Skip to main content
← All metrics

Blood pressure: vascular death is not all-cause death

Lewington 2002 linked 20 mmHg higher systolic (or 10 diastolic) to over twice the stroke death rate at ages 40–69. The score counts readings above 120/80 as raising all-cause risk, by an amount it sets itself.

Read your number

Is my blood pressure good?

Use a validated home cuff and work with a clinician if readings stay high. The score uses its own constructed blood-pressure rule. Lewington 2002 studied vascular deaths, and the comparison highlighted here is for ages 40–69. Treatment trials answer a different question. Choose a personal treatment target with a clinician using your health context.

If you're 70 or older

At 70 and older, bring your home readings to your clinician to choose a target that fits you. Use regular home monitoring as the practical next step. Read the ages 40–69 vascular-death comparison with its age limit in mind; it is a different comparison from a personal treatment goal for an older adult.

Evidence already on this page: Lewington et al. (Prospective Studies Collaboration) 2002; SPRINT Research Group (Wright et al.) 2015.

Where you stand

Lewington followed usual blood pressure down to 115/75. In people without heart disease, treating a reading that is already below 140 has not been shown to change all-cause mortality; in SPRINT, high-risk adults treated to a lower target did have lower all-cause mortality. This score's own blood-pressure curve is all-cause. Above 120/80 it counts higher readings as raising risk, and that slope is not taken from a paper.

At 120 and below the model gives no bonus and no penalty. Above 120, risk climbs with every 10 points.

0.5×Typical1.5×2×90110120140160180Top number (systolic), mmHgRisk vs typical (log scale)Typical 45-year-oldYou
At 132 mmHg1.08×a typical 45-year-old’s risk, a little higher than typical.
See the same numbers as a table
Blood pressure and risk of death from any cause, as a multiple of a typical 45-year-old’s risk
Top number (systolic), mmHgRisk vs typicalIn words
90 mmHg0.98×about the same as typical
110 mmHg0.98×about the same as typical
120 mmHg0.98×about the same as typical
140 mmHg1.14×a little higher than typical
160 mmHg1.30×higher than typical
180 mmHg1.46×higher than typical

Risk of death from any cause, with every other marker held at typical. Drag the marker or use the arrow keys. Nothing you move here is saved.

Drawn with the bottom number at its typical 78. The climb above 120 is the model’s assumption, not a published curve.

Source: Wang et al. 2026, Journal of Hypertension (PMID 41411626)

The study, not the score

usual SBP <114 mmHg vs 120–126 mmHg (low-CV-risk cohort)
Wang et al. 2026 · a different study from the one the score uses
1.16 (1.02–1.32)
16% higher all-cause mortality

The bar shows the study’s 95% confidence interval, the range of values consistent with its data. The tick is the study’s best single figure. The centre line is no difference. The chart above is the score’s own curve, not this study. Lewington 2002 is not on this row: that paper reports vascular death, and we hold no all-cause interval for it.

What it is

The force of blood against artery walls, written as systolic over diastolic. A home cuff is what this calculator asks for. The 2× on this site is ages 40–69: more than twofold for stroke, twofold for heart and other vascular death, down to 115/75 — not death from all causes.

How the score uses it

Technical notes

The curve is a constructed joint rule (120/80 = 1.0; confidence LOW). Below both readings the curve is flat at HR 1.0 — no reward, changed 2026-09-10 per Wang et al. 2026 (UK Biobank, 80,730 adults screened free of traditional CV risk factors: usual SBP <114 carried HR 1.16, 1.02–1.32, versus 120–126, the opposite sign from the old bonus); when either number is high it takes the worse penalty (+8% per 10 mmHg SBP or per 5 mmHg DBP). No paper specifies that high-side combination. Lewington’s 2002 source is more than 10 years old. The overlay is Lewington 2002: ages 40–69, each 20/10 mmHg usual BP ≈ twofold vascular death, down to 115/75 — vascular, not all-cause, and ~2.0 per 20 mmHg is not this calculator’s 1.08 per 10. No matching-construct usual office/home BP → all-cause mortality continuous general-population meta-analysis is available. Treatment all-cause mortality exists and is a different design: Ettehad RR 0.87 per 10 mmHg SBP reduction; Bundy all-cause mortality HR 0.73 at achieved 120–124 vs 130–134; Brunström primary-prevention all-cause mortality neutral below baseline 140 (RR 0.98). SPRINT intensive all-cause mortality HR 0.73 during the trial; Jaeger: that benefit did not persist after intensity lapsed (8.8 y all-cause mortality HR 1.08).

How to improve it

  • Eat more potassium-rich foods
  • Exercise regularly and practice stress recovery
  • Monitor at home with a validated cuff and work with a clinician if readings stay high

Heart and stroke deaths

Heart and stroke death, not all-cause. Ages 40–69. No threshold down to 115/75. Lewington 2002.

Usual systolic blood pressure
ages 40–69
2×
heart & stroke death
each extra 20 mmHg systolic
+20 mmHg systolic
about +10 mmHg diastolic

What the studies found

EndpointGradeFinding
—METHOD
Joint rule is constructed (120/80 = 1.0)
Technical notes
High-side +8% per 10 mmHg SBP or per 5 mmHg DBP, whichever is worse. Low side is flat at HR 1.0 below 120/80 — no reward, changed 2026-09-10 (was a bonus to a 0.90 floor). Confidence LOW on the high-side combination rule — no paper specifies it. Curve moved 2026-09-10.
All-cause mortality (usual SBP <114 vs 120–126)B
Low SBP <114 carries HR 1.16, not a benefit (Wang 2026)
Technical notes
UK Biobank, 80,730 adults screened free of traditional cardiovascular risk factors, 13.7-year median follow-up, restricted cubic splines: usual SBP under 114 mmHg (lowest quintile) carried all-cause mortality HR 1.16 (1.02–1.32) versus the 120–126 quintile. Basis for removing the curve's low-end reward on 2026-09-10.
Vascular mortalityB
Lewington is vascular ~2.0/20 mmHg, not all-cause mortality
Technical notes
Lewington 2002: ages 40–69, each 20/10 usual BP ≈ twofold vascular death, down to 115/75. Interpretation says “overall” too; the abstract’s numbers are vascular. No matching usual-BP → all-cause mortality continuous meta-analysis is available.
All-cause mortality (treated/achieved SBP)A
0.73 is treated achieved SBP, not this cuff (Bundy 2017)
Technical notes
Trial arms at 120–124 vs 130–134: all-cause mortality HR 0.73. Brunström: primary-prevention all-cause mortality neutral below baseline 140. Jaeger: SPRINT all-cause mortality gain faded after intensity lapsed.
All-cause mortalityA
Primary Prevention: Treating Below 140 Doesn’t Move all-cause mortality (Brunström 2018)
Technical notes
Systematic review and meta-analysis of 74 trials (306,273 people): in primary prevention, all-cause mortality fell with treatment at baseline SBP ≥160 (RR 0.93, 0.87–1.00) and 140–159 (RR 0.87, 0.75–1.00), but was neutral below a baseline of 140 (RR 0.98, 0.90–1.06). Bundy’s 0.73 is not evidence that treating below 140 lowers all-cause mortality.
All-cause mortalityA
SPRINT’s all-cause mortality Gain Faded (Jaeger 2022)
Technical notes
Follow-up of the randomized SPRINT trial: during the active intervention period, intensive control carried all-cause mortality HR 0.83 (0.68–1.01), but by a median 8.8 years total follow-up — after intensive control lapsed and the intensive arm’s outpatient SBP drifted from 132.8 back up to 140.4 mmHg — all-cause mortality HR was 1.08 (0.94–1.23). A marker, not a durable one-time treatment effect.
All-cause mortalityA
0.87 Per 10 mmHg Treated, Not Usual BP (Ettehad 2016)
Technical notes
Treatment-trial meta of 123 RCTs (613,815 people): every 10 mmHg reduction in treated SBP carried all-cause mortality RR 0.87 (0.84–0.91), I² 35%. A treatment slope from randomized trials, not the observational usual-BP relationship this calculator’s curve represents.
All-cause mortalityA
The Trial Behind 0.73 (Wright 2015)
Technical notes
SPRINT randomized 9,361 high-risk adults without diabetes to an SBP target under 120 vs under 140; stopped early at a median 3.26 years. All-cause mortality was lower in the intensive arm, HR 0.73 (0.60–0.90) — the single trial Jaeger’s longer follow-up later found faded once intensive control lapsed.
All-cause mortalityA
all-cause mortality Barely Moves Per 5 mmHg Treated (Rahimi 2021)
Technical notes
Individual-participant treatment meta of 48 trials (344,716 people): per 5 mmHg SBP reduction, MACE fell substantially (HR 0.90, 0.88–0.92) but all-cause mortality barely moved (HR 0.98, 0.96–1.01); cardiovascular death fell more (HR 0.95, 0.92–0.99). Treatment lowers cardiovascular events far more reliably than it lowers all-cause death.

What argues against this

Brunström & Carlberg 2018 (systematic review and meta-analysis of 74 trials, 306,273 people) is the strongest opposing source: in primary prevention, all-cause mortality fell with treatment when baseline SBP was ≥160 or 140–159, but was statistically neutral below a baseline of 140 (RR 0.98, 0.90–1.06). This undercuts reading Bundy's 0.73 achieved-SBP figure, or Ettehad's 0.87-per-10mmHg treatment slope, as proof that pushing blood pressure lower within an already-normal range keeps buying all-cause mortality benefit — treatment's mortality payoff looks concentrated in people who started elevated, not in fine-tuning an already-normal reading. (The curve's low end is flat, not rewarded, as of 2026-09-10 — see Wang et al. 2026, which found the opposite sign: usual SBP <114 carried HR 1.16 versus 120–126.)

Last reviewed 12 October 2026

Sources

15 cited
  1. Lewington et al. (Prospective Studies Collaboration) (2002) — The Lancet
    Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies
    View source
  2. Wang et al. (2026) — Journal of Hypertension
    Association of blood pressure levels in the nonhypertensive range with mortality among people without traditional risk factors
    View source
  3. Bundy et al. (2017) — JAMA Cardiology
    Systolic Blood Pressure Reduction and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease and Mortality: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis
    View source
  4. Brunström & Carlberg (2018) — JAMA Internal Medicine
    Association of Blood Pressure Lowering With Mortality and Cardiovascular Disease Across Blood Pressure Levels: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    View source
  5. Jaeger et al. (2022) — JAMA Cardiology
    Longer-Term All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality With Intensive Blood Pressure Control: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial
    View source
  6. Ettehad et al. (2016) — The Lancet
    Blood pressure lowering for prevention of cardiovascular disease and death: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    View source
  7. SPRINT Research Group (Wright et al.) (2015) — New England Journal of Medicine
    A Randomized Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control
    View source
  8. Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration (Rahimi et al.) (2021) — The Lancet
    Pharmacological blood pressure lowering for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease across different levels of blood pressure: an individual participant-level data meta-analysis
    View source
  9. Rapsomaniki et al. (2014) — The Lancet
    Blood pressure and incidence of twelve cardiovascular diseases: lifetime risks, healthy life-years lost, and age-specific associations in 1.25 million people
    View source
  10. Jones et al. (2025) — Journal of the American College of Cardiology
    2025 AHA/ACC/AANP/AAPA/ABC/ACCP/ACPM/AGS/AMA/ASPC/NMA/PCNA/SGIM Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines
    View source
  11. American Heart Association (blood pressure categories) (2025) — American Heart Association
    Understanding Blood Pressure Readings
    View source
  12. American Heart Association (home monitoring) (2025) — American Heart Association
    Home Blood Pressure Monitoring
    View source
  13. Appel et al. (DASH Collaborative Research Group) (1997) — New England Journal of Medicine
    A clinical trial of the effects of dietary patterns on blood pressure. DASH Collaborative Research Group
    View source
  14. Sacks et al. (DASH-Sodium Collaborative Research Group) (2001) — New England Journal of Medicine
    Effects on blood pressure of reduced dietary sodium and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet. DASH-Sodium Collaborative Research Group
    View source
  15. American Heart Association (potassium guidance) (2025) — American Heart Association
    How Potassium Can Help Prevent or Treat High Blood Pressure
    View source

See how blood pressure fits your full score
See how it fits the 8-metric index in the calculator.
Open calculator

Educational content only — not medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Not a medical device; not FDA evaluated. Consult a qualified healthcare professional about your own health, and call emergency services for urgent symptoms. Full medical disclaimer →