Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Should pulse pressure become part of the Framingham risk score?

Abstract

An increased pulse pressure suggests aortic stiffening. New evidence also suggests that pulse pressure is a more sensitive measure of risk than other indexes of blood pressure in middle-aged and older persons. The objective of the study was to relate pulse pressure to the risk of cardiovascular events in the general population, and to assess whether pulse pressure could improve the Framingham risk prediction. A total of 378 men and 391 women over the age of 50 years (mean 62.7 years) were followed. Sex-specific Framingham cardiovascular risk scores were derived from age, systolic pressure, diastolic pressure, total and HDL cholesterol, smoking status and the presence or absence of diabetes mellitus. The cutoff points used to develop a pulse pressure score were calculated by determining the percentile points corresponding to the blood pressure categories in the Framingham risk score. We calculated relative hazard rates by multiple Cox regression. After a median follow-up of 7.2 years (range: 11 months–15 years), a total of 148 cardiovascular events occurred. In Cox regression analysis, a 10 mmHg higher pulse pressure was associated with 31% (P<0.0001) increase in the risk for cardiovascular events (fatal and nonfatal) after adjustment for sex, age, total and HDL cholesterol, smoking and the presence of diabetes mellitus. After adjustment for the aforementioned risk factors, a one-point increment in the blood pressure and pulse pressure scores was associated with a 40 and 48% (both P<0.0001) increase in the risk of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events, respectively. When both the blood pressure and pulse pressure scores were forced into a Cox model, only the pulse pressure score remained statistically significant (P<0.0001) with a relative hazard rate of 1.37 (CI: 1.16–1.69). These prospective data suggest that pulse pressure may improve the Framingham risk prediction among middle-aged and older individuals. Further studies, especially in the Framingham cohort, are warranted.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Burt VL et al. Prevalence of hypertension in the US adult population. Results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1991. Hypertension 1995; 25: 305–313.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. De Henauw S et al. Trends in the prevalence, detection, treatment and control of arterial hypertension in the Belgian adult population. J Hypertens 1998; 16: 277–284.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Staessen J, Amery A, Fagard R . Isolated systolic hypertension in the elderly. J Hypertens 1990; 8: 393–405.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Franklin SS et al. Is pulse pressure useful in predicting risk for coronary heart disease? The Framingham heart study. Circulation 1999; 100: 354–360.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Franklin SS et al. Does the relation of blood pressure to coronary heart disease risk change with aging? The Framingham Heart Study. Circulation 2001; 103: 1245–1249.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Blacher J et al. Pulse pressure not mean pressure determines cardiovascular risk in older hypertensive patients. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 1085–1089.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Benetos A et al. Pulse pressure: a predictor of long-term cardiovascular mortality in a French male population. Hypertension 1997; 30: 1410–1415.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Staessen JA et al. Risks of untreated and treated isolated systolic hypertension in the elderly: meta-analysis of outcome trials. Lancet 2000; 355: 865–872.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Madhavan S et al. Relation of pulse pressure and blood pressure reduction to the incidence of myocardial infarction. Hypertension 1994; 23: 395–401.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mitchell GF et al. Sphygmomanometrically determined pulse pressure is a powerful independent predictor of recurrent events after myocardial infarction in patients with impaired left ventricular function. SAVE investigators. Survival and Ventricular Enlargement. Circulation 1997; 96: 4254–4260.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Klassen PS et al. Association between pulse pressure and mortality in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis. JAMA 2002; 287: 1548–1555.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kannel WB et al. Profile of the coronary-prone individual. Assessment of risk of developing coronary heart disease. The Framingham study. Proc Annu Meet Med Sect Am Life Conv 1967; 55: 74–99.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Anderson KM, Odell PM, Wilson PW, Kannel WB . Cardiovascular disease risk profiles. Am Heart J 1991; 121: 293–298.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wilson PW, Castelli WP, Kannel WB . Coronary risk prediction in adults (the Framingham Heart Study). Am J Cardiol 1987; 59: 91G–94G.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wilson PW et al. Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation 1998; 97: 1837–1847.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Staessen JA et al. Environmental exposure to cadmium, forearm bone density, and risk of fractures: prospective population study. Public Health and Environmental Exposure to Cadmium (PheeCad) Study Group. Lancet 1999; 353: 1140–1144.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Report of the Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care 1997; 20: 1183–1197.

  18. Thijs L et al. Reference values for self-recorded blood pressure: a meta-analysis of summary data. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158: 481–488.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Darné B et al. Pulsatile versus steady component of blood pressure: a cross-sectional analysis and a prospective analysis on cardiovascular mortality. Hypertension 1989; 13: 392–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kannel WB, Gordon T, Schwartz MJ . Systolic versus diastolic blood pressure and risk of coronary heart disease. The Framingham study. Am J Cardiol 1971; 27: 335–346.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kannel WB et al. Components of blood pressure and risk of atherothrombotic brain infarction: the Framingham study. Stroke 1976; 7: 327–331.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Domanski M et al. Cardiovascular risk assessment using pulse pressure in the first national health and nutrition examination survey (NHANES I). Hypertension 2001; 38: 793–797.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Borghi C et al. Relative role of systolic, diastolic and pulse pressure as risk factors for cardiovascular events in the Brisighella Heart Study. J Hypertens 2002; 20: 1737–1742.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Verdecchia P et al. Ambulatory pulse pressure: a potent predictor of total cardiovascular risk in hypertension. Hypertension 1998; 32: 983–988.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Staessen J et al. Ambulatory pulse pressure as predictor of outcome in older patients with systolic hypertension. Am J Hypertens 2002; 15: 835.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wallis EJ et al. Coronary and cardiovascular risk estimation for primary prevention: validation of a new Sheffield table in the 1995 Scottish health survey population. BMJ 2000; 320: 671–676.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Avolio AP et al. Effects of aging on arterial distensibility in populations with high and low prevalence of hypertension: comparison between urban and rural communities in China. Circulation 1985; 71: 202–210.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Franklin SS et al. Hemodynamic patterns of age-related changes in blood pressure. The Framingham Heart Study. Circulation 1997; 96: 308–315.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Aviv A, Aviv H . Telomeres and essential hypertension. Am J Hypertens 1999; 12: 427–432.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Jeanclos E, Schork NJ, Kyvik KO et al. Telomere length inversely correlates with pulse pressure and is highly familial. Hypertension 2000; 36: 195–200.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Aviv A, Aviv H . Reflections on telomeres, growth, aging, and essential hypertension. Hypertension 1997; 29: 1067–1072.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Benetos A et al. Telomere length as an indicator of biological aging: the gender effect and relation with pulse pressure and pulse wave velocity. Hypertension 2001; 37: 381–385.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Dart AM, Kingwell BA . Pulse pressure—a review of mechanisms and clinical relevance. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 37: 975–984.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Van Bortel LM, Struijker-Boudier HA, Safar ME . Pulse pressure, arterial stiffness, and drug treatment of hypertension. Hypertension 2001; 38: 914–921.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Gimbrone Jr MA et al. Endothelial dysfunction, hemodynamic forces, and atherogenesis. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2000; 902: 230–239.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Guidelines Subcommittee of the WHO/ISH Mild Hypertension Liaison Committee. 1993 guidelines for the management of mild hypertension. Memorandum from a World Health Organization/International Society of Hypertension meeting. Hypertension 1993; 22: 392–403.

  37. de Visser CL et al. Prediction of coronary heart disease: a comparison between the Copenhagen risk score and the Framingham risk score applied to a Dutch population. J Intern Med 2003; 253: 553–562.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The FLEMENGHO Study was supported by research grant G.0424.03 from the Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Brussels, Belgium) and by a university grant of KULeuven OT/99/28. This population study would not have been possible without the collaboration of the family physicians of the participants. The municipality of Hechtel-Eksel (Belgium) provided logistic support. We acknowledge the expert assistance of Rina Bollen, Lieve Gijsbers, Marie-Jeanne Jehoul, Alida Hermans and Sylvia Van Hulle.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T S Nawrot.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nawrot, T., Staessen, J., Thijs, L. et al. Should pulse pressure become part of the Framingham risk score?. J Hum Hypertens 18, 279–286 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jhh.1001669

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jhh.1001669

Keywords

Search

Quick links