Opposing Age-Related Trends in Absolute and Relative Risk of Adverse Health Outcomes Associated With Out-of-Office Blood Pressure.

Participant-level meta-analyses assessed the age-specific relevance of office blood pressure to cardiovascular complications, but this information is lacking for out-of-office blood pressure. At baseline, daytime ambulatory (n=12 624) or home (n=5297) blood pressure were measured in 17 921 participants (51.3% women; mean age, 54.2 years) from 17 population cohorts. Subsequently, mortality and cardiovascular events were recorded. Using multivariable Cox regression, floating absolute risk was computed across 4 age bands (≤60, 61-70, 71-80, and >80 years). Over 236 491 person-years, 3855 people died and 2942 cardiovascular events occurred. From levels as low as 110/65 mm Hg, risk log-linearly increased with higher out-of-office systolic/diastolic blood pressure. From the youngest to the oldest age group, rates expressed per 1000 person-years increased (P<0.001) from 4.4 (95% CI, 4.0-4.7) to 86.3 (76.1-96.5) for all-cause mortality and from 4.1 (3.9-4.6) to 59.8 (51.0-68.7) for cardiovascular events, whereas hazard ratios per 20-mm Hg increment in systolic out-of-office blood pressure decreased (P≤0.0033) from 1.42 (1.19-1.69) to 1.09 (1.05-1.12) and from 1.70 (1.51-1.92) to 1.12 (1.07-1.17), respectively. These age-related trends were similar for out-of-office diastolic pressure and were generally consistent in both sexes and across ethnicities. In conclusion, adverse outcomes were directly associated with out-of-office blood pressure in adults. At young age, the absolute risk associated with out-of-office blood pressure was low, but relative risk high, whereas with advancing age relative risk decreased and absolute risk increased. These observations highlight the need of a lifecourse approach for the management of hypertension.

The Cardiovascular Risk of White-Coat Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: The role of white-coat hypertension (WCH) and the white-coat-effect (WCE) in development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk remains poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: Using data from the population-based, 11-cohort IDACO (International Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes), this study compared daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring with conventional blood pressure measurements in 653 untreated subjects with WCH and 653 normotensive control subjects. METHODS: European Society Hypertension guidelines were used as a 5-stage risk score. Low risk was defined as 0 to 2 risk factors, and high risk was defined as ≥3 to 5 risk factors, diabetes, and/or history of prior CVD events. Age- and cohort-matching was done between 653 untreated subjects with WCH and 653 normotensive control subjects. RESULTS: In a stepwise linear regression model, systolic WCE increased by 3.8 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.1 to 4.6 mm Hg) per 10-year increase in age, and was similar in low- and high-risk subjects with or without prior CVD events. Over a median 10.6-year follow-up, incidence of new CVD events was higher in 159 high-risk subjects with WCH compared with 159 cohort- and age-matched high-risk normotensive subjects (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.10 to 3.84; p = 0.023). The HR was not significant for 494 participants with low-risk WCH and age-matched low-risk normotensive subjects. Subgroup analysis by age showed that an association between WCH and incident CVD events is limited to older (age ≥60 years) high-risk WCH subjects; the adjusted HR was 2.19 (95% CI: 1.09 to 4.37; p = 0.027) in the older high-risk group and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.51 to 1.53; p = 0.66) in the older low-risk group (p for interaction = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: WCE size is related to aging, not to CVD risk. CVD risk in most persons with WCH is comparable to age- and risk-adjusted normotensive control subjects.

Age-specific differences between conventional and ambulatory daytime blood pressure values.

Mean daytime ambulatory blood pressure (BP) values are considered to be lower than conventional BP values, but data on this relation among younger individuals <50 years are scarce. Conventional and 24-hour ambulatory BP were measured in 9550 individuals not taking antihypertensive treatment from 13 population-based cohorts. We compared individual differences between daytime ambulatory and conventional BP according to 10-year age categories. Age-specific prevalences of white coat and masked hypertension were calculated. Among individuals aged 18 to 30, 30 to 40, and 40 to 50 years, mean daytime BP was significantly higher than the corresponding conventional BP (6.0, 5.2, and 4.7 mm Hg for systolic; 2.5, 2.7, and 1.7 mm Hg for diastolic BP; all P<0.0001). In individuals aged 60 to 70 and ≥70 years, conventional BP was significantly higher than daytime ambulatory BP (5.0 and 13.0 mm Hg for systolic; 2.0 and 4.2 mm Hg for diastolic BP; all P<0.0001).The prevalence of white coat hypertension exponentially increased from 2.2% to 19.5% from those aged 18 to 30 years to those aged ≥70 years, with little variation between men and women (8.0% versus 6.1%; P=0.0003). Masked hypertension was more prevalent among men (21.1% versus 11.4%; P<0.0001). The age-specific prevalences of masked hypertension were 18.2%, 27.3%, 27.8%, 20.1%, 13.6%, and 10.2% among men and 9.0%, 9.9%, 12.2%, 11.9%, 14.7%, and 12.1% among women. In conclusion, this large collaborative analysis showed that the relation between daytime ambulatory and conventional BP strongly varies by age. These findings may have implications for diagnosing hypertension and its subtypes in clinical practice.

Setting thresholds to varying blood pressure monitoring intervals differentially affects risk estimates associated with white-coat and masked hypertension in the population.

Outcome-driven recommendations about time intervals during which ambulatory blood pressure should be measured to diagnose white-coat or masked hypertension are lacking. We cross-classified 8237 untreated participants (mean age, 50.7 years; 48.4% women) enrolled in 12 population studies, using ≥140/≥90, ≥130/≥80, ≥135/≥85, and ≥120/≥70 mm Hg as hypertension thresholds for conventional, 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime blood pressure. White-coat hypertension was hypertension on conventional measurement with ambulatory normotension, the opposite condition being masked hypertension. Intervals used for classification of participants were daytime, nighttime, and 24 hours, first considered separately, and next combined as 24 hours plus daytime or plus nighttime, or plus both. Depending on time intervals chosen, white-coat and masked hypertension frequencies ranged from 6.3% to 12.5% and from 9.7% to 19.6%, respectively. During 91 046 person-years, 729 participants experienced a cardiovascular event. In multivariable analyses with normotension during all intervals of the day as reference, hazard ratios associated with white-coat hypertension progressively weakened considering daytime only (1.38; P=0.033), nighttime only (1.43; P=0.0074), 24 hours only (1.21; P=0.20), 24 hours plus daytime (1.24; P=0.18), 24 hours plus nighttime (1.15; P=0.39), and 24 hours plus daytime and nighttime (1.16; P=0.41). The hazard ratios comparing masked hypertension with normotension were all significant (P<0.0001), ranging from 1.76 to 2.03. In conclusion, identification of truly low-risk white-coat hypertension requires setting thresholds simultaneously to 24 hours, daytime, and nighttime blood pressure. Although any time interval suffices to diagnose masked hypertension, as proposed in current guidelines, full 24-hour recordings remain standard in clinical practice.

Ambulatory hypertension subtypes and 24-hour systolic and diastolic blood pressure as distinct outcome predictors in 8341 untreated people recruited from 12 populations.

BACKGROUND: Data on risk associated with 24-hour ambulatory diastolic (DBP24) versus systolic (SBP24) blood pressure are scarce. METHODS AND RESULTS: We recorded 24-hour blood pressure and health outcomes in 8341 untreated people (mean age, 50.8 years; 46.6% women) randomly recruited from 12 populations. We computed hazard ratios (HRs) using multivariable-adjusted Cox regression. Over 11.2 years (median), 927 (11.1%) participants died, 356 (4.3%) from cardiovascular causes, and 744 (8.9%) experienced a fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular event. Isolated diastolic hypertension (DBP24≥80 mm Hg) did not increase the risk of total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or stroke (HRs≤1.54; P≥0.18), but was associated with a higher risk of fatal combined with nonfatal cardiovascular, cardiac, or coronary events (HRs≥1.75; P≤0.0054). Isolated systolic hypertension (SBP24≥130 mm Hg) and mixed diastolic plus systolic hypertension were associated with increased risks of all aforementioned end points (P≤0.0012). Below age 50, DBP24 was the main driver of risk, reaching significance for total (HR for 1-SD increase, 2.05; P=0.0039) and cardiovascular mortality (HR, 4.07; P=0.0032) and for all cardiovascular end points combined (HR, 1.74; P=0.039) with a nonsignificant contribution of SBP24 (HR≤0.92; P≥0.068); above age 50, SBP24 predicted all end points (HR≥1.19; P≤0.0002) with a nonsignificant contribution of DBP24 (0.96≤HR≤1.14; P≥0.10). The interactions of age with SBP24 and DBP24 were significant for all cardiovascular and coronary events (P≤0.043). CONCLUSIONS: The risks conferred by DBP24 and SBP24 are age dependent. DBP24 and isolated diastolic hypertension drive coronary complications below age 50, whereas above age 50 SBP24 and isolated systolic and mixed hypertension are the predominant risk factors.

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.

Blood pressure load does not add to ambulatory blood pressure level for cardiovascular risk stratification.

Experts proposed blood pressure (BP) load derived from 24-hour ambulatory BP recordings as a more accurate predictor of outcome than level, in particular in normotensive people. We analyzed 8711 subjects (mean age, 54.8 years; 47.0% women) randomly recruited from 10 populations. We expressed BP load as percentage (%) of systolic/diastolic readings ≥135/≥85 mm Hg and ≥120/≥70 mm Hg during day and night, respectively, or as the area under the BP curve (mm Hg×h) using the same ceiling values. During a period of 10.7 years (median), 1284 participants died and 1109 experienced a fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular end point. In multivariable-adjusted models, the risk of cardiovascular complications gradually increased across deciles of BP level and load (P<0.001), but BP load did not substantially refine risk prediction based on 24-hour systolic or diastolic BP level (generalized R(2) statistic ≤0.294%; net reclassification improvement ≤0.28%; integrated discrimination improvement ≤0.001%). Systolic/diastolic BP load of 40.0/42.3% or 91.8/73.6 mm Hg×h conferred a 10-year risk of a composite cardiovascular end point similar to a 24-hour systolic/diastolic BP of 130/80 mm Hg. In analyses dichotomized according to these thresholds, increased BP load did not refine risk prediction in the whole study population (R(2)≤0.051) or in untreated participants with 24-hour ambulatory normotension (R(2)≤0.034). In conclusion, BP load does not improve risk stratification based on 24-hour BP level. This also applies to subjects with normal 24-hour BP for whom BP load was proposed to be particularly useful in risk stratification.

Outcome-driven thresholds for ambulatory pulse pressure in 9938 participants recruited from 11 populations.

Evidence-based thresholds for risk stratification based on pulse pressure (PP) are currently unavailable. To derive outcome-driven thresholds for the 24-hour ambulatory PP, we analyzed 9938 participants randomly recruited from 11 populations (47.3% women). After age stratification (<60 versus ≥60 years) and using average risk as reference, we computed multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) to assess risk by tenths of the PP distribution or risk associated with stepwise increasing (+1 mm Hg) PP levels. All adjustments included mean arterial pressure. Among 6028 younger participants (68 853 person-years), the risk of cardiovascular (HR, 1.58; P=0.011) or cardiac (HR, 1.52; P=0.056) events increased only in the top PP tenth (mean, 60.6 mm Hg). Using stepwise increasing PP levels, the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the successive thresholds did not cross unity. Among 3910 older participants (39 923 person-years), risk increased (P≤0.028) in the top PP tenth (mean, 76.1 mm Hg). HRs were 1.30 and 1.62 for total and cardiovascular mortality, and 1.52, 1.69, and 1.40 for all cardiovascular, cardiac, and cerebrovascular events. The lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the HRs associated with stepwise increasing PP levels crossed unity at 64 mm Hg. While accounting for all covariables, the top tenth of PP contributed less than 0.3% (generalized R(2) statistic) to the overall risk among the elderly. Thus, in randomly recruited people, ambulatory PP does not add to risk stratification below age 60; in the elderly, PP is a weak risk factor with levels below 64 mm Hg probably being innocuous.

How many measurements are needed to estimate blood pressure variability without loss of prognostic information?

BACKGROUND: Average real variability (ARV) is a recently proposed index for short-term blood pressure (BP) variability. We aimed to determine the minimum number of BP readings required to compute ARV without loss of prognostic information. METHODS: ARV was calculated from a discovery dataset that included 24-hour ambulatory BP measurements for 1,254 residents (mean age = 56.6 years; 43.5% women) of Copenhagen, Denmark. Concordance between ARV from full (≥80 BP readings) and randomly reduced 24-hour BP recordings was examined, as was prognostic accuracy. A test dataset that included 5,353 subjects (mean age = 54.0 years; 45.6% women) with at least 48 BP measurements from 11 randomly recruited population cohorts was used to validate the results. RESULTS: In the discovery dataset, a minimum of 48 BP readings allowed an accurate assessment of the association between cardiovascular risk and ARV. In the test dataset, over 10.2 years (median), 806 participants died (335 cardiovascular deaths, 206 cardiac deaths) and 696 experienced a major fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular event. Standardized multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were computed for associations between outcome and BP variability. Higher diastolic ARV in 24-hour ambulatory BP recordings predicted (P < 0.01) total (HR = 1.12), cardiovascular (HR = 1.19), and cardiac (HR = 1.19) mortality and fatal combined with nonfatal cerebrovascular events (HR = 1.16). Higher systolic ARV in 24-hour ambulatory BP recordings predicted (P < 0.01) total (HR = 1.12), cardiovascular (HR = 1.17), and cardiac (HR = 1.24) mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Forty-eight BP readings over 24 hours were observed to be adequate to compute ARV without meaningful loss of prognostic information.

Masked hypertension in diabetes mellitus: treatment implications for clinical practice.

Although distinguishing features of masked hypertension in diabetics are well known, the significance of antihypertensive treatment on clinical practice decisions has not been fully explored. We analyzed 9691 subjects from the population-based 11-country International Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes. Prevalence of masked hypertension in untreated normotensive participants was higher (P<0.0001) among 229 diabetics (29.3%, n=67) than among 5486 nondiabetics (18.8%, n=1031). Over a median of 11.0 years of follow-up, the adjusted risk for a composite cardiovascular end point in untreated diabetic-masked hypertensives tended to be higher than in normotensives (hazard rate [HR], 1.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-3.97; P=0.059), similar to untreated stage 1 hypertensives (HR, 1.07; CI, 0.58-1.98; P=0.82), but less than stage 2 hypertensives (HR, 0.53; CI, 0.29-0.99; P=0.048). In contrast, cardiovascular risk was not significantly different in antihypertensive-treated diabetic-masked hypertensives, as compared with the normotensive comparator group (HR, 1.13; CI, 0.54-2.35; P=0.75), stage 1 hypertensives (HR, 0.91; CI, 0.49-1.69; P=0.76), and stage 2 hypertensives (HR, 0.65; CI, 0.35-1.20; P=0.17). In the untreated diabetic-masked hypertensive population, mean conventional systolic/diastolic blood pressure was 129.2 ± 8.0/76.0 ± 7.3 mm Hg, and mean daytime systolic/diastolic blood pressure 141.5 ± 9.1/83.7 ± 6.5 mm Hg. In conclusion, masked hypertension occurred in 29% of untreated diabetics, had comparable cardiovascular risk as stage 1 hypertension, and would require considerable reduction in conventional blood pressure to reach daytime ambulatory treatment goal. Importantly, many hypertensive diabetics when receiving antihypertensive therapy can present with normalized conventional and elevated ambulatory blood pressure that mimics masked hypertension.

Double product reflects the predictive power of systolic pressure in the general population: evidence from 9,937 participants.

BACKGROUND: The double product (DP), consisting of the systolic blood pressure (SBP) multiplied by the pulse rate (PR), is an index of myocardial oxygen consumption, but its prognostic value in the general population remains unknown. METHODS: We recorded health outcomes in 9,937 subjects (median age, 53.2 years; 47.3% women) randomly recruited from 11 populations and enrolled in the International Database on Ambulatory blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes (IDACO) study. We obtained the SBP, PR, and DP for these subjects as determined through 24-hour ambulatory monitoring. RESULTS: Over a median period of 11.0 years, 1,388 of the 9,937 study subjects died, of whom 536 and 794, respectively, died of cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV causes, and a further 1,161, 658, 494, and 465 subjects, respectively, experienced a CV, cardiac, coronary, or cerebrovascular event. In multivariate-adjusted Cox models, not including SBP and PR, DP predicted total, CV, and non-CV mortality (standardized hazard ratio [HR], ≥ 1.10; P ≤ 0.02), and all CV, cardiac, coronary, and stroke events (HR, ≥ 1.21; P < 0.0001). For CV mortality (HR, 1.34 vs. 1.30; P = 0.71) and coronary events (1.28 vs. 1.21; P = 0.26), SBP and the DP were equally predictive. As compared with DP, SBP was a stronger predictor of all CV events (1.39 vs. 1.27; P = 0.002) and stroke (1.61 vs. 1.36; P < 0.0001), and a slightly stronger predictor of cardiac events (1.32 vs. 1.22; P = 0.06). In fully adjusted models, including both SBP and PR, the predictive value of DP disappeared for fatal endpoints (P ≥ 0.07), coronary events (P = 0.06), and stroke (P = 0.12), or DP was even inversely associated with the risk of all CV and cardiac events (both P ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSION: In the general population, we did not observe DP to add to risk stratification over and beyond SBP and PR.

Risk stratification by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure and estimated glomerular filtration rate in 5322 subjects from 11 populations.

No previous study addressed whether in the general population estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR [Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration formula]) adds to the prediction of cardiovascular outcome over and beyond ambulatory blood pressure. We recorded health outcomes in 5322 subjects (median age, 51.8 years; 43.1% women) randomly recruited from 11 populations, who had baseline measurements of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (ABP(24)) and eGFR. We computed hazard ratios using multivariable-adjusted Cox regression. Median follow-up was 9.3 years. In fully adjusted models, which included both ABP(24) and eGFR, ABP(24) predicted (P≤0.008) both total (513 deaths) and cardiovascular (206) mortality; eGFR only predicted cardiovascular mortality (P=0.012). Furthermore, ABP(24) predicted (P≤0.0056) fatal combined with nonfatal events as a result of all cardiovascular causes (555 events), cardiac disease (335 events), or stroke (218 events), whereas eGFR only predicted the composite cardiovascular end point and stroke (P≤0.035). The interaction terms between ABP(24) and eGFR were all nonsignificant (P≥0.082). For cardiovascular mortality, the composite cardiovascular end point, and stroke, ABP(24) added 0.35%, 1.17%, and 1.00% to the risk already explained by cohort, sex, age, body mass index, smoking and drinking, previous cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and antihypertensive drug treatment. Adding eGFR explained an additional 0.13%, 0.09%, and 0.14%, respectively. Sensitivity analyses stratified for ethnicity, sex, and the presence of hypertension or chronic kidney disease (eGFR <60 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)) were confirmatory. In conclusion, in the general population, eGFR predicts fewer end points than ABP(24). Relative to ABP(24), eGFR is as an additive, not a multiplicative, risk factor and refines risk stratification 2- to 14-fold less.

24-Hour ambulatory blood pressure associates inversely with prostaglandin F(2α), interleukin-6 and F(2)-isoprostane formation in a Swedish population of older men.

Vasoconstrictive prostaglandins (PGs), such as PGF(2α), F(2)-isoprostanes, and systemic inflammation may be involved in the physiological regulation of blood pressure (BP) and the pathophysiology leading to hypertension. However, studies evaluating these parameters and BP in human populations are sparse. We analysed the cross-sectional associations between 24-hour ambulatory BP and urinary 15-keto-dihydro-PGF(2α) (indicator of PG-mediated vasoconstriction and inflammation), plasma interleukin-6 (IL-6), C-reactive protein (CRP), serum amyloid A (SAA) and urinary F(2)-isoprostanes (indicator of vasoconstriction and oxidative stress) in 619 men in a Swedish older population (Uppsala Longitudinal Study of Adult Men, age 78 years). Both systolic and diastolic 24-hour BP correlated inversely with concentrations of 15-keto-dihydro-PGF(2α) (P<0.01) and F(2)-isoprostanes (P<0.01) independent on other cardiovascular risk factors. Additionally, diastolic 24-hour BP inversely correlated with plasma IL-6 (P<0.05) and 24-hour pulse pressure showed a positive linear correlation with IL-6, CRP and SAA. In conclusion, high BP is associated with decreased formation of vasoconstrictive PGF(2α) and F(2)-isoprostanes in this population of older men. These findings, although unlike our original hypothesis, might have an important physiological function which needs to be further evaluated.

Significance of white-coat hypertension in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension: a meta-analysis using the International Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes population.

The significance of white-coat hypertension in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension remains poorly understood. We analyzed subjects from the population-based 11-country International Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes database who had daytime ambulatory blood pressure (BP; ABP) and conventional BP (CBP) measurements. After excluding persons with diastolic hypertension by CBP (≥90 mm Hg) or by daytime ABP (≥85 mm Hg), a history of cardiovascular disease, and persons <18 years of age, the present analysis totaled 7295 persons, of whom 1593 had isolated systolic hypertension. During a median follow-up of 10.6 years, there was a total of 655 fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events. The analyses were stratified by treatment status. In untreated subjects, those with white-coat hypertension (CBP ≥140/<90 mm Hg and ABP <135/<85 mm Hg) and subjects with normal BP (CBP <140/<90 mm Hg and ABP <135/<85 mm Hg) were at similar risk (adjusted hazard rate: 1.17 [95% CI: 0.87-1.57]; P=0.29). Furthermore, in treated subjects with isolated systolic hypertension, the cardiovascular risk was similar in elevated conventional and normal daytime systolic BP as compared with those with normal conventional and normal daytime BPs (adjusted hazard rate: 1.10 [95% CI: 0.79-1.53]; P=0.57). However, both treated isolated systolic hypertension subjects with white-coat hypertension (adjusted hazard rate: 2.00; [95% CI: 1.43-2.79]; P<0.0001) and treated subjects with normal BP (adjusted hazard rate: 1.98 [95% CI: 1.49-2.62]; P<0.0001) were at higher risk as compared with untreated normotensive subjects. In conclusion, subjects with sustained hypertension who have their ABP normalized on antihypertensive therapy but with residual white-coat effect by CBP measurement have an entity that we have termed, "treated normalized hypertension." Therefore, one should be cautious in applying the term "white-coat hypertension" to persons receiving antihypertensive treatment.

Are blood pressure and diabetes additive or synergistic risk factors? Outcome in 8494 subjects randomly recruited from 10 populations.

It remains unknown whether diabetes and high blood pressure (BP) are simply additive risk factors for cardiovascular outcome or whether they act synergistically and potentiate one another. We performed 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring in 8494 subjects (mean age, 54.6 years; 47.0% women; 6.9% diabetic patients) enrolled in prospective population studies in 10 countries. In multivariable-adjusted Cox regression, we assessed the additive as opposed to the synergistic effects of BP and diabetes in relation to a composite cardiovascular endpoint by testing the significance of appropriate interaction terms. During 10.6 years (median follow-up), 1066 participants had a cardiovascular complication. Diabetes mellitus as well as the 24-h ambulatory BP were independent and powerful predictors of the composite cardiovascular endpoint. However, there was no synergistic interaction between diabetes and 24-h, daytime, or nighttime, systolic or diastolic ambulatory BP (P for interaction, 0.07P0.97). The only exception was a borderline synergistic effect between diabetes and daytime diastolic BP in relation to the composite cardiovascular endpoint (P=0.04). In diabetic patients, with normotension as the reference group, the adjusted hazard ratios for the cardiovascular endpoint were 1.35 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.87-2.11) for white-coat hypertension, 1.78 (95% CI, 1.22-2.60) for masked hypertension and 2.44 (95% CI, 1.92-3.11) for sustained hypertension. The hazard ratios for non-diabetic subjects were not different from those of diabetic patients (P-values for interaction, 0.09P0.72). In conclusion, in a large international population-based database, both diabetes mellitus and BP contributed equally to the risk of cardiovascular complications without evidence for a synergistic effect.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in 9357 subjects from 11 populations highlights missed opportunities for cardiovascular prevention in women.

To analyze sex-specific relative and absolute risks associated with blood pressure (BP), we performed conventional and 24-hour ambulatory BP measurements in 9357 subjects (mean age, 52.8 years; 47% women) recruited from 11 populations. We computed standardized multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios for associations between outcome and systolic BP. During a course of 11.2 years (median), 1245 participants died, 472 of cardiovascular causes. The number of fatal combined with nonfatal events was 1080, 525, and 458 for cardiovascular and cardiac events and for stroke, respectively. In women and men alike, systolic BP predicted outcome, irrespective of the type of BP measurement. Women compared with men were at lower risk (hazard ratios for death and all cardiovascular events=0.66 and 0.62, respectively; P<0.001). However, the relation of all cardiovascular events with 24-hour BP (P=0.020) and the relations of total mortality (P=0.023) and all cardiovascular (P=0.0013), cerebrovascular (P=0.045), and cardiac (P=0.034) events with nighttime BP were steeper in women than in men. Consequently, per a 1-SD decrease, the proportion of potentially preventable events was higher in women than in men for all cardiovascular events (35.9% vs 24.2%) in relation to 24-hour systolic BP (1-SD, 13.4 mm Hg) and for all-cause mortality (23.1% vs 12.3%) and cardiovascular (35.1% vs 19.4%), cerebrovascular (38.3% vs 25.9%), and cardiac (31.0% vs 16.0%) events in relation to systolic nighttime BP (1-SD, 14.1 mm Hg). In conclusion, although absolute risks associated with systolic BP were lower in women than men, our results reveal a vast and largely unused potential for cardiovascular prevention by BP-lowering treatment in women.

Prognostic value of isolated nocturnal hypertension on ambulatory measurement in 8711 individuals from 10 populations.

BACKGROUND: We and other investigators previously reported that isolated nocturnal hypertension on ambulatory measurement (INH) clustered with cardiovascular risk factors and was associated with intermediate target organ damage. We investigated whether INH might also predict hard cardiovascular endpoints. METHODS AND RESULTS: We monitored blood pressure (BP) throughout the day and followed health outcomes in 8711 individuals randomly recruited from 10 populations (mean age 54.8 years, 47.0% women). Of these, 577 untreated individuals had INH (daytime BP <135/85 mmHg and night-time BP ≥120/70 mmHg) and 994 untreated individuals had isolated daytime hypertension on ambulatory measurement (IDH; daytime BP ≥135/85 mmHg and night-time BP <120/70 mmHg). During follow-up (median 10.7 years), 1284 deaths (501 cardiovascular) occurred and 1109 participants experienced a fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular event. In multivariable-adjusted analyses, compared with normotension (n = 3837), INH was associated with a higher risk of total mortality (hazard ratio 1.29, P = 0.045) and all cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 1.38, P = 0.037). IDH was associated with increases in all cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 1.46, P = 0.0019) and cardiac endpoints (hazard ratio 1.53, P = 0.0061). Of 577 patients with INH, 457 were normotensive (<140/90 mmHg) on office BP measurement. Hazard ratios associated with INH with additional adjustment for office BP were 1.31 (P = 0.039) and 1.38 (P = 0.044) for total mortality and all cardiovascular events, respectively. After exclusion of patients with office hypertension, these hazard ratios were 1.17 (P = 0.31) and 1.48 (P = 0.034). CONCLUSION: INH predicts cardiovascular outcome in patients who are normotensive on office or on ambulatory daytime BP measurement.

Prognostic value of reading-to-reading blood pressure variability over 24 hours in 8938 subjects from 11 populations.

In previous studies, of which several were underpowered, the relation between cardiovascular outcome and blood pressure (BP) variability was inconsistent. We followed health outcomes in 8938 subjects (mean age: 53.0 years; 46.8% women) randomly recruited from 11 populations. At baseline, we assessed BP variability from the SD and average real variability in 24-hour ambulatory BP recordings. We computed standardized hazard ratios (HRs) while stratifying by cohort and adjusting for 24-hour BP and other risk factors. Over 11.3 years (median), 1242 deaths (487 cardiovascular) occurred, and 1049, 577, 421, and 457 participants experienced a fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular, cardiac, or coronary event or a stroke. Higher diastolic average real variability in 24-hour ambulatory BP recordings predicted (Por=1.07) with the exception of cardiac and coronary events (HR: or=0.58). Higher systolic average real variability in 24-hour ambulatory BP recordings predicted (P<0.05) total (HR: 1.11) and cardiovascular (HR: 1.16) mortality and all fatal combined with nonfatal end points (HR: >or=1.07), with the exception of cardiac and coronary events (HR: or=0.54). SD predicted only total and cardiovascular mortality. While accounting for the 24-hour BP level, average real variability in 24-hour ambulatory BP recordings added <1% to the prediction of a cardiovascular event. Sensitivity analyses considering ethnicity, sex, age, previous cardiovascular disease, antihypertensive treatment, number of BP readings per recording, or the night:day BP ratio were confirmatory. In conclusion, in a large population cohort, which provided sufficient statistical power, BP variability assessed from 24-hour ambulatory recordings did not contribute much to risk stratification over and beyond 24-hour BP.

Determinants of the ambulatory arterial stiffness index in 7604 subjects from 6 populations.

The ambulatory arterial stiffness index (AASI) is derived from 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure recordings. We investigated whether the goodness-of-fit of the AASI regression line in individual subjects (r(2)) impacts on the association of AASI with established determinants of the relation between diastolic and systolic blood pressures. We constructed the International Database on the Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes (7604 participants from 6 countries). AASI was unity minus the regression slope of diastolic on systolic blood pressure in individual 24-hour ambulatory recordings. AASI correlated positively with age and 24-hour mean arterial pressure and negatively with body height and 24-hour heart rate. The single correlation coefficients and the mutually adjusted partial regression coefficients of AASI with age, height, 24-hour mean pressure, and 24-hour heart rate increased from the lowest to the highest quartile of r(2). These findings were consistent in dippers and nondippers (night:day ratio of systolic pressure >or=0.90), women and men, and in Europeans, Asians, and South Americans. The cumulative z score for the association of AASI with these determinants of the relation between diastolic and systolic blood pressures increased curvilinearly with r(2), with most of the improvement in the association occurring above the 20th percentile of r(2) (0.36). In conclusion, a better fit of the AASI regression line enhances the statistical power of analyses involving AASI as marker of arterial stiffness. An r(2) value of 0.36 might be a threshold in sensitivity analyses to improve the stratification of cardiovascular risk.