Tarsila Vieceli1, Bárbara Brambilla2, Raphael Quintana Pereira3, Bruno Schmidt Dellamea4, Airton Tetelbom Stein5, Guilherme Brasil Grezzana6. 1. MD, MSc. Internal Medicine Resident, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre (RS), Brazil. 2. Medical Student, Universidade de Caxias do Sul (UCS), Caxias do Sul (RS), Brazil. 3. MD. Cardiovascular Surgeon, Hospital Infantil Dr. Jeser Amarante Faria, Joinville (SC), Brazil. 4. MD, PhD. Professor, Universidade de Caxias do Sul (UCS), Caxias do Sul (RS), Brazil. 5. MD, PhD. Professor, Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre (UFCSPA), Porto Alegre (RS), Brazil. 6. MD, PhD. Cardiologist, Clínica Del Cuore, Antônio Prado (RS), Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite widespread usage of central blood pressure assessment its predictive value among elderly people remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the capacity of central hemodynamic indices for predicting future all-cause and cardiovascular hard outcomes among elderly people. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review and meta-analysis developed at the Del Cuore cardiology clinic, in Antonio Prado, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. METHODS: 312 full-text articles were analyzed, from which 35 studies were included for systematic review. The studies included needed to report at least one central hemodynamic index among patients aged 60 years or over. RESULTS: For all-cause mortality, aortic pulse wave velocity (aPWV) and central systolic blood pressure (SBP) were significant, respectively with standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.85 (95% confidence interval, CI 0.69-1.01; I2 96%; P < 0.001); and SMD 0.27 (95% CI 0.15-0.39; I2 77%; P 0.012). For cardiovascular mortality brachial-ankle PWV (baPWV), central SBP and carotid-femoral PWV (cfPWV) were significant, respectively SMD 0.67 (95% CI 0.40-0.93; I2 0%; P 0.610); SMD 0.65 (95% CI 0.48- 0.82; I2 80%; P 0.023); and SMD 0.51 (95% CI 0.32-0.69; I2 85%; P 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis results showed that aPWV was promising for predicting all-cause mortality, while baPWV and central SBP demonstrated consistent results in evaluating cardiovascular mortality outcomes. Thus, the findings support usage of central blood pressure as a risk predictor for hard outcomes among elderly people. REGISTRATION NUMBER IN PROSPERO: RD42018085264.
BACKGROUND: Despite widespread usage of central blood pressure assessment its predictive value among elderly people remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the capacity of central hemodynamic indices for predicting future all-cause and cardiovascular hard outcomes among elderly people. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review and meta-analysis developed at the Del Cuore cardiology clinic, in Antonio Prado, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. METHODS: 312 full-text articles were analyzed, from which 35 studies were included for systematic review. The studies included needed to report at least one central hemodynamic index among patients aged 60 years or over. RESULTS: For all-cause mortality, aortic pulse wave velocity (aPWV) and central systolic blood pressure (SBP) were significant, respectively with standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.85 (95% confidence interval, CI 0.69-1.01; I2 96%; P < 0.001); and SMD 0.27 (95% CI 0.15-0.39; I2 77%; P 0.012). For cardiovascular mortality brachial-ankle PWV (baPWV), central SBP and carotid-femoral PWV (cfPWV) were significant, respectively SMD 0.67 (95% CI 0.40-0.93; I2 0%; P 0.610); SMD 0.65 (95% CI 0.48- 0.82; I2 80%; P 0.023); and SMD 0.51 (95% CI 0.32-0.69; I2 85%; P 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis results showed that aPWV was promising for predicting all-cause mortality, while baPWV and central SBP demonstrated consistent results in evaluating cardiovascular mortality outcomes. Thus, the findings support usage of central blood pressure as a risk predictor for hard outcomes among elderly people. REGISTRATION NUMBER IN PROSPERO: RD42018085264.