Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23285043›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2012

Blood pressure variability and cardiovascular risk in the PROspective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk (PROSPER).

Rosalinde K E Poortvliet, Ian Ford, Suzanne M Lloyd, Naveed Sattar, Simon P Mooijaart, Anton J M de Craen, Rudi G J Westendorp, J Wouter Jukema, Christopher J Packard, Jacobijn Gussekloo and 2 more

Open access · goldFull text readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Rosalinde K E PoortvlietDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. r.k.e.poortvliet@lumc.nl
Ian Ford
Suzanne M Lloyd
Naveed Sattar
Simon P Mooijaart
Anton J M de Craen
Rudi G J Westendorp
J Wouter Jukema
Christopher J Packard
Jacobijn Gussekloo
Wouter de Ruijter
David J Stott
Leiden University Medical Center · NLUniversity of Glasgow · GBNetherlands Consortium for Healthy Ageing · NLRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office CZH/4/637Chief Scientist Office CZH/4/637parhWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Variability in blood pressure predicts cardiovascular disease in young- and middle-aged subjects, but relevant data for older individuals are sparse. We analysed data from the PROspective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk (PROSPER) study of 5804 participants aged 70-82 years with a history of, or risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Visit-to-visit variability in blood pressure (standard deviation) was determined using a minimum of five measurements over 1 year; an inception cohort of 4819 subjects had subsequent in-trial 3 years follow-up; longer-term follow-up (mean 7.1 years) was available for 1808 subjects. Higher systolic blood pressure variability independently predicted long-term follow-up vascular and total mortality (hazard ratio per 5 mmHg increase in standard deviation of systolic blood pressure = 1.2, 95% confidence interval 1.1-1.4; hazard ratio 1.1, 95% confidence interval 1.1-1.2, respectively). Variability in diastolic blood pressure associated with increased risk for coronary events (hazard ratio 1.5, 95% confidence interval 1.2-1.8 for each 5 mmHg increase), heart failure hospitalisation (hazard ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 1.1-1.8) and vascular (hazard ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 1.1-1.7) and total mortality (hazard ratio 1.3, 95% confidence interval 1.1-1.5), all in long-term follow-up. Pulse pressure variability was associated with increased stroke risk (hazard ratio 1.2, 95% confidence interval 1.0-1.4 for each 5 mmHg increase), vascular mortality (hazard ratio 1.2, 95% confidence interval 1.0-1.3) and total mortality (hazard ratio 1.1, 95% confidence interval 1.0-1.2), all in long-term follow-up. All associations were independent of respective mean blood pressure levels, age, gender, in-trial treatment group (pravastatin or placebo) and prior vascular disease and cardiovascular disease risk factors. Our observations suggest variability in diastolic blood pressure is more strongly associated with vascular or total mortality than is systolic pressure variability in older high-risk subjects.

Indexed as

Blood PressureAgedAged, 80 and overCardiovascular DiseasesDiastoleFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsMalePravastatinProportional Hazards ModelsProspective StudiesRisk FactorsSystoleHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsPravastatin

Identifiers

PMID23285043
PMCPMC3527505
OpenAlexW2016472144

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.