Diurnal blood pressure pattern and risk of congestive heart failure

Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 29.98). 07/2006; 295(24):2859-66. DOI: 10.1001/jama.295.24.2859
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT High blood pressure is the most important risk factor for congestive heart failure (CHF) at a population level, but the relationship of an altered diurnal blood pressure pattern to risk of subsequent CHF is unknown.
To explore 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure characteristics as predictors of CHF incidence and to investigate whether altered diurnal blood pressure patterns confer any additional risk information beyond that provided by conventional office blood pressure measurements.
Prospective, community-based, observational cohort in Uppsala, Sweden, including 951 elderly men free of CHF, valvular disease, and left ventricular hypertrophy at baseline between 1990 and 1995, followed up until the end of 2002. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was performed at baseline, and the blood pressure variables were analyzed as predictors of subsequent CHF.
First hospitalization for CHF.
Seventy men developed heart failure during follow-up, with an incidence rate of 8.6 per 1000 person-years at risk. In multivariable Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for antihypertensive treatment and established risk factors for CHF (myocardial infarction, diabetes, smoking, body mass index, and serum cholesterol level), a 1-SD (9-mm Hg) increase in nighttime ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (hazard ratio [HR], 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.55) and the presence of "nondipping" blood pressure (night-day ambulatory blood pressure ratio > or =1; HR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.16-4.52) were associated with an increased risk of CHF. After adjusting for office-measured systolic and diastolic blood pressures, nondipping blood pressure remained a significant predictor of CHF (HR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.12-4.36 vs normal night-day pattern). Nighttime ambulatory diastolic blood pressure and nondipping blood pressure were also significant predictors of CHF after exclusion of all participants who had an acute myocardial infarction before baseline or during follow-up.
Nighttime blood pressure appears to convey additional risk information about CHF beyond office-measured blood pressure and other established risk factors for CHF. The clinical value of this association remains to be established in future studies.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To review evidence for dosing antihypertensives at bedtime and possible cardiovascular risk reduction. A PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Trials database literature search (1990-September 2014) limited to human subjects was performed using the search terms hypertension, chronotherapy, ambulatory blood pressure, morning administration, evening administration, and antihypertensives. Additional references were identified from literature citations. All prospective studies assessing cardiovascular outcomes or comparing morning to evening administration of antihypertensives were selected. Compared with morning administration, dosing one or more antihypertensive medications at bedtime helps induce a normal circadian blood pressure pattern and reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality in individuals with hypertension. Similar results have been reported in high-risk individuals with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and resistant hypertension. A lack of diversity among studied populations and reliance on subgroup analyses are among the limitations of these data. All antihypertensive medications have not been studied in chronotherapy and do not uniformly achieve desired results. The most substantial evidence exists for medications affecting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Despite growing evidence and promise as a cost-effective strategy for reducing cardiovascular risk, chronotherapy is not uniformly recommended in the treatment of hypertension. Careful selection of patients and antihypertensives for chronotherapy is required. Further investigation is needed to evaluate the definitive impact of chronotherapy on cardiovascular outcomes. © The Author(s) 2014.
    Annals of Pharmacotherapy 12/2014; 49(3). DOI:10.1177/1060028014563535 · 2.92 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mean daytime ambulatory blood pressure (BP) values are considered to be lower than conventional BP values, but data on this relation among younger individuals <50 years are scarce. Conventional and 24-hour ambulatory BP were measured in 9550 individuals not taking antihypertensive treatment from 13 population-based cohorts. We compared individual differences between daytime ambulatory and conventional BP according to 10-year age categories. Age-specific prevalences of white coat and masked hypertension were calculated. Among individuals aged 18 to 30, 30 to 40, and 40 to 50 years, mean daytime BP was significantly higher than the corresponding conventional BP (6.0, 5.2, and 4.7 mm Hg for systolic; 2.5, 2.7, and 1.7 mm Hg for diastolic BP; all P<0.0001). In individuals aged 60 to 70 and ≥70 years, conventional BP was significantly higher than daytime ambulatory BP (5.0 and 13.0 mm Hg for systolic; 2.0 and 4.2 mm Hg for diastolic BP; all P<0.0001).The prevalence of white coat hypertension exponentially increased from 2.2% to 19.5% from those aged 18 to 30 years to those aged ≥70 years, with little variation between men and women (8.0% versus 6.1%; P=0.0003). Masked hypertension was more prevalent among men (21.1% versus 11.4%; P<0.0001). The age-specific prevalences of masked hypertension were 18.2%, 27.3%, 27.8%, 20.1%, 13.6%, and 10.2% among men and 9.0%, 9.9%, 12.2%, 11.9%, 14.7%, and 12.1% among women. In conclusion, this large collaborative analysis showed that the relation between daytime ambulatory and conventional BP strongly varies by age. These findings may have implications for diagnosing hypertension and its subtypes in clinical practice.
    Hypertension 09/2014; DOI:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.114.03957 · 7.63 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Outcome-driven recommendations about time intervals during which ambulatory blood pressure should be measured to diagnose white-coat or masked hypertension are lacking. We cross-classified 8237 untreated participants (mean age, 50.7 years; 48.4% women) enrolled in 12 population studies, using ≥140/≥90, ≥130/≥80, ≥135/≥85, and ≥120/≥70 mm Hg as hypertension thresholds for conventional, 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime blood pressure. White-coat hypertension was hypertension on conventional measurement with ambulatory normotension, the opposite condition being masked hypertension. Intervals used for classification of participants were daytime, nighttime, and 24 hours, first considered separately, and next combined as 24 hours plus daytime or plus nighttime, or plus both. Depending on time intervals chosen, white-coat and masked hypertension frequencies ranged from 6.3% to 12.5% and from 9.7% to 19.6%, respectively. During 91 046 person-years, 729 participants experienced a cardiovascular event. In multivariable analyses with normotension during all intervals of the day as reference, hazard ratios associated with white-coat hypertension progressively weakened considering daytime only (1.38; P=0.033), nighttime only (1.43; P=0.0074), 24 hours only (1.21; P=0.20), 24 hours plus daytime (1.24; P=0.18), 24 hours plus nighttime (1.15; P=0.39), and 24 hours plus daytime and nighttime (1.16; P=0.41). The hazard ratios comparing masked hypertension with normotension were all significant (P<0.0001), ranging from 1.76 to 2.03. In conclusion, identification of truly low-risk white-coat hypertension requires setting thresholds simultaneously to 24 hours, daytime, and nighttime blood pressure. Although any time interval suffices to diagnose masked hypertension, as proposed in current guidelines, full 24-hour recordings remain standard in clinical practice.
    Hypertension 08/2014; DOI:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.114.03614 · 7.63 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 15, 2014