Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2014 Mar 15;113(6):1058-65.
doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.12.005. Epub 2013 Dec 25.

Meta-analysis of the quantitative relation between pulse pressure and mean arterial pressure and cardiovascular risk in patients with diabetes mellitus

Affiliations
Review

Meta-analysis of the quantitative relation between pulse pressure and mean arterial pressure and cardiovascular risk in patients with diabetes mellitus

Satoru Kodama et al. Am J Cardiol. .

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 (I(2) [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.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources