Dataset Information

Single versus combined blood pressure components and risk for cardiovascular disease: the Framingham Heart Study.

ABSTRACT: The utility of single versus combined blood pressure (BP) components in predicting cardiovascular disease (CVD) events is not established. We compared systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) versus pulse pressure (PP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) combined and each of these 4 BP components alone in predicting CVD events.In participants in the original (n=4760) and offspring (n=4897) Framingham Heart Study who were free of CVD events and BP-lowering therapy, 1439 CVD events occurred over serial 4-year intervals from 1952 to 2001. In pooled logistic regression with the use of BP categories, combining SBP with DBP and PP with MAP improved model fit compared with individual BP components (P<0.05 to P<0.0001). Significant interactions were noted between SBP and DBP (P=0.02) and between PP and MAP (P=0.01) in their respective multivariable models. Models with continuous variables for SBP+DBP and PP+MAP proved identical in predicting CVD events (Akaike Information Criteria=10 625 for both). Addition of a quadratic DBP(2) term to DBP and SBP further improved fit (P=0.0016).Combining PP with MAP and SBP with DBP produced models that were superior to single BP components for predicting CVD, and the extent of CVD risk varied with the level of each BP component. The combination of PP+MAP (unlike SBP+DBP) has a monotonic relation with risk and may provide greater insight into hemodynamics of altered arterial stiffness versus impaired peripheral resistance but is not superior to SBP+DBP in predicting CVD events.

SUBMITTER: Franklin SS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3042701 | biostudies-other | 2009 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Single versus combined blood pressure components and risk for cardiovascular disease: the Framingham Heart Study.

Franklin Stanley S SS Lopez Victor A VA Wong Nathan D ND Mitchell Gary F GF Larson Martin G MG Vasan Ramachandran S RS Levy Daniel D

Circulation 20081231 2

<h4>Background</h4>The utility of single versus combined blood pressure (BP) components in predicting cardiovascular disease (CVD) events is not established. We compared systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) versus pulse pressure (PP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) combined and each of these 4 BP components alone in predicting CVD events.<h4>Methods and results</h4>In participants in the original (n=4760) and offspring (n=4897) Framingham Heart Study who were free of CVD events and BP-lower ...[more]

PMID: 19118251

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundClinical practice guidelines have traditionally recommended blood pressure treatment based primarily on blood pressure thresholds. In contrast, using predicted cardiovascular risk has been advocated as a more effective strategy to guide treatment decisions for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. We aimed to compare outcomes from a blood pressure-lowering treatment strategy based on predicted cardiovascular risk with one based on systolic blood pressure (SBP) level.Methods and findingsWe used individual participant data from the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (BPLTTC) from 1995 to 2013. Trials randomly assigned participants to either blood pressure-lowering drugs versus placebo or more intensive versus less intensive blood pressure-lowering regimens. We estimated 5-y risk of CVD events using a multivariable Weibull model previously developed in this dataset. We compared the two strategies at specific SBP thresholds and across the spectrum of risk and blood pressure levels studied in BPLTTC trials. The primary outcome was number of CVD events avoided per persons treated. We included data from 11 trials (47,872 participants). During a median of 4.0 y of follow-up, 3,566 participants (7.5%) experienced a major cardiovascular event. Areas under the curve comparing the two treatment strategies throughout the range of possible thresholds for CVD risk and SBP demonstrated that, on average, a greater number of CVD events would be avoided for a given number of persons treated with the CVD risk strategy compared with the SBP strategy (area under the curve 0.71 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.72] for the CVD risk strategy versus 0.54 [95% CI 0.53-0.55] for the SBP strategy). Compared with treating everyone with SBP ≥ 150 mmHg, a CVD risk strategy would require treatment of 29% (95% CI 26%-31%) fewer persons to prevent the same number of events or would prevent 16% (95% CI 14%-18%) more events for the same number of persons treated. Compared with treating everyone with SBP ≥ 140 mmHg, a CVD risk strategy would require treatment of 3.8% (95% CI 12.5% fewer to 7.2% more) fewer persons to prevent the same number of events or would prevent 3.1% (95% CI 1.5%-5.0%) more events for the same number of persons treated, although the former estimate was not statistically significant. In subgroup analyses, the CVD risk strategy did not appear to be more beneficial than the SBP strategy in patients with diabetes mellitus or established CVD.ConclusionsA blood pressure-lowering treatment strategy based on predicted cardiovascular risk is more effective than one based on blood pressure levels alone across a range of thresholds. These results support using cardiovascular risk assessment to guide blood pressure treatment decision-making in moderate- to high-risk individuals, particularly for primary prevention.

Dataset Information

Single versus combined blood pressure components and risk for cardiovascular disease: the Framingham Heart Study.

Publications

Single versus combined blood pressure components and risk for cardiovascular disease: the Framingham Heart Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets