Several blood pressure (BP) variability indices, including intraday fluctuations, beat-to-beat, day-to-day, visit-to-visit variability (VVV), and seasonal variations, have been found to be associated with the incidence of adverse events. In particular, BP-VVV, an index of long-term BP variability [1], is reportedly a risk factor for various cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with hypertension, as well as the general population [2,3,4,5,6]. Although atrial fibrillation (AF) and hypertension often coexist in the same patient [7], the influence of BP variability on adverse events in patients with AF has not been sufficiently elucidated [8, 9]. One reason for this may be that patients with AF were often excluded or not considered in previous large-scale clinical trials on hypertension [2, 10], as AF is an absolute arrhythmia; thus, beat-to-beat BP variability is originally large due to irregular heartbeats. In general, accurate sphygmomanometry is often difficult in patients with AF, but proportionate values of BP can be obtained using the cuff-oscillometric method unless patients have bradycardia [11]. When three repeated measurements were performed, the AF did not significantly affect the accuracy of the oscillometric BP measurements [12]. Therefore, the Japanese Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension (JSH 2019) recommend performing repeated BP measurements three or more times and adopting the average in further consideration [7].
Thus far, relatively few studies have investigated the association between BP-VVV and clinical outcomes in patients with AF. First, Proietti et al. [8] reported their association in a post hoc analysis of the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-Up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) Study in 2017 [8], in which the standard deviation (SD) of systolic BP during the follow-up period was adopted as an index of BP-VVV and BP was measured using standard procedures, while no specific procedures were recommended from the study protocol. In this study, the third and fourth (highest) quartiles of systolic BP-SD were independently associated with higher risks for stroke (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02–3.35 and HR 2.33, 95% CI 1.30–4.16, respectively) and major hemorrhage (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.18–3.15 and HR 2.88, 95% CI 1.79–4.61, respectively) compared with the first (lowest) quartile. Patients in the highest quartile also had an increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.00–1.91) [8]. Second, Kodani et al. reported an association between BP-VVV and adverse events in patients with non-valvular AF in a subanalysis of the J-RHYTHM Registry in 2021 [9], in which the SD and coefficient of variation (CV) of systolic BP were evaluated as indices of BP-VVV, while BP values were obtained using the auscultatory method or an automated sphygmomanometer, as appropriate, during daily clinical practice in each institution. In this study, the highest quartile of systolic BP-SD was significantly associated with increased risks of thromboembolism (HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.15–3.49), major hemorrhage (HR 2.60, 95% CI 1.36–4.97), and all-cause death (HR 1.85, 95% CI 1.11–3.07), even after adjusting for multiple confounding factors [9]. This was also true when BP-CV was used instead of BP-SD [9]. Furthermore, systolic BP-SD was found to be superior to several other BP indices, such as systolic BP at baseline and at the time closest to an event or at the last follow-up visit [9], time in target range, and frequency in range, as a predictor of adverse events [13].
In the current issue of Hypertension Research, Chichareon et al. [14] described the association between BP-VVV and clinical outcomes in Asian patients with AF who underwent BP measurements at least three times (baseline and at least two other visits) in the COOL-AF Registry, in which systolic BP-SD was used as an index of BP-VVV, and three repeated BP measurements at each visit were encouraged [12]. The results of this study [14] were similar to those of previous post hoc analyses of the AFFIRM Study [8] and the J-RHYTHM Registry [9]. That is, patients in the highest quartile of systolic BP-SD had significantly higher risks for major bleeding (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.25–2.96), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) (HR 3.51, 95% CI 1.40–8.76), and all-cause death (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.13–2.25) compared with that in the lowest quartile, whereas they showed no significant risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (SE) (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.49–1.44) [14].
It is important to investigate the association between BP-VVV and clinical outcomes using BP data of patients with AF from two previous studies [8, 9] and the current study [14]. These results indicate that BP data in patients with AF could be useful for studies on BP-VVV, as well as those in patients with sinus rhythm. The representative adjusted HRs in the highest quartiles compared to those in the lowest quartiles in these three studies, including the current study [14], are shown in Fig. 1. Recently, the impact of home BP on the risk of adverse events was reported in a subcohort study of the All Nippon AF in the Elderly (ANAFIE) Registry [15], in which home BP was measured twice, once in the morning and once in the evening, for 7 days using an oscillometric device with an arm cuff. In this study, a home systolic BP ≥ 145 mmHg was associated with an increased risk of stroke/SE, major bleeding, ICH, and net cardiovascular outcome compared to a home systolic BP < 125 mmHg. These results indicate that home BP data are also feasible for risk stratification, even in patients with AF.
Accordingly, AF would not become a reason to exclude patients from studies using BP data. In addition to patients with sinus rhythm, those with AF may be suitable target for studies on BP variability.
References
Rosei EA, Chiarini G, Rizzoni D. How important is blood pressure variability? Eur Heart J Suppl. 2020;22:E1–E6.
Rothwell PM, Howard SC, Dolan E, O’Brien E, Dobson JE, Dahlof B, et al. Prognostic significance of visit-to-visit variability, maximum systolic blood pressure, and episodic hypertension. Lancet. 2010;375:895–905.
Stevens SL, Wood S, Koshiaris C, Law K, Glasziou P, Stevens RJ, et al. Blood pressure variability and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2016;354:i4098.
Gosmanova EO, Mikkelsen MK, Molnar MZ, Lu JL, Yessayan LT, Kalantar-Zadeh K, et al. Association of systolic blood pressure variability with mortality, coronary heart disease, stroke, and renal disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68:1375–86.
Kawai T, Ohishi M, Kamide K, Onishi M, Takeya Y, Tatara Y, et al. The impact of visit-to-visit variability in blood pressure on renal function. Hypertens Res. 2012;35:239–43.
Ma Y, Yilmaz P, Bos D, Blacker D, Viswanathan A, Ikram MA, et al. Blood pressure variation and subclinical brain disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:2387–99.
Umemura S, Arima H, Arima S, Asayama K, Dohi Y, Hirooka Y, et al. The Japanese Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension (JSH 2019). Hypertens Res. 2019;42:1235–481.
Proietti M, Romiti GF, Olshansky B, Lip GY. Systolic blood pressure visit-to-visit variability and major adverse outcomes in atrial fibrillation: The AFFIRM Study (Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management). Hypertension. 2017;70:949–58.
Kodani E, Inoue H, Atarashi H, Okumura K, Yamashita T, Otsuka T, et al. Impact of blood pressure visit-to-visit variability on adverse events in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: Subanalysis of the J-RHYTHM Registry. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e018585.
Ohkubo T, Imai Y, Tsuji I, Nagai K, Kato J, Kikuchi N, et al. Home blood pressure measurement has a stronger predictive power for mortality than does screening blood pressure measurement: a population-based observation in Ohasama, Japan. J Hypertens. 1998;16:971–5.
Verberk WJ, Omboni S, Kollias A, Stergiou GS. Screening for atrial fibrillation with automated blood pressure measurement: Research evidence and practice recommendations. Int J Cardiol. 2016;203:465–73.
Pagonas N, Schmidt S, Eysel J, Compton F, Hoffmann C, Seibert F, et al. Impact of atrial fibrillation on the accuracy of oscillometric blood pressure monitoring. Hypertension. 2013;62:579–84.
Kodani E, Inoue H, Atarashi H, Okumura K, Suzuki S, Yamashita T, et al. Predictive ability of visit-to-visit blood pressure indices for adverse events in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: Subanalysis of the J-RHYTHM Registry. Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2023;46:101216.
Chichareon P, Methavigul K, Lip GYH, Krittayaphong R. Systolic blood pressure visit-to-visit variability and outcomes in Asians patients with atrial fibrillation. Hypertens Res. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41440-024-01592-z
Kario K, Hasebe N, Okumura K, Yamashita T, Akao M, Atarashi H, et al. Home Blood Pressure Can Predict the Risk for Stroke/Bleeding Events in Elderly Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation From the ANAFIE Registry. Hypertension. 2022;79:2696–705.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
EK received remuneration from Daiichi-Sankyo. However, there are no conflicts of interest to declare.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kodani, E. Is atrial fibrillation a suitable target for studies on blood pressure variability?. Hypertens Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41440-024-01638-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41440-024-01638-2