Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35470678›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2022

Assessment of Visit-to-Visit Blood Pressure Variability in Adults With Optimal Blood Pressure: A New Player in the Evaluation of Residual Cardiovascular Risk?

Menghui Liu, Xiaohong Chen, Shaozhao Zhang, Junfan Lin, Lichun Wang, Xinxue Liao, Xiaodong Zhuang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Blood pressure variability and arterial stiffness: the chicken or the egg?Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Menghui LiuDepartment of Cardiology The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University Guangzhou People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0001-6021-4447
Xiaohong ChenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University Guangzhou People's Republic of China.
Shaozhao ZhangDepartment of Cardiology The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University Guangzhou People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0002-3055-4851
Junfan LinSun Yat-sen University School of Medicine Guangzhou People's Republic of China.
Lichun WangDepartment of Cardiology The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University Guangzhou People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0002-9757-3256
Xinxue LiaoDepartment of Cardiology The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University Guangzhou People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0001-7631-1866
Xiaodong ZhuangDepartment of Cardiology The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University Guangzhou People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0001-6508-8507
Sun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

NHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201100005CNHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201100005GNHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201100005INHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201100006CNHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201100007CNHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201100007INHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201100008CNHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201100008INHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201100009CNHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201100009INHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201100010CNHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201100011CNHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201100011INHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201100012C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background There is a paucity of evidence regarding the association between visit-to-visit blood pressure variability and residual cardiovascular risk. We aimed to provide relevant evidence by determining whether high systolic blood pressure (SBP) variability in the optimal SBP levels still influences the risk of cardiovascular disease. Methods and Results We studied 7065 participants (aged 59.3±5.6 years; 44.3% men; and 82.9% White) in the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) study with optimal SBP levels from visit 1 to visit 3. Visit-to-visit SBP variability was measured by variability independent of the mean in the primary analysis. The primary outcome was the major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), defined as the first occurrence of all-cause mortality, coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure. During a median follow-up of 19.6 years, 2691 participants developed MACEs. After multivariable adjustment, the MACE risk was higher by 21% in participants with the highest SBP variability (variability independent of the mean quartile 4) compared with the lowest SBP variability participants (variability independent of the mean quartile 1) (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.09-1.35). The restricted cubic spline showed that the hazard ratio for MACE was relatively linear, with a higher variability independent of the mean being associated with higher risk. These association were also found in the stratified analyses of participants with or without hypertension. Conclusions In adults with optimal SBP levels, higher visit-to-visit SBP variability was significantly associated with a higher risk of MACE regardless of whether they had hypertension. Therefore, it may be necessary to further focus on the visit-to-visit SBP variability even at the guideline-recommended optimal blood pressure levels.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesHypertensionAdultBlood PressureFemaleHeart Disease Risk FactorsHumansMaleRisk Factorsmajor adverse cardiovascular eventresidual cardiovascular riskrisk factorsystolic blood pressure variability

Identifiers

PMID35470678
PMCPMC9238602
OpenAlexW4224952676

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.