Systolic blood pressure targets below 120 mm Hg are associated with reduced mortality: A meta-analysis.

IF 9 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Journal of Internal Medicine Pub Date : 2025-03-05 DOI:10.1111/joim.20078
Felix Bergmann, Marlene Prager, Lena Pracher, Rebecca Sawodny, Gloria M Steiner-Gager, Bernhard Richter, Bernd Jilma, Markus Zeitlinger, Georg Gelbenegger, Anselm Jorda
{"title":"Systolic blood pressure targets below 120 mm Hg are associated with reduced mortality: A meta-analysis.","authors":"Felix Bergmann, Marlene Prager, Lena Pracher, Rebecca Sawodny, Gloria M Steiner-Gager, Bernhard Richter, Bernd Jilma, Markus Zeitlinger, Georg Gelbenegger, Anselm Jorda","doi":"10.1111/joim.20078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimal systolic blood pressure (SBP) target in patients with increased cardiovascular risk remains uncertain. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of intensive SBP control (<120 mm Hg) compared to standard SBP control (<140 mm Hg) in patients with increased cardiovascular risk.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for RCTs published from database inception through November 2024 that compared intensive SBP control (<120 mm Hg) with standard SBP control (<140 mm Hg) in adults with high cardiovascular risk. Efficacy outcomes included all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and heart failure. Safety outcomes included hypotension, syncope, arrhythmia, acute kidney injury, and electrolyte abnormalities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five RCTs comprising 39,434 patients were included. The all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the intensive SBP control group (672 of 19,712 [3.4%]) compared to the standard SBP control group (778 of 19,722 [3.9%]) (risk ratio 0.87 [95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.99, p = 0.03]). The incidence of MACE, cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and heart failure was significantly lower in the intensive SBP control group as compared to standard SBP control group. The treatment effect (MACE) was consistent across all subgroups. Conversely, intensive SBP control was associated with an increased risk of hypotension, syncope, arrhythmia, acute kidney injury, and electrolyte abnormalities.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Targeting intensive SBP control to less than 120 mm Hg was associated with a lower incidence of all-cause mortality and MACE but a higher incidence of adverse events.</p>","PeriodicalId":196,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.20078","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The optimal systolic blood pressure (SBP) target in patients with increased cardiovascular risk remains uncertain. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of intensive SBP control (<120 mm Hg) compared to standard SBP control (<140 mm Hg) in patients with increased cardiovascular risk.

Methods: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for RCTs published from database inception through November 2024 that compared intensive SBP control (<120 mm Hg) with standard SBP control (<140 mm Hg) in adults with high cardiovascular risk. Efficacy outcomes included all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and heart failure. Safety outcomes included hypotension, syncope, arrhythmia, acute kidney injury, and electrolyte abnormalities.

Results: Five RCTs comprising 39,434 patients were included. The all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the intensive SBP control group (672 of 19,712 [3.4%]) compared to the standard SBP control group (778 of 19,722 [3.9%]) (risk ratio 0.87 [95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.99, p = 0.03]). The incidence of MACE, cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and heart failure was significantly lower in the intensive SBP control group as compared to standard SBP control group. The treatment effect (MACE) was consistent across all subgroups. Conversely, intensive SBP control was associated with an increased risk of hypotension, syncope, arrhythmia, acute kidney injury, and electrolyte abnormalities.

Conclusions: Targeting intensive SBP control to less than 120 mm Hg was associated with a lower incidence of all-cause mortality and MACE but a higher incidence of adverse events.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Internal Medicine
Journal of Internal Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
22.00
自引率
0.90%
发文量
176
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: JIM – The Journal of Internal Medicine, in continuous publication since 1863, is an international, peer-reviewed scientific journal. It publishes original work in clinical science, spanning from bench to bedside, encompassing a wide range of internal medicine and its subspecialties. JIM showcases original articles, reviews, brief reports, and research letters in the field of internal medicine.
期刊最新文献
Current challenges in lung transplantation. Systolic blood pressure targets below 120 mm Hg are associated with reduced mortality: A meta-analysis. Effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on transplant survival and key clinical outcomes in heart transplant recipients with diabetes. Regarding: the interplay of delirium and frailty in hospitalized older adults. Authors reply: The interplay of delirium and frailty in hospitalized older adults.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1