Reference frame for home pulse pressure based on cardiovascular risk in 6470 subjects from 5 populations.

The absence of an outcome-driven reference frame for self-measured pulse pressure (PP) limits its clinical applicability. In an attempt to derive an operational threshold for self-measured PP, we analyzed 6470 participants (mean age 59.3 years; 56.9% women; 22.5% on antihypertensive treatment) from 5 general population cohorts included in the International Database on HOme blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcome. During 8.3 years of follow-up (median), 294 cardiovascular deaths, 393 strokes and 336 cardiac events occurred. In 3285 younger subjects (<60 years), home PP only predicted all-cause and cardiovascular mortality (P⩽0.036), whereas in 3185 older subjects (⩾60 years) PP predicted total and cardiovascular mortality (P⩽0.0067) and all cardiovascular and coronary events (P⩽0.044). However, PP did not substantially refine risk prediction based on classical risk factors including mean blood pressure (generalized R(2) statistic ⩽0.20%). In older subjects, the adjusted hazard ratios expressing the risk in the upper decile of home PP (⩾76 mm Hg) versus the average risk in whole population were 1.41 (95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.81; P=0.0081) for all-cause mortality, 1.62 (1.11-2.35; P=0.012) for cardiovascular mortality and 1.31 (1.00-1.70; P=0.047) for all fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular end points combined. The low number of events precluded an analysis by tenths of the PP distribution in younger participants. In conclusion, a home PP of ⩾76 mm Hg predicted cardiovascular outcomes in the elderly with the exception of stroke, whereas in younger subjects no threshold could be established.

Risk stratification by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring across JNC classes of conventional blood pressure.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines propose classification of conventional blood pressure (CBP) into normotension (<120/<80 mm Hg), prehypertension (120-139/80-89 mm Hg), and hypertension (≥140/≥90 mm Hg). METHODS: To assess the potential differential contribution of ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in predicting risk across CBP strata, we analyzed outcomes in 7,826 untreated people recruited from 11 populations. RESULTS: During an 11.3-year period, 809 participants died (276 cardiovascular deaths) and 639, 383, and 225 experienced a cardiovascular, cardiac, or cerebrovascular event. Compared with normotension (n = 2,639), prehypertension (n = 3,076) carried higher risk (P ≤ 0.015) of cardiovascular (+41%) and cerebrovascular (+92%) endpoints; compared with hypertension (n = 2,111) prehypertension entailed lower risk (P ≤ 0.005) of total mortality (-14%) and cardiovascular mortality (-29%) and of cardiovascular (-34%), cardiac (-33%), or cerebrovascular (-47%) events. Multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for stroke associated with 24-hour and daytime diastolic ABP (+5 mm Hg) were higher (P ≤ 0.045) in normotension than in prehypertension and hypertension (1.98 vs.1.19 vs.1.28 and 1.73 vs.1.09 vs. 1.24, respectively) with similar trends (0.03 ≤ P ≤ 0.11) for systolic ABP (+10 mm Hg). However, HRs for fatal endpoints and cardiac events associated with ABP did not differ significantly (P ≥ 0.13) across CBP categories. Of normotensive and prehypertensive participants, 7.5% and 29.3% had masked hypertension (daytime ABP ≥135/≥85 mm Hg). Compared with true normotension (P ≤ 0.01), HRs for stroke were 3.02 in normotension and 2.97 in prehypertension associated with masked hypertension with no difference between the latter two conditions (P = 0.93). CONCLUSION: ABP refines risk stratification in normotension and prehypertension mainly by enabling the diagnosis of masked hypertension.

Risk stratification by self-measured home blood pressure across categories of conventional blood pressure: a participant-level meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Global Burden of Diseases Study 2010 reported that hypertension is worldwide the leading risk factor for cardiovascular disease, causing 9.4 million deaths annually. We examined to what extent self-measurement of home blood pressure (HBP) refines risk stratification across increasing categories of conventional blood pressure (CBP). METHODS AND FINDINGS: This meta-analysis included 5,008 individuals randomly recruited from five populations (56.6% women; mean age, 57.1 y). All were not treated with antihypertensive drugs. In multivariable analyses, hazard ratios (HRs) associated with 10-mm Hg increases in systolic HBP were computed across CBP categories, using the following systolic/diastolic CBP thresholds (in mm Hg): optimal, <120/<80; normal, 120-129/80-84; high-normal, 130-139/85-89; mild hypertension, 140-159/90-99; and severe hypertension, ≥160/≥100. Over 8.3 y, 522 participants died, and 414, 225, and 194 had cardiovascular, cardiac, and cerebrovascular events, respectively. In participants with optimal or normal CBP, HRs for a composite cardiovascular end point associated with a 10-mm Hg higher systolic HBP were 1.28 (1.01-1.62) and 1.22 (1.00-1.49), respectively. At high-normal CBP and in mild hypertension, the HRs were 1.24 (1.03-1.49) and 1.20 (1.06-1.37), respectively, for all cardiovascular events and 1.33 (1.07-1.65) and 1.30 (1.09-1.56), respectively, for stroke. In severe hypertension, the HRs were not significant (p≥0.20). Among people with optimal, normal, and high-normal CBP, 67 (5.0%), 187 (18.4%), and 315 (30.3%), respectively, had masked hypertension (HBP≥130 mm Hg systolic or ≥85 mm Hg diastolic). Compared to true optimal CBP, masked hypertension was associated with a 2.3-fold (1.5-3.5) higher cardiovascular risk. A limitation was few data from low- and middle-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: HBP substantially refines risk stratification at CBP levels assumed to carry no or only mildly increased risk, in particular in the presence of masked hypertension. Randomized trials could help determine the best use of CBP vs. HBP in guiding BP management. Our study identified a novel indication for HBP, which, in view of its low cost and the increased availability of electronic communication, might be globally applicable, even in remote areas or in low-resource settings.

The International Database of HOme blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcome (IDHOCO): moving from baseline characteristics to research perspectives.

The objective of this study is to construct an International Database of HOme blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcome (IDHOCO). The main goal of this database is to determine outcome-based diagnostic thresholds for the self-measured home blood pressure (BP). Secondary objectives include investigating the predictive value of white-coat and masked hypertension, morning and evening BP, BP and heart rate variability, and the home arterial stiffness index. We also aim to determine an optimal schedule for home BP measurements that provides the most accurate risk stratification. Eligible studies are population-based, have fatal as well as nonfatal outcomes available for analysis, comply with ethical standards, and have been previously published in peer-reviewed journals. In a meta-analysis based on individual subject data, composite and cause-specific cardiovascular events will be related to various indexes derived by home BP measurement. The analyses will be stratified by a cohort and adjusted for the clinic BP and established cardiovascular risk factors. The database includes 6753 subjects from five cohorts recruited in Ohasama, Japan (n=2777); Finland (n=2075); Tsurugaya, Japan (n=836); Didima, Greece (n=665); and Montevideo, Uruguay (n=400). In these five cohorts, during a total of 62 106 person-years of follow-up (mean 9.2 years), 852 subjects died and 740 participants experienced a fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular event. IDHOCO provides a unique opportunity to investigate several hypotheses that could not reliably be studied in individual studies. The results of these analyses should be of help to clinicians involved in the management of patients with suspected or established hypertension.