Key result
A disrupted circadian blood pressure rhythm (riser pattern) was significantly associated with a higher overall cardiovascular disease risk compared with a normal circadian rhythm (HR 1.48; 95% CI 1.05-2.08; P=0.024).
Why the study?
Ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring parameters predict cardiovascular events better than office blood pressure, but robust data and information on heart failure risk are lacking.
Do nighttime systolic blood pressure levels and a riser pattern increase the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with cardiovascular risk factors?
Population
6,359 patients with at least 1 cardiovascular risk factor free of symptomatic cardiovascular disease
Comparison
Nocturnal hypertension and nighttime BP dipping patterns assessed by 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring
Design
Practitioner-based nationwide multicenter prospective observational study
Follow-up
Mean 4.5±2.4 years
Authors
Loading...
Supports ABPM for risk stratification in patients with CV factors; hypothesis-generating and leaves open whether targeting riser pattern improves outcomes.
Observational (n=6,359)
Yes
Do nighttime systolic blood pressure levels and a riser pattern increase the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with cardiovascular risk factors?
Hazard Ratio: 1.48 (95% CI 1.05–2.08)
p-value: p=0.024
Nighttime systolic blood pressure and a riser pattern on ambulatory monitoring are independent predictors of cardiovascular events, particularly heart failure, in patients with cardiovascular risk factors.
Kario et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Hypertension and cardiovascular risk factors (n=6,359). Disrupted circadian BP rhythm (riser pattern) vs. Normal circadian rhythm was evaluated on Overall cardiovascular disease risk (HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.05-2.08, p=0.024). A disrupted circadian blood pressure rhythm (riser pattern) was significantly associated with a higher overall cardiovascular disease risk compared with a normal circadian rhythm (HR 1.48; 95% CI 1.05-2.08; P=0.024).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: