4.7 Article

Elevated blood pressure and risk of aortic valve disease: a cohort analysis of 5.4 million UK adults

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 39, 期 39, 页码 3596-+

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy486

关键词

Blood pressure; Aortic valve disease; Cohort study; Aortic stenosis; Aortic regurgitation

资金

  1. Oxford Martin School grant for the Deep Medicine programme
  2. National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre
  3. Rhodes Trust
  4. Clarendon Council
  5. Australian Health and Medical Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims To test two related hypotheses that elevated blood pressure (BP) is a risk factor for aortic valve stenosis (AS) or regurgitation (AR). Methods and results In this cohort study of 5.4 million UK patients with no known cardiovascular disease or aortic valve disease at baseline, we investigated the relationship between BP and risk of incident AS and AR using multivariable-adjusted Cox regression models. Over a median follow-up of 9.2 years, 20 680 patients (0.38%) were diagnosed with AS and 6440 (0.12%) patients with AR. Systolic BP (SBP) was continuously related to the risk of AS and AR with no evidence of a nadir down to 115 mmHg. Each 20 mmHg increment in SBP was associated with a 41% higher risk of AS (hazard ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval 1.38-1.45) and a 38% higher risk of AR (1.38, 1.31-1.45). Associations were stronger in younger patients but with no strong evidence for interaction by gender or body mass index. Each 10 mmHg increment in diastolic BP was associated with a 24% higher risk of AS (1.24, 1.19-1.29) but not AR (1.04, 0.97-1.11). Each 15 mmHg increment in pulse pressure was associated with a 46% greater risk of AS (1.46, 1.42-1.50) and a 53% higher risk of AR (1.53, 1.45-1.62). Conclusion Long-term exposure to elevated BP across its whole spectrum was associated with increased risk of AS and AR. The possible causal nature of the observed associations warrants further investigation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据