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.

Optimal Schedule for Assessing Home BP Variability: The Finn-Home Study.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines make no recommendations on the optimal timing or number of measurements for assessing home blood pressure variability (HBPV). Our aim was to elucidate the optimal schedule for measuring HBPV in relation to cardiovascular risk. METHODS: In total, 1,706 Finnish adults (56.5 ± 8.5 years; 54% women) self-measured their home blood pressure (HBP) twice in the morning and evening during 7 consecutive days. The participants were followed up for cardiovascular events. We examined the association between HBPV (coefficient of variation based on 2 through 7 measurement days) and cardiovascular events using Cox regression models adjusted for HBP and other cardiovascular risk factors. RESULTS: During a follow-up of 11.8 ± 3.1 years, 216 cardiovascular events occurred. Systolic morning HBPV based on three (hazard ratio [HR], 1.039; 95% confidence interval, 1.006-1.074, model c statistic 0.737) through seven (HR, 1.057; 95% confidence interval, 1.012-1.104, model c statistic 0.737) measurement days was significantly associated with cardiovascular events. Agreement in classification to normal vs. increased morning day-to-day HBPV between consecutive measurement days became substantial (κ = 0.69 for systolic and κ = 0.68 for diastolic) after the fourth measurement day. The associations of diastolic HBPV, evening HBPV, all-day HBPV, and variability based on first measurements of each measurement occasion, with cardiovascular outcomes were nonsignificant or remained significant only after the sixth measurement day. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest systolic HBP should be measured twice in the morning for at least 3 days when assessing HBPV. Increasing the number of measurement days from 3 to 7 results in marginal improvement in prognostic accuracy.

Albuminuria and Microalbuminuria as Predictors of Cognitive Performance in a General Population: An 11-Year Follow-Up Study.

Microalbuminuria, defined as urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR)>3.0 mg/mmol and ≤ 30 mg/mmol, is an early marker of endothelial damage of the renal glomeruli. Recent research suggests an association among microalbuminuria, albuminuria (UACR > 3.0 mg/mmol), and cognitive impairment. Previous studies on microalbuminuria, albuminuria, and cognition in the middle-aged have not provided repeated cognitive testing at different time-points. We hypothesized that albuminuria (micro- plus macroalbuminuria) and microalbuminuria would predict cognitive decline independently of previously reported risk factors for cognitive decline, including cardiovascular risk factors. In addition, we hypothesized that UACR levels even below the cut-off for microalbuminuria might be associated with cognitive functioning. These hypotheses were tested in the Finnish nationwide, population-based Health 2000 Survey (n = 5,921, mean age 52.6, 55.0% women), and its follow-up, Health 2011 (n = 3,687, mean age at baseline 49.3, 55.6% women). Linear regression analysis was used to determine the associations between measures of albuminuria and cognitive performance. Cognitive functions were assessed with verbal fluency, word-list learning, word-list delayed recall (at baseline and at follow-up), and with simple and visual choice reaction time tests (at baseline only). Here, we show that micro- plus macroalbuminuria associated with poorer word-list learning and a slower reaction time at baseline, with poorer word-list learning at follow-up, and with a steeper decline in word-list learning during 11 years after multivariate adjustments. Also, higher continuous UACR consistently associated with poorer verbal fluency at levels below microalbuminuria. These results suggest that UACR might have value in evaluating the risk for cognitive decline.

Outcome-Driven Thresholds for Increased Home Blood Pressure Variability.

Increased blood pressure (BP) variability predicts cardiovascular disease, but lack of operational thresholds limits its use in clinical practice. Our aim was to define outcome-driven thresholds for increased day-to-day home BP variability. We studied a population-based sample of 6238 individuals (mean age 60.0±12.9, 56.4% women) from Japan, Greece, and Finland. All participants self-measured their home BP on ≥3 days. We defined home BP variability as the coefficient of variation of the first morning BPs on 3 to 7 days. We assessed the association between systolic/diastolic BP variability (as a continuous variable and in deciles of coefficient of variation) and cardiovascular outcomes using Cox regression models adjusted for cohort and classical cardiovascular risk factors, including BP. During a follow-up of 9.3±3.6 years, 304 cardiovascular deaths and 715 cardiovascular events occurred. A 1 SD increase in systolic/diastolic home BP variability was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio, 1.17/1.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.30/1.11-1.34; P=0.003/<0.0001) and cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 1.13/1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.21/1.07-1.23; P=0.0007/0.0002). Compared with the average risk in the whole population, risk of cardiovascular deaths (hazard ratio, 1.66/1.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.17/1.42-2.37; P=0.0002/<0.0001) and events (hazard ratio, 1.46/1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.76/1.17-1.71; P<0.0001/0.0004) was increased in the highest decile of systolic/diastolic BP variability (coefficient of variation>11.0/12.8). Increased home BP variability predicts cardiovascular outcomes in the general population. Individuals with a systolic/diastolic coefficient of variation of day-to-day home BP >11.0/12.8 may have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. These findings could help physicians identify individuals who are at an increased cardiovascular disease risk.

The association between home vs. ambulatory night-time blood pressure and end-organ damage in the general population.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test the agreement between night-time home and night-time ambulatory blood pressure (BP) and to compare their associations with hypertensive end-organ damage for the first time in the general population. METHODS: A population sample of 248 participants underwent measurements for night-time home BP (three measurements on two nights with a timer-equipped home device), night-time ambulatory BP, pulse wave velocity (PWV), carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) and echocardiographic left ventricular mass index (LVMI). RESULTS: No significant or systematic differences were observed between mean night-time ambulatory and home BPs (systolic/diastolic difference: 0.7 ±â€Š7.6/0.2 ±â€Š6.0 mmHg, P = 0.16/0.64). All night-time home and ambulatory BPs were positively correlated with PWV, IMT and LVMI (P < 0.01 for all). No significant differences in Pearson's correlations between end-organ damage and night-time home or ambulatory BP were observed (P ≥ 0.11 for all comparisons using Dunn and Clark's Z), except for a slightly stronger correlation between PWV and ambulatory SBP than for home SBP (r = 0.57 vs. 0.50, P = 0.03). The adjusted R of all multivariable-adjusted models for PWV, IMT or LVMI that included night-time home or ambulatory SBP/DBP were within 2/1%. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that night-time home and ambulatory measurements produce similar BP values that have comparable associations with end-organ damage in the general population even when a clinically feasible measurement protocol is used for measuring night-time home BP. In the future, night-time home BP measurement may offer a feasible and easily accessible alternative to ambulatory monitoring for the measurement of night-time BP.

Health 2000 score - development and validation of a novel cardiovascular risk score.

BACKGROUND: Previous risk scores for predicting myocardial infarctions and strokes have mainly been based on conventional risk factors. We aimed to develop a novel improved risk score that would incorporate other widely available clinical variables for predicting the broadest range of endpoints, including revascularizations. METHODS: A nationwide sample of 5843 Finns underwent a clinical examination in 2000-2001. The participants were followed for a median of 11.2 years for incident cardiovascular events. Model discrimination and calibration were assessed and internal validation was performed. RESULTS: Sex, age, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, smoking status, parental death from cardiovascular disease, left ventricular hypertrophy, hemoglobin A1c, and educational level remained significant predictors of cardiovascular events (p ≤ 0.005 for all). The share of participants with ≥10% estimated cardiovascular risk was 28.9%, 18.5%, 36.9% and 23.8% with the Health 2000, Finrisk, Framingham and Reynolds risk scores. The Health 2000 score (c-statistic: 0.850) showed superior discrimination to the Framingham (c-statistic improvement: 0.021) and Reynolds (c-statistic improvement: 0.007) scores (p < 0.001 for both comparisons). Model including left ventricular hypertrophy, hemoglobin A1c, and educational level improved the model prediction (c-statistic improvement: 0.006, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The Health 2000score improves cardiovascular risk prediction in the current study population. KEY MESSAGES Previous risk scores for predicting myocardial infarctions and strokes have mainly been based on conventional risk factors. We aimed to develop a novel improved risk score that would incorporate other widely available clinical variables (including left ventricular hypertrophy, hemoglobin A1c, and education level) for predicting the broadest range of endpoints, including revascularizations. The Health 2000 score improved cardiovascular risk prediction in the current study population compared with traditional cardiovascular risk prediction scores.

Relationship between office and home blood pressure with increasing age: The International Database of HOme blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcome (IDHOCO).

Home blood pressure (HBP) measurements are known to be lower than conventional office blood pressure (OBP) measurements. However, this difference might not be consistent across the entire age range and has not been adequately investigated. We assessed the relationship between OBP and HBP with increasing age using the International Database of HOme blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcome (IDHOCO). OBP, HBP and their difference were assessed across different decades of age. A total of 5689 untreated subjects aged 18-97 years, who had at least two OBP and HBP measurements, were included. Systolic OBP and HBP increased across older age categories (from 112 to 142 mm Hg and from 109 to 136 mm Hg, respectively), with OBP being higher than HBP by ∼7 mm Hg in subjects aged >30 years and lesser in younger subjects (P=0.001). Both diastolic OBP and HBP increased until the age of ∼50 years (from 71 to 79 mm Hg and from 66 to 76 mm Hg, respectively), with OBP being consistently higher than HBP and a trend toward a decreased OBP-HBP difference with aging (P<0.001). Determinants of a larger OBP-HBP difference were younger age, sustained hypertension, nonsmoking and negative cardiovascular disease history. These data suggest that in the general adult population, HBP is consistently lower than OBP across all the decades, but their difference might vary between age groups. Further research is needed to confirm these findings in younger and older subjects and in hypertensive individuals.

Prevalence and Determinants of Masked Hypertension Among Black Nigerians Compared With a Reference Population.

Hitherto, diagnosis of hypertension in sub-Saharan Africa was largely based on conventional office blood pressure (BP). Data on the prevalence of masked hypertension (MH) in this region is scarce. Among individuals with normal office BP (<140/90 mm Hg), we compared the prevalence and determinants of MH diagnosed with self-monitored home blood pressure (≥135/85 mm Hg) among 293 Nigerians with a reference population consisting of 3615 subjects enrolled in the International Database on Home Blood Pressure in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes. In the reference population, the prevalence of MH was 14.6% overall and 11.1% and 39.6% in untreated and treated participants, respectively. Among Nigerians, the prevalence standardized to the sex and age distribution of the reference population was similar with rates of 14.4%, 8.6%, and 34.6%, respectively. The mutually adjusted odds ratios of having MH in Nigerians were 2.34 (95% confidence interval, 1.39-3.94) for a 10-year higher age, 1.92 (1.11-3.31) and 1.70 (1.14-2.53) for 10- or 5-mm Hg increments in systolic or diastolic office BP, and 3.05 (1.08-8.55) for being on antihypertensive therapy. The corresponding estimates in the reference population were similar with odds ratios of 1.80 (1.62-2.01), 1.64 (1.45-1.87), 1.13 (1.05-1.22), and 2.84 (2.21-3.64), respectively. In conclusion, MH is as common in Nigerians as in other populations with older age and higher levels of office BP being major risk factors. A significant proportion of true hypertensive subjects therefore remains undetected based on office BP, which is particularly relevant in sub-Saharan Africa, where hypertension is now a major cause of death.

Agreement between ambulatory, home, and office blood pressure variability.

OBJECTIVE: Ambulatory, home, and office blood pressure (BP) variability are often treated as a single entity. Our aim was to assess the agreement between these three methods for measuring BP variability. METHODS: Twenty-four-hour ambulatory BP monitoring, 28 home BP measurements, and eight office BP measurements were performed on 461 population-based or hypertensive participants. Five variability indices were calculated for all measurement methods: SD, coefficient of variation, maximum-minimum difference, variability independent of the mean, and average real variability. Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated for indices measured with different methods. The agreement between different measurement methods on the diagnoses of extreme BP variability (participants in the highest decile of variability) was assessed with kappa (κ) coefficients. RESULTS: SBP/DBP variability was greater in daytime (coefficient of variation: 9.8 ±â€Š2.9/11.9 ±â€Š3.6) and night-time ambulatory measurements (coefficient of variation: 8.6 ±â€Š3.4/12.1 ±â€Š4.5) than in home (coefficient of variation: 4.4 ±â€Š1.8/4.7 ±â€Š1.9) and office (coefficient of variation: 4.6 ±â€Š2.4/5.2 ±â€Š2.6) measurements (P < 0.001/0.001 for all). Pearson's correlation coefficients for systolic/diastolic daytime or night-time ambulatory-home, ambulatory-office, and home-office variability indices ranged between 0.07-0.25/0.12-0.23, 0.13-0.26/0.03-0.22 and 0.13-0.24/0.10-0.19, respectively, indicating, at most, a weak positive (r < 0.3) relationship. The agreement between measurement methods on diagnoses of extreme SBP/DBP variability was only slight (κ < 0.2), with the κ coefficients for daytime and night-time ambulatory-home, ambulatory-office, and home-office agreement varying between-0.014-0.20/0.061-0.15, 0.037-0.18/0.082-0.15, and 0.082-0.13/0.045-0.15, respectively. CONCLUSION: Shorter-term and longer-term BP variability assessed by different methods of BP measurement seem to correlate only weakly with each other. Our study suggests that BP variability measured by different methods and timeframes may reflect different phenomena, not a single entity.

The impact of the day of the week on home blood pressure: the Finn-Home study.

OBJECTIVE: The impact of the day of the week on home blood pressure (BP) level and day-to-day BP profile is unknown. Our objectives were to examine (i) how the initial measurement day of the week affects 3-day and 7-day mean home BP and (ii) the BP variation between different days of the week. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: The study included a population sample of 1852 participants aged 44-74 years. Home BP was measured twice in the morning and evening on 7 consecutive days. The days of the week on which home BP was measured were recorded. BP means were compared with analysis of variance and the t-test. RESULTS: There were no overall differences in mean systolic/diastolic BPs initiated on various days of the week (3-day means: P=0.15/0.66; 7-day means: P=0.11/0.55). Within-subject systolic/diastolic BP variation between different days of the week was small but significant (128.7±19.2-130.4±19.8/79.5±9.8-80.6±9.9 mmHg; P<0.001/<0.001). Systolic/diastolic BP was lowest during the weekend (Saturday-Sunday: 129.0±18.9/79.6±9.6 mmHg) and highest on Monday (130.4±19.8/80.6±9.9 mmHg), irrespective of the initial measurement day of the week (P for systolic/diastolic difference <0.001/<0.001). In subgroup analyses, the systolic/diastolic BP increase was greater from Saturday-Sunday to Monday among the employed than among the unemployed (1.8/1.3 vs. 0.8/0.7 mmHg; P=0.02/0.01). CONCLUSION: Seven-day home BP measurement can be initiated on any given day of the week. However, if a 3-day measurement is taken, it is recommended to keep in mind that BP is usually the lowest during the weekend, and highest at the beginning of the week, especially among the employed.

Beat-to-beat, ambulatory hour-to-hour, and home day-to-day variabilities in blood pressure, pulse pressure, and heart rate in comparison with each other and with target-organ damage.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare beat-to-beat, ambulatory hour-to-hour, and home day-to-day variability in blood pressure (BP), pulse pressure (PP), and heart rate (HR) with each other and with target-organ damage. METHODS: We studied a population-based sample of Finnish adults including 150 healthy participants aged between 35 and 64 years. Variability in BP and HR was assessed using self-measured morning and evening recordings from seven consecutive days and 24-h ambulatory recordings. Frequency domain measures of beat-to-beat BP variability and baroreflex sensitivity were determined from 5-min time series. The study participants underwent clinical examination, a clinical interview, measurement of urine albumin levels, and echocardiographic examination. RESULTS: Home BP/PP variability parameters and low frequency (LF) power of beat-to-beat BP/PP variability were mainly associated with left ventricular mass index (LVMI) in models adjusted for age, sex, and BP/PP level. The associations of LVMI with PP variability parameters were stronger than the corresponding associations with BP parameters. The associations of PP variability parameters with LVMI were stronger in old than in young individuals. Home BP/PP variability parameters were mainly associated with the LF power of beat-to-beat BP/PP variability in models adjusted for age, sex, and beat-to-beat BP/PP level and the associations were stronger in old than in young individuals. Home HR variability parameters and 24-h hour-to-hour HR variability were mainly associated with LF/high-frequency powers of beat-to-beat HR variability. CONCLUSION: Reading-to-reading BP/PP variability parameters and their corresponding beat-to-beat variability parameters are partially connected, possibly to common regulatory mechanisms. Their prognostic significance in relation to cardiovascular outcome needs further investigation.

Optimal number of days for home blood pressure measurement.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines make no outcome-based recommendations on the optimal measurement schedule for home blood pressure (BP). METHODS: We enrolled 4,802 randomly recruited participants from three populations. The participants were classified by their (i) cross-classification according to office and home BP (normotension, masked hypertension, white-coat hypertension, and sustained hypertension) and (ii) home BP level (normal BP, high normal BP, grade 1 and 2 hypertension), while the number of home measurement days was increased from 1 to 7. The prognostic accuracy of home BP with an increasing number of home BP measurement days was also assessed by multivariable-adjusted Cox models. RESULTS: Agreement in classification between consecutive measurement days indicated near perfect agreement (κ ≥ 0.9) after the sixth measurement day for both office and home BP cross-classification (97.8% maintained classification, κ = 0.97) and home BP level (93.6% maintained classification, κ = 0.91). Over a follow-up of 8.3 years, 568 participants experienced a cardiovascular event, and the first home BP measurement alone predicted events significantly (P ≤ 0.003). The confidence intervals (CIs) were too wide and overlapping to show superiority of multiple measurement days over the first measurement day (hazard ratios per 10mm Hg increase in systolic BP at initial day, 1.11 [CI 1.07-1.16]; that at 1-7 days, 1.18 [CI 1.12-1.24]). Masked hypertension, but not white-coat hypertension, was associated with increased cardiovascular risk, irrespective of the number of home measurement days. CONCLUSION: Even a single home BP measurement is a potent predictor of cardiovascular events, whereas seven home measurement days may be needed to reliably diagnose hypertension.

Thresholds for conventional and home blood pressure by sex and age in 5018 participants from 5 populations.

Whether blood pressure thresholds for hypertension should differ according to sex or age remains debated. We did a subject-level meta-analysis of 5018 people untreated for hypertension and randomly recruited from 5 populations (women, 56.7%; ≥60 years, 42.3%). We used multivariable-adjusted Cox regression and a bootstrap procedure to determine home blood pressure (HBP) levels yielding 10-year cardiovascular risks similar to those associated with established systolic/diastolic thresholds (140-160/80-100 mm Hg) for the conventional blood pressure (CBP). Conversely, we estimated CBP thresholds providing 10-year cardiovascular risks similar to those associated established HBP levels (125-135/80-85 mm Hg). All analyses were stratified for sex and age (<60 versus ≥60 years). During 8.3 years (median), 414 participants experienced a cardiovascular event. The sex differences between HBP thresholds derived from CBP and between CBP thresholds derived from HBP were all nonsignificant (P≥0.24), ranging from -4.6 to 3.6 mm Hg systolic and from -4.3 to 2.1 mm Hg diastolic. The age differences between HBP thresholds derived from CBP and between CBP thresholds derived from HBP ranged from -6.7 to 8.4 mm Hg systolic and from -1.9 to 1.7 mm Hg diastolic and were nonsignificant (P≥0.08), except for HBP thresholds derived from CBP levels of 140 mm Hg systolic and 80 mm Hg diastolic (P≤0.04). Sensitivity analyses based on cardiac or cerebrovascular complications were confirmatory. In conclusion, our findings based on outcome-driven criteria support contemporary guidelines that propose single blood pressure thresholds that can be indiscriminately applied in both sexes and across the age range.

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.

Overall cardiovascular prognosis of isolated systolic hypertension, isolated diastolic hypertension and pulse pressure defined with home measurements: the Finn-home study.

OBJECTIVE: The overall cardiovascular prognosis of isolated systolic hypertension, isolated diastolic hypertension and pulse pressure defined with home blood pressure (BP) measurements remains unclear. METHODS: A prospective nationwide study was initiated in 2000-2001 on 1924 randomly selected participants aged 44-74 years. We determined home and office BP at baseline and classified the individuals into four groups according to their home BP levels: normotension, isolated diastolic hypertension, isolated systolic hypertension and systolic-diastolic hypertension. The primary endpoint was incidence of a composite cardiovascular event. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 11.2 years, 236 individuals had suffered a cardiovascular event. In multivariable Cox proportional hazard models, the relative hazards and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for cardiovascular events were significantly higher in participants with isolated diastolic hypertension (relative hazard 1.95; 95% CI, 1.06-3.57; P=0.03), isolated systolic hypertension (relative hazard 2.08; 95% CI, 1.42-3.05; P<0.001) and systolic-diastolic hypertension (relative hazard 2.79; 95% CI, 2.02-3.86; P<0.001) than in participants with normotension. Home (relative hazard 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05-1.40; P=0.009 per 10 mmHg increase), but not office (relative hazard 1.10; 95% CI, 1.00-1.21, P=0.06) pulse pressure, adjusted for mean arterial pressure, was an independent predictor of cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSION: Isolated diastolic and systolic hypertension defined with home measurements are associated with an increased cardiovascular risk. Close follow-up and possible treatment of these patients is therefore warranted. Home-measured pulse pressure is an independent predictor of cardiovascular events while office-measured pulse pressure is not, which fortifies the view that home BP provides more accurate risk prediction than office BP.

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.

Prognosis of white-coat and masked hypertension: International Database of HOme blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcome.

Home blood pressure monitoring is useful in detecting white-coat and masked hypertension and is recommended for patients with suspected or treated hypertension. The prognostic significance of white-coat and masked hypertension detected by home measurement was investigated in 6458 participants from 5 populations enrolled in the International Database of HOme blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes. During a median follow-up of 8.3 years, 714 fatal plus nonfatal cardiovascular events occurred. Among untreated subjects (n=5007), cardiovascular risk was higher in those with white-coat hypertension (adjusted hazard ratio 1.42; 95% CI [1.06-1.91]; P=0.02), masked hypertension (1.55; 95% CI [1.12-2.14]; P<0.01) and sustained hypertension (2.13; 95% CI [1.66-2.73]; P<0.0001) compared with normotensive subjects. Among treated patients (n=1451), the cardiovascular risk did not differ between those with high office and low home blood pressure (white-coat) and treated controlled subjects (low office and home blood pressure; 1.16; 95% CI [0.79-1.72]; P=0.45). However, treated subjects with masked hypertension (low office and high home blood pressure; 1.76; 95% CI [1.23-2.53]; P=0.002) and uncontrolled hypertension (high office and home blood pressure; 1.40; 95% CI [1.02-1.94]; P=0.04) had higher cardiovascular risk than treated controlled patients. In conclusion, white-coat hypertension assessed by home measurements is a cardiovascular risk factor in untreated but not in treated subjects probably because the latter receive effective treatment on the basis of their elevated office blood pressure. In contrast, masked uncontrolled hypertension is associated with increased cardiovascular risk in both untreated and treated patients, who are probably undertreated because of their low office blood pressure.

Oscillometric and auscultatory blood pressure measurement in the assessment of blood pressure and target organ damage.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to elucidate the usefulness of both the oscillometric blood pressure (OBP) and auscultatory blood pressure (ABP) measurement technique in the assessment of blood pressure (BP) and target organ damage in the general population. METHODS: We studied a sample of the Finnish adult population aged 25-74 years. Four hundred and eighty-four study participants underwent a health examination including measurements of 24-h urine albumin, echocardiographic variables of the left ventricle, intima media thickness and pulse wave velocity. OBP and ABP were measured simultaneously four times by beginning the OBP measurements in random order from the right or left arm and by switching the devices between hands after two measurements. RESULTS: The mean OBP was 126.7/77.4 mmHg and the mean ABP was 124.5/78.0 mmHg. Systolic difference between OBP compared with ABP was large in men. Male sex, higher arm circumference and lower systolic BP were independent determinants explaining the greater difference between systolic OBP compared with ABP. Diabetes, higher arm circumference and higher pulse wave velocity were independent determinants explaining greater difference between diastolic OBP compared with ABP. The correlations of target organ damage between OBP and ABP were equally good. CONCLUSION: At population level OBP and ABP measurements yielded similar results in relation to BP level and the indicators of target organ damage, probably due to the simultaneous and controlled measurement protocol, and to the sample of participants from the general population. It is, however, recommendable to use either OBP or ABP measurements for individual patients to avoid unnecessary interdevice variability.