Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 21, 2026

Author Spotlight: Assessing the Reliability of Doppler Ultrasound in Measuring Leg Blood Flow
Published on: December 15, 2023
Relative and Combined Prognostic Importance of On-Treatment Mean and Visit-to-Visit Blood Pressure Variability in
Giuseppe Mancia1, Helmut Schumacher2, Michael Böhm2
1From the University of Milano-Bicocca and IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Italy (G.M.); Statistical Consultant, Ingelheim, Germany (H.S.); Klinik für innere Medizin III, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Homburg/Saar, Germany (M.B.); Hypertension Clinic, Department of Internal Medicine, Hospital Clinico Universitario de Valencia INCLIVA, University of Valencia and CIBERObn, ISCIII, Madrid, Spain (J.R.); Nephrologie und Hypertensiologie, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany (R.E.S.); Struttura Complessa di Medicina, Ospedale di Assisi, Assisi (PG), Italy (P.V.); CV Medicine, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom (P.S.); and Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada (K.T., S.Y.). Giuseppe.mancia@unimib.it.
Insights
Mean on-treatment systolic blood pressure (SBP) better predicts cardiovascular events than SBP variability. Combining both measures improves risk prediction for cardiovascular events, aiding treatment assessment.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Medicine
- Clinical Trials
- Hypertension Research
Background:
- Systolic blood pressure (SBP) variability is increasingly recognized as a potential risk factor for cardiovascular events.
- Previous studies have yielded conflicting results regarding the prognostic value of SBP variability compared to mean SBP.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate the prognostic value of on-treatment visit-to-visit SBP variability versus mean SBP for cardiovascular events.
- To assess whether combining both measures improves cardiovascular risk prediction.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of 28,790 patients from the ONTARGET and TRANSCEND trials.
- Systolic blood pressure variability measured by coefficient of variation (CV); mean SBP also calculated.
- Cox proportional hazards models used to assess risk, adjusting for covariates.
Main Results:
- Mean on-treatment SBP was a statistically significant predictor of cardiovascular events (P<0.0001), unlike SBP variability (P=0.12).
- SBP variability showed a relationship with fatal events but not myocardial infarction or stroke.
- Combined use of mean SBP and SBP variability improved outcome prediction (P<0.0001).
Conclusions:
- On-treatment mean SBP provides a better prediction of cardiovascular risk than visit-to-visit SBP variability.
- Combined assessment of mean SBP and its variability offers a more precise cardiovascular risk estimate and may refine treatment effect evaluation.
Abstract:
In 28 790 patients recruited for the ONTARGET (Ongoing Treatment Alone and in Combination With Ramipril Global End Point Trials) and TRANSCEND (Telmisartan Randomized Assessment Study in ACE Intolerant Subjects With Cardiovascular Disease) trials, we investigated the prognostic value for cardiovascular events (primary outcome) of (1)on-treatment visit-to-visit systolic blood pressure (SBP) variability versus mean SBP and (2) the 2 measures together. SBP variability was measured by the coefficient of variation (CV) of mean SBP to which it was unrelated. Confounders such as variable time and number of visits from which to calculate SBP-CV were avoided by using the same number of visits at identical times in all patients. The covariate-adjusted risk of the primary outcome (Cox models) increased as SBP-CV or mean on-treatment quintile SBP increased, but only for mean on-treatment SBP, the relationship achieved statistical significance: global test for trend, P=0.12 versus P<0.0001. SBP-CV showed a relationship with fatal events, but it was unrelated to the risk of myocardial infarction and stroke, which were predicted by on-treatment mean SBP. Prediction of the primary outcome improved by the combined use of both measures: global test for trend, P<0.0001; hazard ratio for combined fifth versus first quintile, 1.42 (1.20-1.68) compared with 1.13 (1.01-1.27) for SBP-CV and 1.24 (1.11-1.40) for mean SBP. Thus, in the present study, on-treatment mean SBP provided an overall better prediction of cardiovascular risk than visit-to-visit SBP-CV. Prediction improved by their combined use, which may thus offer a more precise estimate of the protective effect of treatment.
Clinical Trial Registration:
URL: http//www.clinicaltrial.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00153101
More Related Videos
14:28Non-Invasive Monitoring of Microvascular Oxygenation and Reactive Hyperemia using Hybrid, Near-Infrared Diffuse Optical Spectroscopy for Critical Care
Published on: May 10, 2024
05:16Cutoff Value of Phase Angle by Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis at Admission as a Prognostic Factor in Patients with Acute Heart Failure
Published on: June 10, 2025
Related Concept Videos
Errors occurring during blood pressure monitoring
Several factors...
Measurement of Blood Pressure
Regression Toward the Mean
Factors affecting Blood pressure
Physiological Factors:
Pre-Procedural Guidelines for Assessing Blood Pressure
Variability: Analysis
The range is a simple measure of variability, indicating the difference between the highest and...