Suppr超能文献

强化血压控制与心血管结局试验(SPRINT)中基线收缩压对血压控制与心血管结局关系的影响。

Influence of baseline systolic blood pressure on the relationship between intensive blood pressure control and cardiovascular outcomes in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.

Key Laboratory of Assisted Circulation, Ministry of Health, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.

出版信息

Clin Res Cardiol. 2019 Mar;108(3):273-281. doi: 10.1007/s00392-018-1353-9. Epub 2018 Aug 24.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the effects of intensive (< 120 mmHg) compared with standard (< 140 mmHg) systolic blood pressure (SBP) treatments are different among those with different baseline SBP.

METHODS

De-identified SPRINT database was used for this post hoc analysis. SPRINT participants were categorized by baseline SBP status, defined as high-SBP (≥ 140 mmHg) group versus the low-SBP (< 140 mmHg) group. The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome not resulting in myocardial infarction, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. Treatment-related adverse events including hypotension, syncope, and bradycardia were also evaluated. Cox regression was used to calculate hazard ratios for study outcomes with intensive compared with standard SBP treatment between these two groups.

RESULTS

Among 9361 participants randomized (age 67.9 ± 9.4 years; 35.5% female), 4964 and 4397 had baseline low SBP (< 140 mmHg) and high SBP (≥ 140 mmHg), respectively. After a median follow-up of 3.26 years, the hazard ratio for the primary outcome was 0.65 (95% CI 0.50, 0.83) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.66, 1.06) among those in the low-SBP group and high-SBP group, respectively (P value for interaction 0.15). For treatment-related adverse events, the hazard ratio with intensive SBP treatment was 2.03 (95% CI 1.44, 2.85) for the low-SBP group and 1.80 (95% CI 1.32, 2.47) for the high-SBP group (P value for interaction 0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Hypertensive patients with low baseline SBP may benefit from intensive SBP lowering, whereas benefits were inconclusive among those with high baseline SBP.

摘要

目的

确定强化(<120mmHg)与标准(<140mmHg)收缩压(SBP)治疗相比,在基线 SBP 不同的患者中效果是否存在差异。

方法

本研究采用事后分析 SPRINT 数据库。根据基线 SBP 情况将 SPRINT 参与者分为高 SBP(≥140mmHg)组和低 SBP(<140mmHg)组。主要结局是心肌梗死、非心肌梗死性急性冠状动脉综合征、卒中等心血管原因引起的急性失代偿性心力衰竭或死亡的复合事件。还评估了与治疗相关的不良反应,包括低血压、晕厥和心动过缓。使用 Cox 回归计算两组之间强化与标准 SBP 治疗相比研究结局的风险比。

结果

在 9361 名随机分组的参与者中(年龄 67.9±9.4 岁;35.5%为女性),基线时低 SBP(<140mmHg)和高 SBP(≥140mmHg)分别为 4964 例和 4397 例。中位随访 3.26 年后,低 SBP 组和高 SBP 组的主要结局风险比分别为 0.65(95%CI 0.50,0.83)和 0.84(95%CI 0.66,1.06)(交互 P 值为 0.15)。对于与治疗相关的不良反应,低 SBP 组强化 SBP 治疗的风险比为 2.03(95%CI 1.44,2.85),高 SBP 组为 1.80(95%CI 1.32,2.47)(交互 P 值为 0.28)。

结论

低基线 SBP 的高血压患者可能从强化 SBP 降低中获益,而高基线 SBP 患者的获益尚不确定。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验