on behalf of the J-RHYTHM Registry Investigators* Background--To clarify the influence of hypertension and blood pressure (BP) control on thromboembolism and major hemorrhage in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, a post hoc analysis of the J-RHYTHM Registry was performed.

lead to a high rate of cardiovascular mortality. In particular, multiple pathways including calcium and phosphorus metabolic abnormalities caused by secondary hyperparathyroidism, inflammation and cardiac overload accelerate the process of valvular calcification, and the consequent P atients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on chronic hemodialysis (HD) often have a high prevalence of structural abnormalities of the heart including calcified valvular sclerosis, 1,2 left ventricular (LV) remodeling 3,4 and LV diastolic dysfunction, 5 which may

No abstract

D-dimer levels below 0.5 μg/mL is not enough to rule out LA thrombus in AF patients with well-controlled anticoagulation.

Background Blood pressure (BP) variability has reportedly been a risk factor for various clinical events. To clarify the influence of BP visit‐to‐visit variability on adverse events in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, a post hoc analysis of the J‐RHYTHM Registry was performed. Methods and Results Of 7406 outpatients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation from 158 institutions, 7226 (age, 69.7±9.9 years; men, 70.7%), in whom BP was measured 4 times or more (14.6±5.0 times) during the 2‐year follow‐up period or until occurrence of an event, constituted the study group. SD and coefficient of variation of BP values were calculated as BP variability. Thromboembolism, major hemorrhage, and all‐cause death occurred in 110 (1.5%), 121 (1.7%), and 168 (2.3%) patients, respectively. When patients were divided into quartiles of systolic BP‐SD (<8.20, 8.20–10.49, 10.50–13.19, and ≥13.20 mm Hg), hazard ratios (HRs) for all adverse events were significantly high in the highest quartile compared with the lowest quartile (HR, 2.00, 95% CI, 1.15–3.49, P =0.015 for thromboembolism; HR, 2.60, 95% CI, 1.36–4.97, P =0.004 for major hemorrhage; and HR, 1.85, 95% CI, 1.11–3.07, P =0.018 for all‐cause death) after adjusting for components of the CHA 2 DS 2 ‐VASc score, warfarin and antiplatelet use, atrial fibrillation type, BP measurement times, and others. These findings were consistent when BP‐coefficient of variation was used instead of BP‐SD. Conclusions Systolic BP visit‐to‐visit variability was significantly associated with all adverse events in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Further studies are needed to clarify the causality between BP variability and adverse outcomes in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Registration URL: https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/ ; Unique Identifier: UMIN000001569.