Why the study?
This study aimed to establish an outcome-derived threshold for central blood pressure and evaluate its clinical utility in stratifying cardiovascular risk.
Does incorporating central blood pressure assessment improve the prediction of cardiovascular risk compared to traditional brachial blood pressure measurement alone in adults without prior cardiovascular disease?
Does incorporating central blood pressure assessment improve the prediction of cardiovascular risk compared to traditional brachial blood pressure measurement alone in adults without prior cardiovascular disease?
Establishing a diagnostic threshold of 135 mmHg for central systolic blood pressure enhances cardiovascular risk prediction beyond traditional brachial blood pressure measurement.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Central BP may refine cardiovascular risk prediction beyond brachial measures; hypothesis-generating pending prospective validation.
AIMS: This study aimed to establish an outcome-derived threshold for central blood pressure (cBP) and evaluate its clinical utility in stratifying cardiovascular (CVD) risk. METHODS AND RESULTS: A retrospective cohort study of 34 289 adults without prior CVD was conducted using the UK Biobank dataset. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular mortality and non-fatal cardiovascular events. Diagnostic threshold for cBP was developed by bootstrap and approximation methods, based on the current brachial BP. Cox regression models were employed to evaluate the clinical utility of diagnostic thresholds for cBP in predicting in CVD. A diagnostic threshold of 135 mmHg for central systolic blood pressure (SBP) corresponded to the threshold of 140 mmHg for brachial SBP. Simultaneous assessment of brachial and central SBP configurated following categories: brachial and central normotension (49.84%), isolated brachial hypertension (2.23%), isolated central hypertension (3.65%) and concordant brachial and central hypertension (44.28%). Compared with concordant normotension, hazard ratios for cardiovascular events were 0.81 (0.45, 1.44) for isolated brachial hypertension, 1.70 (1.23, 2.35) for isolated central hypertension and 1.51 (1.30, 1.76) for concordant hypertension. The inclusion of cBP improved model fit and discrimination for predicting CVD beyond brachial BP alone. CONCLUSION: This study established a diagnostic threshold of 135 mmHg for central SBP. Individuals with central HT exhibited elevated risks of CVD, regardless of brachial HT status. Incorporating central BP enhanced the prediction of CVD risk beyond traditional BP measurement alone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: