Prognostic significance of visit-to-visit variability, maximum systolic blood pressure, and episodic hypertension.

Stroke Prevention Research Unit, University Department of Clinical Neurology, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headington, Oxford, UK.
The Lancet (Impact Factor: 39.21). 03/2010; 375(9718):895-905. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60308-X
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The mechanisms by which hypertension causes vascular events are unclear. Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment focus only on underlying mean blood pressure. We aimed to reliably establish the prognostic significance of visit-to-visit variability in blood pressure, maximum blood pressure reached, untreated episodic hypertension, and residual variability in treated patients.
We determined the risk of stroke in relation to visit-to-visit variability in blood pressure (expressed as standard deviation [SD] and parameters independent of mean blood pressure) and maximum blood pressure in patients with previous transient ischaemic attack (TIA; UK-TIA trial and three validation cohorts) and in patients with treated hypertension (Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial Blood Pressure Lowering Arm [ASCOT-BPLA]). In ASCOT-BPLA, 24-h ambulatory blood-pressure monitoring (ABPM) was also studied.
In each TIA cohort, visit-to-visit variability in systolic blood pressure (SBP) was a strong predictor of subsequent stroke (eg, top-decile hazard ratio [HR] for SD SBP over seven visits in UK-TIA trial: 6.22, 95% CI 4.16-9.29, p<0.0001), independent of mean SBP, but dependent on precision of measurement (top-decile HR over ten visits: 12.08, 7.40-19.72, p<0.0001). Maximum SBP reached was also a strong predictor of stroke (HR for top-decile over seven visits: 15.01, 6.56-34.38, p<0.0001, after adjustment for mean SBP). In ASCOT-BPLA, residual visit-to-visit variability in SBP on treatment was also a strong predictor of stroke and coronary events (eg, top-decile HR for stroke: 3.25, 2.32-4.54, p<0.0001), independent of mean SBP in clinic or on ABPM. Variability on ABPM was a weaker predictor, but all measures of variability were most predictive in younger patients and at lower (<median) values of mean SBP in every cohort.
Visit-to-visit variability in SBP and maximum SBP are strong predictors of stroke, independent of mean SBP. Increased residual variability in SBP in patients with treated hypertension is associated with a high risk of vascular events.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) need psychologi-cal support throughout their life span from the time of diagnosis. The psychological make-up of the patients with DM play a central role in self-management behav-iors. Without patient's adherence to the effective thera-pies, there would be persistent sub-optimal control of diseases, increase diabetes-related complications, causing deterioration in quality of life, resulting in in-creased healthcare utilization and burden on healthcare systems. However, provision of psychosocial support is generally inadequate due to its challenging nature of needs and demands on the healthcare systems. This review article examines patient's psychological aspects in general, elaborates in particular about emotion ef-fects on health, and emotion in relation to other psy-chological domains such as cognition, self-regulation, self-efficacy and behavior. Some descriptions are also provided on willpower, resilience, illness perception and proactive coping in relating execution of new behaviors, coping with future-oriented thinking and influences of illness perception on health-related behaviors. These psychological aspects are further discussed in relation to DM and interventions for patients with DM. Equipped with the understanding of the pertinent nature of psy-chology in patients with DM; and knowing the links between the psychological disorders, inflammation and cardiovascular outcomes would hopefully encourages healthcare professionals in giving due attention to the psychological needs of patients with DM. Core tip: Positive psychological health may sustain long-term coping efforts and protect patients from the negative consequences of prolonged emotional disor-ders, illness perception and thus facilitating diabetes self-management behaviors and better physical health. Having patients acquire valued personal beliefs and achievable standards of performance could strengthen self-regulation and self-efficacy leading to more posi-tive experience and healthy behaviors. Furthermore, improved personal resources such as resilience would lead to better functioning of cognition and stronger will power, quality of life and disease control in patients with diabetes mellitus.
    World J Diabetes. 12/2014; 5(6):796-808.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We sought to determine whether heart rate variability (HRV), blood pressure (BP) variability, and baroreceptor-heart rate reflex sensitivity can be reliably assessed using finger volume pulse waveforms obtained from the commercially available EndoPAT device. Non-invasive BP (Finometer Pro as a non-invasive standard) and finger volume (EndoPAT) waveforms were recorded in 65 adults (37 +/- 14 years; 60% female) and systolic BP and heart rate (HR) time series were derived after calibrating the EndoPAT signal based on systolic and diastolic BP values obtained by a sphygomomanometer. Transfer function analyses were performed to test for coherence between systolic BP and HR time series derived from the Finometer and EndoPAT devices. Time-domain HRV parameters, frequency domain HR and systolic BP variability parameters, and baroreflex sensitivity (sequence technique) were computed from Finometer- and EndoPAT-derived time series and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated. Squared coherence between systolic BP time series derived from the Finometer and EndoPAT devices was low, suggesting poor correlation. In contrast, squared coherence between HR time series derived from the two devices was excellent [High Frequency (HF) = 0.80, Low Frequency (LF) = 0.81], with gain values close to 1.0. ICC values for time- and frequency-domain HRV parameters were excellent (>0.9 except for relative HF HRV, which was 0.77), while ICC values for frequency-domain BP variability parameters and baroreceptor-HR reflex sensitivity were low. Finger volume pulse waveforms can be used to reliably assess both time-domain and frequency-domain HR variability. However, frequency domain BP variability parameters cannot be reliably assessed from finger volume pulse waveforms using the simple calibration technique used in this study.
    BMC Cardiovascular Disorders 12/2014; 14(1):180. · 1.50 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The associations between visit-to-visit blood pressure (BP) variability and cardiac function and carotid atherosclerosis is not clear. Study subjects were 144 subjects (80 were female, aged 73 +/- 9 years) who underwent echocardiography and cervical ultrasonography. The ratio of early ventricular filling velocity to early diastolic mitral annular velocity (E/e'), ejection fraction, left ventricular mass index (LVMI), and maximum intima-media thickness (max-IMT) of the carotid artery were compared between the highest (high variability) and lowest (low variability) tertiles of the standard deviation of systolic BP (9.9 +/- 3.5 mmHg). E/e' and max-IMT were significantly greater in the high variability group than in the low variability group after adjusting for age, sex, baseline systolic BP, and other covariates (high variability vs. low variability; E/e': 13.03 +/- 5.33 vs. 10.66 +/- 3.30, multivariate-adjusted difference (beta) = 1.82, 95% confidence interval 0.06-3.58; max-IMT: 1.65 +/- 0.43 mm vs. 1.42 +/- 0.46 mm, beta = 0.20 mm, 95% confidence interval 0.03-0.36 mm). There were no significant differences in LVMI or ejection fraction. These results indicate that high visit-to-visit BP variability is associated with diastolic function and carotid atherosclerosis, and is a possible risk factor for diastolic dysfunction and atherosclerosis.
    BMC Cardiovascular Disorders 12/2014; 14(1):188. · 1.50 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Nov 13, 2014