Relation of Systolic, Diastolic, and Pulse Pressures and Aortic Distensibility With Atrial Fibrillation (from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis)

The American Journal of Cardiology (Impact Factor: 3.28). 06/2014; 114(4). DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.05.041
Source: PubMed


Previous research suggests that elevated pulse pressure (PP) is a risk factor for atrial fibrillation (AF) independently of mean arterial pressure (MAP). PP may serve as an indirect measure of aortic stiffness (reduced distensibility), but whether directly measured aortic distensibility is related to risk for AF has not yet been studied. This analysis included 6,630 participants aged 45 to 84 years from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. At baseline, blood pressure and other relevant covariates were measured using standardized protocols. Magnetic resonance imaging-based aortic distensibility was measured in 3,441 participants. Incident AF was identified from hospitalization discharge codes and Medicare claims. Multivariate Cox models were used to estimate the association of blood pressure components and aortic distensibility with AF risk. During a mean follow-up of 7.8 years, 307 AF events (137 among those with aortic distensibility measurements) were identified. In multivariate-adjusted models simultaneously including MAP and PP, each 1-SD increase in PP was associated with a 29% increased risk of AF (95% confidence interval 5% to 59%, p = 0.02), with MAP not being associated with increased AF risk. Overall, aortic distensibility was not consistently associated with AF risk: after removing outliers, each 1-SD increase in aortic distensibility was associated with a 9% increased risk of AF (95% confidence interval -22% to 51%, p = 0.63). In conclusion, in this large community-based cohort, we found that PP, but not MAP or aortic distensibility, was a significant risk factor for AF, emphasizing the importance of PP when assessing the risk for developing AF. Our results cast doubt on the clinical utility of aortic distensibility as a predictor for the development of AF.

12 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The impact of replacing the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP)/Adult Treatment Program (ATP) III cholesterol guidelines with the new 2013 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease is unclear. We used risk factor and 10-year clinical event rate data from MESA, combined with estimates of efficacy of moderate and high-intensity statin therapy from meta-analyses of statin primary prevention trials to estimate (a) the change in number of subjects eligible for drug therapy and (2) the anticipated reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events and increment in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) associated with the change in cholesterol guidelines. Of the 6,814 MESA participants, 5,437 were not on statins at baseline and had complete data for analysis (mean age 61.4±10.3). Using the NCEP/ATP III guidelines, 1,334 (24.5%) would have been eligible for statin therapy compared with 3,015 (55.5%) under the new ACC/AHA guidelines. Among the subset of newly eligible, 127/1,742 (7.3%) had an ASCVD event during 10years of follow-up. Assuming 10years of moderate-intensity statin therapy, the estimated absolute reduction in ASCVD events for the newly eligible group was 2.06% (number needed to treat [NNT] 48.6) and the estimated absolute increase in T2DM was 0.90% (number needed to harm [NNH] 110.7). Assuming 10years of high-intensity statin therapy, the corresponding estimates for reductions in ASCVD and increases in T2DM were as follows: ASCVD 2.70% (NNT 37.5) and T2DM 2.60% (NNH 38.6). The estimated effects of moderate-intensity statins on 10-year risk for ASCVD and T2DM in participants eligible for statins under the NCEP/ATP III were as follows: 3.20% (NNT 31.5) and 1.06% (NNH 94.2), respectively. Substituting the NCEP/ATP III cholesterol guidelines with the 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol guidelines in MESA more than doubled the number of participants eligible for statin therapy. If the new ACC/AHA cholesterol guidelines are adopted and extend the primary prevention population eligible for treatment, the risk-benefit profile is much better for moderate-intensity than high-intensity statin treatment. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2015 · American Heart Journal
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The association between sustained pre-hypertension and atrial fibrillation (AF) has not been thoroughly examined. This study included 5311 participants (mean age 62 ± 10 years; 47% male; 42.9% non-whites) from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Sustained exposure was based on 2 or more visits within the same blood pressure category (optimal, <120/80 mm Hg; pre-hypertension, 120-139/80-89 mm Hg; hypertension, ≥140/90 mm Hg or antihypertensive medication use) during visits 1, 2, and 3. Cox regression was used to compute hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between blood pressure category and AF. Over a median follow-up of 5.3 years, 182 (3.4%) participants developed AF. Pre-hypertension and hypertension were associated with an increased risk of AF compared with participants who had optimal blood pressure (optimal: HR, 1.0; referent; pre-hypertension: HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.004-3.2; hypertension: HR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.6-4.4). Sustained pre-hypertension is associated with an increased risk of AF. Copyright © 2015 American Society of Hypertension. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2015 · Journal of the American Society of Hypertension

  • No preview · Article · Jun 2015 · Circulation Cardiovascular Imaging