This Article Full Text Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Majahalme, S. Articles by Uusitalo, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Majahalme, S. Articles by Uusitalo, A.

(Hypertension. 1996;28:725-731.)
© 1996 American Heart Association, Inc.

Articles

Blood Pressure Level and Variability in the Prediction of Blood Pressure After 5-Year Follow-up

Silja Majahalme; Vaino Turjanmaa; Alan B. Weder; Hong Lu; Martti T. Tuomisto; Arto Uusitalo

the Department of Medicine, Medical School, University of Tampere (Finland) (S.M.); Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hypertension, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (S.M., A.B.W., H.L.); and Department of Clinical Physiology, Medical School, University of Tampere and Department of Clinical Physiology, Tampere (Finland) University Hospital (V.T., M.T.T., A.U.).

Correspondence to Silja Majahalme, MD, Tampere University Hospital, Department of Internal Medicine/Cardiology, P.O. Box 2000, FIN-33521, Tampere, Finland.

We compared mean intra-arterial ambulatory blood pressure (IAMB), blood pressure (BP) diurnal profiles and variability, and postural measurements with casual sphygmomanometric measurements for the prediction of future BP. We studied 97 healthy, unmedicated men classified as normotensive (NT, n=34), borderline hypertensive (BHT, n=29), or mildly hypertensive (HT, n=34) by repeated casual measurements during the 2 months before IAMB. Five years later, we reassessed 79 subjects (81%) using casual BP measurements and noninvasive ambulatory 24-hour BP monitoring (NAMB). IAMB level generally correlated well with follow-up BP and slightly better with NAMB level than with casual measurements (24-hour IAMB versus follow-up NAMB systolic BP [SBP], r=.64, P<.001; versus diastolic BP [DBP], r=.52, P<.001). NT and BHT subgroup correlations were of similar strength, but the relationship in the HT subgroup was not significant. Similarly, when we examined daytime and nighttime BP levels, nighttime BP correlated better with follow-up BP in NT and BHT but not in HT. The only measures that were significantly related to follow-up BP in HT were two BP variability measures, SD and the range of variability (RV₈₀: 90th minus 10th percentile) (initial 24-hour IAMB SD and follow-up BP, r=.42 to r=.52, P<.05 to P<.01; RV₈₀ versus follow-up BP, r=.43 to r=.52, P<.05 to P<.01). Correlations of follow-up BP with postural BP were generally weaker than with casual BP or IAMB level. Linear stepwise regressions for SBP and DBP separately (including all IAMB variables) demonstrated that the best single predictor for follow-up BP was 24-hour IAMB SBP level, which explained 41% of follow-up NAMB SBP level variance (F=52.6, P<.001). However, in a second analysis including casual values, casual SBP alone explained 44% of follow-up NAMB SBP variance (F=62.5, P<.001), whereas IAMB SBP added only 4% (F=5.5, P<.05). Predictions of follow-up DBP were always poorer. After 5 years, 70% of NT and 86% of HT were still in their initial classification group, but 67% of BHT had become hypertensive. In these new HT (n=16), initial IAMB level correlated most strongly with follow-up NAMB level (24-hour SBP, r=.70, P<.01; 24-hour DBP, r=.55, P<.05). The only other significant demographic variable predicting future BP was change in weight over 5 years, which added 10% to the explanation of future casual SBP variance (F=12.5, P=.0007) and 15% to casual DBP variance (F=18.0, P=.0001); for NAMB, the percentages were lower. In logistic regression, those NT and BHT who became hypertensive (n=22) had a 75% probability of becoming hypertensive if they gained 11.7 kg or more during 5 years (²=4.5, P=.03). To conclude, BP tended to increase in all groups, especially in BHT, during follow-up. Nominal differences were observed between casual measurements and BP level measures in the prediction of future BP, and their explanatory value for future BP was generally less than 50%. However, for BHT who became hypertensive, BP level and variability measurements somewhat improved the prediction of follow-up BP. Weight gain was an important additional predictor for future hypertension in both NT and BHT.

Key Words: blood pressure, ambulatory • posture • follow-up studies

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Dernellis and M. Panaretou Aortic Stiffness Is an Independent Predictor of Progression to Hypertension in Nonhypertensive Subjects Hypertension, March 1, 2005; 45(3): 426 - 431. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]