BP variability tied to coronary atheroma progression and adverse clinical outcomes

  • Clark D & al.
  • JAMA Cardiol
  • 10 Apr 2019

  • curated by Sarfaroj Khan
  • UK Clinical Digest
Access to the full content of this site is available only to registered healthcare professionals. Access to the full content of this site is available only to registered healthcare professionals.

Takeaway

  • In patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) receiving stablished medical therapies, greater visit-to-visit blood pressure variability (BPV), particularly systolic BPV, is significantly associated with coronary atheroma progression and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs).

Why this matters

  • Findings suggests that maintaining stable blood pressure (BP) levels may improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with CAD.

Study design

  • Post-hoc analysis of 7 randomised clinical trials involving 3912 patients with CAD who underwent serial intravascular ultrasonography between November 2017 and March 2019.
  • Visit-to-visit BPV was assessed across 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months.
  • Main outcomes: per cent atheroma volume (PAV) progression and MACEs (death, myocardial infarction, stroke, urgent revascularisation for acute coronary syndrome and hospitalisation for unstable angina).
  • Funding: None disclosed.

Key results

  • Systolic BPV (β, 0.096; P=.007) was significantly associated with PAV progression, but no significant association was observed between PAV progression and diastolic BPV (β, 0.003; P=.92) and pulse pressure variability (β, 0.072; P=.07) without a signal for differential effect greater or less than a mean BP of 140/90 mmHg.
  • Binary outcome of PAV progression with maximum follow-up BP was significantly associated with systolic BPV (OR, 1.09; P=.02) but not with diastolic BPV (OR, 1.04; P=.25) and pulse pressure variability (OR, 1.02; P=.54).
  • There was a significant stepwise association between cumulative MACEs and increasing quartiles of systolic BPV (Kaplan-Meier estimates for quartiles 1-4: 6.1% vs 8.5% vs 10.1% vs 12.0%, respectively; log-rank P<.001>
  • This association was not observed between MACEs and diastolic BPV and pulse pressure variability.

Limitations

  • Results may not be applicable to those without atherosclerotic heart disease.
  • BP measurement methods were not consistent across studies.

Please confirm your acceptance

To gain full access to GPnotebook please confirm:

By submitting here you confirm that you have accepted Terms of Use and Privacy Policy of GPnotebook.

Submit