4.4 Article

Meta-Analysis of the Quantitative Relation Between Pulse Pressure and Mean Arterial Pressure and Cardiovascular Risk in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 113, Issue 6, Pages 1058-1065

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.12.005

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), Tokyo, Japan [20300227, 202965]
  2. Japan Cardiovascular Research Foundation
  3. Ministry of Health Labor and Welfare, Tokyo, Japan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Results of epidemiologic studies that investigated the significance of pulse pressure (PP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) in terms of risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients with diabetes mellitus are inconsistent. We performed a quantitative meta-analysis to estimate CVD risk in relation to PP or MAP. Electronic literature search was conducted for prospective studies providing data on CVD risk for an increment in baseline MAP or PP in patients with diabetes mellitus. The pooled CVD risk for a 10-mm Hg increase in each blood pressure (BP) index was estimated with a random-effects model. There were 17 eligible studies consisting of 52,647 patients and 5,112 CVD cases. The pooled relative risk (95% confidence interval) of CVD for an increment of 10 mm Hg was 1.10 (1.04 to 1.16) for PP and 1.09 (0.98 to 1.21) for MAP. Significant between-study heterogeneity was observed (I-2 [p value]; 76.5% [p < 0.001] for PP, 67.8% [p = 0.005] for MAP). In studies concurrently investigating CVD risk for the 4 indexes (i.e., PP, MAP, systolic BP, and diastolic BP), the pooled relative risk (95% confidence interval) was 1.17 (1.09 to 1.26) for PP, 1.11 (1.06 to 1.15) for MAP, 1.14 (1.06 to 1.22) for systolic BP, and 1.06 (0.94 to 1.19) for diastolic BP. In conclusion, the current meta-analysis suggested that PP was the strongest indicator among the 4 commonly used BP indexes. However, the large heterogeneity urged cautious interpretation of the study results. (c) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available