Project description:Recent publications have stated that the blood pressure (BP) measurement technique used in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) was unattended. However, the SPRINT protocol does not address the issue of attendance. A survey was conducted immediately after SPRINT closeout visits were completed to inquire whether BP measurements were usually attended or unattended by staff. There were 4082 participants at 38 sites that measured BP after leaving the participant alone the entire time (always alone), 2247 at 25 sites that had personnel in the room the entire time (never alone), 1746 at 19 sites that left the participant alone only during the rest period (alone for rest), and 570 at 6 sites that left the participant alone only during the BP readings (alone for BP measurement). Similar systolic and diastolic BPs within randomized groups were noted during follow-up at the majority of visits in all 4 measurement categories. In the always alone and never alone categories, the intensive group had a similarly reduced risk for the primary outcome compared with the standard group (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.76 and hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.91, respectively; pairwise interaction P value, 0.88); risk was not significantly reduced for the intensive group in the smaller alone-for-rest and the alone-for-BP-measurement categories. Similar BP levels and cardiovascular disease risk reduction were observed in the intensive group in SPRINT participants whether the measurement technique used was primarily attended or unattended.Clinical trial registrationURL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01206062.
Project description:SubjectThis study aimed to establish a normal range for ankle systolic blood pressure (SBP).MethodsA total of 948 subjects who had normal brachial SBP (90-139 mmHg) at investigation were enrolled. Supine BP of four limbs was simultaneously measured using four automatic BP measurement devices. The ankle-arm difference (An-a) on SBP of both sides was calculated. Two methods were used for establishing normal range of ankle SBP: the 99% method was decided on the 99% reference range of actual ankle BP, and the An-a method was the sum of An-a and the low or up limits of normal arm SBP (90-139 mmHg).ResultsWhether in the right or left side, the ankle SBP was significantly higher than the arm SBP (right: 137.1 ± 16.9 vs 119.7 ± 11.4 mmHg, P<0.05). Based on the 99% method, the normal range of ankle SBP was 94~181 mmHg for the total population, 84~166 mmHg for the young (18-44 y), 107~176 mmHg for the middle-aged(45-59 y) and 113~179 mmHg for the elderly (≥ 60 y) group. As the An-a on SBP was 13 mmHg in the young group and 20 mmHg in both middle-aged and elderly groups, the normal range of ankle SBP on the An-a method was 103-153 mmHg for young and 110-160 mmHg for middle-elderly subjects.ConclusionA primary reference for normal ankle SBP was suggested as 100-165 mmHg in the young and 110-170 mmHg in the middle-elderly subjects.
Project description:IntroductionCentral aortic blood pressure (BP) could be a better risk predictor than brachial BP. This study examined whether invasively measured aortic systolic BP improved outcome prediction beyond risk prediction by conventional cuff-based office systolic BP in patients with and without chronic kidney disease (CKD).MethodsIn a prospective, longitudinal cohort study, aortic and office systolic BPs were registered in patients undergoing elective coronary angiography (CAG). CKD was defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2. Multivariable Cox models were used to determine the association with incident myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and death.ResultsAortic and office systolic BPs were available in 39,866 patients (mean age: 64 years; 58% males; 64% with hypertension) out of which 6605 (17%) had CKD. During a median follow-up of 7.2 years (interquartile range: 4.6-10.1 years), 1367 strokes (CKD: 353), 1858 MIs (CKD: 446), and 7551 deaths (CKD: 2515) occurred. CKD increased the risk of stroke, MI, and death significantly. Office and aortic systolic BP were both associated with stroke in non-CKD patients (adjusted hazard ratios with 95% confidence interval per 10 mm Hg: 1.08 [1.05-1.12] and 1.06 [1.03-1.09], respectively) and with MI in patients with CKD (adjusted hazard ratios: 1.08 [1.03-1.13] and 1.08 [1.04-1.12], respectively). There was no significant difference between prediction of outcome with office or aortic systolic BP when adjusted models were compared with C-statistics.ConclusionRegardless of CKD status, invasively measured central aortic systolic BP does not improve the ability to predict outcome compared with brachial office BP measurement.
Project description:Age-dependent genetic effects on susceptibility to hypertension have been documented. We present a novel variance-component method for the estimation of age-dependent genetic effects on longitudinal systolic blood pressure using 57,827 Affymetrix single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) on chromosomes 17-22 genotyped in 2,475 members of the Offspring Cohort of the Framingham Heart Study. We used the likelihood-ratio test statistic to test the main genetic effect, genotype-by-age interaction, and simultaneously, main genetic effect and genotype-by-age interactions (2 degrees of freedom (df) test) for each SNP. Applying Bonferroni correction, three SNPs were significantly associated with longitudinal blood pressure in the analysis of main genetic effects or in combined 2-df analyses. For the associations detected using the simultaneous 2-df test, neither main effects nor genotype-by-age interaction p-values reached genome-wide statistical significance. The value of the 2-df test for screening genetic interaction effects could not be established in this study.
Project description:Emerging studies have revealed a strong link between the gut microbiome and several human diseases. Since human gut microbiome mirrors variations in lifestyle and environment, whether associations between disease conditions and gut microbiome are consistent across populations-particularly in communities practicing traditional subsistence strategies whose microbiomes differ markedly from industrialists-remains unknown. Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of mortality in India affecting 55 million people, and high blood pressure is one of the primary risk factors for cardiovascular diseases. We examined associations between gut microbiome and blood pressure along with 14 other variables associated with lifestyle, dietary habits, disease conditions, and clinical blood markers in the three Assamese populations. Our analysis reveals a robust link between the gut microbiome diversity and composition and systolic blood pressure. Moreover, several genera previously associated with hypertension in non-Indian populations were also associated with systolic blood pressure in this cohort and these genera were predictors of elevated blood pressure in these populations. These findings confer opportunities to design personalized, preventative, and targeted interventions harnessing the gut microbiome to tackle the burden of cardiovascular diseases in India.
Project description:Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality was reduced by 25% when blood pressure (BP) was targeted to 120 mm Hg systolic compared with 140 mm Hg systolic in Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT); however, BP was measured using a research technique. SPRINT specified 5 minutes of seated rest in a quiet room followed by 3 oscillometric measurements without an observer in the room. The relationship of this research-grade methodology to routine BP measurements is not known. Among 275 people with chronic kidney disease who had BP <140/90 mm Hg when they came to the clinic, we measured BP as in SPRINT and recorded BP on the same day without specification of seated rest. Compared with routine measurement, the research-grade systolic BP was 12.7 mm Hg lower with wide limits of agreement (-46.1 to 20.7 mm Hg). Research grade systolic BP was 7.9 mm Hg lower than daytime ambulatory systolic BP and had wide agreement limits (-33.2 to 17.4 mm Hg). Whereas the routine, research-grade, and daytime ambulatory systolic BP were all related to echocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy, the strength of the relationship between research-grade and daytime ambulatory systolic BP to left ventricular hypertrophy was similar and stronger than the strength of the relationship between routine systolic BP and left ventricular hypertrophy. Taken together, these results suggest that translation of the SPRINT results will require measurement of BP as performed in that trial. Instead of an algebraic manipulation of routine clinic measurements, the SPRINT methodology of BP measurement would be needed at minimum if implementation of the SPRINT results were to be deployed in the population at large.