Differences in exercise‐induced blood pressure changes between young trained and untrained individuals

There are no studies assessing short‐term blood pressure (BP) changes induced by daily exercise load in young trained individuals. The authors enrolled 25 healthy, trained (mean age 19.7 ± 0.1 years, 36% female) and 26 healthy, untrained (mean age 20.4 ± 0.3 years, 50% female) individuals and measured BP after the Master two‐step test. Among them, 42 individuals underwent echocardiography after BP measurements to assess left ventricular mass index (LVMI). The baseline systolic BP (SBP) levels of trained and untrained individuals were 122.7 ± 2.9 versus 117.4 ± 1.5 mmHg, respectively (p = .016). Trained individuals showed a significant suppression of the SBP increase soon after exercise loads and lower SBP levels at 1, 2, and 3 min after exercise loads compared with untrained individuals. The peak SBP level over the study period was also significantly lower in trained individuals than in untrained individuals: 156.4 ± 3.3 versus 183.7 ± 5.2 mmHg (p < .001). Trained individuals showed significantly higher LVMI compared with untrained individuals: 129.4 versus 101.6 g/m² (p < .001). These findings demonstrated that trained individuals showed significant suppression of short‐term BP variability in response to by daily exercise loads and prompt SBP recovery from acute exercise loads compared with untrained individuals. Our results would be useful to understand short‐term BPV and LV hypertrophy induced by adaptive responses of the heart to regular exercise loads.     

Association between real‐world home blood pressure measurement patterns and blood pressure variability among older individuals with hypertension: A community‐based blood pressure variability study

Home blood pressure (BP) monitoring is a useful tool for hypertension management. BP variability (BPV) has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. However, little is known about the correlation between BPV and different measurement patterns of long‐term home BP monitoring. This longitudinal cohort study aimed to assess the associations between dynamic BP measurement patterns and BPV. A total of 1128 participants (mean age, 77.4 ± 9.3 years; male, 51%) with 23 269 behavior measuring units were included. We used sliding window sampling to classify the home BP data with a regular 6‐month interval into units in a sliding manner until the data are not continuous. Three measurement patterns (stable frequent [SF], stable infrequent [SI], and unstable [US]) were assessed based on the home BP data obtained within the first 3 months of the study, and the data in the subsequent 3 months were used to assess the BPV of that unit. We used linear mixed‐effects model to assess the association between BP measurement patterns and BPV with adjustment for possible confounding factors including average BP. Average real variability and coefficient variability were used as measures of the BPV. No significant differences were observed in average BP between the SF, SI, and US patterns. However, BPV in the SF group was significantly lower than that in the US and SI groups (all p‐values < .05). The BPV in SI and US groups was not significantly different. A stable and frequent BP measuring pattern was independently associated with a lower BPV.     

Identifying patterns of diurnal blood pressure variation among ELSA‐Brasil participants

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is the gold standard method for the diagnosis of hypertension. ABPM provides a set of repeated measurements for blood pressure (BP), usually over 24 h. Traditional approaches characterize diurnal BP variation by single ABPM parameters such as average and standard deviation, regardless of the temporal nature of the data. In this way, information about the pattern of diurnal BP variation and relationship between parameters is lost. The objective of this study was to identify and characterize daily BP patterns considering the set of repeated measures from 24‐h ABPM. A total of 859 adult participants of the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA‐Brasil) performed a 24‐h ABPM record. Hypertension, sex, age, race/color, education, marital status, smoking, alcohol, physical activity, and BMI were the covariables analyzed. Techniques for longitudinal clustering, multinomial models, and models with mixed effects were used. Three daily BP patterns were identified. Daily BP patterns with high BP presented higher standard deviation and morning surge and lower nocturnal dipping. They showed greater systolic BP variability and faster rise than fall in diastolic BP during sleep. Hypertensive, “pardos,” and men had greater odds to present these patterns. Daily BP patterns with high BP presented the worst profile concerning ABPM parameters associated with cardiovascular risk. The daily BP patterns identified contribute to the characterization of diurnal BP variation.     

Algorithm for diagnosing hypertension using out‐of‐office blood pressure measurements

The authors developed and validated a diagnostic algorithm using the optimal upper and lower cut‐off values of office and home BP at which ambulatory BP measurements need to be applied. Patients presenting with high BP (≥140/90 mm Hg) at the outpatient clinic were referred to measure office, home, and ambulatory BP. Office and home BP were divided into hypertension, intermediate (requiring diagnosis using ambulatory BP), and normotension zones. The upper and lower BP cut‐off levels of intermediate zone were determined corresponding to a level of 95% specificity and 95% sensitivity for detecting daytime ambulatory hypertension by using the receiver operator characteristic curve. A diagnostic algorithm using three methods, OBP‐ABP: office BP measurement and subsequent ambulatory BP measurements if office BP is intermediate zone; OBP‐HBP‐ABP: office BP, subsequent home BP measurement if office BP is within intermediate zone and subsequent ambulatory BP measurement if home BP is within intermediate zone; and HBP‐ABP: home BP measurement and subsequent ambulatory BP measurements if home BP is within intermediate zone, were developed and validated. In the development population (n = 256), the developed algorithm yielded better diagnostic accuracies than 75.8% (95%CI 70.1–80.9) for office BP alone and 76.2% (95%CI 70.5–81.3) for home BP alone as follows: 96.5% (95%CI: 93.4–98.4) for OBP‐ABP, 93.4% (95%CI: 89.6–96.1) for OBP‐HBP‐ABP, and 94.9% (95%CI: 91.5–97.3%) for HBP‐ABP.  In the validation population (n = 399), the developed algorithm showed similarly improved diagnostic accuracy. The developed algorithm applying ambulatory BP measurement to the intermediate zone of office and home BP improves the diagnostic accuracy for hypertension.     

Day‐by‐day blood pressure variability in hospitalized patients with COVID‐19

In a retrospective analysis, the authors investigated day‐by‐day blood pressure variability (BPV) and its association with clinical outcomes (critical vs. severe and discharged) in hospitalized patients with COVID‐19. The study participants were hospitalized in Tongji Hospital, Guanggu Branch, Wuhan, China, between February 1 and April 1, 2020. BPV was assessed as standard derivation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), and variability independent of mean (VIM). The 79 participants included 60 (75.9%) severe patients discharged from the hospital after up to 47 days of hospitalization, and 19 (24.1%) critically ill patients transferred to other hospitals for further treatment (n = 13), admitted to ICU (n = 3) or died (n=3). Despite similar use of antihypertensive medication (47.4% vs. 41.7%) and mean levels of systolic/diastolic blood pressure (131.3/75.2 vs. 125.4/77.3 mmHg), critically ill patients, compared with severe and discharged patients, had a significantly (p ≤ .04) greater variability of systolic (SD 14.92 vs. 10.84 mmHg, CV 11.39% vs. 8.56%, and VIM 15.15 vs. 10.75 units) and diastolic blood pressure (SD 9.38 vs. 7.50 mmHg, CV 12.66% vs. 9.80%, and VIM 9.33 vs. 7.50 units). After adjustment for confounding factors, the odds ratios for critical versus severe and discharged patients for systolic BPV were 3.41 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20‐9.66, p = .02), 4.09 (95% CI 1.14‐14.67, p = .03), and 2.81 (95% CI 1.12‐7.05, p = .03) for each 5‐mmHg increment in SD, 5% increment in CV, and 5‐unit increment in VIM, respectively. Similar trends were observed for diastolic BPV indices (p ≤ .08). In conclusion, in patients with COVID‐19, BPV was greater and associated with worse clinical outcomes.     

Visit‐to‐visit blood pressure variability and sleep architecture

Visit‐to‐visit blood pressure (BP) variability (BPV) is an independent risk factor of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Sleep architecture characterizes the distribution of different stages of sleep and may be important in CVD development. We examined the association between visit‐to‐visit BPV and sleep architecture using in‐lab polysomnographic data from 3,565 patients referred to an academic sleep center. BPV was calculated using the intra‐individual coefficient of variation of BP measures collected 12 months before the sleep study. We conducted multiple linear regression analyses to assess the association of systolic and diastolic BPV with sleep architecture—rapid eye movement (REM) and non‐rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep duration.Our results show that systolic BPV was inversely associated with REM sleep duration (p = .058). When patients were divided into tertile groups based on their BPV, those in the third tertile (highest variability) spent 2.7 fewer minutes in REM sleep than those in the first tertile (lowest variability, p = .032), after adjusting for covariates. We did not find an association of systolic BPV with other measures of sleep architecture. Diastolic BPV was not associated with sleep architecture either. In summary, our study showed that greater systolic BPV was associated with lower REM sleep duration. Future investigation is warranted to clarify the directionality, mechanism, and therapeutic implications.     

Non‐invasive measurement of reservoir pressure parameters from brachial‐cuff blood pressure waveforms

Reservoir pressure parameters [eg, reservoir pressure (RP) and excess pressure (XSP)] are biomarkers derived from blood pressure (BP) waveforms that have been shown to predict cardiovascular events independent of conventional cardiovascular risk markers. However, whether RP and XSP can be derived non‐invasively from operator‐independent cuff device measured brachial or central BP waveforms has never been examined. This study sought to achieve this by comparison of cuff reservoir pressure parameters with intra‐aortic reservoir pressure parameters. 162 participants (aged 61 ± 10 years, 72% male) undergoing coronary angiography had the simultaneous measurement of cuff BP waveforms (via SphygmoCor XCEL, AtCor Medical) and intra‐aortic BP waveforms (via fluid‐filled catheter). RP and XSP derived from cuff acquired brachial and central BP waveforms were compared with intra‐aortic measures. Concordance between brachial‐cuff and intra‐aortic measurement was moderate‐to‐good for RP peak (36 ± 11 vs 48 ± 14 mm Hg, P < 0.001; ICC 0.77, 95% CI: 0.71‐0.82), and poor‐to‐moderate for XSP peak (28 ± 10 vs 24 ± 9 mm Hg, P < 0.001; ICC 0.49, 95% CI: 0.35‐0.60). Concordance between central‐cuff and intra‐aortic measurement was moderate‐to‐good for RP peak (35 ± 9 vs 46 ± 14 mm Hg, P < 0.001; ICC 0.77, 95% CI: 0.70‐0.82), but poor for XSP peak (12 ± 3 vs 24 ± 9 mm Hg, P < 0.001; ICC 0.12, 95% CI: −0.13 to 0.31). In conclusion, both brachial‐cuff and central‐cuff methods can reasonably estimate intra‐aortic RP, whereas XSP can only be acceptably derived from brachial‐cuff BP waveforms. This should enable widespread application to determine the clinical significance, but there is significant room for refinement of the method.     

Peak blood pressure‐guided monitoring may serve as an effective approach for blood pressure control in the out‐of‐office setting

We aimed to explore whether diurnal blood pressure (BP) peak characteristics have a significant influence on the association between left ventricular damage with the two BP components (morning BP vs. afternoon peak BP) in untreated hypertensives. This cross‐sectional study included 1084 hypertensives who underwent echocardiography and 24‐h ambulatory BP monitoring. Participants were stratified according to the relationship between morning systolic BP (MSBP; average SBP within 2 h of waking up) and afternoon peak systolic BP (ASBP; average SBP between 16:00 and 18:00). Afternoon and morning hypertension was defined as ≥ 135/85 mm Hg. The morning and afternoon peak BPs occurred at around 7:00 and 17:00, respectively. In general hypertensives, morning BP and afternoon peak BP are significantly different in absolute values (for binary SBP, McNemar''s χ² = 6.42; p = .014). ASBP was more pronounced than MSBP in 602 patients (55.5%), in whom 24‐h SBP showed higher consistency with ASBP than with MSBP (Kappa value: 0.767 vs 0.646, both p < .01). In subjects with ASBP ≥ MSBP, ASBP was associated with left ventricular hypertrophy independent of MSBP (logistic regression analysis odds ratio: 1.046, p < .01), and left ventricular mass index was more strongly correlated with ASBP than with MSBP (multiple regression coefficient β: 0.453, p < .01), in which the relationships held true independently of 24‐h SBP. The opposite results were obtained in subjects with MSBP > ASBP. Peak BP‐guided monitoring may serve as an effective approach to out‐of‐office hypertension monitoring and control, providing the best consistency with 24‐h average SBP and highest discrimination performance for target organ damage, independently of 24‐h SBP.     

Nocturnal blood pressure rather than night‐to‐day blood pressure ratio is related to arterial stiffening in untreated young and middle‐aged adults with non‐dipper hypertension

Little is known about nocturnal blood pressure (BP) or night‐to‐day BP ratio, which is a more specific determinant of arterial stiffness in subjects with non‐dipper hypertension? This study aims to investigate the correlation of nocturnal BP and brachial‐ankle pulse wave velocity (ba PWV), an index of arterial stiffness in untreated young and middle‐aged adults with non‐dipper hypertension.A cross‐sectional analysis of baseline parameters of the NARRAS trial was performed. Twenty‐four hour ambulatory BP measurements, ba PWV and routine clinical data collection were performed in all patients. The relationship of 24‐h ambulatory BP profiles, biochemical measures as well as demographic parameters and ba PWV were analyzed using Pearson''s correlation and multiple stepwise regression analysis.A total of 77 patients (mean age 47.0 ± 11.7 years) with non‐dipper hypertension were included. Age, height, weight and nocturnal systolic BP were related to ba PWV in Pearson''s correlation analysis. In stepwise regression analysis, age (β = 10.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 6.099–15.042, p < 0.001) and weight (β = −3.835, 95% CI: −7.658‐−0.013, p = 0.049) are related to ba PWV. Nocturnal systolic BP (β = 8.662, 95% CI: 2.511–14.814, p = 0.006) was the independent predictors of ba PWV, even after night‐to‐day systolic BP ratio or 24‐h ambulatory BP profile were taken into account.Nocturnal systolic BP rather than night‐to‐day systolic BP ratio appears to be a more specific determinant for arterial stiffness, as assessed by ba PWV in young and middle‐aged adults with non‐dipper hypertension. 24‐h ambulatory BP measurements are essential for cardiovascular risk evaluation.     

Prognostic significance of day‐by‐day in‐hospital blood pressure variability in COVID‐19 patients with hypertension

Hypertension is the most common comorbidity in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) and increases in‐hospital mortality. Day‐by‐day blood pressure (BP) variability (BPV) is associated with clinical outcomes in hypertensive patients. However, little information is available on the association of BPV with the outcomes of COVID‐19 patients with hypertension. This study aimed to demonstrate whether day‐by‐day in‐hospital BPV had prognostic significance in these patients. The authors included 702 COVID‐19 patients with hypertension from Huoshenshan Hospital (Wuhan, China), who underwent valid in‐hospital BP measurements on at least seven consecutive days. Day‐by‐day BPV was assessed by standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), and variation independent of mean (VIM). Overall, patients with severe COVID‐19 and non‐survivors had higher BPV than moderate cases and survivors, respectively. Additionally, higher BPV was correlated with greater age and higher levels of C‐reactive protein, procalcitonin, high‐sensitive cardiac troponin I, and B‐type natriuretic peptide. In multivariable Cox regression, SD of systolic BP (SBP) was predictive of mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05–1.30] as well as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.01–1.16). Similar trends were observed for CV and VIM of SBP, but not indices of diastolic BP variability. The authors demonstrated that day‐by‐day in‐hospital SBP variability can independently predict mortality and ARDS in COVID‐19 patients with hypertension. And high BPV might be correlated with severe inflammation and myocardial injury. Further studies are needed to clarify whether early reduction of BPV will improve the prognosis of these patients.     

Home blood pressure telemonitoring for improving blood pressure control in middle‐aged and elderly patients with hypertension

The blood pressure (BP) control rate among treated hypertensives in China remains low at 37.5%. The relationship between home blood pressure telemonitoring (HBPT) and BP control is controversial. The authors aimed to investigate the relationship between HBPT and BP control in middle‐aged and elderly hypertensives. In total, 252 hypertension patients aged between 60 and 79 years were enrolled. The patients were given either HBPT through interactive platforms between physicians and patients (telemonitoring group, n = 126) or conventional management (routine management group, n = 126). All patients were followed‐up for 15 months. BP control was defined as home systolic blood pressure < 135 mm Hg and home diastolic blood pressure < 85 mm Hg. At baseline, there were no significant differences in the baseline BP control rate (p = .083). However, after 15 months, the BP control rate improved in both groups, and the telemonitoring group (71.3%) had a significantly higher BP control than the routine management group (49.8%) (p < .001). The change of BP control rate from baseline in the routine management group increased by 26.1%, and that of the telemonitoring group increased by 35.4%. The results of the fully adjusted binary logistic regression showed that HBPT was positively associated with BP control after adjusting for confounders (OR = 4.15, 95% CI 2.05–8.39). Similar results were observed after 3, 9, and 12 months. The association of HBPT with BP control was similar in subgroups. In conclusions, HBPT is recommended for BP control in middle‐aged and elderly hypertensives in the community setting.     

Office blood pressure threshold of 130/80 mmHg better predicts uncontrolled out‐of‐office blood pressure in apparent treatment‐resistant hypertension

The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of office blood pressure (BP) threshold of 140/90 and 130/80 mmHg for correctly identifying uncontrolled out‐of‐office BP in apparent treatment‐resistant hypertension (aTRH). We analyzed 468 subjects from a prospectively enrolled cohort of patients with resistant hypertension in South Korea (clinicaltrials.gov: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT03540992","term_id":"NCT03540992"}}NCT03540992). Resistant hypertension was defined as office BP ≥ 130/80 mmHg with three different classes of antihypertensive medications including thiazide‐type/like diuretics, or treated hypertension with four or more different classes of antihypertensive medications. We conducted different types of BP measurements including office BP, automated office BP (AOBP), home BP, and ambulatory BP. We defined uncontrolled out‐of‐office BP as daytime BP ≥ 135/85 mmHg and/or home BP ≥ 135/85 mmHg. Among subjects with office BP < 140/90 mmHg and subjects with office BP < 130/80 mmHg, 66% and 55% had uncontrolled out‐of‐office BP, respectively. The prevalence of controlled and masked uncontrolled hypertension was lower, and the prevalence of white‐coat and sustained uncontrolled hypertension was higher, with a threshold of 130/80 mmHg than of 140/90 mmHg, for both office BP and AOBP. The office BP threshold of 130/80 mmHg was better able to diagnose uncontrolled out‐of‐office BP than 140/90 mmHg, and the net reclassification improvement (NRI) was 0.255. The AOBP threshold of 130/80 mmHg also revealed better diagnostic accuracy than 140/90 mmHg, with NRI of 0.543. The office BP threshold of 130/80 mmHg showed better than 140/90 mmHg in terms of the correspondence to out‐of‐office BP in subjects with aTRH.     

Clinical relevance of double‐arm blood pressure measurement and prevalence of clinically important inter‐arm blood pressure differences in Indian primary care

Hypertension guidelines recommend measuring blood pressure (BP) in both arms at least once. However, this is seldom done due to uncertainties regarding measurement procedure and the implications of finding a clinically important inter‐arm BP difference (IAD). This study aimed to provide insight into the prevalence of clinically important IADs in a large Indian primary care cohort.A number of 134 678 (37% female) unselected Indian primary care participants, mean age 45.2 (SD 11.9) years, had BP measured in both arms using a standardized, triplicate, automated simultaneous measurement method (Microlife WatchBP Office Afib).On average, there were clinically minor differences in right and left arm BP values: systolic BP 134.4 vs 134.2 mmHg (p < .01) and diastolic BP 82.7 vs 82.6 mmHg (p < .01), respectively.Prevalence of significant mean systolic IAD between 10 and 15 mmHg was 7,813 (5.8%). Systolic IAD ≥ 15 mmHg 2,980 (2.2%) and diastolic IAD ≥ 10 mmHg 7,151 (5.3%). In total, there were 7,595 (5.6%) and 8,548 (6.3%) participants with BP above the 140/90 mmHg threshold in only the left or right arm, respectively. Prevalence of participants with elevated BP on one arm only was highest in patients with a systolic IAD ≥ 15 mmHg; 19.1% and 13.7%, for left and right arm, respectively.This study shows that a substantial prevalence of IAD exists in Indian primary care patients. BP is above the diagnostic threshold for hypertension in one arm only for 6% of participants. These findings emphasize the importance of undertaking bilateral BP measurement in routine clinical practice.     

Home‐based transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation for high‐normal blood pressure: A randomized controlled trial

The authors investigated the effectiveness of home‐based transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) combined with lifestyle modification on blood pressure (BP) control and explored the feasibility of the trial design in this prospective, randomized controlled trial. The authors recruited individuals with high‐normal BP who had a systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 120–139 mm Hg and a diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 80–89 mm Hg, or both. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either lifestyle modification combined with TEAS four times weekly for 12 weeks at home (intervention group) or solely lifestyle modification (control group). The primary outcome was the change in mean SBP at week 12 from the baseline measurement. A total of 60 participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio, and an intention‐to‐treat analysis was performed on all of the outcomes. The mean difference in the change in SBP for the intervention group (compared to the control) at week 12 was −3.85 mm Hg (95% CI: −7.58 to −.12; p = .043); for the DBP, the change was −2.27 mm Hg (95% CI: −5.76 to 1.23; p = .199). There was no difference in the proportion of progression to hypertension, quality of life, body mass index (BMI) or waist circumference. In addition, two participants reported TEAS‐related adverse events. The authors found a reduction in SBP control in the pragmatic, home‐based intervention by using TEAS combined with lifestyle modification in adults with high‐normal BP. Trial Registration: The study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR 1900024982) on August 6, 2019.     

Association between gestational visit‐to‐visit blood pressure variability and adverse neonatal outcomes

The authors aimed to explore the association between visit‐to‐visit blood pressure variability (BPV) in pregnant women and adverse neonatal outcomes. The study included 52 891 pregnant women. BPV was calculated as standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variation (CV) of systolic blood pressure (SBP) or diastolic blood pressure (DBP). All participants were divided into four groups by the quartiles of BPV. When comparing the highest quartiles to the lowest quartiles of DBP SD in all participants, the fully adjusted ORs were 1.19 (95% CI 1.11–1.27, p for trend < .001) for fetal distress, 1.32 (95% CI 1.14–1.54, p for trend < .001) for small for gestational age, 1.32 (95% CI 1.06–1.63, p for trend = .003) for 1‐min Apgar score ≤ 7. When comparing the highest quartiles to the lowest quartiles of DBP CV, ORs were 1.22 (95% CI 1.14–1.30, p for trend < .001) for fetal distress, 1.38 (95% CI 1.17–1.61, p for trend < .001) for small for gestational age, 1.43 (95% CI 1.14–1.79, p for trend < .001) for 1‐min Apgar score ≤ 7. ORs for preterm birth and 5‐min Apgar score ≤ 7 were not statistically significant. However, in participants with gestational hypertension or preeclampsia, ORs for preterm birth were 2.80 (95% CI 1.99–3.94, p for trend < .001) in DBP SD and 3.25 (95% CI 2.24–4.72, p for trend < .001) in DBP CV when extreme quartiles were compared. In conclusion, higher visit‐to‐visit BPV was associated with adverse neonatal outcomes.     

Nighttime ambulatory pulse pressure predicts cardiovascular and all‐cause mortality among middle‐aged participants in the 21‐year follow‐up

Office pulse pressure (PP) is a predictor for cardiovascular (CV) events and mortality. Our aim was to evaluate ambulatory PP as a long‐term risk factor in a random cohort of middle‐aged participants. The Opera study took place in years 1991–1993, with a 24‐h ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM) performed to 900 participants. The end‐points were non‐fatal and fatal CV events, and deaths of all‐causes. Follow‐up period, until the first event or until the end of the year 2014, was 21.1 years (mean). Of 900 participants, 22.6% died (29.6% of men/15.6% of women, p<.001). A CV event was experienced by 208 participants (23.1%), 68.3% of them were male (p<.001). High nighttime ambulatory PP predicted independently CV mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 2.60; 95% confidence interval [CI 95%] 1.08–6.31, p=.034) and all‐cause mortality in the whole population (HR 1.72; Cl 95% 1.06–2.78, p=.028). In males, both 24‐h PP and nighttime PP associated with CV mortality and all‐cause mortality (24‐h PP HR for CV mortality 2.98; CI 95% 1.11–8.04, p=.031 and all‐cause mortality HR 2.40; CI 95% 1.32–4.37, p=.004). Accordingly, nighttime PP; HR for CV mortality 3.13; CI 95% 1.14–8.56, p=.026, and for all‐cause mortality HR 2.26; CI 95% 1.29–3.96, p=.004. Cox regression analyses were adjusted by sex, CV risk factors, and appropriate ambulatory mean systolic BP. In our study, high ambulatory nighttime PP was detected as a long‐term risk factor for CV and all‐cause mortality in middle‐aged individuals.