Suppr超能文献

收缩压干预试验(SPRINT)中的脉压、心血管事件和强化降压。

Pulse Pressure, Cardiovascular Events, and Intensive Blood-Pressure Lowering in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).

机构信息

Brigham and Women's Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.

Department of Cardiology, The Heart Centre, Rigshospitalet - Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark.

出版信息

Am J Med. 2019 Jun;132(6):733-739. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.01.001. Epub 2019 Jan 16.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and tolerability of intensive blood-pressure lowering may vary by pulse pressure (systolic minus diastolic blood pressure).

METHODS

SPRINT randomized 9361 high-risk adults without diabetes and who were ≥50 years with systolic blood pressure 130-180 mm Hg to intensive or standard antihypertensive treatment. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. The primary safety end point was composite serious adverse events. We examined the prognostic implications of baseline pulse pressure and the effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering on clinical outcomes across the spectrum of pulse-pressure values using restricted cubic splines.

RESULTS

Mean baseline pulse pressure was similar between the 2 study groups (intensive treatment 61±14 mm Hg vs standard treatment 62±14 mm Hg; P = 0.59). Except stroke, for which the association with pulse pressure was best defined as linear, pulse pressure displayed a nonlinear U-shaped relationship with the risk of all tested clinical end points (P <0.05), though no association remained significant upon multivariable adjustment (P >0.05). The benefit of intensive blood-pressure management on mortality appeared greatest in patients with a pulse pressure ∼60 mm Hg (P = 0.03 for interaction). Pulse pressure did not modify the effect of intensive blood-pressure lowering for other clinical end points (P >0.05 for interaction).

CONCLUSION

In a large randomized clinical trial of patients with a high risk of cardiovascular events, risks and benefits of intensive blood-pressure lowering did not appear to be modified by baseline pulse pressure. Selection of appropriate candidates for intensive blood-pressure lowering should not be limited by this parameter.

摘要

背景

强化降压的疗效和耐受性可能因脉压(收缩压减去舒张压)而异。

方法

SPRINT 将 9361 名无糖尿病且年龄≥50 岁、收缩压为 130-180mmHg 的高危成年人随机分为强化降压或标准降压治疗组。主要疗效终点是急性冠脉综合征、卒、心力衰竭或心血管原因导致的死亡的综合指标。主要安全性终点是复合严重不良事件。我们使用限制性立方样条检查了基线脉压的预后意义,以及强化降压对整个脉压值范围内临床结局的影响。

结果

两组间的平均基线脉压相似(强化治疗组为 61±14mmHg,标准治疗组为 62±14mmHg;P=0.59)。除了与脉压关系最好定义为线性的卒中外,脉压与所有测试的临床终点的风险呈非线性 U 型关系(P<0.05),但多变量调整后没有关联仍具有统计学意义(P>0.05)。在脉压约 60mmHg 的患者中,强化血压管理对死亡率的益处似乎最大(交互作用 P=0.03)。脉压并未改变强化降压对其他临床终点的影响(交互作用 P>0.05)。

结论

在一项心血管事件风险较高的患者大型随机临床试验中,强化降压的风险和益处似乎不受基线脉压的影响。选择强化降压的合适患者不应受此参数限制。

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