Central Blood Pressure Measurements and Antihypertensive Therapy: a Consensus Document.
Enrico Agabiti-Rosei,Giuseppe Mancia,Michael F. O'Rourke,Mary J. Roman,Michel E. Safar,Harold Smulyan,Ji-Guang Wang,Ian B. Wilkinson,Bryan Williams,Charalambos Vlachopoulos
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/hypertensionaha.107.090068
IF: 9.8968
2007-01-01
Hypertension
Abstract:HomeHypertensionVol. 50, No. 1Central Blood Pressure Measurements and Antihypertensive Therapy Free AccessResearch ArticlePDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissionsDownload Articles + Supplements ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toSupplementary MaterialsFree AccessResearch ArticlePDF/EPUBCentral Blood Pressure Measurements and Antihypertensive TherapyA Consensus Document Enrico Agabiti-Rosei, Giuseppe Mancia, Michael F. O’Rourke, Mary J. Roman, Michel E. Safar, Harold Smulyan, Ji-Guang Wang, Ian B. Wilkinson, Bryan Williams and Charalambos Vlachopoulos Enrico Agabiti-RoseiEnrico Agabiti-Rosei From the Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (E.A-R.), University Hospital, Brescia, Italy; Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (G.M.), University of Milano-Bicocca, St Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Milan, Italy; St Vincent’s Clinic/University of New South Wales (M.F.O.), Darlinghurst, Australia; Weill Medical College (M.J.R.), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; Centre de Diagnostic (M.E.S.), Hopital Hotel-Dieu, Paris, France; Department of Medicine (H.S.), Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Centre for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials (J.G.W.), Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiaotong, University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China; University of Cambridge Addenbrooke’s Hospital (I.B.W.), Cambridge, United Kingdom; the Department of Cardiovascular Sciences (B.W.), School of Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom; and the First Department of Cardiology (C.V.), Athens Medical School, Hippokration Hospital, Athens, Greece. Search for more papers by this author , Giuseppe ManciaGiuseppe Mancia From the Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (E.A-R.), University Hospital, Brescia, Italy; Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (G.M.), University of Milano-Bicocca, St Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Milan, Italy; St Vincent’s Clinic/University of New South Wales (M.F.O.), Darlinghurst, Australia; Weill Medical College (M.J.R.), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; Centre de Diagnostic (M.E.S.), Hopital Hotel-Dieu, Paris, France; Department of Medicine (H.S.), Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Centre for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials (J.G.W.), Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiaotong, University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China; University of Cambridge Addenbrooke’s Hospital (I.B.W.), Cambridge, United Kingdom; the Department of Cardiovascular Sciences (B.W.), School of Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom; and the First Department of Cardiology (C.V.), Athens Medical School, Hippokration Hospital, Athens, Greece. Search for more papers by this author , Michael F. O’RourkeMichael F. O’Rourke From the Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (E.A-R.), University Hospital, Brescia, Italy; Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (G.M.), University of Milano-Bicocca, St Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Milan, Italy; St Vincent’s Clinic/University of New South Wales (M.F.O.), Darlinghurst, Australia; Weill Medical College (M.J.R.), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; Centre de Diagnostic (M.E.S.), Hopital Hotel-Dieu, Paris, France; Department of Medicine (H.S.), Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Centre for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials (J.G.W.), Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiaotong, University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China; University of Cambridge Addenbrooke’s Hospital (I.B.W.), Cambridge, United Kingdom; the Department of Cardiovascular Sciences (B.W.), School of Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom; and the First Department of Cardiology (C.V.), Athens Medical School, Hippokration Hospital, Athens, Greece. Search for more papers by this author , Mary J. RomanMary J. Roman From the Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (E.A-R.), University Hospital, Brescia, Italy; Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (G.M.), University of Milano-Bicocca, St Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Milan, Italy; St Vincent’s Clinic/University of New South Wales (M.F.O.), Darlinghurst, Australia; Weill Medical College (M.J.R.), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; Centre de Diagnostic (M.E.S.), Hopital Hotel-Dieu, Paris, France; Department of Medicine (H.S.), Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Centre for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials (J.G.W.), Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiaotong, University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China; University of Cambridge Addenbrooke’s Hospital (I.B.W.), Cambridge, United Kingdom; the Department of Cardiovascular Sciences (B.W.), School of Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom; and the First Department of Cardiology (C.V.), Athens Medical School, Hippokration Hospital, Athens, Greece. Search for more papers by this author , Michel E. SafarMichel E. Safar From the Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (E.A-R.), University Hospital, Brescia, Italy; Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (G.M.), University of Milano-Bicocca, St Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Milan, Italy; St Vincent’s Clinic/University of New South Wales (M.F.O.), Darlinghurst, Australia; Weill Medical College (M.J.R.), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; Centre de Diagnostic (M.E.S.), Hopital Hotel-Dieu, Paris, France; Department of Medicine (H.S.), Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Centre for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials (J.G.W.), Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiaotong, University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China; University of Cambridge Addenbrooke’s Hospital (I.B.W.), Cambridge, United Kingdom; the Department of Cardiovascular Sciences (B.W.), School of Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom; and the First Department of Cardiology (C.V.), Athens Medical School, Hippokration Hospital, Athens, Greece. Search for more papers by this author , Harold SmulyanHarold Smulyan From the Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (E.A-R.), University Hospital, Brescia, Italy; Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (G.M.), University of Milano-Bicocca, St Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Milan, Italy; St Vincent’s Clinic/University of New South Wales (M.F.O.), Darlinghurst, Australia; Weill Medical College (M.J.R.), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; Centre de Diagnostic (M.E.S.), Hopital Hotel-Dieu, Paris, France; Department of Medicine (H.S.), Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Centre for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials (J.G.W.), Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiaotong, University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China; University of Cambridge Addenbrooke’s Hospital (I.B.W.), Cambridge, United Kingdom; the Department of Cardiovascular Sciences (B.W.), School of Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom; and the First Department of Cardiology (C.V.), Athens Medical School, Hippokration Hospital, Athens, Greece. Search for more papers by this author , Ji-Guang WangJi-Guang Wang From the Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (E.A-R.), University Hospital, Brescia, Italy; Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (G.M.), University of Milano-Bicocca, St Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Milan, Italy; St Vincent’s Clinic/University of New South Wales (M.F.O.), Darlinghurst, Australia; Weill Medical College (M.J.R.), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; Centre de Diagnostic (M.E.S.), Hopital Hotel-Dieu, Paris, France; Department of Medicine (H.S.), Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Centre for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials (J.G.W.), Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiaotong, University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China; University of Cambridge Addenbrooke’s Hospital (I.B.W.), Cambridge, United Kingdom; the Department of Cardiovascular Sciences (B.W.), School of Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom; and the First Department of Cardiology (C.V.), Athens Medical School, Hippokration Hospital, Athens, Greece. Search for more papers by this author , Ian B. WilkinsonIan B. Wilkinson From the Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (E.A-R.), University Hospital, Brescia, Italy; Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (G.M.), University of Milano-Bicocca, St Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Milan, Italy; St Vincent’s Clinic/University of New South Wales (M.F.O.), Darlinghurst, Australia; Weill Medical College (M.J.R.), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; Centre de Diagnostic (M.E.S.), Hopital Hotel-Dieu, Paris, France; Department of Medicine (H.S.), Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Centre for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials (J.G.W.), Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiaotong, University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China; University of Cambridge Addenbrooke’s Hospital (I.B.W.), Cambridge, United Kingdom; the Department of Cardiovascular Sciences (B.W.), School of Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom; and the First Department of Cardiology (C.V.), Athens Medical School, Hippokration Hospital, Athens, Greece. Search for more papers by this author , Bryan WilliamsBryan Williams From the Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (E.A-R.), University Hospital, Brescia, Italy; Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (G.M.), University of Milano-Bicocca, St Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Milan, Italy; St Vincent’s Clinic/University of New South Wales (M.F.O.), Darlinghurst, Australia; Weill Medical College (M.J.R.), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; Centre de Diagnostic (M.E.S.), Hopital Hotel-Dieu, Paris, France; Department of Medicine (H.S.), Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Centre for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials (J.G.W.), Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiaotong, University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China; University of Cambridge Addenbrooke’s Hospital (I.B.W.), Cambridge, United Kingdom; the Department of Cardiovascular Sciences (B.W.), School of Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom; and the First Department of Cardiology (C.V.), Athens Medical School, Hippokration Hospital, Athens, Greece. Search for more papers by this author and Charalambos VlachopoulosCharalambos Vlachopoulos From the Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (E.A-R.), University Hospital, Brescia, Italy; Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (G.M.), University of Milano-Bicocca, St Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Milan, Italy; St Vincent’s Clinic/University of New South Wales (M.F.O.), Darlinghurst, Australia; Weill Medical College (M.J.R.), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; Centre de Diagnostic (M.E.S.), Hopital Hotel-Dieu, Paris, France; Department of Medicine (H.S.), Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Centre for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials (J.G.W.), Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiaotong, University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China; University of Cambridge Addenbrooke’s Hospital (I.B.W.), Cambridge, United Kingdom; the Department of Cardiovascular Sciences (B.W.), School of Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom; and the First Department of Cardiology (C.V.), Athens Medical School, Hippokration Hospital, Athens, Greece. Search for more papers by this author Originally published11 Jun 2007https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.107.090068Hypertension. 2007;50:154–160Other version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: June 11, 2007: Previous Version 1 The 2003 European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension1 included 2 important novel recommendations: assessment of the total cardiovascular risk should be taken into account in the management of the hypertensive patient, and quantification of risk should include subclinical target organ damage.These guidelines acknowledged that central (aortic) blood pressure (BP), which is the pressure exerted on the heart and brain, may be different from the pressure that is measured at the arm. They also recognized that central pressure may be predictive of outcome in specific populations2 and differently affected by antihypertensive drugs. However, although these guidelines accepted that central augmentation index and pulse wave velocity may be important as measures of subclinical organ damage, they also stressed the need for prospective trials to establish their predictive values given that such studies were lacking at that time (2003).After publication of these guidelines, additional data have strengthened the pathophysiological importance of central BP. Clinical studies have indicated that central BP may have predictive value independent of the corresponding peripheral (brachial) BP. More importantly, recent large-scale trials have shown that central hemodynamics may provide a worthwhile treatment target. In addition, central hemodynamics can now be reliably assessed noninvasively with a number of devices. Accordingly, because arterial stiffening and central hemodynamics are markers and manifestations of organ damage, the pertinent key question is whether the balance of evidence on their importance and issues related to clinical practice allows for implementation in patient management.Pathophysiological Significance of Central PressuresCentral (aortic and carotid) pressures are pathophysiologically more relevant than peripheral pressures for the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease.3,4 It is aortic systolic pressure that the left ventricle encounters during systole (afterload), and the aortic pressure during diastole is a determinant of coronary perfusion. Furthermore, the distending pressure in the large elastic-type arteries (aorta and carotid) is a key determinant of the degenerative changes that characterize accelerated aging and hypertension. In contrast, the muscular peripheral arteries, such as the brachial and the radial ones, are less influenced by these changes.5The pressure wave generated by the left ventricle travels down the arterial tree and then is reflected at multiple peripheral sites, mainly at resistance arteries (small muscular arteries and arterioles). Consequently, the pressure waveform recorded at any site of the arterial tree is the sum of the forward traveling waveform generated by left ventricular ejection and the backward traveling wave, the “echo” of the incident wave reflected at peripheral sites. When the large conduit arteries are healthy and compliant, the reflected wave merges with the incident in the proximal aorta during diastole, thereby augmenting the diastolic BP and aiding coronary perfusion. In contrast, when the arteries are stiff, pulse wave velocity increases, accelerating the incident and reflected waves; thus, the reflected wave merges with the incident wave in systole and augments aortic systolic rather than diastolic pressure. As a result, left ventricular afterload increases, and normal ventricular relaxation and coronary filling are compromised. Apart from changes in the timing of the waveforms merging, changes in the magnitude of the reflected wave and central pressures may result from changes in the proportion of the incident wave that is reflected, which in turn depends on the balance between vasoconstriction and vasodilatation in the peripheral circulation.Another important consideration regarding the relationship between brachial and central aortic pressure is “pressure wave amplification.” Typically, the diastolic and mean pressures change little across the arterial tree. However, systolic BP is amplified when moving from the aorta to the periphery (Figure 1).3Download figureDownload PowerPointFigure 1. Change in contours in pressure wave (top) and flow wave (bottom) between the ascending aorta and the saphenous artery (reprinted from Reference 3).Consequently, the pulsatile components of central and peripheral pressures (systolic BP and pulse pressure [PP]) may vary significantly. In general, brachial systolic and PP tend to overestimate central systolic and PP, especially in younger subjects who have more pronounced amplification. Substantial differences between central and brachial BP are also often also seen in older people, especially with tachycardia, exercise, use of vasoactive agents, or in those with systolic heart failure.Techniques to Assess Central HemodynamicsAlthough central pressures are ideally measured directly by using invasive devices, several methods have been devised currently to derive central pressures from analyses of applanated carotid and radial pulses or carotid distension waves.6 Among several commercial and noncommercial devices,3,6–11 the most widely used in clinical studies is the SphygmoCor device (AtCor Medical), which uses radial or carotid pulses and a validated generalized transfer function to estimate central pressures from the peripheral signal (Figure 2). When the applanated radial waveform is calibrated using direct intra-arterial pressures, the SphygmoCor calculations of aortic pressures are accurate,8,12 whereas the accuracy of this, as well as of other peripheral artery methods, decreases when the radial pulses are calibrated using inaccurate cuff pressures.13 This is also the case for carotid artery techniques. Alternatively, because mean BP remains virtually constant from central to peripheral arteries, the mean BP value computed from the area of the applanated carotid artery waveform can be calibrated using the mean BP obtained at the brachial artery level. Values of carotid pressures can then be derived.6,11 It should be emphasized that even when central pressures cannot be accurately calculated, these methods can display several features of the aortic (or carotid) pulse that are not dependent on the absolute values of BP, such as amplification of the pulse wave between central and peripheral artery, augmentation index, and arrival time of the reflected wave (the latter 2 are, however, dependent on identification of inflection point). Furthermore, because these features are also influenced by factors including heart rate, height, and age, modern computational capability could allow weighting of these factors in appropriate formulas. Potential problems related to the widespread application of arterial tonometry include appropriate training, supervision, and quality control, as they do for sphygmomanometry. Download figureDownload PowerPointFigure 2. Central pressure waveform. The height of the late systolic peak above the inflection defines the augmented pressure, and the ratio of augmented pressure to PP defines the augmentation index (in percentage; modified from Reference 6).Arterial wave reflections indices and central pressures coupled with measurement of aortic pulse wave velocity, a direct measure of arterial stiffness, constitute a comprehensive and integrated approach of the study of arterial function.6 This is further highlighted by a possible differential ability to predict risk (augmentation index is better in younger persons and pulse wave velocity is better in older persons14) or by situations where, contrary to the usual behavior, pulse wave velocity and wave reflection indices move in opposite directions.15Central Pressures and Central Indices as Markers and Predictors of DiseaseCentral hemodynamic variables have been shown to be independently associated with organ damage, incident cardiovascular disease, and events both in the general population and in various disease states.2,16–40Tables 1 and 2 show such associations according to population studied, variable measured, and site and mode (invasive or noninvasive) of measurement. TABLE 1. Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Studies Indicating the Independent Value of Central Hemodynamics as Markers of Disease and Predictors of Surrogate Cardiovascular End PointsSourceYear, CountryPopulationDesignParameterEnd PointAIx indicates augmentation index; CAD, coronary artery disease; CV, cardiovascular; FU, follow-up; IMT, intima–media thickness; LV, left ventricular; LVMI, left ventricular mass index.*Central pressure measured directly.†These studies have shown incremental value of central indices over peripheral BP.Saba et al16*†1993, United StatesNormotensivesCross-sectionalCarotid AIxLVMI, carotid thicknessBoutouyrie et al17*†1999, FranceHypertensivesCross-sectionalCarotid PPCarotid thicknessBoutouyrie et al18*†2000, FranceHypertensivesLongitudinal (9-month FU)Carotid PPCarotid IMT reduction with treatmentRoman et al192000, United StatesNormotensives, HypertensivesCross-sectionalCarotid systolic BPRelative LV wall thicknessWaddell et al20*†2001, AustraliaCADCross-sectionalCarotid BPExtent of CADNishijima et al21*2001, JapanSuspected CADCross-sectionalAortic fractional PPIncident CADNurnberger et al222002, GermanyHealthy+CVDCross-sectionalCarotid AIxCV risk scoresPhilippe et al23*2002, FranceCADCross-sectionalAortic PPExtent of CADHayashi et al24*2002, JapanSuspected CADCross-sectionalAortic AIxIncident CADDe Luca et al25†2004, REASON StudyHypertensivesLongitudinal (1-year FU)Carotid PPLVMI reductionWeber et al262004, AustriaSuspected CADCross-sectionalAortic AP, AIxIncident CADJankowski et al27*2004, PolandCADCross-sectionalAortic BPExtent of CADDanchin et al28*2004, FranceSuspected CADCross-sectionalAortic PPIncidence and extent of CADBooth et al292004, United KingdomSystemic vasculitisCross-sectionalAortic AIxDisease activityRoman et al302007, United StatesHigh-riskCross-sectionalAortic PPCarotid IMT and massHashimoto et al31†2007, JapanHypertensivesLongitudinal (1-year FU)Aortic AIxLVMI reduction with treatmentTABLE 2. Longitudinal Studies Indicating the Independent Value of Central Hemodynamics as Predictors of EventsSourceYear, countryPopulationDesignParameterEnd PointESRD indicates end-stage renal disease; PTCA, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty; AIx, augmentation index; CAD, coronary artery disease; CV, cardiovascular; FU, follow-up.*Central pressure measured directly.†These studies have shown incremental value of central indices over peripheral BP.Nakayama et al32*2000, JapanCAD-PTCALongitudinal (3-mo FU)Aortic fractional PPRestenosisLu et al33*2001, ChinaCAD-PTCALongitudinal (6-mo FU)Aortic PPRestenosisLondon et al34†2001, FranceESRDLongitudinal (52-mo FU)Carotid AIxCV mortalitySafar et al2†2002, FranceESRDLongitudinal (52-mo FU)Carotid PP, PP amplificationAll-cause and CV mortalityUeda et al35*2004, JapanCAD-PTCALongitudinal (6-mo FU)Aortic AIxRestenosisChirinos et al36*†2005, United StatesCADLongitudinal (3.2-y FU)Aortic APCV mortality and eventsWeber et al37†2005, AustriaCAD-PTCALongitudinal (2-y FU)Aortic AIxCV mortality and eventsDart et al382006, AustraliaElderly female hypertensivesLongitudinal (4.1-y FU)Carotid AIx, brachial BPCV mortality and eventsWilliams et al39†2006 CAFE StudyHypertensivesLongitudinal (≤4-y FU)Aortic PPCV mortality and events during treatmentRoman et al30,40†2005 and 2007, United StatesHigh-riskLongitudinal (4.8-y FU)Aortic PPCV mortality and eventsCentral Pressures and Central Indices as Markers of Disease and Predictors of Surrogate End PointsIncreased aortic augmentation index is associated with coronary artery disease.26 Central pressures also correlate with cardiovascular risk not only in patients with atherosclerotic disease but also in apparently healthy subjects.22 The late systolic augmentation of the central pressure waveform is associated with an increase in left ventricular mass index independent of age and mean BP,16,31 and carotid systolic BP is an independent determinant of left ventricular wall thickness.19 Moreover, central pressure is also more closely related to other important cardiovascular intermediate end points, such as vascular hypertrophy, extent of carotid atherosclerosis,17,30 and the ascending aorta diameter in patients with Marfan syndrome41 than brachial pressure. Recently, higher carotid pressure augmentation in older individuals has been linked to increased flow pulsations entering the cerebral circulation, which may increase the risk of cerebral microvascular damage.42 In inflammatory disorders such as systemic vasculitis, augmentation index is a marker of disease activity, and it is independently associated with levels of C-reactive protein.29Central Pressures and Central Indices as Predictors of EventsRecent data from the Strong Heart Study confirm that peripheral PP, a simple index of arterial stiffness, is associated with a higher cardiovascular mortality independent of traditional risk factors, left ventricular hypertrophy, and reduced ejection fraction in adults without overt coronary heart disease.43 Furthermore, data from the same study showed in a 5-year follow-up that the noninvasively determined central PP better predicts incident cardiovascular disease than does the corresponding brachial PP, possibly because of a more accurate representation of the vascular load on the left ventricle.30,40 The predictive value of central PP is significant even when subclinical atherosclerosis is taken into account.30,40 Central pressures and wave reflection indices are also strong independent predictors of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with end-stage renal failure.2,34 Moreover, in patients with coronary artery disease, wave reflections as expressed by central augmented pressure are powerful and independent predictors of recurrent acute coronary events or death.36 Pulsatility of the ascending aortic pressure waveform is a powerful predictor of restenosis after angioplasty.32,33 Moreover, increased arterial wave reflections expressed by augmentation index are independently associated with an increased risk of severe short- and long-term cardiovascular events in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions.37 In contrast to the aforementioned evidence, a recent study conducted in elderly hypertensive women found that carotid augmentation index is not predictive of outcome.38 However, the large Conduit Artery Function Evaluation (CAFE) Study reported that central PP derived from radial artery applanation tonometry independently predicts outcome in treated patients with hypertension.39 Highlighting the interplay of small and large arteries in risk determination, the structure of small arteries (which compose the main peripheral reflecting sites) was a predictor of events in patients with hypertension.44It should be noted, however, that evidence for a specific central pressure component or index does not necessarily apply to the others, and, thus, they should not be used interchangeably. Furthermore, there is clearly a need for additional studies of central pressures and indices in more general populations or in other disease states. Finally, it would be desirable for future studies to address whether central pressures provide incremental and independent prognostic value over other emerging biomarkers.Implications for TherapyBP reduction, per se, is the major determinant of the benefit of antihypertensive treatment. This has been shown by data from placebo-controlled trials, trials that compared more intensive versus less intensive BP-lowering strategies, and trials comparing different active regimens, and it is further supported by large meta-analyses of studies on antihypertensive treatment1,45–47 (Figure 3). Download figureDownload PowerPointFigure 3. Metaregression line relating the within-trial difference in systolic BP to the odds ratios for stroke. Odds ratios were calculated for experimental vs reference treatment. BP differences were obtained by subtracting achieved levels in experimental groups from those in reference groups. At left, pressure is the brachial measured, whereas at right, pressure is the estimated central pressure allowed for the decrease over brachial pressure of 3 mm Hg when the active therapy was a drug that reduces peripheral wave reflection (calcium channel blocker, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, or angiotensin receptor blocker). The curvilinear metaregression line (left) becomes linear (right) when central rather than peripheral pressures are plotted against odds ratios, indicating a direct relation between cardiovascular outcome and pressure changes induced by antihypertensive treatment (from References 3 and 45).However, during the last decade, important multicenter trials gave rise to the hypothesis that new antihypertensive drugs, such as blockers of the renin–angiotensin system, may reduce cardiovascular outcomes beyond (peripheral) BP control. Particularly, in the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE), Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE), and the Australian National Blood Pressure 2 (ANBP2) studies, the observed clinical benefit tended to be greater than that expected from the decrease in peripheral BP. These potential effects “beyond BP control” are perhaps accounted for by protective properties of different drugs that affect subclinical organ damage or intermediate end points, such as arterial properties or central BP, for which there is evidence that they are related to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.1,48 Effects on central pressures may not be evident by pressure measurements in the periphery, because the reflected wave is added to a different part of the central waveform.49 This may explain why drugs with similar reduction in peripheral pressures have a differential impact on cardiovascular outcomes. In this context, a short-term (4-week treatment) study showed that, in contrast to β-blocking drugs, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and calcium blockers may be more effective in reducing aortic systolic BP than that indicated by brachial pressure measurements.50 Furthermore, more recent studies comparing the acute effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ramipril) and the short-term (6-week) effects of angiotensin receptor blockers (eprosartan) with atenolol showed that, for a similar fall of brachial pressure, inhibitors of the renin–angiotensin axis may cause a significantly greater fall o