Assessing Cardiovascular Risk
2009; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 119; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1161/circulationaha.108.827931
ISSN1524-4539
AutoresGiuseppe Schillaci, Matteo Pirro, Elmo Mannarino,
Tópico(s)Cardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
ResumoHomeCirculationVol. 119, No. 2Assessing Cardiovascular Risk Free AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAssessing Cardiovascular RiskShould We Discard Diastolic Blood Pressure? Giuseppe Schillaci, Matteo Pirro and Elmo Mannarino Giuseppe SchillaciGiuseppe Schillaci From the Unit of Internal Medicine, Angiology and Arteriosclerosis Disease, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy. , Matteo PirroMatteo Pirro From the Unit of Internal Medicine, Angiology and Arteriosclerosis Disease, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy. and Elmo MannarinoElmo Mannarino From the Unit of Internal Medicine, Angiology and Arteriosclerosis Disease, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy. Originally published20 Jan 2009https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.827931Circulation. 2009;119:210–212High blood pressure (BP), a major established predictor of cardiovascular disease, is the leading risk factor for mortality worldwide.1,2 Both systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) have continuous, independent relations with the risk of cardiovascular disease3; however, considerable uncertainty persists about the relative importance of SBP, DBP, and their combination in predicting cardiovascular risk.Article p 243Increased peripheral resistance, which is considered to be caused by arterial vasoconstriction, traditionally has been viewed as the key determinant of DBP.4 This has led to the long-standing conviction that the cardiovascular risks associated with hypertension derive principally from the diastolic component of BP. As a matter of fact, the early releases of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure defined hypertension on the basis of elevated DBP values only (Table). Table. Evolving Definition of Hypertension in Adults According to the Joint National CommitteeGuidelinesGuidelinePublication YearBP CriterionDefinitionJNC indicates Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure.JNC 11976DBP≥90 mm HgJNC 21980DBP≥90 mm HgJNC 31984DBP≥90 mm HgJNC 41988DBP+isolated systolic hypertension≥90 mm HgJNC 51993SBP and/or DBP≥140/90 mm HgJNC 61997SBP and/or DBP≥140/90 mm HgJNC 72003SBP and/or DBP≥140/90 mm HgThis view has been challenged by a number of studies demonstrating that SBP outweighs DBP as a predictor of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality3,5 and is not just a natural and innocuous consequence of the stiffening of the large arteries caused by aging. It was only in 1988 that the prognostic role of isolated systolic hypertension was acknowledged in the Joint National Committee Report, and since the Fifth Report published in 1993, hypertension has been defined as an elevation of SBP and/or DBP.6Significance of SBP and DBPGiven the stronger prognostic value of SBP compared with DBP and the prominent role of aortic stiffness as a predictor of cardiovascular outcomes, a simplified definition of hypertension has been proposed.7 According to this view, the thresholds for diagnosing and treating hypertension should be based on SBP only, and DBP values should be discarded, at least in individuals 50 years of age or older. A number of other undisputed theoretical and practical reasons support this position. SBP tends to rise continuously throughout life, whereas DBP rises up to approximately 50 years of age, then levels off and tends to decrease after the age of 60.8 As a consequence thereof, elevated SBP is more prevalent than DBP in populations with increasing life expectancy.9 Moreover, poor SBP control is much more common than poor DBP control.10 Also, measurement of SBP is more accurate than that of DBP. Finally, a single number is simpler to communicate in public health initiatives and may be an easier target to focus on for physicians.In the current issue of Circulation, Franklin et al11 shed new light on the debated issue of which BP components best capture the BP-associated cardiovascular risk. The authors took advantage of the prospectively collected database of the Framingham Heart Study. In 9657 adults who were free from cardiovascular disease and without antihypertensive therapy, the authors confirmed that SBP is a stronger risk factor for cardiovascular disease than DBP. More importantly, they demonstrated that the combined evaluation of SBP and DBP improves cardiovascular risk prediction over the 2 individual components. The model that included both SBP and DBP was significantly better than the models that included a single BP component (SBP or DBP) in predicting cardiovascular risk, although the increase in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the SBP-plus-DBP model compared with the SBP model was lower in the multivariate-adjusted than in the unadjusted model, which suggests that some of the incremental prognostic information provided by DBP may already be included in the other commonly accepted risk markers. These data are in agreement with an earlier analysis of the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial that showed that the addition of DBP to SBP improved prediction of cardiovascular mortality in middle-aged men.12What added value can the evaluation of DBP convey beyond that of SBP in cardiovascular risk stratification? First, isolated diastolic hypertension was a cardiovascular risk factor in the study by Franklin et al.11 Subjects with isolated diastolic hypertension represented 14% of the hypertensive population, and their cardiovascular risk was found to be about twice that of the subjects with normal BP. It must be recognized that in the setting of the Framingham Heart Study, subjects with isolated diastolic hypertension also tend to have a cluster of markers of cardiovascular risk, including male sex, smoking, and higher body mass index,13 which may explain in part the risk associated with high DBP. However, the increased cardiovascular risk among subjects with isolated diastolic hypertension was confirmed in a multivariate-adjusted model. Moreover, a recently published analysis of a large, nationwide Chinese database also confirmed that isolated diastolic hypertension is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease.14 Overall, these data suggest that the view of isolated DBP elevation as a low-risk condition should be reconsidered. Second, DBP was found to have a nonlinear, quadratic relation with cardiovascular risk, and the highest multivariate-adjusted risk was recorded in those subjects with both high SBP and low DBP,11 presumably because this combination of BP values is the typical hemodynamic consequence of increased large-artery stiffness, a well-known independent predictor of advanced vascular disease and mortality. For instance, subjects with SBP ≥180 mm Hg and a DBP between 80 and 89 mm Hg had a 2.4-fold multivariate-adjusted risk compared with normotensive individuals, whereas the OR increased to 9 in the subjects with similar SBP but a DBP between 70 and 79 mm Hg and to 7.7 in the presence of a DBP ≥110 mm Hg. These data extend to a large, general-population-based cohort the findings of a meta-analysis performed by Staessen et al15 in individuals with isolated systolic hypertension. The findings of the present study suggest that such an increase of risk with decreasing DBP values might also apply to subjects with prehypertension (SBP 120 to 139 mm Hg), but they do not allow definite conclusions to be drawn in this regard. It also remains to be clarified whether the higher risk associated with low DBP is attributable to its being a marker of aortic stiffness, a causal factor for reduced coronary and cerebral perfusion, or both.Significance of Mean and Pulse PressureBP traditionally has been measured in terms of peak (systolic) and trough (diastolic) values, but a more physiologically appropriate interpretation considers the BP waveform as being composed of a steady component (mean arterial pressure) on which cyclic oscillations, represented by pulse pressure, are superimposed. Mean arterial pressure is generally regarded as a measure of cardiac output and peripheral resistance, whereas pulse pressure is mainly determined by the distensibility of the large arteries and by the timing and intensity of reflected waves, the pattern of ventricular ejection, and heart rate. In their study, Franklin et al11 found that the model based on mean and pulse pressures had the same value as the traditional approach based on SBP and DBP in predicting cardiovascular disease. In fact, the 2 models had exactly the same predictive power as expressed by the Akaike information criterion. On a mathematical basis, this should not come as a surprise; given that mean and pulse pressures are derived entirely from SBP and DBP, no improvement in the overall goodness-of-fit can be expected. The "resistance-stiffness" model based on mean and pulse pressures has relevant pathophysiological implications, however. In contrast to DBP, which displayed a quadratic relation with cardiovascular risk, both mean and pulse pressure had a linear, independent relation with risk. These data, in agreement with previous reports,16,17 show that arterial resistance (represented approximately by mean arterial pressure) and large-artery stiffness (witnessed by pulse pressure) have joint adverse effects on the subsequent risk of cardiovascular disease.The present study should be considered within the context of its limitations. It has been suggested that stroke might preferentially be predicted by mean arterial pressure, whereas pulse pressure could have a stronger impact on coronary heart disease.18 Unfortunately, the analysis by Franklin et al11 only considered overall cardiovascular end points (largely because of a power issue) and did not take into account coronary and cerebrovascular outcomes separately. Moreover, to maximize the number of person-observations and to utilize the information provided by multiple BP measurements obtained over the years in a given individual, the observation time was divided into serial 4-year intervals, each of which was treated as an independent observation (despite coming from the same individual), and the different BP components obtained at the beginning of each 4-year period and their combinations were related to the occurrence of cardiovascular events over the next 4 years. Thus, despite the 50-year-long duration of the Framingham Heart Study, the present analysis only considered short-term cardiovascular risks. This might explain in part why the authors could not replicate their previous findings based on long-term observations from the Framingham Heart Study.19 In that study, a progressive shift from DBP to SBP and then to pulse pressure was found with increasing age, whereas in the present short-term analysis, no significant effect of age was documented.What are the clinical and public health implications of these findings? It is unquestionable that SBP is able to capture most of the prognostic significance of BP, especially in subjects above the age of 50 years; however, it is not yet time to discard DBP. The results of this large prospective study11 and other observations14 suggest that isolated diastolic hypertension should not be regarded as a benign entity. These findings support the recommendation of the Seventh Joint National Committee to consider both SBP and DBP in the definition and management of hypertension.20 Moreover, the combination of high SBP and low DBP represents a condition of particularly high cardiovascular risk, which has been emphasized appropriately in the 2007 European guidelines on high blood pressure management21 and deserves to be better highlighted in forthcoming releases of the Joint National Committee recommendations.The opinions expressed in this editorial are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.DisclosuresNone.FootnotesReprint requests to Professor Giuseppe Schillaci, Internal Medicine, Angiology and Arteriosclerosis Disease, University of Perugia Medical School, Hospital S. Maria della Misericordia, Piazzale Menghini, 1, IT-06129 Perugia, Italy. E-mail [email protected] References 1 Kearney P, Whelton M, Reynolds K, Muntner P, He J. Global burden of hypertension: analysis of worldwide data. Lancet. 2005; 365: 217–223.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2 Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Ezzati M, Jamison DT, Murray CJL. Global and regional burden of disease and risk factors, 2001: systematic analysis of population health data. Lancet. 2006; 367: 1747–1757.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3 Lewington S, Clarke R, Qizilbash N, Peto R, Collins R; Prospective Studies Collaboration. Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies [published correction appears in Lancet. 2003;361:1060]. Lancet. 2002; 360: 1903–1913.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4 Wiggers CJ. Physical and physiological aspects of arteriosclerosis and hypertension. Ann Intern Med. 1932; 6: 12–30.CrossrefGoogle Scholar5 Stamler J, Stamler R, Neaton JD. Blood pressure, systolic and diastolic, and cardiovascular risks: US population data. Arch Intern Med. 1993; 153: 598–615.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6 Joint National Committee. The fifth report of the Joint National Committee on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Arch Intern Med. 1993; 153: 154–183.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7 Williams B, Lindholm LH, Sever P. Systolic blood pressure is all that matters. Lancet. 2008; 371: 2219–2221.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8 Burt VL, Whelton P, Roccella EJ, Brown C, Cutler JA, Higgins M, Horan MJ, Labarthe D. Prevalence of hypertension in the US adult population: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1991. Hypertension. 1995; 25: 305–313.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9 Franklin SS, Jacobs MJ, Wong ND, L'Italien GJ, Lapuerta P. Predominance of isolated systolic hypertension among middle-aged and elderly US hypertensives: analysis based on National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III. Hypertension. 2001; 37: 869–874.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10 Mancia G, Grassi G. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure control in antihypertensive drug trials. J Hypertens. 2002; 20: 1461–1464.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11 Franklin SS, Lopez VA, Wong ND, Mitchell GF, Larson MG, Vasan RS, Levy D. Single versus combined blood pressure components and risk for cardiovascular disease: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 2009; 119: 243–250.LinkGoogle Scholar12 Domanski M, Mitchell G, Pfeffer M, Neaton JD, Norman J, Svendsen K, Grimm R, Cohen J, Stamler J; MRFIT Research Group. Pulse pressure and cardiovascular disease-related mortality: follow-up study of the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT). JAMA. 2002; 287: 2677–2683.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13 Franklin SS, Pio JR, Wong ND, Larson MG, Leip EP, Vasan RS, Levy D. Predictors of new-onset diastolic and systolic hypertension: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 2005; 111: 1121–1127.LinkGoogle Scholar14 Kelly TN, Gu D, Chen J, Huang JF, Chen JC, Duan X, Wu X, Yau CL, Whelton PK, He J. Hypertension subtype and risk of cardiovascular disease in Chinese adults. Circulation. 2008; 118: 1558–1566.LinkGoogle Scholar15 Staessen JA, Gasowski J, Wang JG, Thijs L, Den Hond E, Boissel JP, Coope J, Ekbom T, Gueyffier F, Liu L, Kerlikowske K, Pocock S, Fagard RH. Risks of untreated and treated isolated systolic hypertension in the elderly: meta-analysis of outcome trials [published correction appears in Lancet. 2001;357:724]. Lancet. 2000; 355: 865–872.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16 Domanski MJ, Davis BR, Pfeffer MA, Kastantin M, Mitchell GF. Isolated systolic hypertension: prognostic information provided by pulse pressure. Hypertension. 1999; 34: 375–380.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17 Domanski M, Norman J, Wolz M, Mitchell G, Pfeffer M. Cardiovascular risk assessment using pulse pressure in the first National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES I). Hypertension. 2001; 38: 793–797.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar18 Verdecchia P, Schillaci G, Reboldi G, Franklin SS, Porcellati C. Different prognostic impact of 24-hour mean blood pressure and pulse pressure on stroke and coronary artery disease in essential hypertension. Circulation. 2001; 103: 2579–2584.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar19 Franklin SS, Larson MG, Khan SA, Wong ND, Leip EP, Kannel WB, Levy D. Does the relation of blood pressure to coronary heart disease risk change with aging? The Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 2001; 103: 1245–1249.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar20 Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, Cushman WC, Green LA, Izzo JL Jr, Jones DW, Materson BJ, Oparil S, Wright JT Jr, Roccella EJ; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure; National High Blood Pressure Education Program Coordinating Committee. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report [published correction appears in JAMA. 2003;290:197]. JAMA. 2003; 289: 2560–2572.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar21 Guidelines Committee. 2003 European Society of Hypertension-European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. J Hypertens. 2003, 21: 1011–1053.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Aristizábal-Ocampo D, Álvarez-Montoya D, Madrid-Muñoz C, Fallon-Giraldo S and Gallo-Villegas J (2023) Hemodynamic profiles of arterial hypertension with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, Hypertension Research, 10.1038/s41440-023-01196-z Huang Y, Zhou H, Zhang S, Zhong X, Lin Y, Xiong Z, Liu M, Yimamu A, Christopher O, Zhou Z, Zhuang X and Liao X (2022) Mid‐ to Late‐Life Time‐Averaged Cumulative Blood Pressure and Late‐Life Retinal Microvasculature: The ARIC Study, Journal of the American Heart Association, 11:15, Online publication date: 2-Aug-2022.Veugen M, Linssen P, Henry R, Koster A, Kroon A, Stehouwer C and Brunner‐La Rocca H (2021) Measures of Left Ventricular Diastolic Function and Cardiorespiratory Fitness According to Glucose Metabolism Status: The Maastricht Study, Journal of the American Heart Association, 10:13, Online publication date: 6-Jul-2021. Kshatriya G and Acharya S (2019) Prevalence and risks of hypertension among Indian tribes and its status among the lean and underweight individuals, Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews, 10.1016/j.dsx.2019.01.028, 13:2, (1105-1115), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2019. Elias M, Torres R and Davey A (2018) Diastolic Blood Pressure, Not Just Systolic Blood Pressure, Is Related to Cerebral Measures in Middle Age: Implications for Prospective Studies, American Journal of Hypertension, 10.1093/ajh/hpy125, 31:12, (1263-1265), Online publication date: 13-Nov-2018. Gillebert T (2018) Pulse pressure and blood pressure components:. Is the sum more than the parts?, European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 10.1177/2047487318755805, 25:5, (457-459), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2018. Iannucci G, Petramala L, La Torre G, Barbaro B, Balsano C, Curatulo P, Amadei F, Paroli M, Concistrè A and Letizia C (2017) Evaluation of tolerance to ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, Medicine, 10.1097/MD.0000000000009162, 96:50, (e9162), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2017. Tobias L and Roux F (2017) Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Resistant Hypertension Resistant Hypertension in Chronic Kidney Disease, 10.1007/978-3-319-56827-0_13, (195-218), . Jani B, Cavanagh J, Barry S, Der G, Sattar N and Mair F (2016) Relationship Between Blood Pressure Values, Depressive Symptoms, and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Cardiometabolic Disease, The Journal of Clinical Hypertension, 10.1111/jch.12813, 18:10, (1027-1035), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2016. Yee J, Kim Y, Park T, Park M and Crawford D (2016) Using the Generalized Index of Dissimilarity to Detect Gene-Gene Interactions in Multi-Class Phenotypes, PLOS ONE, 10.1371/journal.pone.0158668, 11:8, (e0158668) Dreger L, Mackenzie C and McLeod B (2013) Feasibility of a Mindfulness-Based Intervention for Aboriginal Adults with Type 2 Diabetes, Mindfulness, 10.1007/s12671-013-0257-z, 6:2, (264-280), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2015. Villa L, Sun D, Denhaerynck K, Vancayzeele S, Brié H, Hermans C, Aerts A, Levengood M, MacDonald K and Abraham I (2014) Predicting blood pressure outcomes using single-item physician-administered measures: a retrospective pooled analysis of observational studies in Belgium, British Journal of General Practice, 10.3399/bjgp15X683101, 65:630, (e9-e15), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2015. Ikewuchi J, Ikewuchi C, Ifeanacho M and Igboh N (2014) Blood pressure lowering activity of a flavonoid and phytosterol rich extract of the sclerotia of Pleurotus tuberregium (Fr) Sing in salt-loaded rats, Biomedicine & Preventive Nutrition, 10.1016/j.bionut.2014.02.006, 4:2, (257-263), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2014. Deng Y, Luo Y, Qian B, Liu Z, Zheng Y, Song X, Lai S and Zhao Y (2014) Antihypertensive effect of few-flower wild rice (Zizania latifolia Turcz.) in spontaneously hypertensive rats, Food Science and Biotechnology, 10.1007/s10068-014-0060-1, 23:2, (439-444), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2014. Schillaci G, Pucci G and Gavish B (2013) Ambulatory Pulse Pressure, Hypertension, 63:2, (217-219), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2014.Cheng S, Gupta D, Claggett B, Sharrett A, Shah A, Skali H, Takeuchi M, Ni H and Solomon S (2013) Differential Influence of Distinct Components of Increased Blood Pressure on Cardiovascular Outcomes, Hypertension, 62:3, (492-498), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2013. Choh A, Nahhas R, Lee M, Choi Y, Chumlea W, Duren D, Sherwood R, Towne B, Siervogel R, Demerath E and Czerwinski S (2011) Secular trends in blood pressure during early-to-middle adulthood: the Fels Longitudinal Study, Journal of Hypertension, 10.1097/HJH.0b013e328344da30, 29:5, (838-845), Online publication date: 1-May-2011. Syrseloudis D, Tsioufis C, Aragiannis D, Soulis D, Stefanadi E, Spanos A, Mihas C, Tousoulis D, Kallikazaros I and Stefanadis C (2011) The Dominant Role of the Systolic Component of Nondipping Status on Target-Organ Damage in Never-Treated Hypertensives, American Journal of Hypertension, 10.1038/ajh.2010.234, 24:3, (292-298), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2011. O'Brien E and Parati G (2011) Reverting to simplicity: palpating SBP, Journal of Hypertension, 10.1097/HJH.0b013e32834091ba, 29:1, (27-28), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2011. van der Hoeven N, van den Born B and van Montfrans G (2011) Reliability of palpation of the radial artery compared with auscultation of the brachial artery in measuring SBP, Journal of Hypertension, 10.1097/HJH.0b013e32833e0ffa, 29:1, (51-55), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2011. Ellis-Hutchings R, Zucker R, Grey B, Norwood J, Richards J, Lau C and Rogers J (2010) Altered health outcomes in adult offspring of Sprague Dawley and Wistar rats undernourished during early or late pregnancy, Birth Defects Research Part B: Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology, 10.1002/bdrb.20265, 89:5, (396-407), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2010. January 20, 2009Vol 119, Issue 2 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.827931PMID: 19153281 Originally publishedJanuary 20, 2009 KeywordsEditorialsKey Words:blood pressureprognosiscardiovascular diseasesPDF download Advertisement SubjectsClinical Studies
Referência(s)