heart Disease (CLUE) II cohort (baseline 1989). EXPOSURES: IDH, by 2017 ACC/AHA (systolic BP <130 mm Hg, diastolic BP ≥80 mm Hg) and by JNC7 (systolic BP <140 mm Hg, diastolic BP ≥90 mm Hg) definitions. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Weighted estimates for prevalence of IDH in US adults and prevalence of US adults recommended BP pharmacotherapy by the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline based solely on the presence of IDH. Risk of incident atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), heart failure (HF), and chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the ARIC Study. RESULTS: The study population included 9590 adults from the NHANES (mean [SD] baseline age, 49.6 [17.6] years; 5016 women [52.3%]) and 8703 adults from the ARIC Study (mean [SD] baseline age, 56.0 [5.6] years; 4977 women [57.2%]). The estimated prevalence of IDH in the NHANES was 6.5% by the 2017 ACC/AHA definition and 1.3% by the JNC7 definition (absolute difference, 5.2% [95% CI, 4.7%-5.7%]). Among those newly classified as having IDH, an estimated 0.6% (95% CI, 0.5%-0.6%) also met the guideline threshold for antihypertensive therapy. Compared with normotensive ARIC participants, IDH by the 2017 ACC/AHA definition was not significantly associated with incident ASCVD (n = 1386 events; median follow-up, 25.2 years; hazard ratio [HR], 1.06 [95% CI, 0.89-1.26]), HF (n = 1396 events; HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.76-1.09]), or CKD (n = 2433 events; HR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.65-1.11]). Results were also null for cardiovascular mortality in the 2 external cohorts (eg, HRs of IDH by the 2017 ACC/AHA definition were 1.17 [95% CI, 0.87-1.56] in the NHANES [n = 1012 events] and 1.02 [95% CI, 0.92-1.14] in CLUE II [n = 1497 events]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this analysis of US adults, the estimated prevalence of IDH was more common when defined by the 2017 ACC/AHA BP guideline compared with the JNC7 guideline. However, IDH was not significantly associated with increased risk for cardiovascular outcomes.
IMPORTANCE: In the 2017 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guideline, the definition of hypertension was lowered from a blood pressure (BP) of greater than or equal to 140/90 to greater than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg. The new diastolic BP threshold of 80 mm Hg was recommended based on expert opinion and changes the definition of isolated diastolic hypertension (IDH). OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence of IDH in the United States, by 2017 ACC/AHA and 2003 Joint National Committee (JNC7) definitions, and to characterize cross-sectional and longitudinal associations of IDH with outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional analyses of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES 2013-2016) and longitudinal analyses of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study (baseline 1990-1992, with follow-up through December 31, 2017). Longitudinal results were validated in 2 external cohorts: (1) the NHANES III (1988-1994) and NHANES 1999-2014 and (2) the Give Us a Clue to Cancer and Heart Disease (CLUE) II cohort (baseline 1989). EXPOSURES: IDH, by 2017 ACC/AHA (systolic BP <130 mm Hg, diastolic BP ≥80 mm Hg) and by JNC7 (systolic BP <140 mm Hg, diastolic BP ≥90 mm Hg) definitions. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Weighted estimates for prevalence of IDH in US adults and prevalence of US adults recommended BP pharmacotherapy by the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline based solely on the presence of IDH. Risk of incident atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), heart failure (HF), and chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the ARIC Study. RESULTS: The study population included 9590 adults from the NHANES (mean [SD] baseline age, 49.6 [17.6] years; 5016 women [52.3%]) and 8703 adults from the ARIC Study (mean [SD] baseline age, 56.0 [5.6] years; 4977 women [57.2%]). The estimated prevalence of IDH in the NHANES was 6.5% by the 2017 ACC/AHA definition and 1.3% by the JNC7 definition (absolute difference, 5.2% [95% CI, 4.7%-5.7%]). Among those newly classified as having IDH, an estimated 0.6% (95% CI, 0.5%-0.6%) also met the guideline threshold for antihypertensive therapy. Compared with normotensive ARIC participants, IDH by the 2017 ACC/AHA definition was not significantly associated with incident ASCVD (n = 1386 events; median follow-up, 25.2 years; hazard ratio [HR], 1.06 [95% CI, 0.89-1.26]), HF (n = 1396 events; HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.76-1.09]), or CKD (n = 2433 events; HR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.65-1.11]). Results were also null for cardiovascular mortality in the 2 external cohorts (eg, HRs of IDH by the 2017 ACC/AHA definition were 1.17 [95% CI, 0.87-1.56] in the NHANES [n = 1012 events] and 1.02 [95% CI, 0.92-1.14] in CLUE II [n = 1497 events]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this analysis of US adults, the estimated prevalence of IDH was more common when defined by the 2017 ACC/AHA BP guideline compared with the JNC7 guideline. However, IDH was not significantly associated with increased risk for cardiovascular outcomes.
Authors: Morgan E Grams; Laura C Plantinga; Elizabeth Hedgeman; Rajiv Saran; Gary L Myers; Desmond E Williams; Neil R Powe Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2010-08-06 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Stanley S Franklin; Jose R Pio; Nathan D Wong; Martin G Larson; Eric P Leip; Ramachandran S Vasan; Daniel Levy Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-02-21 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: John W McEvoy; Yuan Chen; Vijay Nambi; Christie M Ballantyne; A Richey Sharrett; Lawrence J Appel; Wendy S Post; Roger S Blumenthal; Kunihiro Matsushita; Elizabeth Selvin Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-07-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Paul K Whelton; Robert M Carey; Wilbert S Aronow; Donald E Casey; Karen J Collins; Cheryl Dennison Himmelfarb; Sondra M DePalma; Samuel Gidding; Kenneth A Jamerson; Daniel W Jones; Eric J MacLaughlin; Paul Muntner; Bruce Ovbiagele; Sidney C Smith; Crystal C Spencer; Randall S Stafford; Sandra J Taler; Randal J Thomas; Kim A Williams; Jeff D Williamson; Jackson T Wright Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: L Hansson; A Zanchetti; S G Carruthers; B Dahlöf; D Elmfeldt; S Julius; J Ménard; K H Rahn; H Wedel; S Westerling Journal: Lancet Date: 1998-06-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Andrew S Levey; Lesley A Stevens; Christopher H Schmid; Yaping Lucy Zhang; Alejandro F Castro; Harold I Feldman; John W Kusek; Paul Eggers; Frederick Van Lente; Tom Greene; Josef Coresh Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-05-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: John W McEvoy; Nilanjan Chatterjee; Brian P McGrath; Prosenjit Kundu; Natalie Daya; Josef Coresh; Elizabeth Selvin Journal: Hypertension Date: 2020-07-27 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Seamus P Whelton; John W McEvoy; Leslee Shaw; Bruce M Psaty; Joao A C Lima; Matthew Budoff; Khurram Nasir; Moyses Szklo; Roger S Blumenthal; Michael J Blaha Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Seamus P Whelton; John W McEvoy; Leslee Shaw; Bruce M Psaty; Joao A C Lima; Matthew Budoff; Khurram Nasir; Moyses Szklo; Roger S Blumenthal; Michael J Blaha Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Fernando H Y Cesena; Fernando C Nary; Raul D Santos; Marcio S Bittencourt Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2020-06-17 Impact factor: 3.738