A1 Vertaisarvioitu alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä lehdessä
Risk Associated with Pulse Pressure on Out-of-Office Blood Pressure Measurement
Tekijät: Gu YM, Aparicio LS, Liu YP, Asayama K, Hansen TW, Niiranen TJ, Boggia J, Thijs L, Staessen JA
Kustantaja: KARGER
Julkaisuvuosi: 2014
Journal: Pulse
Tietokannassa oleva lehden nimi: PULSE
Lehden akronyymi: PULSE
Vuosikerta: 2
Aloitussivu: 42
Lopetussivu: 51
ISSN: 2235-8676
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000369192
Tiivistelmä
Background: Longitudinal studies have demonstrated that the risk of cardiovascular disease increases with pulse pressure (PP). However, PP remains an elusive cardiovascular risk factor with findings being inconsistent between studies. The 2013 ESH/ESC guideline proposed that PP is useful in stratification and suggested a threshold of 60 mm Hg, which is 10 mm Hg higher compared to that in the 2007 guideline; however, no justification for this increase was provided. Methodology: Published thresholds of PP are based on office blood pressure measurement and often on arbitrary categorical analyses. In the International Database on Ambulatory blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes (IDACO) and the International Database on HOme blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcome (IDHOCO), we determined outcome-driven thresholds for PP based on ambulatory or home blood pressure measurement, respectively. Results: The main findings were that for people aged < 60 years, PP did not refine risk stratification, whereas in older people the thresholds were 64 and 76 mm Hg for the ambulatory and home PP, respectively. However, PP provided little added predictive value over and beyond classical risk factors. (C) 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel
Background: Longitudinal studies have demonstrated that the risk of cardiovascular disease increases with pulse pressure (PP). However, PP remains an elusive cardiovascular risk factor with findings being inconsistent between studies. The 2013 ESH/ESC guideline proposed that PP is useful in stratification and suggested a threshold of 60 mm Hg, which is 10 mm Hg higher compared to that in the 2007 guideline; however, no justification for this increase was provided. Methodology: Published thresholds of PP are based on office blood pressure measurement and often on arbitrary categorical analyses. In the International Database on Ambulatory blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes (IDACO) and the International Database on HOme blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcome (IDHOCO), we determined outcome-driven thresholds for PP based on ambulatory or home blood pressure measurement, respectively. Results: The main findings were that for people aged < 60 years, PP did not refine risk stratification, whereas in older people the thresholds were 64 and 76 mm Hg for the ambulatory and home PP, respectively. However, PP provided little added predictive value over and beyond classical risk factors. (C) 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel
Turun yliopiston Tutkimustietojärjestelmän portaali