Genetically Predicted Blood Pressure Across the Lifespan: Differential Effects of Mean and Pulse Pressure on Stroke Risk.

Hypertension is the leading risk factor for stroke. Yet, it remains unknown whether blood pressure pulsatility (pulse pressure [PP]) causally affects stroke risk independently of the steady pressure component (mean arterial pressure [MAP]). It is further unknown how the effects of MAP and PP on stroke risk vary with age and stroke cause. Using data from UK Biobank (N=408 228; 38-71 years), we selected genetic variants as instruments for MAP and PP at age ≤55 and >55 years and across age deciles. We applied multivariable Mendelian randomization analyses to explore associations with ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and their subtypes. Higher genetically predicted MAP was associated with higher risk of ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage across the examined age spectrum. Independent of MAP, higher genetically predicted PP only at age >55 years was further associated with higher risk of ischemic stroke (odds ratio per-SD-increment, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.13-1.34]). Among subtypes, the effect of genetically predicted MAP on large artery stroke was attenuated, whereas the effect of genetically predicted PP was augmented with increasing age. Genetically predicted MAP, but not PP, was associated with small vessel stroke and deep intracerebral hemorrhage homogeneously across age deciles. Neither genetically predicted MAP nor PP were associated with lobar intracerebral hemorrhage. Beyond an effect of high MAP at any age on ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, our results support an independent causal effect of high PP at older ages on large artery stroke. This finding warrants further investigation for the development of stroke preventive strategies targeting pulsatility in later life

Validation of non-invasive central blood pressure devices: ARTERY Society task force consensus statement on protocol standardization

The original Riva-Rocci method to measure blood pressure (BP) using a cuff at the upper arm assumed the pressure obtained by this technique was a good proxy for central aortic BP.1,2 The clinical (prognostic) importance of brachial cuff BP is undeniable for both the assessment of cardiovascular risk associated with elevated BP and the benefits of treatment-induced BP reduction.3 However, it is also generally appreciated that peripheral artery systolic BP (SBP; brachial or radial artery) may be an inaccurate substitute for central SBP.4 This has been reported in human studies using intra-arterial catheterization of peripheral and central arteries.5–8 There may also be a discrepancy between peripheral and central BP responses to vasoactive drugs.9 These findings are corroborated in larger studies using non-invasive central aortic BP methods,10–13 and, while yet to be fully adopted in clinical practice, an independent prognostic value of central BP has been demonstrated.14–16 Altogether, there is a growing interest among clinicians towards improving risk estimates by using devices that provide more accurate measures of central aortic BP than those provided by current brachial cuff BP methods. Many non-invasive devices have been developed that purport to estimate central BP from different peripheral artery sites (e.g. radial, brachial, carotid arteries) using different principles of recording the pressure or surrogate signals (e.g. applanation tonometry, oscillometry, ultrasound, or magnetic resonance imaging) and different calibration methods to derive central BP. Since upper arm cuff-based devices to estimate central BP are more clinically appealing, in recent years several companies have developed such devices using a variety of techniques (e.g. oscillometric sub-diastolic or supra-systolic waveform analysis with generalized transfer functions), which employ a variety of signal processing steps to estimate central BP from peripheral signals.17,18 Yet, with no standardized guidelines,17 the accuracy testing of these new devices (as well as the preceding devices) has not been undertaken in a uniform fashion with comparable protocols, emphasizing the need for guidance in this field.19–22 An international task force was convened to address this situation

Dietary protein safety and resistance exercise: what do we really know?

Resistance trainers continue to receive mixed messages about the safety of purposely seeking ample dietary protein in their quest for stimulating protein synthesis, improving performance, or maintaining health. Despite protein's lay popularity and the routinely high intakes exhibited by strength athletes, liberal and purposeful protein consumption is often maligned by "experts". University textbooks, instructors, and various forms of literature from personal training groups and athletic organizations continue to use dissuasive language surrounding dietary protein. Due to the widely known health benefits of dietary protein and a growing body of evidence on its safety profile, this is unfortunate. In response, researchers have critiqued unfounded educational messages. As a recent summarizing example, the International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) Position Stand: Protein and Exercise reviewed general literature on renal and bone health. The concluding remark that "Concerns that protein intake within this range [1.4 – 2.0 g/kg body weight per day] is unhealthy are unfounded in healthy, exercising individuals." was based largely upon data from non-athletes due to "a lack of scientific evidence". Future studies were deemed necessary. This assessment is not unique in the scientific literature. Investigators continue to cite controversy, debate, and the lack of direct evidence that allows it. This review discusses the few existing safety studies done specific to athletes and calls for protein research specific to resistance trainers. Population-specific, long term data will be necessary for effective education in dietetics textbooks and from sports governing bodies

Validation of non-invasive central blood pressure devices: Artery society task force (abridged) consensus statement on protocol standardization

Brachial cuff blood pressure (BP) is clinically important, but may be an inaccurate substitute for central BP. Many non-invasive devices have been developed that purport to estimate central BP from peripheral artery sites, yet with no standardized guidelines; the accuracy testing of these new devices has not been undertaken in a uniform fashion with comparable protocols. This is an abridged paper describing the recommendations reached by an international task force convened to identify issues that need to be addressed and reach consensus relating to methods for assessing and reporting the accuracy (validation) of central BP devices. The recommendations are endorsed by the Association for Research into Arterial Structure and Physiology (ARTERY) Society, as well as the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) Working Group on Arterial Structure and Function, and the ESH Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability. Researchers interested in validating central BP monitors should read the full version of the statement

Points to consider in cardiovascular disease risk management among patients with rheumatoid arthritis living in South Africa, an unequal middle income country

ABSTRACT: Background: It is plausible that optimal cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk management differs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from low or middle income compared to high income populations. This study aimed at producing evidence-based points to consider for CVD prevention in South African RA patients. Methods: Five rheumatologists, one cardiologist and one epidemiologist with experience in CVD risk management in RA patients, as well as two patient representatives, two health professionals and one radiologist, one rheumatology fellow and 11 rheumatologists that treat RA patients regularly contributed. Systematic literature searches were performed and the level of evidence was determined according to standard guidelines. Results: Eighteen points to consider were formulated. These were grouped into 6 categories that comprised overall CVD risk assessment and management (n=4), and specific interventions aimed at reducing CVD risk including RA control with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, glucocorticoids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (n=3), lipid lowering agents (n=8), antihypertensive drugs (n=1), low dose aspirin (n=1) and lifestyle modification (n=1). Each point to consider differs partially or completely from recommendations previously reported for CVD risk management in RA patients from high income populations. Currently recommended CVD risk calculators do not reliably identify South African black RA patients with very high-risk atherosclerosis as represented by carotid artery plaque presence on ultrasound. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that optimal cardiovascular risk management likely differs substantially in RA patients from low or middle income compared to high income populations. There is an urgent need for future multicentre longitudinal studies on CVD risk in black African patients with RA.The first meeting held amongst local Rheumatologists was funded by the South African Arthritis and Rheumatology Association. The studies by Professor González-Gay have been supported by grants from “Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias” PI06/0024, PS09/00748, PI12/00060, PI15/00525, PI18/00043, and RD12/0009/0013 and RD16/0012 (RIER) from “Instituto de Salud Carlos III” (ISCIII) (Spain), co-funded by FEDER funds