Why the study?
Does short-term blood pressure variability predict cardiovascular events in patients with systolic heart failure?
Does short-term blood pressure variability predict cardiovascular events in patients with systolic heart failure?
Lower daytime systolic blood pressure variability (<19 mmHg) is an independent predictor of adverse cardiovascular events in patients with systolic heart failure.
Lower daytime BPV independently predicts events in systolic HF; observational data leave open its role in risk stratification.
BACKGROUND: Traditional cardiovascular risk factors in the general population are usually correlated to a better prognosis in patients with chronic heart failure (HF). Most of the studies show that blood pressure variability (BPV) has noxious effect on general population but data are missing for patients with systolic HF. The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic impact of short-term blood pressure variability (BPV) in systolic HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively studied 288 patients (60 ± 12 years-old; 79 % male) referred to our tertiary center of HF for the management of their systolic HF (left ventricular ejection fraction was 28 ± 9 %). All patients underwent ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (systolic BP: 110 ± 15; diastolic BP: 68 ± 10 and pulse pressure: 42 ± 11 mmHg) and the prognostic impact of BPV was collected with a mean follow-up of 4.4 ± 3.1 years. Twenty-five (9 %) patients were missing for follow-up. Among the others patients, 70 (27 %) cardiovascular events (cardiac deaths: 24 %; heart transplantation: 2 %) were recorded. By multivariate analysis BPV daytime (OR = 0.963, p = 0.033) and severe NYHA class (OR = 5.2, p < 0.0001) were found as independent predictors of cardiac event. Patients with a systolic daytime BPV under a cut-off value of 19 mmHg had the poorest prognosis with an OR for cumulative events of 1.65 (IC95 % 1.1-2.7; p < 0.04). CONCLUSION: BPV is simple tool and a predictor of cardiac events in patients with systolic HF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Berry et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: