4.8 Article

Assessment of frequency of progression to hypertension in nonhypertensive participants in the Framingham Heart Study: a cohort study

Journal

LANCET
Volume 358, Issue 9294, Pages 1682-1686

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06710-1

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Patients with optimum (<120/80 mm Hg), normal (120-129/80-84 mm Hg), and high normal (130-139/85-89 mm Hg) blood pressure (BP) may progress to hypertension (140/90 mm Hg) over time. We aimed to establish the best frequency of BP screening by assessing the rates and determinants of progression to hypertension. Methods We assessed repeated BP measurements in individuals without hypertension (BP<140/90 mm Hg) from the Framingham Study (4200 men, 5645 women; mean age 52 years) who attended clinic examinations during 1978-94. The incidence of hypertension (or use of anti hypertensive treatment) and its determinants were studied. Findings A stepwise, increase in hypertension incidence occurred across the three non-hypertensive BP categories; 5.3% (95% CI 4.4-6.3%) of participants with optimum BP, 17.6% (15.2-20.3%) with normal, and 37.3% (33.3-41.5%) with high normal BP aged below age 65 years progressed to hypertension over 4 years. Corresponding 4-year rates of progression for patients 65 years and older were 16.0% (12.0-20.9), 25.5% (20.4-31.4), and 49.5% (42.6-56.4), respectively. Obesity and weight gain also contributed to progression; a 5% weight gain on follow-up was associated with 20-30% increased odds of hypertension. Interpretation High normal BP and normal BP frequently progress to hypertension over a period of 4 years, especially in older adults. These findings support recommendations for monitoring individuals with high normal BP once a year, and monitoring those with normal BP every 2 years, and they emphasise the importance of weight control as a measure for primary prevention of hypertension.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available