From the Boston University School of Medicine, MA.
Hypertension. 2018 May;71(5):833-839. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.117.10713. Epub 2018 Mar 12.
Optimal blood pressure (BP) targets for different populations, especially diabetics, remain uncertain after conflicting data on intensive management. We assessed whether a <120 mm Hg systolic target is beneficial and whether certain patient populations differ in response. Individual patient data of 14 094 patients from 2 randomized control trials was pooled. Seven thousand forty patients were assigned to an intensive target of <120 mm Hg and 7054 patients to a standard target of <140 mm Hg in an intention-to-treat analysis. The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, and cardiovascular mortality. Interactions between treatment and baseline characteristics were assessed. Secondary outcomes included nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, cardiovascular mortality, and overall mortality. Intensive management significantly lowered primary outcome rate (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.92; <0.001). No significant interaction was observed between treatment effect and diabetes mellitus status (=0.16). Significantly reduced secondary outcomes included stroke (hazard ratio, 0.75; =0.033) and heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.76; =0.014). No significant interactions were observed between treatment effect and baseline age, sex, race, cardiovascular disease history, systolic BP, or diastolic BP ( values: 0.40, 0.95, 0.54, 0.18, 0.86, and 0.67, respectively). BP targets of <120 mm Hg improved cardiovascular outcomes. Diabetic patients responded similarly to this intervention, as did those with different age, sex, cardiovascular disease history, baseline BPs, and race. The intensive group had increased risk of intervention-related adverse outcomes (3.97% versus 1.53%; <0.001). Clinicians should consider <120 mm Hg systolic targets for a variety of patients, including diabetics.
对于不同人群,特别是糖尿病患者,强化管理后的血压目标仍不确定。我们评估了收缩压<120mmHg 的目标是否有益,以及某些患者人群的反应是否不同。对 2 项随机对照试验的 14094 名患者的个体患者数据进行了汇总。在意向治疗分析中,7040 名患者被分配到强化目标<120mmHg,7054 名患者被分配到标准目标<140mmHg。主要结局是心肌梗死、其他急性冠状动脉综合征、卒中和心力衰竭以及心血管死亡率的综合指标。评估了治疗与基线特征之间的交互作用。次要结局包括非致死性心肌梗死、卒中和心力衰竭、心血管死亡率以及总死亡率。强化治疗显著降低了主要结局发生率(风险比 0.83;95%置信区间 0.74-0.92;<0.001)。未观察到治疗效果与糖尿病状态之间存在显著交互作用(=0.16)。显著降低的次要结局包括卒中和心力衰竭(风险比 0.75;=0.033 和 0.76;=0.014)。未观察到治疗效果与基线年龄、性别、种族、心血管疾病史、收缩压或舒张压之间存在显著交互作用(值分别为 0.40、0.95、0.54、0.18、0.86 和 0.67)。收缩压<120mmHg 可改善心血管结局。糖尿病患者对此干预的反应类似,年龄、性别、心血管疾病史、基线血压和种族不同的患者也是如此。强化组干预相关不良结局的风险增加(3.97%比 1.53%;<0.001)。临床医生应考虑将收缩压<120mmHg 的目标用于包括糖尿病患者在内的各种患者。