Cited by 1,390Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors

Does the Relation of Blood Pressure to Coronary Heart Disease Risk Change With Aging?: The Framingham Heart Study

Franklin, Stanley S., Larson, Martin G., Khan, Shehzad A., Wong, Nathan D., Leip, Eric P., Kannel, William B., Levy, Daniel·2001·Circulation

Abstract

Background —We examined the relative importance of diastolic (DBP), systolic (SBP) and pulse pressure (PP) as predictors of coronary heart disease (CHD) risk in different age groups of Framingham Heart Study participants. Methods and Results —We studied 3060 men and 3479 women between 20 and 79 years of age who were free of CHD and were not on antihypertensive drug therapy at baseline. Cox regression adjusted for age, sex, and other risk factors was used to assess the relations of BP indexes to CHD risk over a 20-year follow-up. In the group <50 years of age, DBP was the strongest predictor of CHD risk (hazard ratio [HR] per 10 mm Hg increment, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.51) rather than SBP (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.24) or PP (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.17). In the group 50 to 59 years of age, risks were comparable for all 3 BP indexes. In the older age group, the strongest predictor of CHD risk was PP (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.33). When both SBP and DBP were considered jointly, the former was directly and the latter was inversely related to CHD risk in the oldest age group Conclusions —With increasing age, there was a gradual shift from DBP to SBP and then to PP as predictors of CHD risk. In patients <50 years of age, DBP was the strongest predictor. Age 50 to 59 years was a transition period when all 3 BP indexes were comparable predictors, and from 60 years of age on, DBP was negatively related to CHD risk so that PP became superior to SBP.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.cir.103.9.1245

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Some studies show wide pulse pressure is a better predictor of adverse cardiovascular outcomes than SBP or DBP individually, and identifies patients with systolic hypertension at particularly high risk.

    “A wide pulse pressure (SBP minus DBP) has been shown in some studies to be a better predictor of adverse cardiovascular outcomes than either SBP or DBP individually, 413 and to identify patients with systolic hypertension who are at particularly high risk.414”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Pachon V. A new approach to sphygmomanometry. Presse Med. 1913; 12:229 -331.
  2. SHEP Cooperative Research Group. Prevention of stroke by antihyper- tensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hyper- tension. JAMA. 1991;265:3255-3264.
  3. Kannel WB, Wolf P, Garrison R. The Framingham Study, Section 35: Survival Following Initial Cardiovascular Events. Bethesda, Md: National Institutes of Health; 1998:5.
  4. SAS/STAT Software: Changes and Enhancements Through Release 6.11. Cary, NC; SAS Institute Inc; 1996:807-884.
  5. Berne RM, Levy MN. Cardiovascular Physiology. St Louis, Mo: Mosby Year Book; 1992:135-151.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Franklin, S. S., Larson, M. G., Khan, S. A., Wong, N. D., Leip, E. P., Kannel, W. B., & Levy, D.
Affiliations
Boston University (US)
Venue
Circulation
Published
2001-03-06
Volume
103
Issue
9
Pages
1245-1249
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2170831516
Cited by
1,390
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 59 · 2016: 47 · 2015: 55 · 2014: 71 · 2013: 63 · 2012: 73
FWCI
47.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Circulation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • National Institutes of Health (n01hc038038-022)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (N01-HC-38038)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Keywords
blood pressure, coronary heart disease risk, diastolic blood pressure, systolic blood pressure, pulse pressure, aging, Framingham Heart Study, cardiovascular risk prediction
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aging, Blood Pressure, Coronary Disease, Diastole, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Heart Rate, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Pulse, Risk Factors, Systole, Proportional Hazards Models

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review