Central versus ambulatory blood pressure in the prediction of all-cause and cardiovascular mortalities.

OBJECTIVES Central systolic (SBP-C) and/or pulse pressure (PP-C) better predicts cardiovascular events than does peripheral blood pressure. The present study compared the prognostic significance of office central blood pressure with multiple measurements of out-of-office ambulatory peripheral blood pressure, with reference to office peripheral systolic (SBP-B) or pulse pressure (PP-B). METHODS In a community-based population of 1014 healthy participants, SBP-C and PP-C were estimated using carotid tonometry, and 24-h systolic (SBP-24 h) and pulse pressure (PP-24 h) were obtained from 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Associations of SBP-B, PP-B, SBP-C, PP-C, SBP-24 h, and PP-24 h with all-cause and cardiovascular mortalities over a median follow-up of 15 years were examined by Cox regression analysis. RESULTS In multivariate analyses accounting for age, sex, BMI, smoking, fasting plasma glucose, and total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio, only PP-C (hazard ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.32, per one standard deviation increment) was significantly predictive of all-cause mortality, whereas all but PP-B were significantly predictive of cardiovascular mortality. When SBP-B was simultaneously included in the models, SBP-24 h (2.01, 1.42-2.85) and SBP-C (1.71, 1.21-2.40) remained significantly predictive of cardiovascular mortality. When SBP-C was simultaneously included in the models, SBP-24 h (1.71, 1.16-2.52) remained significantly predictive of cardiovascular mortality. CONCLUSION Office central blood pressure is more valuable than office peripheral blood pressure in the prediction of all-cause and cardiovascular mortalities. Out-of-office ambulatory peripheral blood pressure (SBP-24 h) may be superior to central blood pressure in the prediction of cardiovascular mortality, but PP-C may better predict all-cause mortality than SBP-24 h or PP-24 h.