Cited by 317Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionSodium Intake and Health

Ambulatory Blood Pressure and Mortality: A Population-Based Study

Hansen, Tine Willum, Jeppesen, Jørgen, Rasmussen, Susanne, Ibsen, Hans, Torp-Pedersen, Christian·2005·Hypertension

Abstract

The relationship between ambulatory blood pressure and mortality in a general Western population is unknown. Therefore, we conducted this prospective study of a random sample of 1700 Danish men and women, aged 41 to 72 years, without major cardiovascular diseases. At baseline, ambulatory blood pressure, office blood pressure, and other risk factors were recorded. After a mean period of 9.5 years, 174 had died: 63 were cardiovascular deaths. In multivariate proportional hazards models, adjusted for other risk factors of significance, the relative risk of cardiovascular mortality (95% confidence interval) associated with 10 mm Hg increments in systolic and 5 mm Hg increments in diastolic ambulatory blood pressure were 1.51 (1.28 to 1.77) and 1.43 (1.26 to 1.61). The corresponding figures for all cause mortality were 1.18 (1.06 to 1.31) and 1.18 (1.09 to 1.28). The relative risks of cardiovascular mortality were lower for office blood pressure, and office blood pressure did not predict all cause mortality. When ambulatory and office blood pressures were entered in the same multivariate models, only the ambulatory blood pressures were significant predictors of all cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. The relationship between ambulatory blood pressures and risk of mortality was log-linear, with no indication of a threshold. The absolute risk of mortality was also dependent on age and smoking status, and an upper "acceptable" ambulatory blood pressure based on risk of mortality could only be defined when other risk factors were taken into account. In conclusion, ambulatory blood pressure provided prognostic information on mortality above and beyond that of office blood pressure.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.hyp.0000160402.39597.3b

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hansen, T. W., Jeppesen, J., Rasmussen, S., Ibsen, H., & Torp-Pedersen, C.
Affiliations
Bispebjerg Hospital (DK)
Venue
Hypertension
Published
2005-04
Volume
45
Issue
4
Pages
499-504
ISSN
  • 0194-911X (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4563
OpenAlex
W2053601133
Cited by
317
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 17
FWCI
18.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Hypertension (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Hjerteforeningen
  • Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale
  • Lægeforeningen
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 › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Sodium Intake and Health
Keywords
ambulatory blood pressure, office blood pressure, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, prognostic value, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, risk factors, smoking, age
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Blood Pressure, Blood Pressure Determination, Cardiovascular Diseases, Diastole, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Office Visits, Prognosis, Prospective Studies, Risk, Systole, Proportional Hazards Models, Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory

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