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: Hypertension in the elderly is characterized by isolated systolic hypertension and high variability, but its clinical significance is not yet fully understood. The goal of this paper was to assess circadian blood pressure variability (BPV) in elderly hypertensives, and to determine its relationship to cardiovascular risk factors. To achieve this goal, a number of 75 inefficiently treated hypertensive patients were studied, 45 elderly, aged over 60 years, 30 middle-aged, younger than 60 years. After 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), blood pressure (BP) values, pulse pressure (PP), morning surge were compared between the groups. BPV was calculated using average real variability (ARV). The relationships between BPV, pulse pressure, left ventricular mass index (LVMI), and cardiovascular risk factors were assessed in both groups. As a result, it was found that left ventricular mass (p=0.01), PP, morning surge, 24-hour systolic ARV were significantly higher in the elderly group (p<0.05). In both groups, higher 24-hour BPV was associated with an increase in LVMI. In the elderly population 24-hour BPV was positively correlated to increased PP, total cholesterol and triglyceride levels (p<0.05). Moreover, it was concluded that ABPM-derived BP variability index could be an early predictive marker of end-organ damage in hypertension. Its reduction might be an important objective of hypertension management in elderly.
    Bio-medical materials and engineering 01/2014; 24(6):2563-9. · 1.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: High blood pressure (HBP) or hypertension (HTN) is one of the leading causes of cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality throughout the world. Despite this fact, there is widespread agreement that the treatment of HBP, over the last half century, has been a great achievement. However, after the release of the new Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure-8 (JNC-8) guidelines, there have been heated debates with regard to what are the most evidence-based blood pressure goals. While JNC-8 claims that the goal blood pressure for otherwise healthy patients with mild hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥140-159 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure ≥90-99 mm Hg) should be <140/90 mm Hg; a recent Cochrane meta-analysis is in direct conflict with these recommendations. Indeed, a 2012 Cochrane meta-analysis indicated that there is no evidence that treating otherwise healthy mild hypertension patients with antihypertensive therapy will reduce CV events or mortality. Additionally, the Cochrane meta-analysis showed that antihypertensive therapy was associated with a significant increase in withdrawal due to adverse events. Thus, the current evidence in the literature does not support the goals set by the JNC-8 guidelines. In this review we discussed the strengths and limitations of both lines of evidence and why it takes an evidence-based medication to reduce CV events/mortality (eg, how a goal blood pressure is achieved is more important than getting to the goal). As medications inherently cause side effects and come at a cost to the patient, the practice of evidence-based medicine becomes exceedingly important. Although the majority of HTN studies claim great advantages by lowering HBP, this review finds severe conflicts in the findings among the various HTN studies, as well as serious epistemological, methodological and statistical problems that cast doubt to such claims.
    Open heart. 02/2014; 1(1):e000048.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine the incremental value of ambulatory blood pressure (BP) in predicting cardiovascular risk when the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) is known.
    BMJ Open 01/2014; 4(9):e006044. · 2.06 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Nov 13, 2014