Journal Logo


Home blood pressure measurement in the frail elderly

does it matter?

Bursztyn, Michaela; Grassi, Guidob,c

Author Information
doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000001469
  • Free

The elderly is the fastest growing segment of the population in affluent (and also some other) societies. In the United States, for example, people of at least 65 years are projected to account for a quarter of the population (, and a fifth of them are projected to be at least 85 years old, by 2060. Hypertension is common among the elderly and is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality also in this population. The residual lifetime hypertension risk of middle-aged people approached 90% [1]. Indeed at the ages of 85 and 90 years, in the population representative Jerusalem Longitudinal study, 91 and 88%, respectively, were hypertensive [2,3]. Therefore, as of now, and even more so in the future, dealing with hypertension in the elderly will involve many if not all health professionals.

Elderly population is very heterogeneous, some individuals are robust as middle-aged people are, and some develop increasing functional and cognitive limitations, especially after the age of 80 years [4]. Many physicians are reluctant to treat hypertension in the elderly, who are frequently treated with polypharmacy for concurrent medical conditions. By 2010, there were worries that antihypertensive treatment of the elderly may increase mortality, a notion that was supported by meta-analyses of studies on hypertension in the elderly, which found, despite reduction of stroke and cardiovascular disease, a tendency for increased all-cause mortality [5]. However, the Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial (HYVET) study, a double-blind placebo-controlled study of antihypertensive treatment in people with hypertension aged 80 years and over, had to be terminated early because of a significant reduction of all-cause mortality as well as other important outcomes [6]. A subsequent Expert consensus document on hypertension in the elderly was somewhat ambiguous about treating the very elderly for hypertension [7]. More recently the randomized Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) compared an intensive (<120 mmHg) versus standard (<140 mmHg) treatment goal and included a prospectively recruited elderly subgroup of 75 years and more (average 80 years old). In this elderly cohort, a significant 27% reduction in all-cause mortality, as well as other important outcomes was found [8]. Yet, another Expert opinion group had suggested caution in treatment of frail elderly with the worries that intensive treatment may worsen both cognitive and physical health [9].

Why is there such a discussion about treatment of hypertension in the elderly, when randomized controlled trials, presumably the highest level of scientific evidence, point to such impressive outcomes benefits? Paradoxically, many, if not all, observational studies do not show that lower blood pressure (BP) is associated with better outcome. As a matter of fact many actually suggest that uncontrolled or untreated hypertensive patients fare better [2,3,10–16].

How can such contradictory findings be reconciled? One way to reconcile such apparent contradictory results was suggested by Odden et al.[17]. In a sample of the NHANES survey, these authors found that among the elderly, high BP predicted adverse outcome in fast walkers, but it did not in slower walkers, and in those unable to perform the rather trivial walking task, higher BP was associated with better outcome as in many of the observational studies. In another population not only walking speed, but also handgrip strength modified the predictive value of high BP [18]. The same authors found, in another population, that walking was not predictive, yet, dependence in performing activities of daily living (ADL) was [19]. This body of evidence (and of course additional studies) promoted the notion that frailty may modify the predictive potential of high BP in the elderly. Researchers involved in the HYVET and SPRINT (>75 years old), however, have applied an index of frailty to their data and concluded that in their populations varying levels of frailty (or physical function, if one wants) did not significantly modify the beneficial effects of antihypertensive treatment [20,21].

On this background, Murakami et al.[22] examined in the present issue of the Journal another validated measure of physical function, the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) questionnaire, in a study of a rural Japanese population, the Ohasama study. The MOS was investigated as a modifying factor of the relationship of either a single office or home measured BP (about 26 measurements over a period of few days) with risk of stroke and mortality. The main study result was represented by the finding that neither stroke incidence nor all-cause mortality was associated with office BP both in individuals with normal and in those with impaired function according to MOS. On the other hand, elevated home SBP and DBP were significantly associated with stroke incidence after appropriate adjustments, including office BP. However, both for stroke and all-cause mortality, there was no interaction with physical function. This brings up the issue of BP response to measurement (loosely called white-coat effect), which may be exaggerated in the elderly. As an example, it averaged about 32/10 mmHg in the HYVET study [23].

Nevertheless, physical function and frailty assessed in different ways may not have been consistent modifiers of the relationship between BP and different outcomes. There may be several explanations: in the Ohasama study participants were relatively young (69 years old on average), and neither HYVET nor SPRINT (>75 years old) used the MOS. They used an index of frailty which accumulated various comorbidities and functional deficits, but not consistently the same ones in all participants. In the SPRINT, the frailty index was surprisingly higher in younger than in older participants. Also, a detailed analysis of the SPRINT findings according to a frailty index demonstrated that patients aged 70–85 years had a similar levels of frailty compared with national samples from the National Long Term Care Study and from the Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe data. On the other hand, at the age of 85 years, a divergence was observed, suggesting that the very old SPRINT participants were less frail and more robust [21]. However, in our 90-year olds study dependence in ADL, handgrip strength and a comorbidity index did not modify the overall lack of association of BP with mortality [3].

The HYVET participants had an unusually high DBP (around 90 mmHg), quite distinctively higher than typical population based, or even clinic based, elderly patients. Indeed in the Jerusalem Longitudinal Study, at the age of 85 years, only 9% would have been HYVET eligible [2], and about 48% of 90-year olds would have been SPRINT eligible [3]. The comorbidities among the 80-year olds were several folds higher than those of the HYVET: 270% higher prevalence of previous stroke, 1212% higher prevalence of previous myocardial infarction and 438% higher prevalence of previous heart failure [2].

Another attempt to uncover the discrepancy between the randomized and observational studies is a suggestion of reverse causality: those with normal or low BP, may have it because of apparent or silent morbidity, which in itself increases their mortality risk, and therefore, those with high BP appear to have better survival. Such an explanation is suggested by a massive UK study of electronic health records [24]. The authors found that in the last couple of years preceding death, BP consistently decreased, supporting the possibility of such reverse causality. However, in the Jerusalem Longitudinal Study, the first third of follow-up deaths were excluded from analysis (to account for such ‘reverse causality’), but this did not essentially change the results [2,3]. Another suggestion was that it may be the trend of BP with time that predicts mortality. A decreasing trend in SBP between 85 and 90 years was associated with increased mortality compared with an average SBP trend, independent of the SBP at age 90 years [25].

So, there is no clear explanation for the discrepancy between observational and randomized studies. Of course, survival bias may be, in part at least, an explanation: if you survive to an older age with a potentially fatal risk factor such as hypertension, maybe you have some sort of resilience to that risk factor. Another prominent difference between randomized controlled studies and some of the observational studies is that participants in the former have to come to research centers, whereas in some of the latter examination is performed at home. This type of selection may conceal greater differences in frailty than the different indexes of frailty and function.


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.


1. Vasan RS, Beiser A, Seshadri S, Larson MG, Kannel WB, D’Agostino RB, Levy D. Residual lifetime risk for developing hypertension in middle-aged women and men: the Framingham Heart Study. JAMA 2002; 287:1003–1010.
2. Jacobs JM, Stessman J, Ein-Mor E, Bursztyn. Hypertension and 5 year mortality among 85 year olds: the Jerusalem Longitudinal Study. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2012; 13:759.e1–759.e6.
3. Stessman J, Bursztyn M, Gershinsky Y, Hammerman-Rozenberg A, Jacobs JM. Hypertension and its treatment at age 90 years: is there an association with 5-year mortality? J Am Med Dir Assoc 2017; 18:277e.13–1277.e19.
4. Jacobs JM, Maaravi Y, Cohen A, Bursztyn M, Ein Mor E, Stessman J. The changing profile of health and function from age 70–85. Gerontology 2012; 58:313–321.
5. Bejan-Angoulvant T, Saadatian-Elahi M, Wright JM, Schron EB, Lindholm LH, Fagard R, et al. Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years and older: the lower the better? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Hypertens 2010; 28:1366–1372.
6. Beckett NS, Peters R, Fletcher AE, Staessen JA, Liu L, Dumitrascu D, et al. HYVET Study Group. Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years of age or older. N Engl J Med 2008; 358:1887–1898.
7. Aronow WS, Fleg JL, Pepine CJ, Artinina NT, Bakris G, Brown AS, et al. ACCF/AHA 2011 Expert consensus document on hypertension in the elderly: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. Circulation 2011; 123:2434–2506.
8. Williamson JD, Supiano MA, Applegate WB, Berlowitz DR, Campbell RC, Chertow GM, et al. SPRINT Research Group. Intensive vs standardized blood pressure control and cardiovascular disease outcomes in adults aged ≥75 years: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2016; 315:2673–2682.
9. Benetos A, Bulpitt CJ, Petrovic M, Ungar A, Agabiti Rosei E, Cherubini A, et al. An expert opinion from the European Society of Hypertension-European Union Geriatric Medicine Society Working Group on the management of hypertension in very old, frail subjects. Hypertension 2016; 67:820–825.
10. Mattila K, Haavisto M, Rajala S, Heikinheimo R. Blood pressure and five-year survival in the very old. BMJ 1988; 296:887–889.
11. Langer RD, Ganiats TG, Barrett-Connor E. Paradoxical survival of elderly men with high blood pressure. BMJ 1989; 298:1356–1357.
12. Starr JM, Inch S, Cross S, MacLennan WJ, Deary IJ. Blood pressure and ageing: longitudinal cohort study. BMJ 1998; 317:513–514.
13. Rastas S, Pirttilä T, Viramo P, Verkkoniemi A, Halonen P, Juva K, et al. Association between blood pressure and survival over 9 years in a general population aged 85 and older. J Am Geriatr Soc 2006; 54:912–918.
14. van Bemmel T, Gussekloo J, Westendorp RG, Blauw GJ. In a population-based prospective study, no association between high blood pressure and mortality after age 85 years. J Hypertens 2006; 24:287–292.
15. Oates DJ, Berlowitz DR, Glickman ME, Silliman RA, Borzecki AMAM. Blood pressure and survival in the oldest old. J Am Geriatr Soc 2007; 55:383–388.
16. Ogliaru G, Westendorp RG, Muller M, Mari D, Torresani E, Felicetta I, et al. Blood pressure and ten-year mortality risk in the Milan Geriatrics 75+ Cohort Study: role of functional and cognitive status. Age Ageing 2015; 44:932–937.
17. Odden MC, Peralta CA, Haan MN, Covinsky KE. Rethinking the association of high blood pressure with mortality in elderly adults: the impact of frailty. Arch Intern Med 2012; 172:1162–1168.
18. Wu C, Smit E, Peralta CA, Sarathy H, Odden MC. Functional status modifies the association of blood pressure with death in elders: health and retirement study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2017; [Epub ahead of print].
19. Peralta CA, Katz R, Newman AB, Psaty BM, Odden MC. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure, incident cardiovascular events, and death in elderly persons: the role of functional limitation in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Hypertension 2014; 64:472–480.
20. Warwick J, Falaschetti E, Rockwood K, Mitniski A, Thijs L, Beckett N, et al. No evidence that frailty modifies the positive impact of antihypertensive treatment in very elderly people: an investigation of the impact of frailty upon treatment effect in the Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial (HYVET) study, a double-blind placebo-controlled study of antihypertensives in people with hypertension aged 80 and over. BMC Med 2015; 13:78.
21. Pajewski NM, Williamson JD, Applegate WB, Berlowitz DR, Bolin LP, Chertow GM, et al. Characterizing frailty status in the systolic blood pressure intervention trial. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2016; 71:649–655.
22. Murakami K, Asayama K, Satoh M, Hosaka M, Matsuda A, Inoue R, et al. Home blood pressure predicts stroke incidence among older adults with impaired physical function: the Ohasama study. J Hypertens 2017; 35:2395–2401.
23. Bulpitt CJ, Beckett N, Peters R, Staessen JA, Wang JG, Comsa M, et al. Does white coat hypertension require treatment over age 80?: results of the hypertension in the very elderly trial ambulatory blood pressure side project. Hypertension 2013; 61:89–94.
24. Ravindrarajah R, Hazra NC, Hamada S, Charlton J, Jackson SHD, Dregan A, Gulliford MC. Systolic blood pressure trajectory, frailty and all-cause mortality over 80 years of age. Cohort study using electronic health records. Circulation 2017; [Epub ahead of print].
25. Poortvliet RK, de Ruijter W, de Craen AJ, Mooijaart SP, Westendorp RG, Assendelft WJ, et al. Blood pressure trends and mortality: the Leiden 85-plus Study. J Hypertens 2013; 31:63–67.
Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.