Cited by 203Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionSodium Intake and Health

Blunted sleep-time relative blood pressure decline increases cardiovascular risk independent of blood pressure level – the “normotensive non-dipper” paradox

Hermida, Ramón C., Ayala, Diana E., Mojón, Artemio, Fernández, José R.·2013·Chronobiology International

Abstract

Numerous studies have consistently shown an association between blunted sleep-time relative blood pressure (BP) decline (non-dipping) and increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in hypertension. Normotensive persons with a non-dipper BP profile also have increased target organ damage, namely, increased left ventricular mass and relative wall thickness, reduced myocardial diastolic function, increased urinary albumin excretion, increased prevalence of diabetic retinopathy, and impaired glucose tolerance. It remains a point of contention, however, whether the non-dipper BP pattern or just elevated BP, alone, is the most important predictor of advanced target organ damage and future CVD events. Accordingly, we investigated the role of dipping status and ambulatory BP level as contributing factors for CVD morbidity and mortality in the MAPEC (Monitorización Ambulatoria para Predicción de Eventos Cardiovasculares, i.e., Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring for Prediction of Cardiovascular Events) study. We prospectively studied 3344 individuals (1718 men/1626 women), 52.6 ± 14.5 (mean ± SD) yrs of age, during a median follow-up of 5.6 yrs. BP was measured by ambulatory monitoring (ABPM) for 48 h at baseline, and again annually or more frequently (quarterly) if treatment adjustment was required in treated hypertensive patients. At baseline, those with ABPM-substantiated hypertension were randomized to one of two treatment-time regimen groups: (i) ingestion of all prescribed hypertension medications upon awakening or (ii) ingestion of the entire dose of ≥1 of them at bedtime. Those found to be normotensive at baseline were untreated but followed and evaluated by repeated ABPM like the hypertensive patients. Participants were divided into four investigated categories on the basis of dipping status and ambulatory BP: (i) dipper vs. non-dipper, and (ii) normal ambulatory BP if the awake systolic (SBP)/diastolic (DBP) BP means were <135/85 mm Hg and the asleep SBP/DBP means were <120/70 mm Hg, and elevated ambulatory BP otherwise. Cox survival analyses, adjusted for significant confounding variables, documented that non-dippers had significantly higher CVD risk than dippers, whether they had normal (p = .017) or elevated ambulatory BP (p < .001). Non-dippers with normal awake and asleep SBP and DBP means, who accounted for 21% of the studied population, had similar hazard ratio (HR) of CVD events (1.61 [95% confidence interval, CI: 1.09-2.37]) as dippers with elevated ambulatory BP (HR: 1.54 [95% CI: 1.01-2.36]; p = .912 between groups). These results remained mainly unchanged for treated and untreated patients analyzed separately. Our findings document that the risk of CVD events is influenced not only by ambulatory BP elevation, but also by blunted nighttime BP decline, even within the normotensive range, thus supporting ABPM as a requirement for proper CVD risk assessment in the general population. The elevated CVD risk in "normotensive" individuals with a non-dipper BP profile represents a clear paradox, as those persons do not have "normal BP" or low CVD risk. Our findings also indicate the need to redefine the concepts of normotension/hypertension, so far established on the unique basis of BP level, mainly if not exclusively measured at the clinic, independently of circadian BP pattern.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/07420528.2012.701127

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 77 · Cited by 203

Authors
Hermida, R. C., Ayala, D. E., Mojón, A., & Fernández, J. R.
Affiliations
Universidade de Vigo (ES)
Corresponding author
Hermida, Ramón C.
Venue
Chronobiology International
Published
2012-10-05
Volume
30
Issue
1-2
Pages
87-98
ISSN
  • 0742-0528 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-6073
OpenAlex
W1988440117
Cited by
203
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 18
FWCI
10.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Chronobiology International (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
non-dipping blood pressure, cardiovascular risk, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, hypertension, target organ damage, left ventricular mass, cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, cardiovascular risk prediction, urinary albumin excretion, diabetic retinopathy, impaired glucose tolerance
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Antihypertensive Agents, Blood Pressure, Cardiovascular Diseases, Circadian Rhythm, Drug Administration Schedule, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, Myocardium, Prognosis, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Sleep, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Proportional Hazards Models, Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory, Actigraphy

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