Visit-to-visit blood pressure variability in the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis: Methodological aspects and effects of antihypertensive treatment

Giuseppe Mancia, Rita Facchetti, Gianfranco Parati, Alberto Zanchetti

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

63 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Recent studies have reported that in patients under antihypertensive treatment visit-to-visit (or long-term) variability of clinic BP within a given patient has an independent prognostic significance. Partly based on between-patient dispersion of BP values during treatment (interindividual variability) it has also been reported that long-term clinic BP variability is greater for β-blocker than for calcium antagonist and other types of treatment. GOALS:: To measure visit-to-visit intraindividual variations of both clinic and 24-h mean BP in the hypertensive patients of the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis (ELSA) trial treated for 4 years with either atenolol or lacidipine, and to check whether interindividual clinic and 24-h BP variabilities during treatment can really be considered a surrogate of intraindividual variabilities in exploring differences between β-blocker and calcium antagonist treatments. Methods: Long-term intraindividual BP variability was defined as the coefficient of variation of the average systolic or diastolic values of clinic and 24-h BP measured at each visit throughout the treatment period. Patients in whom at least seven clinic (6-month intervals) or at least three (yearly intervals) 24-h values were available from the end of the drug titration phase to the end of the study were considered. Results: Visit-to-visit 24-h SBP/DBP variabilities were 20-25% smaller than, and loosely correlated with clinic BP variability (r 2 <0.022). There was also a very limited relationship (r 2 <0.026) between visit-to-visit and within 24-h ambulatory BP variabilities, the latter being two to three times greater than the former. Visit-to-visit intraindividual clinic SBP variability was only slightly lower on calcium antagonist than on β-blocker treatment but little or no between-treatment difference was found for visit-to-visit clinic DBP and ambulatory SBP/DBP particularly in patients under monotherapy throughout the study. Interindividual BP variability was markedly greater than the intra-individiual one of which it did not precisely reflect the treatment-induced changes. Conclusion: In mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients, visit-to-visit BP variability does not differ substantially between β-blocker and calcium antagonist treatment. Major discrepancies exist between visit-to-visit BP variability as quantified by 24-h vs. clinic BP, making investigation of which of these indices is clinically more relevant important. Interindividual BP variability during treatment shows marked quantitative differences with intraindividual BP variability questioning whether its use can accurately reflect individual BP variations from one visit to another.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1241-1251
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Hypertension
Volume30
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2012

Fingerprint

Antihypertensive Agents
Atherosclerosis
Blood Pressure
Therapeutics
Calcium
Ambulatory Care
lacidipine
Atenolol

Keywords

  • antihypertensive treatment
  • b-blockers
  • blood pressure
  • calcium antagonists
  • hypertension

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine
  • Physiology
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Visit-to-visit blood pressure variability in the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis : Methodological aspects and effects of antihypertensive treatment. / Mancia, Giuseppe; Facchetti, Rita; Parati, Gianfranco; Zanchetti, Alberto.

In: Journal of Hypertension, Vol. 30, No. 6, 06.2012, p. 1241-1251.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d859edabbf1a413eb4bb4e6b9d65b689,
title = "Visit-to-visit blood pressure variability in the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis: Methodological aspects and effects of antihypertensive treatment",
abstract = "Background: Recent studies have reported that in patients under antihypertensive treatment visit-to-visit (or long-term) variability of clinic BP within a given patient has an independent prognostic significance. Partly based on between-patient dispersion of BP values during treatment (interindividual variability) it has also been reported that long-term clinic BP variability is greater for β-blocker than for calcium antagonist and other types of treatment. GOALS:: To measure visit-to-visit intraindividual variations of both clinic and 24-h mean BP in the hypertensive patients of the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis (ELSA) trial treated for 4 years with either atenolol or lacidipine, and to check whether interindividual clinic and 24-h BP variabilities during treatment can really be considered a surrogate of intraindividual variabilities in exploring differences between β-blocker and calcium antagonist treatments. Methods: Long-term intraindividual BP variability was defined as the coefficient of variation of the average systolic or diastolic values of clinic and 24-h BP measured at each visit throughout the treatment period. Patients in whom at least seven clinic (6-month intervals) or at least three (yearly intervals) 24-h values were available from the end of the drug titration phase to the end of the study were considered. Results: Visit-to-visit 24-h SBP/DBP variabilities were 20-25{\%} smaller than, and loosely correlated with clinic BP variability (r 2 <0.022). There was also a very limited relationship (r 2 <0.026) between visit-to-visit and within 24-h ambulatory BP variabilities, the latter being two to three times greater than the former. Visit-to-visit intraindividual clinic SBP variability was only slightly lower on calcium antagonist than on β-blocker treatment but little or no between-treatment difference was found for visit-to-visit clinic DBP and ambulatory SBP/DBP particularly in patients under monotherapy throughout the study. Interindividual BP variability was markedly greater than the intra-individiual one of which it did not precisely reflect the treatment-induced changes. Conclusion: In mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients, visit-to-visit BP variability does not differ substantially between β-blocker and calcium antagonist treatment. Major discrepancies exist between visit-to-visit BP variability as quantified by 24-h vs. clinic BP, making investigation of which of these indices is clinically more relevant important. Interindividual BP variability during treatment shows marked quantitative differences with intraindividual BP variability questioning whether its use can accurately reflect individual BP variations from one visit to another.",
keywords = "antihypertensive treatment, b-blockers, blood pressure, calcium antagonists, hypertension",
author = "Giuseppe Mancia and Rita Facchetti and Gianfranco Parati and Alberto Zanchetti",
year = "2012",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1097/HJH.0b013e32835339ac",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "1241--1251",
journal = "Journal of Hypertension",
issn = "0263-6352",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Visit-to-visit blood pressure variability in the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis

T2 - Methodological aspects and effects of antihypertensive treatment

AU - Mancia, Giuseppe

AU - Facchetti, Rita

AU - Parati, Gianfranco

AU - Zanchetti, Alberto

PY - 2012/6

Y1 - 2012/6

N2 - Background: Recent studies have reported that in patients under antihypertensive treatment visit-to-visit (or long-term) variability of clinic BP within a given patient has an independent prognostic significance. Partly based on between-patient dispersion of BP values during treatment (interindividual variability) it has also been reported that long-term clinic BP variability is greater for β-blocker than for calcium antagonist and other types of treatment. GOALS:: To measure visit-to-visit intraindividual variations of both clinic and 24-h mean BP in the hypertensive patients of the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis (ELSA) trial treated for 4 years with either atenolol or lacidipine, and to check whether interindividual clinic and 24-h BP variabilities during treatment can really be considered a surrogate of intraindividual variabilities in exploring differences between β-blocker and calcium antagonist treatments. Methods: Long-term intraindividual BP variability was defined as the coefficient of variation of the average systolic or diastolic values of clinic and 24-h BP measured at each visit throughout the treatment period. Patients in whom at least seven clinic (6-month intervals) or at least three (yearly intervals) 24-h values were available from the end of the drug titration phase to the end of the study were considered. Results: Visit-to-visit 24-h SBP/DBP variabilities were 20-25% smaller than, and loosely correlated with clinic BP variability (r 2 <0.022). There was also a very limited relationship (r 2 <0.026) between visit-to-visit and within 24-h ambulatory BP variabilities, the latter being two to three times greater than the former. Visit-to-visit intraindividual clinic SBP variability was only slightly lower on calcium antagonist than on β-blocker treatment but little or no between-treatment difference was found for visit-to-visit clinic DBP and ambulatory SBP/DBP particularly in patients under monotherapy throughout the study. Interindividual BP variability was markedly greater than the intra-individiual one of which it did not precisely reflect the treatment-induced changes. Conclusion: In mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients, visit-to-visit BP variability does not differ substantially between β-blocker and calcium antagonist treatment. Major discrepancies exist between visit-to-visit BP variability as quantified by 24-h vs. clinic BP, making investigation of which of these indices is clinically more relevant important. Interindividual BP variability during treatment shows marked quantitative differences with intraindividual BP variability questioning whether its use can accurately reflect individual BP variations from one visit to another.

AB - Background: Recent studies have reported that in patients under antihypertensive treatment visit-to-visit (or long-term) variability of clinic BP within a given patient has an independent prognostic significance. Partly based on between-patient dispersion of BP values during treatment (interindividual variability) it has also been reported that long-term clinic BP variability is greater for β-blocker than for calcium antagonist and other types of treatment. GOALS:: To measure visit-to-visit intraindividual variations of both clinic and 24-h mean BP in the hypertensive patients of the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis (ELSA) trial treated for 4 years with either atenolol or lacidipine, and to check whether interindividual clinic and 24-h BP variabilities during treatment can really be considered a surrogate of intraindividual variabilities in exploring differences between β-blocker and calcium antagonist treatments. Methods: Long-term intraindividual BP variability was defined as the coefficient of variation of the average systolic or diastolic values of clinic and 24-h BP measured at each visit throughout the treatment period. Patients in whom at least seven clinic (6-month intervals) or at least three (yearly intervals) 24-h values were available from the end of the drug titration phase to the end of the study were considered. Results: Visit-to-visit 24-h SBP/DBP variabilities were 20-25% smaller than, and loosely correlated with clinic BP variability (r 2 <0.022). There was also a very limited relationship (r 2 <0.026) between visit-to-visit and within 24-h ambulatory BP variabilities, the latter being two to three times greater than the former. Visit-to-visit intraindividual clinic SBP variability was only slightly lower on calcium antagonist than on β-blocker treatment but little or no between-treatment difference was found for visit-to-visit clinic DBP and ambulatory SBP/DBP particularly in patients under monotherapy throughout the study. Interindividual BP variability was markedly greater than the intra-individiual one of which it did not precisely reflect the treatment-induced changes. Conclusion: In mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients, visit-to-visit BP variability does not differ substantially between β-blocker and calcium antagonist treatment. Major discrepancies exist between visit-to-visit BP variability as quantified by 24-h vs. clinic BP, making investigation of which of these indices is clinically more relevant important. Interindividual BP variability during treatment shows marked quantitative differences with intraindividual BP variability questioning whether its use can accurately reflect individual BP variations from one visit to another.

KW - antihypertensive treatment

KW - b-blockers

KW - blood pressure

KW - calcium antagonists

KW - hypertension

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84861098550&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84861098550&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/HJH.0b013e32835339ac

DO - 10.1097/HJH.0b013e32835339ac

M3 - Article

C2 - 22499291

AN - SCOPUS:84861098550

VL - 30

SP - 1241

EP - 1251

JO - Journal of Hypertension

JF - Journal of Hypertension

SN - 0263-6352

IS - 6

ER -