Why the study?
Isolated high home systolic blood pressure poses a risk for cardiovascular disease, but no study had examined this association specifically in diabetes.
Does isolated high home systolic blood pressure increase the risk of cardiovascular disease in individuals with type 2 diabetes?
Does isolated high home systolic blood pressure increase the risk of cardiovascular disease in individuals with type 2 diabetes?
Isolated high home systolic blood pressure is a significant predictor of cardiovascular disease in individuals with type 2 diabetes, particularly in females.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May warrant closer monitoring in type 2 diabetes; hypothesis-generating for trials targeting isolated high home SBP.
AIMS/INTRODUCTION: Isolated high home systolic blood pressure (IHHSBP) is a risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, no study has shown an association between IHHSBP and CVD in diabetes. We examined the association between IHHSBP and CVD in type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 1082 individuals with type 2 diabetes, aged 20 to 90 years, without a history of macrovascular complications. Home blood pressure (HBP) was measured three times every morning and evening for 14 days. Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine the relationship between IHHSBP and CVD incidence. RESULTS: With the normal HBP group as the reference, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) for CVD was 1.58 (1.02-2.43) in the IHHSBP group. Correcting for antihypertensive medication use did not change HR. Based on sex, the adjusted HR (95% CI) for CVD was 1.25 (0.74-2.13) in males and 2.28 (1.01-5.15) in females. CONCLUSIONS: In individuals with type 2 diabetes, those with IHHSBP had a higher HR for cardiovascular disease than those with normal HBP. But, Isolated high home diastolic blood pressure and high HBP were not. The association between IHHSBP and CVD was stronger in females than in males.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hosomi et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: