Key result
Stage 2 hypertension is linked to ~54% higher fatal CVD risk vs normal BP.
Why the study?
Does a lower hypertension cut-off (Stage 1) predict fatal cardiovascular disease events in community-dwelling adults compared to normal blood pressure?
Cohort (n=11,603)
Does a lower hypertension cut-off (Stage 1) predict fatal cardiovascular disease events in community-dwelling adults compared to normal blood pressure?
Hazard Ratio: 1.54 (95% CI 1.04–2.28)
p-value: p=0.03
Applying the 2017 ACC/AHA hypertension cut-offs significantly increased disease prevalence without identifying a group at statistically increased risk for cardiovascular mortality, questioning the utility of the lower Stage 1 threshold.
Questions utility of Stage 1 threshold for mortality prediction; leaves open whether lower cut-offs improve risk stratification in community cohorts.
AIMS: To investigate the clinical value of a lower blood pressure (BP) cut-off for Stage 1 (S1) hypertension (130-139 mmHg systolic or 80-89 mmHg diastolic) in comparison to the currently established Stage 2 (S2) cut-off (≥140/90 mmHg) in a population-based cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed the hypertension prevalence and associated cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in a sample of 11 603 participants (52% men, 48% women; mean 47.6 years) from the MONICA/KORA prospective study. The implementation of the new S1 cut-off increased the prevalence of hypertension from 34% to 63%. Only 24% of S2 hypertension patients were under treatment. Within a follow-up period of 10 years (70 148 person-years), 370 fatal CVD events were observed. The adjusted CVD-specific mortality rate per 1000 persons was 1.61 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-2.25] cases in S2 and 1.07 (95% CI 0.71-1.64) cases in S1 hypertension in comparison to normal BP. Cox proportional regression models were significant for the association of S2 and CVD mortality (1.54, 95% CI 1.04-2.28, P = 0.03), also in the presence of competing risks (1.47, P = 0.05). However, statistical significance for S1 hypertension was not reached (0.93, 95% CI 0.61-1.44, P = 0.76). Among S2 participants, there was a significantly higher prevalence of depressed-mood in treated patients (47%) in comparison to non-treated patients (33%) (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The lower BP cut-off substantially increased hypertension prevalence, while capturing a population with lower CVD mortality. Additionally, participants under treatment were more likely to have depressed-mood in comparison to non-treated participants, which might reflect a negative labelling effect.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Atasoy et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Hypertension (n=11,603). Stage 2 hypertension (≥140/90 mmHg) and Stage 1 hypertension (130-139/80-89 mmHg) vs. Normal blood pressure (<120/80 mmHg) was evaluated on Fatal cardiovascular disease (CVD) events (HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.04-2.28, p=0.03). Stage 2 hypertension was significantly associated with a 54% increased risk of fatal cardiovascular events (HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.04-2.28, p=0.03) compared to normal blood pressure, whereas Stage 1 hypertension showed no significant association.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: