Wright Jackson T, Williamson Jeff D, Whelton Paul K, Snyder Joni K, Sink Kaycee M, Rocco Michael V, Reboussin David M, Rahman Mahboob, Oparil Suzanne, Lewis Cora E, Kimmel Paul L, Johnson Karen C, Goff David C, Fine Lawrence J, Cutler Jeffrey A, Cushman William C, Cheung Alfred K, Ambrosius Walter T
N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373(22):2103-16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1511939. Epub 2015 Nov 9.
The most appropriate targets for systolic blood pressure to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among persons without diabetes remain uncertain.
We randomly assigned 9361 persons with a systolic blood pressure of 130 mm Hg or higher and an increased cardiovascular risk, but without diabetes, to a systolic blood-pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) or a target of less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment). The primary composite outcome was myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes.
At 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 121.4 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group and 136.2 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group. The intervention was stopped early after a median follow-up of 3.26 years owing to a significantly lower rate of the primary composite outcome in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group (1.65% per year vs. 2.19% per year; hazard ratio with intensive treatment, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.89; P<0.001). All-cause mortality was also significantly lower in the intensive-treatment group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.90; P=0.003). Rates of serious adverse events of hypotension, syncope, electrolyte abnormalities, and acute kidney injury or failure, but not of injurious falls, were higher in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group.
Among patients at high risk for cardiovascular events but without diabetes, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, resulted in lower rates of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events and death from any cause, although significantly higher rates of some adverse events were observed in the intensive-treatment group. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062.).
对于无糖尿病的人群,降低心血管发病率和死亡率的最合适收缩压目标仍不明确。
我们将9361名收缩压为130mmHg或更高且心血管风险增加但无糖尿病的患者随机分为收缩压目标低于120mmHg(强化治疗)组或低于140mmHg(标准治疗)组。主要复合结局为心肌梗死、其他急性冠状动脉综合征、中风、心力衰竭或心血管原因导致的死亡。
1年时,强化治疗组的平均收缩压为121.4mmHg,标准治疗组为136.2mmHg。由于强化治疗组的主要复合结局发生率显著低于标准治疗组(每年1.65%对2.19%;强化治疗的风险比为0.75;95%置信区间[CI],0.64至0.89;P<0.001),在中位随访3.26年后提前终止了干预。强化治疗组的全因死亡率也显著较低(风险比,0.73;95%CI,0.60至0.90;P=0.003)。强化治疗组低血压、晕厥、电解质异常以及急性肾损伤或衰竭等严重不良事件的发生率高于标准治疗组,但伤害性跌倒的发生率并非如此。
在无糖尿病的心血管事件高危患者中,将收缩压目标设定为低于120mmHg,与低于140mmHg相比,可降低致命和非致命主要心血管事件及任何原因导致的死亡发生率,尽管强化治疗组中一些不良事件的发生率显著更高。(由美国国立卫生研究院资助;ClinicalTrials.gov编号,NCT01206062。)