Skip Navigation



European Heart Journal Advance Access published online on April 7, 2009
European Heart Journal, doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehp109
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
30/11/1395    most recent
ehp109v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow E-letters: View responses
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bangalore, S.
Right arrow Articles by Pepine, C. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bangalore, S.
Right arrow Articles by Pepine, C. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2009. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Pulse pressure and risk of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with hypertension and coronary artery disease: an INternational VErapamil SR-trandolapril STudy (INVEST) analysis{dagger}

Sripal Bangalore1, Franz H. Messerli1,*, Stanley S. Franklin2, Giuseppe Mancia3, Annette Champion4 and Carl J. Pepine4,5

1 Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center, 1000 Tenth Avenue, Suite 3B-30, New York, NY 10025, USA
2 University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
3 University of Milan, Milan, Italy
4 Abbott, Abbott Park, IL, USA
5 University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Received 15 April 2008; revised 19 February 2009; accepted 4 March 2009 * Corresponding author. Email: fmesserl{at}chpnet.org

Aim: The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between pulse pressure (PP) and cardiovascular outcomes in a large, elderly, coronary artery disease (CAD) population with hypertension, and compare the predictive power of PP with other blood pressure measures.

Methods and results: In INternational VErapamil-trandolapril STudy, 22 576 CAD patients with hypertension (mean age 66 years) were randomized to verapamil-SR or atenolol-based strategies and followed for 2.7 years (mean). Primary outcome (PO) was time to first occurrence of death (all-cause), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), or non-fatal stroke. Mean follow-up PP was summarized by 5 mmHg subgroups for association with incidence of PO. Stepwise Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted relative hazard ratios (HR) for the risk of PO with follow-up PP as a continuous variable, with linear and quadratic terms. Similar models were constructed for follow-up systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and mean arterial pressures (MAP). A –2 log-likelihood statistic was used to assess the predictive power of PP compared with SBP, DBP, and MAP. For follow-up PP, the incidence and adjusted HR for the PO formed a J- or U-shaped curve. After adjusting for baseline covariates, both linear and quadratic terms for PP were significant (P < 0.0001 for both), with a nadir of 54 mmHg (bootstrapping 95% CI 42–60 mmHg). Similar quadratic relationships were found between PP and all-cause mortality or MI; the relationship between PP and stroke was linear. Pulse pressure was a predictor of PO even after including SBP (P = 0.007 linear term) or DBP (P < 0.0001 for both linear and quadratic terms) or MAP (P < 0.01 for both liner and quadratic terms) in the model. Using –2 log-likelihood differences, SBP (–2 log-likelihood difference 77.1 vs. 7.3 for PP), DBP (–2 log-likelihood difference 138.5 vs. 44.6 for PP), and MAP (–2 log-likelihood difference 125.0 vs. 13.4 for PP) were stronger predictors of PO than PP.

Conclusion: In CAD patients with hypertension, PP (on anti-hypertensive treatment) is a weaker predictor of cardiovascular outcomes than SBP, DBP, or MAP.

Key Words: Diastolic blood pressure • INVEST • Mean arterial pressure • Pulse pressure • Systolic blood pressure

{dagger} This work was presented in part at the Annual Scientific Session of the American Heart Association, New Orleans, Louisiana 2004.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


E-letters:

Read all E-letters

May the predictive capacity of BP components vary according to the stage along the CV continuum?
Carlos Escobar, et al.
European Heart Journal, 26 Nov 2009 [Full text]

Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.