Why the study?
To assess differences in cardiovascular and bleeding events according to visit-to-visit blood pressure variability in patients with AF on oral anticoagulation.
Does high visit-to-visit blood pressure variability increase the risk of cardiovascular and bleeding events in patients with atrial fibrillation on oral anticoagulation?
Does high visit-to-visit blood pressure variability increase the risk of cardiovascular and bleeding events in patients with atrial fibrillation on oral anticoagulation?
High visit-to-visit blood pressure variability is independently associated with increased risks of major bleeding, myocardial infarction, and heart failure in patients with atrial fibrillation on oral anticoagulation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Higher visit-to-visit SBP variability may signal elevated risk in AF; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
This post hoc analysis of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial assesses differences in cardiovascular and bleeding events according to visit-to-visit blood pressure variability (BPv) in 19,680 patients with a minimum of 4 blood pressure measurements post randomization. Patients were categorized into four groups based on the standard deviation of systolic blood pressure (SBP-SD). In comparisons of the fourth vs first quartile of SBP-SD adjusted for components of the CHA 2 D 2 -VASc score and baseline SBP, there were no differences in the odds of stroke, cardiovascular mortality, or all-cause mortality. However, there were statistically significant increases in the risk of major bleeding (OR 1.9, (1.6–2.25)). myocardial infarction (OR 1.42 (1.08–1.87)) and heart failure outcomes (OR 1.49 (1.3–1.72)) in the fourth quartile of BPv. This post-hoc analysis shows that BPv is independently associated with an increased risk of bleeding, MI, and heart failure outcomes in a population with AF on oral anticoagulation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Proietti et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: