Combined use of visit-to-visit systolic blood pressure variability and mean SBP improved prediction of cardiovascular events (HR for combined fifth vs first quintile 1.42; 95% CI 1.20-1.68; P<0.0001).
RCT (n=28,790)
Yes
Does on-treatment mean SBP or visit-to-visit SBP variability better predict cardiovascular events in high-risk patients?
On-treatment mean SBP is a stronger predictor of cardiovascular events than visit-to-visit SBP variability, though combining both measures yields the best risk prediction.
Hazard Ratio: 1.42 (95% CI 1.2–1.68)
p-value: p=<0.0001
In 28 790 patients recruited for the ONTARGET (Ongoing Treatment Alone and in Combination With Ramipril Global End Point Trials) and TRANSCEND (Telmisartan Randomized Assessment Study in ACE Intolerant Subjects With Cardiovascular Disease) trials, we investigated the prognostic value for cardiovascular events (primary outcome) of (1)on-treatment visit-to-visit systolic blood pressure (SBP) variability versus mean SBP and (2) the 2 measures together. SBP variability was measured by the coefficient of variation (CV) of mean SBP to which it was unrelated. Confounders such as variable time and number of visits from which to calculate SBP-CV were avoided by using the same number of visits at identical times in all patients. The covariate-adjusted risk of the primary outcome (Cox models) increased as SBP-CV or mean on-treatment quintile SBP increased, but only for mean on-treatment SBP, the relationship achieved statistical significance: global test for trend, P =0.12 versus P <0.0001. SBP-CV showed a relationship with fatal events, but it was unrelated to the risk of myocardial infarction and stroke, which were predicted by on-treatment mean SBP. Prediction of the primary outcome improved by the combined use of both measures: global test for trend, P <0.0001; hazard ratio for combined fifth versus first quintile, 1.42 (1.20–1.68) compared with 1.13 (1.01–1.27) for SBP-CV and 1.24 (1.11–1.40) for mean SBP. Thus, in the present study, on-treatment mean SBP provided an overall better prediction of cardiovascular risk than visit-to-visit SBP-CV. Prediction improved by their combined use, which may thus offer a more precise estimate of the protective effect of treatment. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http//www.clinicaltrial.gov . Unique identifier: NCT153.101.
Mancia et al. (Wed,) conducted a rct in Cardiovascular disease (n=28,790). Combined fifth quintile of visit-to-visit SBP variability and mean SBP vs. First quintile was evaluated on Cardiovascular events (HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.20-1.68, p=<0.0001). Combined use of visit-to-visit systolic blood pressure variability and mean SBP improved prediction of cardiovascular events (HR for combined fifth vs first quintile 1.42; 95% CI 1.20-1.68; P<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: