Visit-to-visit blood pressure variation is associated with outcomes in a U-shaped fashion in patients with myocardial infarction complicated with systolic dysfunction and/or heart failure: findings from the EPHESUS and OPTIMAAL trials

Background: Visit-to-visit office blood pressure variation (BPV) has prognostic implications independent from mean BP across several populations in the cardiovascular field. The association of BPV with outcomes in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) with systolic dysfunction and/or heart failure is yet to be determined. Methods: Two independent cohorts were assessed: the EPHESUS and the OPTIMAAL trials with a total of more than 12 000 patients. The primary outcome was all-cause death. BPV was calculated as a coefficient of variation, that is, the ratio of the SD to the mean BP along the postbaseline follow-up. Cox regression models were used to determine the associations between BPV and events. Results: Compared with the middle and lower BPV tertiles, patients in the upper BPV tertile were older, more often women, hypertensive, diabetic, with peripheral artery disease, and had more frequent use of loop diuretics and ACEi/ARBs. They also had lower LVEF, hemoglobin, and eGFR (all P < 0.001). BPV was independently associated with worse prognosis in a U-shaped manner. In the EPHESUS trial, both low and high BPV were associated with higher rates of death (and also cardiovascular death and the composite of cardiovascular death/ cardiovascular hospitalization): adjusted hazard ratio (95% CI) for the outcome of death is 1.99 (1.68–2.36) for high BPV and is 1.60 (1.35–1.90) for low BPV. Similar results were observed in the OPTIMAAL trial population. Conclusion: In two independent cohorts of MI patients with systolic dysfunction and/or heart failure, BPV was associated with worse prognosis in a U-shaped manner independently of the mean BP.

[1]  Claes Held,et al.  Visit-to-visit variability of blood pressure and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with stable coronary heart disease. Insights from the STABILITY trial , 2017, European heart journal.

[2]  Richard J McManus,et al.  Blood pressure variability and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[3]  A. D. de Craen,et al.  Visit-to-visit blood pressure variability and future functional decline in old age , 2016, Journal of hypertension.

[4]  B. Davis,et al.  The Association Between Antihypertensive Medication Nonadherence and Visit-to-Visit Variability of Blood Pressure: Findings From the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial. , 2016, Hypertension.

[5]  G. Mancia Visit-to-Visit Blood Pressure Variability: An Insight Into the Mechanisms. , 2016, Hypertension.

[6]  K. Swedberg,et al.  Effect of Visit‐to‐Visit Variation of Heart Rate and Systolic Blood Pressure on Outcomes in Chronic Systolic Heart Failure: Results From the Systolic Heart Failure Treatment With the I f Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial (SHIFT) Trial , 2016, Journal of the American Heart Association.

[7]  D. Atar,et al.  Serum uric acid is associated with mortality and heart failure hospitalizations in patients with complicated myocardial infarction: findings from the High‐Risk Myocardial Infarction Database Initiative , 2015, European journal of heart failure.

[8]  F. Zannad,et al.  Increased visit-to-visit blood pressure variability is associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes in low ejection fraction heart failure patients: Insights from the HEAAL study. , 2015, International journal of cardiology.

[9]  M. Drazner,et al.  2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[10]  F. Zannad,et al.  Visit-to-visit blood pressure variability and risk for progression of cardiovascular and renal diseases , 2013, Current opinion in nephrology and hypertension.

[11]  F. Zannad,et al.  Visit-to-Visit Blood Pressure Variability Is a Strong Predictor of Cardiovascular Events in Hemodialysis: Insights From FOSIDIAL , 2012, Hypertension.

[12]  M. Hsieh,et al.  Visit‐to‐visit variability in blood pressure strongly predicts all‐cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 5·5‐year prospective analysis , 2012, European journal of clinical investigation.

[13]  S. Oparil,et al.  Reproducibility of visit-to-visit variability of blood pressure measured as part of routine clinical care , 2011, Journal of hypertension.

[14]  S. Yusuf,et al.  Heart rate is associated with increased risk of major cardiovascular events, cardiovascular and all-cause death in patients with stable chronic cardiovascular disease: an analysis of ONTARGET/TRANSCEND , 2010, Clinical Research in Cardiology.

[15]  P. Rothwell,et al.  Effects of antihypertensive-drug class on interindividual variation in blood pressure and risk of stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2010, The Lancet.

[16]  E. O’Brien,et al.  Prognostic significance of visit-to-visit variability, maximum systolic blood pressure, and episodic hypertension , 2010, The Lancet.

[17]  P. Rothwell,et al.  Limitations of the usual blood-pressure hypothesis and importance of variability, instability, and episodic hypertension , 2010, The Lancet.

[18]  C. Schmid,et al.  A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate. , 2009, Annals of internal medicine.

[19]  Philippe Lacroix,et al.  Heart rate and pulse pressure at rest are major prognostic markers of early postoperative complications after coronary bypass surgery. , 2008, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[20]  Hans L Hillege,et al.  Low pulse pressure is independently related to elevated natriuretic peptides and increased mortality in advanced chronic heart failure. , 2005, European heart journal.

[21]  A. Burger,et al.  Relation between pulse pressure and survival in patients with decompensated heart failure. , 2004, The American journal of cardiology.

[22]  B. Pitt,et al.  Eplerenone, a Selective Aldosterone Blocker, in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction after Myocardial Infarction , 2003 .

[23]  Sunil J Rao,et al.  Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis , 2003 .

[24]  K. Dickstein,et al.  Effects of losartan and captopril on mortality and morbidity in high-risk patients after acute myocardial infarction: the OPTIMAAL randomised trial , 2002, The Lancet.

[25]  K. Dickstein,et al.  Comparison of the effects of losartan and captopril on mortality in patients after acute myocardial infarction: the OPTIMAAL trial design. Optimal Therapy in Myocardial Infarction with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan. , 1999, The American journal of cardiology.

[26]  P. Whelton,et al.  Visit-to-Visit Office Blood Pressure Variability and Cardiovascular Outcomes in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) , 2017, Hypertension.

[27]  Volkmar Falk,et al.  2016 ESC Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure. , 2016, Revista espanola de cardiologia.

[28]  J. López-Sendón,et al.  The EPHESUS Trial: Eplerenone in Patients with Heart Failure Due to Systolic Dysfunction Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction , 2004, Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy.