Visit-to-visit blood pressure variability and cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Visit-to-visit blood pressure variability (VVV BPV) is a recognized risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) that is underutilized in clinical practice. The reliability of electronic health record (EHR) data in estimating BPV and predicting CVD remains uncertain. This study compared BPV estimation methodologies using EHR vs. non-EHR data and examined dose-response associations with CVD. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted across five databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science) for studies published from January 2012 to August 2024. Studies assessing VVV BPV in adults and its association with CVD outcomes (e.g. myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and cardiovascular mortality) were included. A dose-response meta-analysis (DRMA) evaluated BPV thresholds linked to increased CVD risk using standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variation (CV). A total of 4926 studies were screened, 49 of which met the inclusion criteria. No consensus has emerged on BPV estimation methodologies, although non-EHR studies have followed stricter protocols. The meta-analysis showed that VVV BPV predicted any CVD outcome. Effect sizes were comparable between EHR [the hazard ratio (HR): 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09-1.24] and non-EHR (HR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.10-1.17) studies (P-value = 0.468). A BPV threshold of SD 6.72 mmHg or CV 9.05% was linked to a 10% higher CVD risk. CONCLUSION: The EHR data reliably estimate BPV, yielding effect sizes similar to those of non-EHR sources. A non-linear dose-response relationship suggests that a higher BPV increases CVD risk. Visit-to-visit blood pressure variability needs to be incorporated into clinical practice, and further research is required to identify strategies to implement and scale up into routine workflow.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.031 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".