Longitudinal Changes in Vascular Risk Markers and Mortality Rates among a Latino Population with Hypertension.

Vascular markers such as pulse-wave velocity and carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) might improve the prediction of incident cardiovascular disease beyond traditional risk factors. These vascular markers have not been well characterized in minority populations and might be more useful than inflammatory biomarkers. We conducted a prospective, longitudinal cohort study among hypertensive patients in an urban safety-net hospital. We evaluated inflammatory biomarkers, arterial pulse-wave velocity, and carotid intima-media thickness at baseline, 1 year, and 2 years. The primary outcome variable was CIMT. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to evaluate associations between CIMT and predictive variables accounting for the correlation of multiple measurements within subjects over time. For our secondary outcome, we used administrative and National Death Index data to determine all-cause death, and univariate relationships were evaluated. Among 175 subjects, 117 were Latino (67%) and 117 were female (67%). Pulse-wave velocity and CIMT regressed over time (both P <0.001) and were highly correlated (P <0.001). Only pulse-wave velocity (P=0.002) and total cholesterol (P=0.03) were associated with CIMT in time-varying covariate analysis. At a median follow-up period of 80 months, 17 of 175 subjects had died (10%). Higher baseline CIMT and pulse-wave velocity were associated with increased mortality rates (both P <0.01). No serum inflammatory marker was significantly correlated with longitudinal changes in CIMT or death. In conclusion, both arterial stiffness and preclinical carotid atherosclerosis were associated with increased mortality rates and might be useful risk-stratification markers among this minority population.

Is 60 the New 80 in Hypertension?

Since the release of the "2014 evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8)", much controversy has ensued over the appropriate systolic blood pressure goal for those over the age of 60 years. This guideline suggested liberalizing the target for this population to <150 mmHg, moving away from previous guidelines suggesting a target of <140 mmHg. While some national quality measures have accepted the new relaxed blood pressure goal, the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology have not. Recently published data show that millions of adults over 60 years of age would be classified as controlled using a threshold of <150 mmHg, but not with a target of <140 mmHg. In addition, emerging randomized trial evidence suggests that targeting a systolic blood pressure well below 140 mmHg is beneficial in older adults. In light of the improved health and vitality of older adults, and the steady decline in cardiovascular and cerebrovascular mortality over recent decades, we do not think it is in good judgment to liberalize the treatment target in adults less than 80 years of age.