Dataset Information

The importance of blood pressure thresholds versus predicted cardiovascular risk on subsequent rates of cardiovascular disease: a cohort study in English primary care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

For five decades, blood pressure lowering treatment has been recommended for patients with hypertension (currently defined as blood pressure of ≥140/90 mm Hg). In the past 20 years, guidelines for treatment began incorporating predicted absolute cardiovascular disease risk (predicted risk) and reducing blood pressure thresholds. The blood pressure threshold at which to start treatment has become a secondary consideration in some countries. We aimed to provide descriptive data to assess the relative importance of blood pressure thresholds versus predicted risk on the subsequent rate of cardiovascular disease to inform treatment decisions.

Methods

In this English population-based cohort study, we used linked data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD, Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care, and the Office for National Statistics mortality data, and area-based deprivation indices (Townsend scores). Eligible patients were aged 30-79 years on Jan 1, 2011 (cohort entry date) and could be linked to hospital, mortality, and deprivation data. Patients were followed up until death, end of CPRD follow-up, or Nov 31, 2018. We examined three outcomes: cardiovascular disease, markers of potential target organ damage, and incident dementia without a known cause. The rate of each outcome was estimated and stratified by systolic blood pressure and predicted 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease (QRISK2 algorithm).

Findings

Between Jan 1, 2011, and Nov 31, 2018, 1 098 991 patients were included in the cohort and followed up for a median of 4·3 years (IQR 2·6-6·0; total follow-up of 4·6 million person-years). Median age at entry was 52 years (IQR 42-62) and 629 711 (57·3%) patients were female. There were 51 996 cardiovascular disease events and the overall rate of cardiovascular disease was 11·2 per 1000 person-years (95% CI 11·1-11·3). Median QRISK2 10-year predicted risk was 4·6% (IQR 1·4-12·0) and mean systolic blood pressure before cohort entry was 129·1 mm Hg (SD 15·7). Within strata of predicted risk, the effect of increasing systolic blood pressure on outcomes was small. For example, in the group with 10·0-19·9% predicted risk, rates of all cardiovascular disease rose from 20·1 to 23·6 per 1000 person-years between systolic blood pressures less than 110 mm Hg and 180 and higher mm Hg. But among patients with systolic blood pressure 140·0-149·9 mm Hg, rates rose from 6·9 to 52·3 per 1000 person-years between those with less than 10·0% risk and those with 30·0% or higher predicted risk.

Interpretation

For a wide range of blood pressures, the rate of cardiovascular disease and effectiveness of blood pressure drug treatment was mainly determined by predicted risk, with blood pressure thresholds 140/90 mm Hg or 160/100 mm Hg-ubiquitous in most countries-adding little useful information. When medium-term predicted risk is low, there is no urgency to initiate drug treatment, allowing time to attempt non-pharmacological blood pressure reduction.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research.

SUBMITTER: Herrett E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8732286 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceHypertension remains the major cardiovascular disease risk factor globally, but variability in measured blood pressure may result in suboptimal management. Whether genetic contributors to elevated blood pressure may complementarily inform cardiovascular disease risk assessment is unknown.ObjectiveTo examine incident cardiovascular disease by blood pressure polygenic risk score independent of measured blood pressures and antihypertensive medication prescriptions.Design, setting, and participantsThe cohort study (UK Biobank) recruited UK residents aged 40 to 69 years between March 2006 and August 2010. Participants without a prior physician diagnosis of cardiovascular disease, including myocardial infarction, stroke, or heart failure, were included. Excluded were individuals with mismatch between self-reported and genotypically inferred sex, sex aneuploidy, missing genotype rates of 1% or greater, and excess genotypic heterozygosity. Data analyses were performed from September 25, 2021, to July 21, 2022.ExposuresMeasured blood pressure and externally derived blood pressure polygenic risk score stratified by hypertension diagnosis and management, which included normal blood pressure (<130/80 mm Hg without antihypertensives), untreated hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥130 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥80 mm Hg without antihypertensives), and treated hypertension (current antihypertensives prescriptions).Main outcomes and measuresComposite of first incident myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular-related death.ResultsOf the 331 078 study participants included (mean [SD] age at enrollment, 56.9 [8.1] years; 178 824 female [54.0%]), 83 094 (25.1%) had normal blood pressure, 197 597 (59.7%) had untreated hypertension, and 50 387 (15.2%) had treated hypertension. Over a median (IQR) follow-up of 11.1 (10.4-11.8) years, the primary outcome occurred in 15 293 participants. Among those with normal blood pressure, untreated hypertension, and treated hypertension, each SD increase in measured systolic blood pressure was associated with hazard ratios of 1.08 (95% CI, 0.93-1.25), 1.20 (95% CI, 1.16-1.23), and 1.16 (95% CI, 1.11-1.20), respectively, for the primary outcome. Among these same categories, each SD increase in genetically predicted systolic blood pressure was associated with increased hazard ratios of 1.13 (95% CI, 1.05-1.20), 1.04 (95% CI, 1.01-1.07), and 1.06 (95% CI, 1.02-1.10), respectively, for the primary outcome independent of measured blood pressures and other covariates. Findings were similar for measured and genetically predicted diastolic blood pressure.Conclusions and relevanceBlood pressure polygenic risk score may augment identification of individuals at heightened cardiovascular risk, including those with both normal blood pressure and hypertension. Whether it may also guide antihypertensive initiation or intensification requires further study.

Project description:Purpose:To investigate the demographics of patients for whom SLAP repair or biceps tenodesis was performed, as well as to compare rates of additional shoulder surgery for these 2 procedures within 3 years postoperatively. Methods:Using the MarketScan Commercial Database, we examined all patients with SLAP tear who underwent arthroscopic SLAP repair or open or arthroscopic biceps tenodesis within the encompassed time period (2003-2014). Rates of repeat shoulder surgery within 3 years were evaluated, as were comparative demographics. Results:In total, 25,142 patients initially underwent SLAP repair, of whom 11.5% had subsequent shoulder surgery within 3 years. A total of 840 patients initially underwent biceps tenodesis as treatment for a SLAP tear, of whom 13.0% underwent additional shoulder surgery within 3 years. Rates of subsequent shoulder surgery between the 2 procedural groups did not statistically differ (P = .19). Patients who underwent SLAP repair were younger than those who underwent tenodesis (mean age 38.3 vs 49.3 years, P < .01). For patients requiring additional surgery, the SLAP repair group had a greater representation of those ?35 years old, whereas the tenodesis group had a greater representation of those <35 years old (P < .01). Male patients experienced an increase in rate of subsequent shoulder surgery when initially undergoing tenodesis versus SLAP repair (13.3% vs 11.1%, P < .01). Conclusions:The rates of additional shoulder surgery for patients undergoing SLAP repair and biceps tenodesis were similar within 3 years of the index procedure. Patients who underwent SLAP repair were younger than those who underwent tenodesis. Of those requiring additional surgery, patients initially treated with SLAP repair were older (?35 years) and those treated with tenodesis were younger (<35 years). Male patients experienced an increase in rate of subsequent shoulder surgery when initially treated with tenodesis versus SLAP repair. Level of Evidence:III, retrospective comparative study.