• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

降低收缩压不会增加中风风险:SPRINT 和 ACCORD 试验数据分析。

Lowering systolic blood pressure does not increase stroke risk: an analysis of the SPRINT and ACCORD trial data.

机构信息

Department of Neurology University of Tennessee Health Science Center Memphis Tennessee.

Department of Preventive Medicine College of Medicine University of Tennessee Health Science Center Memphis Tennessee.

出版信息

Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2018 Nov 28;6(1):144-153. doi: 10.1002/acn3.693. eCollection 2019 Jan.

DOI:10.1002/acn3.693
PMID:30656192
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6331200/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Traditional neurology teaching states that when mean arterial pressure dips below a 60 mm Hg threshold, there is an increase in stroke risk due to cerebral hypoperfusion. The aim of this study was to determine whether intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure increases adverse cardiovascular outcomes by examining the association between achieved blood pressure values, specifically mean arterial pressure and pulse pressure, and risk of stroke.

METHODS

Data from participants in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) and the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) Blood Pressure (BP) trial were examined, using survival analysis to model minimal arterial pressure and average pulse pressure during the study period against risk of stroke, hypotension, and syncope, with death as a competing risk.

RESULTS

In both SPRINT and ACCORD participants, there was no increase in stroke risk with achieved mean arterial pressure values below 60 mm Hg. In SPRINT participants, achieved mean arterial pressure values greater than 90 mm Hg were associated with a 247% (HR: 3.47, 95% CI: 2.06-5.85) higher risk of stroke compared with participants in the 80-89 mmHg reference group. No association was found between low achieved pulse pressure values and greater stroke risk in either the SPRINT or ACCORD participants, as well as no association between mean arterial pressure and pulse pressure values and risk of syncope.

INTERPRETATION

Intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure does not increase risk of stroke in hypertensive patients, despite extremely low mean arterial pressure or pulse pressure values.

摘要

目的

传统神经病学教学认为,当平均动脉压降至 60mmHg 以下时,由于脑灌注不足,中风风险会增加。本研究旨在通过检查达到的血压值(特别是平均动脉压和脉压)与中风风险之间的关系,确定收缩压的强化降低是否会通过增加不良心血管结局来增加中风风险。

方法

对 Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial(SPRINT)和 Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes(ACCORD)Blood Pressure(BP)试验的参与者数据进行了检查,使用生存分析来模拟研究期间的最小动脉压和平均脉压与中风、低血压和晕厥风险之间的关系,死亡是竞争风险。

结果

在 SPRINT 和 ACCORD 参与者中,达到的平均动脉压值低于 60mmHg 并不会增加中风风险。在 SPRINT 参与者中,与 80-89mmHg 参考组相比,达到的平均动脉压值大于 90mmHg 与中风风险增加 247%(HR:3.47,95%CI:2.06-5.85)相关。在 SPRINT 或 ACCORD 参与者中,达到的低脉压值与更高的中风风险之间没有关联,平均动脉压和脉压值与晕厥风险之间也没有关联。

解释

尽管平均动脉压或脉压值极低,但强化降低收缩压不会增加高血压患者的中风风险。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/471f/6331200/64b925c33173/ACN3-6-144-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/471f/6331200/393781d30b33/ACN3-6-144-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/471f/6331200/7ef4abe96b2b/ACN3-6-144-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/471f/6331200/972414b9520d/ACN3-6-144-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/471f/6331200/64b925c33173/ACN3-6-144-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/471f/6331200/393781d30b33/ACN3-6-144-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/471f/6331200/7ef4abe96b2b/ACN3-6-144-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/471f/6331200/972414b9520d/ACN3-6-144-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/471f/6331200/64b925c33173/ACN3-6-144-g004.jpg

相似文献

1
Lowering systolic blood pressure does not increase stroke risk: an analysis of the SPRINT and ACCORD trial data.降低收缩压不会增加中风风险:SPRINT 和 ACCORD 试验数据分析。
Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2018 Nov 28;6(1):144-153. doi: 10.1002/acn3.693. eCollection 2019 Jan.
2
Benefit and harm of intensive blood pressure treatment: Derivation and validation of risk models using data from the SPRINT and ACCORD trials.强化血压治疗的益处与危害:利用收缩压干预试验(SPRINT)和控制糖尿病患者心血管风险行动(ACCORD)试验数据推导和验证风险模型
PLoS Med. 2017 Oct 17;14(10):e1002410. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002410. eCollection 2017 Oct.
3
Systolic Blood Pressure Response in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) and ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes): A Possible Explanation for Discordant Trial Results.SPRINT(收缩压干预试验)和 ACCORD(控制糖尿病心血管风险行动)中的收缩压反应:对试验结果不一致的一种可能解释。
J Am Heart Assoc. 2017 Nov 13;6(11):e007509. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.117.007509.
4
Diastolic Hypotension May Attenuate Benefits from Intensive Systolic Targets: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.舒张压低血压可能减弱强化收缩压目标的获益:一项随机对照试验的二次分析。
Am J Med. 2018 Oct;131(10):1228-1233.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2018.05.022. Epub 2018 Jun 12.
5
Effectiveness of blood pressure-lowering treatment by the levels of baseline Framingham risk score: A post hoc analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).基于基线 Framingham 风险评分水平的降压治疗效果:SPRINT(收缩压干预试验)的事后分析。
J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2019 Dec;21(12):1813-1820. doi: 10.1111/jch.13720. Epub 2019 Oct 31.
6
Intensive Versus Standard Blood Pressure Control in SPRINT-Eligible Participants of ACCORD-BP.SPRINT 试验符合条件的 ACCORD-BP 参与者强化与标准血压控制的比较。
Diabetes Care. 2017 Dec;40(12):1733-1738. doi: 10.2337/dc17-1366. Epub 2017 Sep 25.
7
Target Blood Pressure in Patients with Diabetes: Asian Perspective.糖尿病患者的目标血压:亚洲视角
Yonsei Med J. 2016 Nov;57(6):1307-11. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2016.57.6.1307.
8
Assessment of Risk of Harm Associated With Intensive Blood Pressure Management Among Patients With Hypertension Who Smoke: A Secondary Analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial.高血压患者强化血压管理相关伤害风险评估:收缩压干预试验的二次分析。
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Mar 1;2(3):e190005. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.0005.
9
Intensive systolic blood pressure control and incident chronic kidney disease in people with and without diabetes mellitus: secondary analyses of two randomised controlled trials.强化收缩压控制与糖尿病患者及非糖尿病患者慢性肾脏病事件的相关性:两项随机对照试验的二次分析。
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018 Jul;6(7):555-563. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(18)30099-8. Epub 2018 Apr 21.
10
Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering in Patients With and Patients Without Type 2 Diabetes: A Pooled Analysis From Two Randomized Trials.伴有和不伴有 2 型糖尿病的患者强化降压治疗:两项随机试验的汇总分析。
Diabetes Care. 2018 Jun;41(6):1142-1148. doi: 10.2337/dc17-1722. Epub 2017 Dec 6.

引用本文的文献

1
The Impact of Cognitive Function on the Effectiveness and Safety of Intensive Blood Pressure Control for Patients With Hypertension: A Analysis of SPRINT.认知功能对高血压患者强化血压控制有效性和安全性的影响:SPRINT分析
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021 Nov 25;8:777250. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.777250. eCollection 2021.
2
A focused review of cardiovascular guideline related recommendations for the primary care physician in the USA.针对美国初级保健医生的心血管疾病指南相关建议的重点综述。
Cardiovasc Endocrinol Metab. 2020 May 15;9(2):36-41. doi: 10.1097/XCE.0000000000000192. eCollection 2020 Jun.

本文引用的文献

1
Influence of Baseline Diastolic Blood Pressure on Effects of Intensive Compared With Standard Blood Pressure Control.基础舒张压对强化与标准血压控制效果影响的研究。
Circulation. 2018 Jan 9;137(2):134-143. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.030848. Epub 2017 Oct 11.
2
Blood Pressure Reduction and Secondary Stroke Prevention: A Systematic Review and Metaregression Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.血压降低与继发性中风预防:随机临床试验的系统评价与元回归分析
Hypertension. 2017 Jan;69(1):171-179. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.116.08485. Epub 2016 Oct 31.
3
Pulse Pressure and Risk for Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Atherothrombosis: From the REACH Registry.
脉压与动脉粥样硬化血栓形成患者心血管事件的风险:来自 REACH 登记研究。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Feb 2;67(4):392-403. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.10.084.
4
A Randomized Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control.强化与标准血压控制的随机试验
N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373(22):2103-16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1511939. Epub 2015 Nov 9.
5
Time to Reassess Blood-Pressure Goals.重新评估血压目标的时机。
N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373(22):2093-5. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1513290. Epub 2015 Nov 9.
6
How low can you go?你能有多低?
Ann Neurol. 2015 Nov;78(5):665-6. doi: 10.1002/ana.24530.
7
The design and rationale of a multicenter clinical trial comparing two strategies for control of systolic blood pressure: the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).一项比较两种收缩压控制策略的多中心临床试验的设计与原理:收缩压干预试验(SPRINT)
Clin Trials. 2014 Oct;11(5):532-46. doi: 10.1177/1740774514537404. Epub 2014 Jun 5.
8
Variables with time-varying effects and the Cox model: some statistical concepts illustrated with a prognostic factor study in breast cancer.具有时变效应的变量和 Cox 模型:用乳腺癌预后因素研究说明一些统计概念。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Mar 16;10:20. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-20.
9
Effects of intensive blood-pressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus.强化血压控制对 2 型糖尿病的影响。
N Engl J Med. 2010 Apr 29;362(17):1575-85. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1001286. Epub 2010 Mar 14.
10
Arterial blood pressure during early sepsis and outcome.早期脓毒症期间的动脉血压与预后
Intensive Care Med. 2009 Jul;35(7):1225-33. doi: 10.1007/s00134-009-1427-2. Epub 2009 Feb 3.