{"id":1462,"date":"2010-03-11T19:17:02","date_gmt":"2010-03-12T00:17:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/thursday-march-11-news-blood-pressure-variability-subject-of-4-simultaneous-papers-in-lancet-and-lancet-neurology\/"},"modified":"2011-07-19T17:45:01","modified_gmt":"2011-07-19T21:45:01","slug":"thursday-march-11-news-blood-pressure-variability-subject-of-4-simultaneous-papers-in-lancet-and-lancet-neurology","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/2010\/03\/11\/thursday-march-11-news-blood-pressure-variability-subject-of-4-simultaneous-papers-in-lancet-and-lancet-neurology\/","title":{"rendered":"Thursday, March 11 News: Blood Pressure Variability Subject of 4 Simultaneous Papers in Lancet and Lancet Neurology"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Interest in blood pressure variability is likely to rise considerably with the publication of&nbsp;four simultaneous papers on the subject by&nbsp;Oxford&#8217;s Peter Rothwell&nbsp;in the <em>Lancet<\/em> and <em>Lancet Neurology. <\/em>Rothwell points out that by relying on traditional assessment of mean systolic blood pressure, researchers have been unable to fully understand the contribution of blood pressure to stroke and coronary disease and have been baffled by some key findings in clinical trials. By adding in assessments of blood pressure variability, Rothwell maintains it may be possible to significantly improve prediction of vascular events and may have important implications for choice of therapy. The different effects of antihypertensive agents on blood pressure variability appear to explain why calcium channel blockers are more effective at reducing the risk of stroke than might be expected based on traditional blood pressure measurements and why beta-blockers are less effective. (The four papers include <a href=\"http:\/\/www.thelancet.com\/journals\/lancet\/article\/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2960308-X\/abstract\">a <em>Lancet <\/em>cohort study<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.thelancet.com\/journals\/lancet\/article\/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2960235-8\/abstract\">a <em>Lancet<\/em> meta-analysis<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.thelancet.com\/journals\/lancet\/article\/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2960309-1\/abstract\">a <em>Lancet<\/em> review<\/a>, and <a href=\"http:\/\/www.thelancet.com\/journals\/laneur\/article\/PIIS1474-4422%2810%2970066-1\/abstract\">a <em>Lancet Neurology<\/em> study<\/a>.)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In an <a href=\"http:\/\/www.thelancet.com\/journals\/lancet\/article\/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2960351-0\/fulltext\">accompanying comment<\/a>, Bo Carlberg and Lars Hjalmar Lindholm ask whether treatment decisions should now be modified:&nbsp;&#8220;Not quite yet,&#8221; they conclude, &#8220;because results from clinical trials with standardized recordings and treatment care are difficult to translate into everyday practice in which patients often receive several different drugs that can change over a short time. The notion presented by Rothwell and co-workers today is, however, challenging and will raise many questions. Researchers with data from population-based cohorts or randomized trials are likely to investigate whether Rothwell\u2019s findings can be replicated, taking other risk factors into account.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Interest in blood pressure variability is likely to rise considerably with the publication of&nbsp;four simultaneous papers on the subject by&nbsp;Oxford&#8217;s Peter Rothwell&nbsp;in the Lancet and Lancet Neurology. Rothwell points out that by relying on traditional assessment of mean systolic blood pressure, researchers have been unable to fully understand the contribution of blood pressure to stroke [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":196,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1462","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1462","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/196"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1462"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1462\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1462"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1462"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1462"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}