Dataset Information

Tight blood pressure control and cardiovascular outcomes among hypertensive patients with diabetes and coronary artery disease.

ABSTRACT: Hypertension guidelines advocate treating systolic blood pressure (BP) to less than 130 mm Hg for patients with diabetes mellitus; however, data are lacking for the growing population who also have coronary artery disease (CAD).To determine the association of systolic BP control achieved and adverse cardiovascular outcomes in a cohort of patients with diabetes and CAD.Observational subgroup analysis of 6400 of the 22,576 participants in the International Verapamil SR-Trandolapril Study (INVEST). For this analysis, participants were at least 50 years old and had diabetes and CAD. Participants were recruited between September 1997 and December 2000 from 862 sites in 14 countries and were followed up through March 2003 with an extended follow-up through August 2008 through the National Death Index for US participants.Patients received first-line treatment of either a calcium antagonist or beta-blocker followed by angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, a diuretic, or both to achieve systolic BP of less than 130 and diastolic BP of less than 85 mm Hg. Patients were categorized as having tight control if they could maintain their systolic BP at less than 130 mm Hg; usual control if it ranged from 130 mm Hg to less than 140 mm Hg; and uncontrolled if it was 140 mm Hg or higher.Adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including the primary outcomes which was the first occurrence of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.During 16,893 patient-years of follow-up, 286 patients (12.7%) who maintained tight control, 249 (12.6%) who had usual control, and 431 (19.8%) who had uncontrolled systolic BP experienced a primary outcome event. Patients in the usual-control group had a cardiovascular event rate of 12.6% vs a 19.8% event rate for those in the uncontrolled group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-1.71; P < .001). However, little difference existed between those with usual control and those with tight control. Their respective event rates were 12.6% vs 12.7% (adjusted HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.93-1.32; P = .24). The all-cause mortality rate was 11.0% in the tight-control group vs 10.2% in the usual-control group (adjusted HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.99-1.45; P = .06); however, when extended follow-up was included, risk of all-cause mortality was 22.8% in the tight control vs 21.8% in the usual control group (adjusted HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .04).Tight control of systolic BP among patients with diabetes and CAD was not associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes compared with usual control.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00133692.

SUBMITTER: Cooper-DeHoff RM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3008411 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Tight blood pressure control and cardiovascular outcomes among hypertensive patients with diabetes and coronary artery disease.

Cooper-DeHoff Rhonda M RM Gong Yan Y Handberg Eileen M EM Bavry Anthony A AA Denardo Scott J SJ Bakris George L GL Pepine Carl J CJ

JAMA 20100701 1

<h4>Context</h4>Hypertension guidelines advocate treating systolic blood pressure (BP) to less than 130 mm Hg for patients with diabetes mellitus; however, data are lacking for the growing population who also have coronary artery disease (CAD).<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the association of systolic BP control achieved and adverse cardiovascular outcomes in a cohort of patients with diabetes and CAD.<h4>Design, setting, and patients</h4>Observational subgroup analysis of 6400 of the 22,576 par ...[more]

PMID: 20606150

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveHome blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) is viewed as a facilitating factor in the initial diagnosis and long-term management of treated hypertension. However, evidence remains scarce about the effectiveness of HBPM use in the real world. This study aimed to examine the associations of HBPM use with blood pressure (BP) control and medication adherence.MethodsThis prospective cohort study included hypertensive patients with high cardiovascular risk who were aged ≥50 years. At baseline, information about types of BP monitor, frequency of HBPM, perception of anti-hypertensive treatment, and measured office BP were collected. During the 1-year follow-up (visits at 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 months), information on medication adherence was collected at each visit. The 2 major outcomes were BP control at baseline and medication adherence during the 1-year follow-up. A log-binomial regression model was used to examine the association between frequency of HBPM and outcomes, stratified by the perceptions of anti-hypertensive treatment.ResultsA total of 5,363 hypertensive patients were included in the analysis. The age was (64.6 ± 7.2) years, and 41.2% (2,208) were female. Of the total patients, 85.9% (4,606) had a home BP monitor and 47.8% (2,564) had an incorrect perception of anti-hypertensive treatment. Overall, 24.2% (1,299) of patients monitored their BP daily, 37.6% (2,015) weekly, 17.3% (926) monthly, and 20.9% (1,123) less than monthly. At baseline, the systolic BP and diastolic BP were (146.6 ± 10.8) mmHg and (81.9 ± 10.6) mmHg, respectively, and 28.5% (1,527) of patients had their BP controlled. Regardless of whether the patients had correct or incorrect perceptions of anti-hypertensive treatment, there is no significant association between HBPM frequency and BP control at baseline. During the 1-year follow-up, 23.9% (1,280) of patients had non-adherence to medications at least once. In patients with an incorrect perception of anti-hypertensive treatment, those monitoring BP most frequently (daily) had the highest non-adherence rate (29.9%, 175/585). Compared with those monitoring their BP less than monthly, patients who monitored their BP daily were more likely not to adhere to anti-hypertensive medications (adjusted relative risk = 1.38, 95% confidence interval: 1.11-1.72, P = 0.004).ConclusionsHBPM performance among hypertensive patients in China is, in general, sub-optimal. No association was observed between using HBPM alone and hypertension control, indicating that the effects of HBPM could be conditional. Patients' misconceptions about anti-hypertensive treatment may impair the role of BP monitoring in achieving medication adherence. Fully incorporating the correct perception of hypertension into the management of hypertensive patients is needed.

Project description:BackgroundHigh blood pressure is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Visit-to-visit blood pressure variability (BPV) has recently been shown to predict cardiovascular outcomes. We investigated the predictive value of BPV for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodsPatients with stable CAD were enrolled and monitored for new MACE. Visit-to-visit BPV was defined as the coefficient of variation (CV) of systolic and diastolic BP across clinic visits. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association of BPV with MACE. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to assess its predictive ability.ResultsAmong 1140 Chinese patients with stable CAD, 192 (17%) experienced a new MACE. In multivariable analyses, the risk of MACE was significantly associated with CV of systolic BP (odds ratio [OR] for highest versus lowest quartile, 3.30; 95% CI 1.97-5.54), and diastolic BP (OR for highest versus lowest quartile, 2.39; 95% CI 1.39-4.11), after adjustment for variables of the risk factor model (age, gender, T2DM, hypertension, antihypertensive agents, number of BP measurements) and mean BP. The risk factor model had an AUC of 0.70 for prediction of MACE. Adding systolic/diastolic CV into the risk factor model with mean BP significantly increased the AUC to 0.73/0.72 (P = 0.002/0.007). In subgroup analyses, higher CV of systolic BP remained significantly associated with an increased risk for MACE in patients with and without T2DM, whereas the association of CV of diastolic BP with MACE was observed only in those without T2DM.ConclusionsVisit-to-visit variability of systolic BP and of diastolic BP was an independent predictor of new MACE and provided incremental prognostic value beyond mean BP and conventional risk factors in patients with stable CAD. The association of BPV in CAD patients without T2DM with subsequent risk for MACE was stronger than in those with T2DM.

Dataset Information

Tight blood pressure control and cardiovascular outcomes among hypertensive patients with diabetes and coronary artery disease.

Publications

Tight blood pressure control and cardiovascular outcomes among hypertensive patients with diabetes and coronary artery disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets