Why the study?
Is high within-visit blood pressure variability associated with an increased prevalence of prediabetes and diabetes in a general adult population?
Is high within-visit blood pressure variability associated with an increased prevalence of prediabetes and diabetes in a general adult population?
Increased within-visit blood pressure variability is independently associated with a higher prevalence of prediabetes and diabetes, suggesting it may serve as a simple marker for impaired glycemic control.
High within-visit BPV may mark higher prediabetes/diabetes prevalence; leaves open causal inference and prospective validation before clinical use.
We investigated the associations between within-visit blood pressure variability (BPV) and risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD). The study subjects included 17,795 people aged 40-74 years who underwent health check-ups in Aichi Prefecture, Japan, and completed two blood pressure measurements. Subjects were categorized into three groups according to the difference of systolic blood pressure (ΔSBP), namely, low-BPV (≤ 10 mmHg), moderate-BPV (11-20 mmHg), and high-BPV (> 20 mmHg). Subjects were also divided into three categories as those without prediabetes (glycosylated hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] < 5.7%), prediabetes (HbA1c 5.7-6.4%) and diabetes (HbA1c ≥ 6.5% or under treatment for diabetes). The proportion of prediabetes and diabetes were significantly higher in subjects with high-BPV than in those with low-BPV after adjusting for age, sex, and mean SBP (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] was 1.16 [1.01-1.33] for prediabetes and 1.33 [1.06-1.66] for diabetes). Other CVD risk factors were not associated with high-BPV after the adjustment. In conclusion, increased within-visit BPV was significantly associated with the prevalence of prediabetes and diabetes, independent of mean SBP, in a large general population. Therefore, assessing BPV in a single visit may help to identify subjects at increased risk of impaired glycemic control.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Okada et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: