Why the study?
Pulse pressure is a prognostic predictor of cardiovascular mortality, but its association when measured at home with cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes required investigation.
Does home-measured pulse pressure predict new-onset cardiovascular disease better than clinic-measured pulse pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes?
Does home-measured pulse pressure predict new-onset cardiovascular disease better than clinic-measured pulse pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes?
Home-measured morning pulse pressure is a significantly better predictor of new-onset cardiovascular disease than clinic-measured pulse pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes.
May refine CVD risk assessment in type 2 diabetes; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before practice change.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pulse pressure (PP) is a prognostic predictor of cardiovascular mortality. This retrospective cohort study aimed to investigate the association between home PP measurements and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Home blood pressure was measured for 14 consecutive days in 1082 patients with type 2 diabetes, and pulse pressure was calculated. A 10 mmHg increase in morning PP was associated with a 1.30-fold increase in the risk of cardiovascular disease. The risk of cardiovascular disease was 1.88 times higher in the morning in the higher PP group than in the lower PP group. In the receiver operating characteristic analysis, the areas under the curve (95% confidence interval) corresponding to the PP (morning, evening, and clinic) for new-onset cardiovascular disease were 0.63 (0.58-0.69), 0.62 (0.57-0.67), and 0.59 (0.54-0.64), respectively. The area under the curve for PP measured in the morning was significantly greater than that for PP measured in the clinic (P = 0.032). CONCLUSION: Home-measured PP is a better predictor of new-onset cardiovascular disease than clinic-measured PP, in patients with type 2 diabetes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Takegami et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: