Background— Few population studies addressed the prognostic significance of aortic pulse wave velocity (APWV) above and beyond other cardiovascular risk factors. Methods and Results— We studied a sex- and age-stratified random sample of 1678 Danes aged 40 to 70 years. We used Cox regression to investigate the prognostic value of APWV, office pulse pressure (PP), and 24-hour ambulatory PP while adjusting for mean arterial pressure (MAP) and other covariates. Over a median follow-up of 9.4 years, the incidence of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular end points, cardiovascular mortality, and fatal and nonfatal coronary heart disease amounted to 154, 62, and 101 cases, respectively. We adjusted for sex, age, body mass index, MAP measured in the office (conventional PP and APWV) or by ambulatory monitoring (24-hour PP), smoking, and alcohol intake. With these adjustments, APWV maintained its prognostic significance in relation to each end point ( P 0.19), except for office PP in relation to coronary heart disease ( P =0.02). For each 1-SD increment in APWV (3.4 m/s), the risk of an event increased by 16% to 20%. In sensitivity analyses, APWV still predicted all cardiovascular events after standardization to a heart rate of 60 beats per minute, after adjustment for 24-hour MAP instead of office MAP, and/or after additional adjustment for the ratio of total to HDL serum cholesterol and diabetes mellitus at baseline. Conclusions— In a general Danish population, APWV predicted a composite of cardiovascular outcomes above and beyond traditional cardiovascular risk factors, including 24-hour MAP.

Numerous studies addressed the predictive value of the nighttime blood pressure (BP) as captured by ambulatory monitoring. However, arbitrary cutoff limits in dichotomized analyses of continuous variables, data dredging across selected subgroups, extrapolation of cross-sectional studies to prospective outcomes, and lack of comprehensive adjustments for confounders make interpretation of the literature difficult. We reviewed prospective studies with total mortality or a composite cardiovascular end point as an outcome in relation to the level and the circadian profile of systolic BP. We analyzed studies in hypertensive patients (n=23 856) separately from those in individuals randomly recruited from populations (n=9641). We pooled summary statistics and individual subject data, respectively. In both patients and populations, in analyses in which nighttime BP was additionally adjusted for daytime BP and vice versa, nighttime BP was a stronger predictor than daytime BP. With adjustment for the 24-hour BP, both the night-to-day BP ratio and dipping status remained significant predictors of outcome but added little prognostic value over and beyond the 24-hour BP level. In the absence of conclusive evidence proving that nondipping is a reversible risk factor, the option whether or not to restore the diurnal blood pressure profile to a normal pattern should be left to the clinical judgment of doctors and should be individualized for each patient. Current guidelines on the interpretation of ambulatory BP recording need to be updated.

Quiz Ref ID North American,^1,2 European,^3,4 Japanese,⁵ and Chinese⁶ guidelines unanimously recommend ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring for BP assessment. However, which BP index among the multitude of measurements that can be derived from conventional and ambulatory BP recordings is more closely associated with adverse health outcomes remains unresolved. In several studies, the association between cardiovascular risk and BP was strongest for systolic readings taken at nighttime,⁷ an observation subsequently replicated among patients with hypertension⁸ or referred for ambulatory BP monitoring.⁹ More recently,¹⁰ BP readings via automated office machines was introduced as an alternative to ambulatory monitoring, but the strength of its association with a cardiovascular outcome is unknown. Given the uncertainty left by these previous findings,^7-13 the objective of this study was to evaluate various types of BP measurements and assess the strength of their associations with mortality and adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

In previous studies, of which several were underpowered, the relation between cardiovascular outcome and blood pressure (BP) variability was inconsistent. We followed health outcomes in 8938 subjects (mean age: 53.0 years; 46.8% women) randomly recruited from 11 populations. At baseline, we assessed BP variability from the SD and average real variability in 24-hour ambulatory BP recordings. We computed standardized hazard ratios (HRs) while stratifying by cohort and adjusting for 24-hour BP and other risk factors. Over 11.3 years (median), 1242 deaths (487 cardiovascular) occurred, and 1049, 577, 421, and 457 participants experienced a fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular, cardiac, or coronary event or a stroke. Higher diastolic average real variability in 24-hour ambulatory BP recordings predicted ( P ≤0.03) total (HR: 1.14) and cardiovascular (HR: 1.21) mortality and all types of fatal combined with nonfatal end points (HR: ≥1.07) with the exception of cardiac and coronary events (HR: ≤1.02; P ≥0.58). Higher systolic average real variability in 24-hour ambulatory BP recordings predicted ( P <0.05) total (HR: 1.11) and cardiovascular (HR: 1.16) mortality and all fatal combined with nonfatal end points (HR: ≥1.07), with the exception of cardiac and coronary events (HR: ≤1.03; P ≥0.54). SD predicted only total and cardiovascular mortality. While accounting for the 24-hour BP level, average real variability in 24-hour ambulatory BP recordings added <1% to the prediction of a cardiovascular event. Sensitivity analyses considering ethnicity, sex, age, previous cardiovascular disease, antihypertensive treatment, number of BP readings per recording, or the night:day BP ratio were confirmatory. In conclusion, in a large population cohort, which provided sufficient statistical power, BP variability assessed from 24-hour ambulatory recordings did not contribute much to risk stratification over and beyond 24-hour BP.