| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Hypertension. 1999;34:381-385.)
© 1999 American Heart Association, Inc.
Scientific Contributions |
Differential Impact of Systolic and Diastolic Blood Pressure Level on JNC-VI Staging
From the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Framingham Heart Study, National Institutes of Health (D.M.L.-J., J.C.E., M.G.L., C.J.O., D.L.); the Cardiology Division, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital (D.M.L.-J., C.J.O.), Harvard Medical School; the Division of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine (J.C.E., M.G.L., D.L.); and the Department of Medicine, Beth Israel-Deaconess Medical Center (D.L.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
Correspondence to Daniel Levy, MD, Framingham Heart Study, 5 Thurber St, Framingham, MA 01702. E-mail dan{at}fram.nhlbi.nih.gov
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Abstract—The sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure classifies blood pressure into stages on the basis of both systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure levels. When a disparity exists between SBP and DBP stages, patients are classified into the higher stage ("up-staged"). We evaluated the effect of disparate levels of SBP and DBP on blood pressure staging and eligibility for therapy. We examined 4962 Framingham Heart Study subjects between 1990 and 1995 and determined blood pressure stages on the basis of SBP alone, DBP alone, or both. After the exclusion of subjects on antihypertensive therapy (n=1306), 3656 subjects (mean age 58±13 years; 55% women) were eligible. In this sample, 64.6% of subjects had congruent stages of SBP and DBP, 31.6% were up-staged on the basis of SBP, and 3.8% on the basis of DBP; thus, SBP alone correctly classified JNC-VI stage in
96% (64.6%+31.6%) of the subjects.
Among subjects >60 years of age, SBP alone correctly classified 99%
of subjects; in those 
60 years old, SBP alone correctly classified
95%. Of 1488 subjects with high-normal blood pressure or hypertension,
who were potentially eligible for drug therapy, 13.0% had congruent
elevations of SBP and DBP, 77.7% were up-staged on the basis of SBP,
and 9.3% were up-staged on the basis of DBP; SBP alone correctly
classified 91%, whereas DBP alone correctly classified only 22%. SBP
elevation out of proportion to DBP is common in middle-aged and older
persons. SBP appears to play a greater role in the determination of
JNC-VI blood pressure stage and eligibility for therapy. Given these
results, combined with evidence from hypertension treatment trials,
future guidelines might consider a greater role for SBP than for DBP in
determining the presence of hypertension, risk of
cardiovascular events, eligibility for therapy, and
benefits of treatment.
Key Words: hypertension, detection and control • risk factors • epidemiology • guidelines
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Hypertension has been firmly established as a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, including stroke, coronary heart disease, congestive heart failure, and peripheral arterial disease.1 Historically, elevated diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was thought to confer a greater risk for cardiovascular events than elevated systolic blood pressure (SBP), which resulted in classification systems and treatment recommendations that placed greater emphasis on the treatment of diastolic hypertension.2 3 4 5 However, mounting evidence from prospective epidemiological investigations indicates that elevated SBP is at least as important a risk factor as elevated DBP.6 7 8 9 In addition, more recent clinical trials10 11 12 have demonstrated a reduction in cardiovascular events with the treatment of elevated SBP.
The sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC-VI) was published in November 1997.13 This report, like its predecessor,14 classifies patients into blood pressure stages on the basis of the levels of both their SBP and DBP. JNC-VI also proposes a new algorithm for treatment of elevated blood pressure with a risk-stratification component based not only on level of blood pressure but also on the presence or absence of other coincident cardiovascular disease risk factors, target organ damage, or clinical cardiovascular disease.
In clinical practice, SBP and DBP levels are often disparate, leading to a phenomenon known as "up-staging."15 For example, a patient with a blood pressure of 150/80 mm Hg would be classified as Stage 1 hypertension13 on the basis of his SBP, despite having a normal DBP; such a patient is up-staged in the classification scheme because of a SBP elevation out of proportion to the DBP. The prevalence of disparate levels of SBP and DBP has not been reported in a general population. Examination of blood pressure disparity may point to a differential effect of SBP versus DBP in determining blood pressure stage and eligibility for therapy. Such data may assist clinicians, researchers, and policy makers in understanding the potential impact of JNC-VI guidelines on clinical practice and public health. We sought to determine the proportion of untreated subjects in a community-based sample who have elevated blood pressure on the basis of SBP, DBP, or both and to determine the effect of disparate levels on blood pressure up-staging.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Study Sample
The Framingham Heart Study was established in 1948 when 5209 residents of Framingham, Massachusetts, aged 28 to 62 years, were enrolled in a prospective epidemiological cohort study to evaluate potential risk factors for coronary heart disease. Members of this cohort have received follow-up evaluations every 2 years with medical histories and physical examinations, as well as selected laboratory tests, including fasting lipid levels and 12-lead electrocardiograms. In 1971, 5124 additional subjects (offspring of original cohort subjects and their spouses) were enrolled into the Framingham Offspring Study. These participants have received follow-up evaluations every 4 years. Study design and entry criteria for both cohorts have been detailed elsewhere.16 17 18 19 All exams and procedures have been approved by the Institutional Review Board of Boston University School of Medicine.
The present study sample included 1164 subjects from the
original Framingham Heart Study cohort who participated in examination
cycle 22 (1990–1994) and 3798 participants from the Framingham
Offspring Study who participated in examination cycle 5 (1991–1995).
Because we wanted to determine the effect of SBP and DBP on JNC-VI
staging in untreated individuals, we excluded from the main
analyses all subjects who were receiving antihypertensive
therapy (including diuretics,
1-agonists,
2-blockers, ß-blockers, calcium
channel-blockers, -methyldopa, angiotensin-converting
enzyme inhibitors, and peripheral vasodilators)
at the time of their examination.
Blood Pressure Measurement
At each examination, blood pressure was measured twice in
the left arm with a mercury column sphygmomanometer by an examining
physician after the patient had rested 
5 minutes in the seated
position. The SBP level was defined as the first appearance of sound
(Korotkoff phase 1), and the DBP level was defined as the disappearance
of sound (phase 5). Measurements were separated by 2 minutes. The
means of the 2 separate SBP and DBP measurements were then calculated
to derive the reported blood pressure for that examination.
Blood Pressure Staging
Blood pressure stages were classified according to the following
JNC-VI criteria13 : normal (SBP <130 and DBP <85
mm Hg); high-normal (SBP 130 to 139 mm Hg or DBP 85 to 89
mm Hg); stage 1 hypertension (SBP 140 to 159 mm Hg or DBP 90 to
99 mm Hg); stage 2 hypertension (SBP 160 to 179 mm Hg or
DBP 100 to 109 mm Hg); or stage 3 hypertension (SBP 180
mm Hg or DBP 110 mm Hg). To determine the prevalence of
disparate levels of SBP and DBP and the differential effect of SBP and
DBP in determining the JNC-VI blood pressure stage, subjects were also
staged according to the levels of their SBP alone or DBP alone. Blood
pressure stages 2 and 3 were combined into a stage 2 category for all
analyses because of the low prevalence of stage 3 hypertension
(n=35).
Statistical Analysis
The number and percentage of subjects in each SBP stage, DBP
stage, and JNC-VI stage were then determined. In addition, the
percentage of subjects within each JNC-VI stage who had disparate or
congruent levels of SBP and DBP was determined. These analyses
were performed for the entire study sample and repeated for subjects
with JNC-VI high-normal blood pressure or hypertension. To assess the
effect of age on SBP and DBP and blood pressure staging, we stratified
the study sample into 2 groups a priori (those >60 and those 60
years of age) and repeated the analyses. In a secondary
analysis, subjects who received antihypertensive therapy and
were therefore excluded from the main analyses were classified
according to their on-treatment blood pressure. All analyses
were performed with SAS statistical software (SAS
Corp).20
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
During the study period, 4962 subjects were examined. A total of 1306 subjects were excluded because they were receiving antihypertensive therapy; this left 3656 subjects in the study sample. The mean age of the study sample was 58±13 years; 55% were women.
Figure 1 shows the percentage of subjects
in each blood pressure stage on the basis of JNC-VI criteria with the
use of both SBP and DBP, the systolic stage only, or the
diastolic stage only. In the entire study sample, 59% of
subjects had normal blood pressure, 18% had high-normal blood
pressure, 18% had stage 1 hypertension, and 5% had stage 2
hypertension. These percentages were quite similar when subjects were
classified on the basis of their SBP only but were markedly different
for DBP. Nearly 40% of subjects had an elevated (high-normal or
hypertensive) SBP, whereas only 13% had elevated DBP. Therefore, blood
pressure staging by JNC-VI criteria, which accounts for both SBP and
DBP, more closely reflected the distribution of SBP than DBP.
|
Table 1 shows the number of subjects who were classified into each JNC-VI SBP and DBP category. The numbers on the diagonal (shown in bold) represent subjects in our study sample with congruent levels of SBP and DBP by JNC-VI classification. The numbers below and to the left of the diagonal represent subjects with SBP that was elevated out of proportion to DBP or subjects who were up-staged on the basis of their SBP. The numbers above and to the right of the diagonal represent subjects who were up-staged on the basis of their DBP. In all, 1295 subjects (35%) were classified above or below the diagonal, indicating that they had disparate levels of SBP and DBP.
|
Among the entire sample, 64.6% of subjects had congruent levels of blood pressure, 31.6% were up-staged on the basis of SBP, and only 3.8% were up-staged on the basis of DBP. Therefore, knowledge of the SBP alone correctly classified the JNC-VI stage in 96% (64.6%+31.6%) of subjects, whereas knowledge of the DBP alone correctly classified only 68% (64.6%+3.8%) of subjects.
High-Normal and Hypertensive Subjects
There were 1488 subjects who had high-normal blood pressure or
hypertension. This group is of particular interest because they are
potentially eligible for initial drug therapy under JNC-VI
recommendations. There was an even more striking disparity in SBP and
DBP levels among this subgroup (Figure 2): 94% had an elevated SBP, whereas
only 33% had an elevated DBP. Fully two thirds of the subjects had a
normal DBP despite being in a high-normal or hypertensive JNC-VI stage.
Again, the JNC-VI stage reflected the effect of up-staging on the basis
of SBP. In subjects with high-normal, stage 1, and stage 2 levels,
11%, 15%, and 13%, respectively, were classified on the basis of
both SBP and DBP; 78%, 76%, and 84% were classified on the basis of
SBP alone; and 11%, 9%, and 3% were classified on the basis of DBP
alone (Table 2).
|
|
Of the 1488 subjects with high-normal blood pressure or hypertension, 13.0% were staged on the basis of congruent elevations of SBP and DBP, 77.7% were up-staged on the basis of SBP elevation out of proportion to DBP, and 9.3% were up-staged on the basis of DBP. Therefore, knowledge of the SBP alone correctly classified JNC-VI stage in 91%, whereas knowledge of the DBP alone correctly classified only 22% of subjects.
Affect of Age
To examine whether age affected the proportion of subjects
who were up-staged on the basis of SBP or DBP in the study sample, we
stratified subjects according to age >60 years (n=1366) or age 60
years (n=2290). In the older group, 46% had congruent levels of SBP
and DBP, 53% were up-staged on the basis of SBP, and only 1% were
up-staged on the basis of DBP. Therefore, knowledge of only the SBP
correctly classified the JNC-VI stage in 99% of subjects (versus 47%
for DBP alone). In the younger age group, 76% had congruent levels of
SBP and DBP, 19% were up-staged on the basis of SBP, and 5% were
up-staged on the basis of DBP. Knowledge of only the SBP correctly
classified JNC-VI stage in 95% of subjects (versus 81% for DBP
alone).
Treated/Excluded Subjects
Bias may have been introduced into our results if subjects with
diastolic hypertension were more likely to be treated by
their physicians. To examine this possibility, we measured on-treatment
blood pressures in the 1306 subjects excluded from the study sample
because they were receiving antihypertensive therapy. When we
classified subjects into JNC-VI stages on the basis of these
on-treatment blood pressures, 35% had congruent levels of SBP and DBP,
62% were up-staged on the basis of SBP, and 3% were up-staged on the
basis of DBP. After we restricted the analysis to subjects
without a history of myocardial infarction or congestive heart failure
who were receiving antihypertensive therapy (n=1162), these percentages
were identical.
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
In our predominantly middle-aged sample, we observed that disparate levels of SBP and DBP were common and occurred in 35.4% of untreated subjects. Consequently, when we applied the JNC-VI classification of blood pressure values, we found that subjects were classified more often on the basis of SBP elevation out of proportion to DBP rather than in the opposite situation. Among all untreated subjects, 31.6% were up-staged on the basis of SBP and 3.8% were up-staged on the basis of DBP. In subjects with high-normal blood pressure or hypertension, who were potentially eligible for initial drug therapy, 77.7% were up-staged on the basis of SBP and 9.3% were up-staged on the basis of DBP. In this group, knowledge of only the SBP was able to classify JNC-VI stage correctly in 91% of subjects versus 22% for DBP.
In the treatment algorithm as recommended by JNC-VI, all patients with
high-normal blood pressure or hypertension should attempt lifestyle
modification. Patients with stage 2 hypertension, stage 1
hypertension with target organ damage or cardiovascular
disease, or high-normal blood pressure with diabetes,
nephropathy, or congestive heart failure are eligible for
initial drug therapy. Our data indicates that SBP plays a greater role
than DBP in determining both blood pressure stage and eligibility for
therapy.
Risk of Elevated SBP Versus DBP
Epidemiological data suggests that elevated SBP is at least as
strong a risk factor as elevated DBP for the development of
cardiovascular disease. Previous reports from the
Framingham Heart Study and Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial
(MRFIT) have highlighted the relative risk associated with an increased
SBP both in subjects with isolated systolic
hypertension7 8 as well as in those with elevated SBP and
DBP.9 Data from nearly 348 000 men who were free of
coronary heart disease, between the ages of 35 and 57 years,
and screened for MRFIT indicate that the relative risk of
coronary heart disease mortality for subjects in the highest
decile versus those in the lowest decile of SBP was 3.82 as
opposed to 2.90 for those in the highest versus lowest decile of DBP.
The relative risk for each SBP decile was consistently higher
than that for comparable DBP deciles.9
In addition, elevated SBP appears to confer a greater absolute risk of cardiovascular disease than does elevated DBP,6 9 especially with advancing age. As age increases, mean blood pressure levels tend to rise and the prevalence of hypertension increases. After age 60, however, mean diastolic pressures tend to plateau or fall, whereas systolic pressures continue to increase.21 22 Because the majority of coronary heart disease events and cardiovascular morbidity occur in older individuals, the result is that there is also a greater attributable risk conferred by SBP elevation than by DBP elevation.8
Further evidence of the importance of systolic hypertension comes from 2 clinical trials. The SHEP10 and Syst-Eur11 trials were both double-blind, placebo-controlled studies that evaluated the treatment of isolated systolic hypertension in elderly patients. Both studies demonstrated significant reductions in stroke and other cardiovascular endpoints with active treatment versus placebo.
Despite evidence from trials that indicate that the benefits of blood pressure reduction in hypertensive individuals and the dissemination of national guidelines recommending greater treatment, the rates of hypertension treatment and control to goal blood pressure (<140/<90 mm Hg) in the United States are suboptimal. In the latest National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III, phase 2), conducted in 1991–1994, only 53.6% of hypertensive adults aged 18 to 74 years were receiving treatment and only 27.4% had reached goal blood pressure.13 Clinicians appear especially reluctant to treat older patients,22 perhaps because of perceived lower benefits among the elderly and risk of side effects. Yet, it is precisely the older patients who are at highest absolute risk for developing the sequelae of uncontrolled hypertension: stroke, coronary heart disease, congestive heart failure, renal disease, and other vascular complications. The historical focus on DBP may have created the misperception that treatment of hypertension requires only control of the diastolic component. If this is the case, older patients with elevated SBP, in whom the mean diastolic pressure often is normal, may be undertreated because they are perceived to be "controlled." Further emphasis in national guidelines should therefore be placed on the prevalence, associated risks, and the benefits of controlling elevated SBP.
Changes in JNC Classification
In the first 4 JNC reports,2 3 4 5 blood pressure
stage was defined principally by DBP level. As a result of evidence
that had accumulated, JNC-V,14 published in 1993, proposed
a major revision in the classification of blood pressure stages by use
of both SBP and DBP. The blood pressure staging system has remained
largely unchanged in JNC-VI, the most recent report.13
Pogue et al15 examined the phenomenon of up-staging among 1158 hypertensive patients who participated in the High Blood Pressure Program at Harlem Hospital. The use of JNC-V criteria (incorporating SBP and DBP) compared with JNC-IV criteria (using DBP alone) to classify these hypertensive patients resulted in more than half of them being up-staged.
In an analysis similar to our present study, the MRFIT
Investigators examined the prevalence of SBP and DBP elevation
according to the JNC-V classification scheme. They observed that, in
their younger male population, 32.4% of high-normal and hypertensive
individuals were classified into their blood pressure stage on the
basis of SBP alone, 39.7% were classified on the basis of DBP alone,
and 27.9% had congruent levels of SBP and DBP.9 These
proportions differ from our results in the 398 men 60 years with
high-normal or hypertensive levels (53.0%, 24.6%, and 22.4%,
respectively). The discrepancy may be due to the MRFIT blood pressure
measurement protocol, which used trained observers, rather than
physicians to measure blood pressure. The discrepancy may also reflect
the different ethnic composition or selection bias in the group of
patients who were screened for the MRFIT cohort. That is, young men
with diastolic hypertension may have been preferentially
referred to the centers that participated in the MRFIT trial. The MRFIT
data are limited in that they include only men 35 to 57 years of age,
thus excluding women and the largest hypertensive group, the elderly.
Further studies of blood pressure staging are therefore warranted in
general populations with broader age ranges. In the present study,
women comprised 55% of the sample and subjects ranged in age from 26
to 101 years.
In our sample, as in MRFIT screenees, DBP appeared to have a greater relative impact in determining blood pressure stage in younger individuals, but it was still far less useful than SBP. Among those >60 years of age (the group that includes the majority of hypertensives in the population), the SBP alone correctly predicted JNC-VI stage in nearly all (99%) subjects.
In our secondary analysis of subjects receiving antihypertensive therapy, we again observed a marked preponderance of subjects with on-treatment SBP elevated out of proportion to DBP. The antihypertensive therapy may have decreased levels of SBP and DBP differentially, thereby affecting the relative contributions of SBP and DBP to JNC-VI staging. However, large-scale clinical trials have typically documented equal or greater reductions in SBP compared with DBP during antihypertensive therapy.23 24 Hence, if anything, we may have underestimated the pretreatment contribution of SBP in determining blood pressure stage in this group. This would argue against any potential selection bias derived from preferential treatment of subjects with elevated DBP.
Potential Limitations
These results should be interpreted in the context of their
limitations. First, the Framingham Heart Study cohort is composed
almost exclusively of white individuals. Examination of the disparity
of SBP and DBP in other populations and ethnicities would be useful to
determine whether SBP remains as strong a determinant of blood pressure
staging and eligibility for therapy. Second, our study sample comprised
middle-aged and older individuals. SBP tends to rise with advancing
age, whereas DBP plateaus in the sixth decade, after which it tends to
fall.21 22 Therefore, a younger sample might include more
subjects with diastolic elevations out of proportion to
SBP. However, the vast majority of hypertensive individuals are
middle-aged or older, so the findings of our study likely pertain to
hypertensive individuals as a population. In the subgroup of
individuals <60 years of age in our sample, more subjects had
congruent levels of SBP and DBP, but knowledge of just the SBP still
correctly classified 95% of subjects. Finally, the JNC-VI report
recommends that blood pressure stage should be assigned on the basis of
the average of 2 readings taken at each of 2 visits after an
initial screening.13 We used the average of 2 blood
pressures measured during a single visit to assign blood pressure
stage. It is possible that some subjects may have been classified into
a different stage had we measured blood pressure on 3 separate visits
within a short period of time. However, such data were not
available.
Conclusions
SBP elevation out of proportion to DBP caused many subjects
to be up-staged by use of JNC-VI criteria. Therefore, SBP appears to
play a greater role in determining blood pressure stage and eligibility
for therapy. Given these results, combined with evidence from
hypertension treatment trials, future guidelines might consider
acknowledging a greater role for SBP than for DBP in determining blood
pressure stage, risk of cardiovascular events,
eligibility for therapy, and benefits of treatment.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
Supported by NIH/NHLBI contract N01-HC-38038. The authors gratefully acknowledge the editorial input of Dr Edward J. Roccella, coordinator of the National High Blood Pressure Education Program.
Received February 22, 1999; first decision March 11, 1999; accepted March 22, 1999.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
1. Kannel WB. Coronary risk factors: an overview. In: Willerson JT, Cohn JN, eds. Cardiovascular Medicine. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1995:1809–1828.
2.
Report of the Joint National Committee on Detection,
Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: a cooperative study.
JAMA. 1977;237:255–261.
3.
The report of the Joint National Committee on
Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Arch
Intern Med. 1980;140:1280–1285.
4.
The report of the Joint National Committee on
Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Arch
Intern Med. 1984;144:1045–1057.
5.
The report of the Joint National Committee on
Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Arch
Intern Med. 1988;148:1023–1038.
6. Kannel WB, Gordon T, Schwartz MJ. Systolic versus diastolic blood pressure and risk of coronary heart disease: the Framingham Study. Am J Cardiol. 1971;27:335–345.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
7.
Kannel WB, Dawber TR, McGee DL. Perspectives on
systolic hypertension: the Framingham Study.
Circulation.. 1980;61:1179–1182.
8. Wilson PWF, Kannel WB. Hypertension, other risk factors, and the risk of cardiovascular disease. In: Laragh JH, Brenner BM, eds. Hypertension: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Management. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1995:99–114.
9. Neaton JD, Kuller L, Stamler J, Wentworth DN. Impact of systolic and diastolic blood pressure on cardiovascular mortality. In: Laragh JH, Brenner BM, eds. Hypertension: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Management. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1995:127–144.
10.
SHEP Cooperative Research Group. Prevention of stroke
by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated
systolic hypertension: final results of the Systolic
Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). JAMA. 1991;265:3255–3264.
11. Staessen JA, Fagard R, Thijs L, Celis H, Arabidze GG, Birkenhager WH, Bulpitt CJ, de Leeuw PW, Dollery CT, Fletcher AE, Forette F, Leonetti G, Nachev C, O'Brien ET, Rosenfeld J, Rodicio JL, Tuomilehto J, Zanchetti, A. Randomised double-blind comparison of placebo and active treatment for older patients with isolated systolic hypertension: the Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial Investigators. Lancet.. 1997;350:757–764.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
12. Dahlof B, Lindholm LH, Hansson L, Schersten B, Ekbom T, Wester PO. Morbidity and mortality in the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension (STOP-Hypertension). Lancet. 1991;338:1281–1285.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
13.
The sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on
Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood
Pressure. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:2413–2446.
14.
The fifth Report of the Joint National Committee on
Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Arch
Intern Med. 1993;153:154–183.
15.
Pogue VA, Ellis C, Michel J, Francis CK. New staging
system of the fifth Joint National Committee report on the detection,
evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure (JNC-V) alters
assessment of the severity and treatment of hypertension.
Hypertension. 1996;28:713–718.
16. Gordon T, Moore FE, Shurtleff D, Dawber TR. Some methodological problems in the long-term study of cardiovascular disease: observations on the Framingham Study. J Chronic Dis. 1959;10:186–206.
17. Dawber TR, Kannel WB, Lyell LP. An approach to longitudinal studies in a community: the Framingham study. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1963;107:539–556.
18.
Kannel WB, Feinleib M, McNamara PM, Garrison RJ,
Castelli WP. An investigation of coronary heart disease in
families: the Framingham offspring study. Am J
Epidemiol. 1979;110:281–290.
19. Feinleib M, Kannel WB, Garrison RJ, McNamara PM, Castelli WP. The Framingham Offspring Study: design and preliminary data. Prev Med. 1975;4:518–525.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
20. SAS Institute. SAS/STAT Software: Changes and Enhancements Through Release 6.11. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc; 1996:381–490.
21.
Franklin SS, Gustin W, Wong ND, Larson MG, Weber MA,
Kannel WB, Levy D. Hemodynamic patterns of age-related
changes in blood pressure: the Framingham Heart Study.
Circulation.. 1997;96:308–315.
22.
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.
23.
Neaton JD, Grimm RH Jr, Prineas RJ, Stamler J, Grandits
GA, Elmer PJ, Cutler JA, Flack JM, Schoenberger JA, McDonald R,
Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study Research Group. Treatment of Mild
Hypertension Study: final results.. JAMA.. 1993;270:713–724.
24.
Materson BJ, Reda DJ, Cushman WC, Massie BM, Freis ED,
Kochar MS, Hamburger RJ, Fye C, Lakshman R, Gottdiener J, The
Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on
Antihypertensive Agents. Single-drug therapy for hypertension in men: a
comparison of six antihypertensive agents with placebo. N
Engl J Med. 1993;328:914–921.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  K. Miura, H. Nakagawa, Y. Ohashi, A. Harada, M. Taguri, T. Kushiro, A. Takahashi, M. Nishinaga, H. Soejima, H. Ueshima, et al. Four Blood Pressure Indexes and the Risk of Stroke and Myocardial Infarction in Japanese Men and Women: A Meta-Analysis of 16 Cohort Studies Circulation, April 14, 2009; 119(14): 1892 - 1898. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 X. Guo, S. Cheng, K. D. Taylor, J. Cui, R. Hughes, M. J. Quinones, I. Bulnes-Enriquez, R. De La Rosa, G. Aurea, H. Yang, et al. Hypertension Genes Are Genetic Markers for Insulin Sensitivity and Resistance Hypertension, April 1, 2005; 45(4): 799 - 803. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. M. Lloyd-Jones, E. P. Leip, M. G. Larson, R. S. Vasan, and D. Levy Novel Approach to Examining First Cardiovascular Events After Hypertension Onset Hypertension, January 1, 2005; 45(1): 39 - 45. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Miura, Y. Soyama, Y. Morikawa, M. Nishijo, Y. Nakanishi, Y. Naruse, K. Yoshita, S. Kagamimori, and H. Nakagawa Comparison of Four Blood Pressure Indexes for the Prediction of 10-Year Stroke Risk in Middle-Aged and Older Asians Hypertension, November 1, 2004; 44(5): 715 - 720. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. N. Cohn, A. A. Quyyumi, N. K. Hollenberg, and K. A. Jamerson Surrogate Markers for Cardiovascular Disease: Functional Markers Circulation, June 29, 2004; 109(25_suppl_1): IV-31 - IV-46. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. Franco, S. Oparil, and O. A. Carretero Hypertensive Therapy: Part I Circulation, June 22, 2004; 109(24): 2953 - 2958. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. J. O'Connor Overcome Clinical Inertia to Control Systolic Blood Pressure Arch Intern Med, December 8, 2003; 163(22): 2677 - 2678. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asia Pacific Cohort Studies Collaboration Blood Pressure Indices and Cardiovascular Disease in the Asia Pacific Region: A Pooled Analysis Hypertension, July 1, 2003; 42(1): 69 - 75. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. J. Oliver and D. J. Webb Noninvasive Assessment of Arterial Stiffness and Risk of Atherosclerotic Events Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol, April 1, 2003; 23(4): 554 - 566. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. M. Lloyd-Jones, J. C. Evans, M. G. Larson, and D. Levy Treatment and Control of Hypertension in the Community: A Prospective Analysis Hypertension, November 1, 2002; 40(5): 640 - 646. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. N Basile Systolic blood pressure BMJ, October 26, 2002; 325(7370): 917 - 918. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. Hajjar, K. Miller, and V. Hirth Age-Related Bias in the Management of Hypertension: A National Survey of Physicians' Opinions on Hypertension in Elderly Adults J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci., August 1, 2002; 57(8): M487 - 491. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. T. Cacioppo, L. C. Hawkley, L. E. Crawford, J. M. Ernst, M. H. Burleson, R. B. Kowalewski, W. B. Malarkey, E. Van Cauter, and G. G. Berntson Loneliness and Health: Potential Mechanisms Psychosom Med, May 1, 2002; 64(3): 407 - 417. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Muntner, J. He, E. J. Roccella, and P. K. Whelton The Impact of JNC-VI Guidelines on Treatment Recommendations in the US Population Hypertension, April 1, 2002; 39(4): 897 - 902. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. C. Deedwania The Changing Face of Hypertension: Is Systolic Blood Pressure the Final Answer? Arch Intern Med, March 11, 2002; 162(5): 506 - 508. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. J. Moore, P. R. Conlin, J. Ard, and L. P. Svetkey DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) Diet Is Effective Treatment for Stage 1 Isolated Systolic Hypertension Hypertension, August 1, 2001; 38(2): 155 - 158. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Miura, A. R. Dyer, P. Greenland, M. L. Daviglus, M. Hill, K. Liu, D. B. Garside, and J. Stamler Pulse Pressure Compared With Other Blood Pressure Indexes in the Prediction of 25-Year Cardiovascular and All-Cause Mortality Rates: The Chicago Heart Association Detection Project in Industry Study Hypertension, August 1, 2001; 38(2): 232 - 237. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Miura, M. L. Daviglus, A. R. Dyer, K. Liu, D. B. Garside, J. Stamler, and P. Greenland Relationship of Blood Pressure to 25-Year Mortality Due to Coronary Heart Disease, Cardiovascular Diseases, and All Causes in Young Adult Men: The Chicago Heart Association Detection Project in Industry Arch Intern Med, June 25, 2001; 161(12): 1501 - 1508. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. S. Franklin, M. J. Jacobs, N. D. Wong, G. J. L'Italien, and P. Lapuerta Predominance of Isolated Systolic Hypertension Among Middle-Aged and Elderly US Hypertensives : Analysis Based on National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III Hypertension, March 1, 2001; 37(3): 869 - 874. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Benetos, F. Thomas, M. E. Safar, K. E. Bean, and L. Guize Should diastolic and systolic blood pressure be considered for cardiovascular risk evaluation: a study in middle-aged men and women J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 1, 2001; 37(1): 163 - 168. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. M. Lloyd-Jones, J. C. Evans, M. G. Larson, C. J. O'Donnell, E. J. Roccella, and D. Levy Differential Control of Systolic and Diastolic Blood Pressure : Factors Associated With Lack of Blood Pressure Control in the Community Hypertension, October 1, 2000; 36(4): 594 - 599. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. L. Izzo Jr, D. Levy, and H. R. Black Importance of Systolic Blood Pressure in Older Americans Hypertension, May 1, 2000; 35(5): 1021 - 1024. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. R. Black The Paradigm Has Shifted, to Systolic Blood Pressure Hypertension, September 1, 1999; 34(3): 386 - 387. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||