Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
JAMA. 1999 Aug 11;282(6):539-46.

Predicting cardiovascular risk using conventional vs ambulatory blood pressure in older patients with systolic hypertension. Systolic Hypertension in Europe Trial Investigators.

Author information

  • 1Department of Molecular and Cardiovascular Research, University of Louvain, Leuven, Belgium. jan.staessen@med.kuleuven.ac.be

Abstract

CONTEXT:

The clinical use of ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring requires further validation in prospective outcome studies.

OBJECTIVE:

To compare the prognostic significance of conventional and ambulatory BP measurement in older patients with isolated systolic hypertension.

DESIGN:

Substudy to the double-blind placebo-controlled Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial, started in October 1988 with follow up to February 1999. The conventional BP at randomization was the mean of 6 readings (2 measurements in the sitting position at 3 visits 1 month apart). The baseline ambulatory BP was recorded with a noninvasive intermittent technique.

SETTING:

Family practices and outpatient clinics at primary and secondary referral hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS:

A total of 808 older (aged > or =60 years) patients whose untreated BP level on conventional measurement at baseline was 160 to 219 mm Hg systolic and less than 95 mm Hg diastolic.

INTERVENTIONS:

For the overall study, patients were randomized to nitrendipine (n = 415; 10-40 mg/d) with the possible addition of enalapril (5-20 mg/d) and/or hydrochlorothiazide (12.5-25.0 mg/d) or to matching placebos (n = 393).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:

Total and cardiovascular mortality, all cardiovascular end points, fatal and nonfatal stroke, and fatal and nonfatal cardiac end points.

RESULTS:

After adjusting for sex, age, previous cardiovascular complications, smoking, and residence in western Europe, a 10-mm Hg higher conventional systolic BP at randomization was not associated with a worse prognosis, whereas in the placebo group, a 10-mm Hg higher 24-hour BP was associated with an increased relative hazard rate (HR) of most outcome measures (eg, HR, 1.23 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.50] for total mortality and 1.34 [95% CI, 1.03-1.75] for cardiovascular mortality). In the placebo group, the nighttime systolic BP (12 AM-6 AM) more accurately predicted end points than the daytime level. Cardiovascular risk increased with a higher night-to-day ratio of systolic BP independent of the 24-hour BP (10% increase in night-to-day ratio; HR for all cardiovascular end points, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.03-1.94). At randomization, the cardiovascular risk conferred by a conventional systolic BP of 160 mm Hg was similar to that associated with a 24-hour daytime or nighttime systolic BP of 142 mm Hg (95% CI, 128-156 mm Hg), 145 mm Hg (95% CI, 126-164 mm Hg) or 132 mm Hg (95% CI, 120-145 mm Hg), respectively. In the active treatment group, systolic BP at randomization did not significantly predict cardiovascular risk, regardless of the technique of BP measurement.

CONCLUSIONS:

In untreated older patients with isolated systolic hypertension, ambulatory systolic BP was a significant predictor of cardiovascular risk over and above conventional BP.

Comment in

PMID:
10450715
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Silverchair Information Systems
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk