Johnson, Karen

Background: Heart failure (HF), a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in women, continues to disproportionately affect African-American (AA) women compared to women of other races/ethnicities. In a large cohort of post-menopausal women, we investigated if AA women progress through HF stages and coronary heart disease (CHD) death more rapidly than Caucasian (Cau) or Hispanic/Latina (HL) women. Methods: We assessed the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) HF stage A upon enrollment into the Women’s Health Initiative (1993-1998) and the progression from Stage A to Stage C, Stage C to CHD death, up to the last date of follow-up (2010). Cox proportional hazard regressions models were used to assess disease progression risk. We adjusted for age, baseline comorbidities, duration of comorbidities, interval development of myocardial infarction, ejection fraction at HF diagnosis, socioeconomic factors, and sex specific variables. Results: At baseline, AA women were younger and had a higher percentage of Stage A HF (76%) than Cau (54%) and HL (55%) women. Overall, AA and HL women had significantly lower risk of progressing from Stage A to Stage C compared to Cau women [AA vs. Cau adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.77 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.64 -0.93) p = 0.0055; HL vs. Cau HR 0.54 (95% CI 0.40 -0.71) p < 0.0001]. After stratifying by age groups(<65, 65-69, >70 years), AA women had a similar risk of progression from stage A to C compared to Cau women. When compared to Cau women, AA had an insignificant increased risk of progressing from Stage C to CHD death [adjusted HR 1.29 (95% CI 0.72 -2.32) p = 0.3883)]. Conclusions: Cau women were at higher risk for HF progression from Stage A to Stage C compared to HL women, but at similar risk as AA women. AA women had an insignificant but increased risk of progression from Stage C to CHD death compared to Cau women.

Background Blood pressure ( BP ) varies over time within individual patients and across different BP measurement techniques. The effect of different BP targets on concordance between BP measurements is unknown. The goals of this analysis are to evaluate concordance between (1) clinic and ambulatory BP , (2) clinic visit‐to‐visit variability and ambulatory BP variability, and (3) first and second ambulatory BP and to evaluate whether different clinic targets affect these relationships. Methods and Results The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) ambulatory BP monitoring ancillary study obtained ambulatory BP readings in 897 participants at the 27‐month follow‐up visit and obtained a second reading in 203 participants 293±84 days afterward. There was considerable lack of agreement between clinic and daytime ambulatory systolic BP with wide limits of agreement in Bland‐Altman plots of −21 to 34 mm Hg in the intensive‐treatment group and −26 to 32 mm Hg in the standard‐treatment group. Overall, there was poor agreement between clinic visit‐to‐visit variability and ambulatory BP variability with correlation coefficients for systolic and diastolic BP all <0.16. We observed a high correlation between first and second ambulatory BP ; however, the limits of agreement were wide in both the intensive group (−27 to 21 mm Hg) and the standard group (−23 to 20 mm Hg). Conclusions We found low concordance in BP and BP variability between clinic and ambulatory BP and second ambulatory BP . Results did not differ by treatment arm. These results reinforce the need for multiple BP measurements before clinical decision making.

Blood pressure (BP) varies over time within individual patients and across different BP measurement techniques. The effect of different BP targets on the concordance between BP measurements is unknown. The goal of this analysis was to evaluate concordance in: 1) clinic BP and ambulatory BP, 2) clinic visit-to-visit variability and ambulatory BP variability and 3) initial and repeat ambulatory BP. We also sought to evaluate whether treatment assignment of intensive vs standard BP target affected these relationships. The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) ambulatory blood pressure monitoring ancillary study obtained ambulatory BP readings in 897 SPRINT participants at the 27 month follow up visit and 203 consecutive repeat ambulatory BP readings taken an average of 9.8 months later. There was poor agreement between clinic systolic BP and daytime ambulatory systolic BP (limits of agreement in Bland-Altman plots of -21 to 34 mm Hg in the intensive treatment group and -26 to 32 mm Hg in the standard treatment group). There was poor agreement between clinic visit-to-visit variability (coefficient of variation) and ambulatory BP variability (coefficient of variation of a 24 hr ambulatory BP) with correlation coefficients for systolic BP <0.16. While there was a high correlation between ambulatory BP at 27 months and repeat ambulatory BP (r ~0.56), there was significant variability between repeat ambulatory BP assessments (limits of agreement of -27 to 21 mm Hg in the intensive group and -23 to 20 mm Hg in the standard group). In conclusion, irrespective of treatment target, we found low concordance in BP and BP variability between clinic BP and ambulatory BP, and additionally between repeat ambulatory BP assessments. These results reinforce the need for multiple guideline adherent BP measurements prior to clinical decision making.