Optimal Systolic Blood Pressure Target After SPRINT: Insights from a Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Sripal Bangalore, Bora Toklu, Eugenia Gianos, Arthur Schwartzbard, Howard Weintraub, Gbenga Ogedegbe, Franz H Messerli
{"title":"Optimal Systolic Blood Pressure Target After SPRINT: Insights from a Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.","authors":"Sripal Bangalore, Bora Toklu, Eugenia Gianos, Arthur Schwartzbard, Howard Weintraub, Gbenga Ogedegbe, Franz H Messerli","doi":"10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.01.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimal on-treatment blood pressure (BP) target has been a matter of debate. The recent SPRINT trial showed significant benefits of a BP target of <120 mm Hg, albeit with an increase in serious adverse effects related to low BP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched for randomized trials comparing treating with different BP targets. Trial arms were grouped into 5 systolic BP target categories: 1) <160 mm Hg, 2) <150 mm Hg, 3) <140 mm Hg, 4) <130 mm Hg, and 5) <120 mm Hg. Efficacy outcomes of stroke, myocardial infarction, death, cardiovascular death, heart failure, and safety outcomes of serious adverse effects were evaluated using a network meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventeen trials that enrolled 55,163 patients with 204,103 patient-years of follow-up were included. There was a significant decrease in stroke (rate ratio [RR] 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-1.00) and myocardial infarction (RR 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-1.00) with systolic BP <120 mm Hg (vs <160 mm Hg). Sensitivity analysis using achieved systolic BP showed a 72%, 97%, and 227% increase in stroke with systolic BP of <140 mm Hg, <150 mm Hg, and <160 mm, respectively, when compared with systolic BP <120 mm Hg. There was no difference in death, cardiovascular death, or heart failure when comparing any of the BP targets. However, the point estimate favored lower BP targets (<120 mm Hg, <130 mm Hg) when compared with higher BP targets (<140 mm Hg or <150 mm Hg). BP targets of <120 mm Hg and <130 mm Hg ranked #1 and #2, respectively, as the most efficacious target. There was a significant increase in serious adverse effects with systolic BP <120 mm Hg vs <150 mm Hg (RR 1.83; 95% CI, 1.05-3.20) or vs <140 mm Hg (RR 2.12; 95% CI, 1.46-3.08). BP targets of <140 mm Hg and <150 mm Hg ranked #1 and #2, respectively, as the safest target for the outcome of serious adverse effects. Cluster plots for combined efficacy and safety showed that a systolic BP target of <130 mm Hg had optimal balance between efficacy and safety.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients with hypertension, a on-treatment systolic BP target of <130 mm Hg achieved optimal balance between efficacy and safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":101216,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Medicine Supplements","volume":"1 1","pages":"707-719.e8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Journal of Medicine Supplements","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.01.004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/1/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The optimal on-treatment blood pressure (BP) target has been a matter of debate. The recent SPRINT trial showed significant benefits of a BP target of <120 mm Hg, albeit with an increase in serious adverse effects related to low BP.

Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched for randomized trials comparing treating with different BP targets. Trial arms were grouped into 5 systolic BP target categories: 1) <160 mm Hg, 2) <150 mm Hg, 3) <140 mm Hg, 4) <130 mm Hg, and 5) <120 mm Hg. Efficacy outcomes of stroke, myocardial infarction, death, cardiovascular death, heart failure, and safety outcomes of serious adverse effects were evaluated using a network meta-analysis.

Results: Seventeen trials that enrolled 55,163 patients with 204,103 patient-years of follow-up were included. There was a significant decrease in stroke (rate ratio [RR] 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-1.00) and myocardial infarction (RR 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-1.00) with systolic BP <120 mm Hg (vs <160 mm Hg). Sensitivity analysis using achieved systolic BP showed a 72%, 97%, and 227% increase in stroke with systolic BP of <140 mm Hg, <150 mm Hg, and <160 mm, respectively, when compared with systolic BP <120 mm Hg. There was no difference in death, cardiovascular death, or heart failure when comparing any of the BP targets. However, the point estimate favored lower BP targets (<120 mm Hg, <130 mm Hg) when compared with higher BP targets (<140 mm Hg or <150 mm Hg). BP targets of <120 mm Hg and <130 mm Hg ranked #1 and #2, respectively, as the most efficacious target. There was a significant increase in serious adverse effects with systolic BP <120 mm Hg vs <150 mm Hg (RR 1.83; 95% CI, 1.05-3.20) or vs <140 mm Hg (RR 2.12; 95% CI, 1.46-3.08). BP targets of <140 mm Hg and <150 mm Hg ranked #1 and #2, respectively, as the safest target for the outcome of serious adverse effects. Cluster plots for combined efficacy and safety showed that a systolic BP target of <130 mm Hg had optimal balance between efficacy and safety.

Conclusions: In patients with hypertension, a on-treatment systolic BP target of <130 mm Hg achieved optimal balance between efficacy and safety.

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
SPRINT后的最佳收缩压目标:来自随机试验网络meta分析的见解。
背景:治疗时的最佳血压(BP)目标一直存在争议。最近的SPRINT试验显示了降压靶点的显著益处:PubMed、EMBASE和CENTRAL检索了比较不同降压靶点治疗的随机试验。试验组分为5个收缩压目标类别:1)结果:纳入17项试验,共纳入55163例患者,随访204103例患者-年。卒中发生率显著降低(RR = 0.54;95%可信区间[CI], 0.29-1.00)和心肌梗死(RR 0.68;95% CI, 0.47-1.00)与收缩压的关系
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Association between COVID-19 infection and pulmonary fibrosis: a nested case-control study. Association of tooth loss and diet quality with acceleration of aging: Evidence from NHANES. STEROID-RESPONSIVE FULMINANT LYMPHOCYTIC MYOCARDITIS MIMICKING GIANT-CELL MYOCARDITIS. It Is Time to Abandon the Use of Body Surface Area Derived From a 100-Year-Old Formula. Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Line Misuse Among People Who Inject Drugs While on Therapy for Infective Endocarditis.
×
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:604180095
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