• Title of article

    Meta-Analysis of the Quantitative Relation Between Pulse Pressure and Mean Arterial Pressure and Cardiovascular Risk in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus

  • Author/Authors

    Kodama، نويسنده , , Satoru and Horikawa، نويسنده , , Chika and Fujihara، نويسنده , , Kazuya and Yoshizawa، نويسنده , , Sakiko and Yachi، نويسنده , , Yoko and Tanaka، نويسنده , , Shiro and Ohara، نويسنده , , Nobumasa and Matsunaga، نويسنده , , Satoshi and Yamada، نويسنده , , Takaho and Hanyu، نويسنده , , Osamu and Sone، نويسنده , , Hirohito، نويسنده ,

  • Issue Information
    روزنامه با شماره پیاپی سال 2014
  • Pages
    8
  • From page
    1058
  • To page
    1065
  • Abstract
    Results of epidemiologic studies that investigated the significance of pulse pressure (PP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) in terms of risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients with diabetes mellitus are inconsistent. We performed a quantitative meta-analysis to estimate CVD risk in relation to PP or MAP. Electronic literature search was conducted for prospective studies providing data on CVD risk for an increment in baseline MAP or PP in patients with diabetes mellitus. The pooled CVD risk for a 10-mm Hg increase in each blood pressure (BP) index was estimated with a random-effects model. There were 17 eligible studies consisting of 52,647 patients and 5,112 CVD cases. The pooled relative risk (95% confidence interval) of CVD for an increment of 10 mm Hg was 1.10 (1.04 to 1.16) for PP and 1.09 (0.98 to 1.21) for MAP. Significant between-study heterogeneity was observed (I2 [p value]; 76.5% [p <0.001] for PP, 67.8% [p = 0.005] for MAP). In studies concurrently investigating CVD risk for the 4 indexes (i.e., PP, MAP, systolic BP, and diastolic BP), the pooled relative risk (95% confidence interval) was 1.17 (1.09 to 1.26) for PP, 1.11 (1.06 to 1.15) for MAP, 1.14 (1.06 to 1.22) for systolic BP, and 1.06 (0.94 to 1.19) for diastolic BP. In conclusion, the current meta-analysis suggested that PP was the strongest indicator among the 4 commonly used BP indexes. However, the large heterogeneity urged cautious interpretation of the study results.
  • Journal title
    American Journal of Cardiology
  • Serial Year
    2014
  • Journal title
    American Journal of Cardiology
  • Record number

    1904627