Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) is the most common form of hypertension and is highly prevalent in older people. We recently showed differences between upper-arm cuff and invasive blood... Show moreIsolated systolic hypertension (ISH) is the most common form of hypertension and is highly prevalent in older people. We recently showed differences between upper-arm cuff and invasive blood pressure (BP) become greater with increasing age, which could influence correct identification of ISH. This study sought to determine the difference between identification of ISH by cuff BP compared with invasive BP. Cuff BP and invasive aortic BP were measured in 1695 subjects (median 64 years, interquartile range [55-72], 68% male) from the INSPECT (Invasive Blood Pressure Consortium) database. Data were recorded during coronary angiography among 29 studies, using 21 different cuff BP devices. ISH was defined as >= 130/<80 mm Hg using cuff BP compared with invasive aortic BP as the reference. The prevalence of ISH was 24% (n=407) according to cuff BP but 38% (n=642) according to invasive aortic BP. There was fair agreement (Cohen kappa, 0.36) and 72% concordance between cuff and invasive aortic BP for identifying ISH. Among the 28% of subjects (n=471) with misclassification of ISH status by cuff BP, 20% (n=96) of the difference was due to lower cuff systolic BP compared with invasive aortic systolic BP (mean, -16.4 mm Hg [95% CI, -18.7 to -14.1]), whereas 49% (n=231) was from higher cuff diastolic BP compared with invasive aortic diastolic BP (+14.2 mm Hg [95% CI, 11.5-16.9]). In conclusion, compared with invasive BP, cuff BP fails to identify ISH in a sizeable portion of older people and demonstrates the need to improve cuff BP measurements. Show less
Blood pressure (BP) is a leading global risk factor. Increasing age is related to changes in cardiovascular physiology that could influence cuff BP measurement, but this has never been examined... Show moreBlood pressure (BP) is a leading global risk factor. Increasing age is related to changes in cardiovascular physiology that could influence cuff BP measurement, but this has never been examined systematically and was the aim of this study. Cuff BP was compared with invasive aortic BP across decades of age (from 40 to 89 years) using individual-level data from 31 studies (1674 patients undergoing coronary angiography) and 22 different cuff BP devices (19 oscillometric, 1 automated auscultation, 2 mercury sphygmomanometry) from the Invasive Blood Pressure Consortium. Subjects were aged 64 +/- 11 years, and 32% female. Cuff systolic BP overestimated invasive aortic systolic BP in those aged 40 to 49 years, but with each older decade of age, there was a progressive shift toward increasing underestimation of aortic systolic BP (P<0.0001). Conversely, cuff diastolic BP overestimated invasive aortic diastolic BP, and this progressively increased with increasing age (P<0.0001). Thus, there was a progressive increase in cuff pulse pressure underestimation of invasive aortic PP with increasing decades of age (P<0.0001). These age-related trends were observed across all categories of BP control. We conclude that cuff BP as an estimate of aortic BP was substantially influenced by increasing age, thus potentially exposing older people to greater chance for misdiagnosis of the true risk related to BP. Show less
The objective of this study is to assess patients' satisfaction with migraine treatment with frovatriptan (F) or zolmitriptan (Z), by preference questionnaire. 133 subjects with a history of... Show moreThe objective of this study is to assess patients' satisfaction with migraine treatment with frovatriptan (F) or zolmitriptan (Z), by preference questionnaire. 133 subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura (IHS criteria) were randomized to F 2.5 mg or Z 2.5 mg. The study had a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over design, with each of the two treatment periods lasting no more than 3 months. At the end of the study, patients were asked to assign preference to one of the treatments (primary endpoint). The number of pain-free (PF) and pain-relief (PR) episodes at 2 h, and number of recurrent and sustained pain-free (SPF) episodes within 48 h were the secondary study endpoints. Seventy-seven percent of patients expressed a preference. Average score of preference was 2.9 +/- A 1.3 (F) versus 3.0 +/- A 1.3 (Z; p = NS). Rate of PF episodes at 2 h was 26% with F and 31% with Z (p = NS). PR episodes at 2 h were 57% for F and 58% for Z (p = NS). Rate of recurrence was 21 (F) and 24% (Z; p = NS). Time to recurrence within 48 h was better for F especially between 4 and 16 h (p < 0.05). SPF episodes were 18 (F) versus 22% (Z; p = NS). Drug-related adverse events were significantly (p < 0.05) less under F (3 vs. 10). In conclusion, our study suggests that F has a similar efficacy of Z, with some advantage as regards tolerability and recurrence. Show less
