Dataset Information

Baseline and Cumulative Blood Pressure in Predicting the Occurrence of Cardiovascular Events.

ABSTRACT: Background: Both baseline blood pressure (BP) and cumulative BP have been used to estimate cardiovascular event (CVE) risk of higher BP, but which one is more reliable for recommendation to routine clinical practice is unclear. Methods: In this prospective study, conducted in the Kailuan community of Tanshan City, China, a total of 95,702 participants free of CVEs at baseline (2006-2007) were included and followed up until 2017. Time-weighted cumulative BP that expresses the extent of cumulative BP exposure is defined as the sum of the mean of two consecutive systolic or diastolic BP times the interval between the two determinations, then normalized by the total follow-up duration. Incident CVEs during 2006-2017 were confirmed by review of medical records. We performed a competing risk regression analysis to assess CVE risk of the different durations of higher BP exposure. ROC analysis was performed to assess the predictive value of higher BP on CVE occurrence. Results: We found that when the risk of higher BP on CVE occurrence was estimated based on time-weighted cumulative BP, the hazard ratios (HRs) increased with the increase in duration of higher BP exposure in each of the four BP groups: <120/<80, 120-129/<80, 130-139/80-89, and ≥140/≥90 mmHg; this time trend also occurred across the four different BP groups, with the higher BP group exhibiting CVE risk earlier during the follow-up. These results were confirmed by the same analysis performed on participants without baseline hypertension. However, such reasonable time trends did not occur when a single baseline BP was used as the primary estimation. We also demonstrated that the predictive values of baseline systolic and diastolic BP that predict CVE occurrence were only 0.6-3.2 and 0.2-3.1% lower, respectively, than those of cumulative BP combined with baseline BP during follow-up. Conclusions: Baseline BP remains a useful indicator for predicting future occurrence of CVEs. Nevertheless, time-weighted cumulative BP could more reliably estimate the CVE risk of higher BP exposure than baseline BP.

SUBMITTER: Zuo Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8490882 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceLong-term cumulative systolic blood pressure (SBP) is significantly associated with increased rates of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) development independent of single SBP levels. However, published ASCVD risk prediction algorithms only include currently measured SBP.ObjectiveTo determine whether including long-term (5- and 10-year) cumulative SBP in risk equations improves the predictive ability compared with single SBP measurements.Design, setting, and participantsAdults aged 45 to 65 years at the time of risk estimation with at least 20 years of follow-up (5 and 10 years prior to risk estimation and 10 years of event follow-up). The Lifetime Risk Pooling Project included data from the following cohorts: Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study, Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study, and Framingham Heart Study (both the original and offspring).ExposuresTen-year ASCVD risk, calculated using the approach of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association 10-year ASCVD risk equations, first with current SBP and then substituting 5- and 10-year cumulative SBP levels.Main outcomes and measuresIncident ASCVD events that occurred over 10 years of follow-up, compared with the predicted risks, using the C statistic, net reclassification index at event rate, and the integrated discrimination index.ResultsThis study included 11 767 participants with a mean (SD) age of 59.1 (4.7) years at risk estimation. A total of 6873 participants (58%) were women, and 1499 (13%) were African American. In the 10 years of follow-up from risk estimation, 1887 participants (16%) had an ASCVD event. There were no significant improvements in the C statistic when including 5- or 10-year cumulative SBP. However, the addition of cumulative SBP resulted in significant improvements in the net reclassification index at event rate (10-year net reclassification index for men, 0.04 [95% CI, 0.02-0.06]; 10-year net reclassification index for women, 0.03 [95% CI, 0.01-0.06]) and the relative integrated discrimination index (10-year relative integrated discrimination index for men, 0.12; 10-year relative integrated discrimination index for women, 0.10).Conclusions and relevanceUsing long-term measures of cumulative blood pressure, instead of single measurements, can modestly improve the ability of cardiovascular disease risk prediction models to correctly classify individuals in terms of their risk for cardiovascular disease.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare cardiovascular risk among women with high normal blood pressure (130-9/85-9 mm Hg) against those with normal blood pressure (120-9/75-84 mm Hg) and those with baseline hypertension.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingWomen's health study, United States.Participants39 322 initially healthy women classified into four categories according to self reported baseline blood pressure and followed for a median of 10.2 years.Main outcome measuresTime to cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (major cardiovascular event-primary end point); progression to hypertension.Results982 (2.5%) women developed a major cardiovascular event, and 8686 (30.1%) women without baseline hypertension progressed to hypertension. The age adjusted event rate for the primary end point was 1.6/1000 person years among women with normal blood pressure, 2.9/1000 person years among those with high normal blood pressure, and 4.3/1000 person years among those with baseline hypertension. Compared with women with high normal blood pressure (reference group), those with normal blood pressure had a lower risk of a major cardiovascular event (adjusted hazard ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.76) and of incident hypertension (0.42, 0.40 to 0.44). The hazard ratio for a major cardiovascular event in women with baseline hypertension was 1.30 (1.08 to 1.57). Women who progressed to hypertension (reference group) during the first 48 months of the study had a higher cardiovascular risk than those who remained normotensive (adjusted hazard ratio 0.64, 0.50 to 0.81). Women with high normal blood pressure at baseline who progressed to hypertension (reference group) had similar outcome rates to women with baseline hypertension (adjusted hazard ratio 1.17, 0.88 to 1.55).ConclusionThe cardiovascular risk of women with high normal blood pressure is higher than that of women with normal blood pressure. The cardiovascular risk of women who progress to hypertension is increased shortly after a diagnosis of hypertension has been made.Trial registrationClinical trials NCT00000479 [ClinicalTrials.gov].

Project description:Background and aimsVisit-to-visit systolic blood pressure variability (BPV) is an important predictor of cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. The long-term effect of a period of blood pressure (BP) control, but with differential BPV, is uncertain. Morbidity and mortality follow-up of UK participants in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure-Lowering Arm has been extended for up to 21 years to determine the CV impact of mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) control and BPV during the trial, and amongst those allocated to amlodipine- and atenolol-based treatment.MethodsEight thousand five hundred and eighty hypertensive participants (4305 assigned to amlodipine ± perindopril-based and 4275 to atenolol ± diuretic-based treatment during the in-trial period (median 5.5 years) were followed for up to 21 years (median 17.4 years), using linked hospital and mortality records. A subgroup of participants (n = 2156) was followed up 6 years after the trial closure with a self-administered questionnaire and a clinic visit. In-trial mean SBP and standard deviation of visit-to-visit SBP as a measure of BPV, were measured using >100 000 BP measurements. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the risk [hazard ratios (HRs)], associated with (i) mean with SBP and BPV during the in-trial period, for the CV endpoints occurring after the end of the trial and (ii) randomly assigned treatment to events following randomization, for the first occurrence of pre-specified CV outcomes.ResultsUsing BP data from the in-trial period, in the post-trial period, although mean SBP was a predictor of CV outcomes {HR per 10 mmHg, 1.14 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-1.17], P < .001}, systolic BPV independent of mean SBP was a strong predictor of CV events [HR per 5 mmHg 1.22 (95% CI 1.18-1.26), P < .001] and predicted events even in participants with well-controlled BP. During 21-year follow-up, those on amlodipine-based compared with atenolol-based in-trial treatment had significantly reduced risk of stroke [HR 0.82 (95% CI 0.72-0.93), P = .003], total CV events [HR 0.93 (95% CI 0.88-0.98), P = .008], total coronary events [HR 0.92 (95% CI 0.86-0.99), P = .024], and atrial fibrillation [HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.83-0.99), P = .030], with weaker evidence of a difference in CV mortality [HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.82-1.01), P = .073]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal coronary heart disease, heart failure, and all-cause mortality.ConclusionsSystolic BPV is a strong predictor of CV outcome, even in those with controlled SBP. The long-term benefits of amlodipine-based treatment compared with atenolol-based treatment in reducing CV events appear to be primarily mediated by an effect on systolic BPV during the trial period.

Project description:BackgroundCommunication of the benefits and harms of blood pressure lowering strategy is crucial for shared decision-making.ObjectivesTo quantify the effect of intensive versus standard systolic blood pressure lowering in terms of the number of event-free days DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial PARTICIPANTS: A total of 9361 adults 50 years or older without diabetes or stroke who had a systolic blood pressure of 130-180 mmHg and elevated cardiovascular risk INTERVENTIONS: Intensive (systolic blood pressure goal <120 mmHg) versus standard blood pressure lowering (<140 mmHg) MAIN MEASURES: Days free of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), serious adverse events (SAE), and monitored adverse events (hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, electrolyte abnormalities, injurious falls, or acute kidney injury) over a median follow-up of 3.33 years KEY RESULTS: The intensive treatment group gained 14.7 more MACE-free days over 4 years (difference, 14.7 [95% confidence interval: 5.1, 24.4] days) than the standard treatment group. The benefit of the intensive treatment varied by cognitive function (normal: difference, 40.7 [13.0, 68.4] days; moderate-to-severe impairment: difference, -15.0 [-56.5, 26.4] days; p-for-interaction=0.009) and self-rated health (excellent: difference, -22.7 [-51.5, 6.1] days; poor: difference, 156.1 [31.1, 281.2] days; p-for-interaction=0.001). The mean overall SAE-free days were not significantly different between the treatments (difference, -14.8 [-35.3, 5.7] days). However, the intensive treatment group had 28.5 fewer monitored adverse event-free days than the standard treatment group (difference, -28.5 [-40.3, -16.7] days), with significant variations by frailty status (non-frail: difference, 38.8 [8.4, 69.2] days; frail: difference, -15.5 [-46.6, 15.7] days) and self-rated health (excellent: difference, -12.9 [-45.5, 19.7] days; poor: difference, 180.6 [72.9, 288.4] days; p-for-interaction <0.001).ConclusionsOver 4 years, intensive systolic blood pressure lowering provides, on average, 14.7 more MACE-free days than standard treatment, without any difference in SAE-free days. Whether this time-based effect summary improves shared decision-making remains to be elucidated.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Registration: NCT01206062.

Dataset Information

Baseline and Cumulative Blood Pressure in Predicting the Occurrence of Cardiovascular Events.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets