• 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

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。

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.

机构信息

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.

Arnhold Institute for Global Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.

出版信息

JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Mar 1;2(3):e190005. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.0005.

DOI:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.0005
PMID:30848803
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6484649/
Abstract

IMPORTANCE

The randomized Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) showed that lowering systolic blood pressure targets for adults with hypertension reduces cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in general. However, whether the overall benefit from intensive blood pressure control masks important heterogeneity in risk is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that the overall benefit observed in SPRINT masked important heterogeneity in risk from intensive blood pressure control.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this exploratory, hypothesis-generating, ad hoc, secondary analysis of data obtained from 9361 participants in SPRINT, a random forest-based analysis was used to identify potential heterogeneous treatment effects using half of the trial data. Cox proportional hazards regression models were applied to test potential heterogeneous treatment effects on the remaining data. The original trial was conducted at 102 sites in the United States between November 2010 and March 2013. This analysis was conducted between November 2016 and August 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were assigned a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg (intervention treatment) or of less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary composite cardiovascular outcome was myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes.

RESULTS

Of 9361 participants in SPRINT, 466 participants (5.0%) were current smokers with systolic blood pressure greater than 144 mm Hg at baseline, with 230 participants (49.4%) randomized to the training data set and 236 participants (50.6%) randomized to the testing data set; 286 participants (61.4%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 60.7 (7.2) years. Combinations of 2 covariates (ie, baseline smoking status and systolic blood pressure) distinguished participants who were differentially affected by the intervention. In the testing data, Cox proportional hazards models for the primary outcome revealed a number needed to harm of 43.7 to cause 1 event across 3.3 years among participants who, at baseline, were current smokers with systolic blood pressure greater than 144 mm Hg (10.9% [12 of 110] of primary outcome events for intervention treatment vs 4.8% [6 of 126] for standard treatment; hazard ratio, 10.6; 95% CI, 1.3-86.1; P = .03). This subgroup was also associated with a higher likelihood to experience acute kidney injury under intensive blood pressure control (with a frequency of 10.0% [11 of 110] of acute kidney injury events for intervention treatment vs 3.2% [4 of 126] for standard treatment; hazard ratio, 9.4; 95% CI, 1.2-77.3; P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this secondary analysis of SPRINT data, current smokers with a baseline systolic blood pressure greater than 144 mm Hg had a higher rate of cardiovascular events in the intensive treatment group vs the standard treatment group. Further research is needed to evaluate the potential tradeoffs of intensive blood pressure control in hypertensive smokers.

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e268/6484649/83936f0b4c4b/jamanetwopen-2-e190005-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e268/6484649/83936f0b4c4b/jamanetwopen-2-e190005-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e268/6484649/83936f0b4c4b/jamanetwopen-2-e190005-g001.jpg
摘要

重要性

随机收缩压干预试验(SPRINT)表明,降低高血压患者的收缩压目标可降低总体心血管发病率和死亡率。然而,强化血压控制的整体获益是否掩盖了风险的重要异质性尚不清楚。

目的

检验强化血压控制的总体获益是否掩盖了风险的重要异质性这一假设。

设计、地点和参与者:本研究是对 SPRINT 中 9361 名参与者的数据进行的探索性、生成假设的、特设的二次分析。使用基于随机森林的分析方法,使用试验数据的一半来识别潜在的治疗效果异质性。使用 Cox 比例风险回归模型在剩余数据上检验潜在的治疗效果异质性。原始试验于 2010 年 11 月至 2013 年 3 月在美国 102 个地点进行。本分析于 2016 年 11 月至 2017 年 8 月进行。

干预措施

参与者被分配到收缩压目标低于 120mmHg(强化治疗)或低于 140mmHg(标准治疗)的组中。

主要结局和测量指标

主要复合心血管结局为心肌梗死、其他急性冠状动脉综合征、卒中和心力衰竭,或心血管原因导致的死亡。

结果

在 SPRINT 的 9361 名参与者中,466 名(5.0%)参与者在基线时有吸烟史且收缩压大于 144mmHg,其中 230 名(49.4%)随机分配到训练数据集,236 名(50.6%)随机分配到测试数据集;286 名(61.4%)为男性,平均(SD)年龄为 60.7(7.2)岁。2 个协变量(即基线吸烟状态和收缩压)的组合区分了受干预影响不同的参与者。在测试数据中,主要结局的 Cox 比例风险模型显示,在基线时有吸烟史且收缩压大于 144mmHg 的参与者中,在 3.3 年内,强化治疗组每 43.7 例会发生 1 例不良事件,而标准治疗组为每 126 例会发生 1 例不良事件(主要结局事件发生率为 10.9%[110 例中的 12 例]和 4.8%[126 例中的 6 例];风险比,10.6;95%CI,1.3-86.1;P=0.03)。这一亚组还与强化血压控制下更易发生急性肾损伤相关(强化治疗组的急性肾损伤事件发生率为 10.0%[110 例中的 11 例],而标准治疗组为 3.2%[126 例中的 4 例];风险比,9.4;95%CI,1.2-77.3;P=0.04)。

结论和相关性

在 SPRINT 数据的二次分析中,基线收缩压大于 144mmHg 的当前吸烟者在强化治疗组的心血管事件发生率高于标准治疗组。需要进一步研究评估强化血压控制在高血压吸烟者中的潜在权衡。

相似文献

1
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.
2
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.
3
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.
4
Association of Estimated Pulse Wave Velocity With Survival: A Secondary Analysis of SPRINT.估算脉搏波速度与生存的关联:SPRINT 的二次分析。
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 2;2(10):e1912831. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.12831.
5
Effect of intensive blood pressure lowering on cardiovascular outcomes based on cardiovascular risk: A secondary analysis of the SPRINT trial.强化降压对基于心血管风险的心血管结局的影响:SPRINT 试验的二次分析。
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019 Feb;26(3):238-245. doi: 10.1177/2047487318800741. Epub 2018 Sep 26.
6
Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Control and Cardiovascular Disease Outcomes in Adults Aged ≥75 Years: A Randomized Clinical Trial.强化与标准血压控制对≥75岁成年人心血管疾病结局的影响:一项随机临床试验。
JAMA. 2016 Jun 28;315(24):2673-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.7050.
7
Effect of Lowering Diastolic Pressure in Patients With and Without Cardiovascular Disease: Analysis of the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial).伴有或不伴有心血管疾病患者舒张压降低的效果:SPRINT(收缩压干预试验)分析。
Hypertension. 2018 May;71(5):840-847. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.117.10177. Epub 2018 Mar 26.
8
Association of Acute Kidney Injury with Cardiovascular Events and Death in Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial.急性肾损伤与收缩压干预试验中心血管事件和死亡的关系。
Am J Nephrol. 2019;49(5):359-367. doi: 10.1159/000499574. Epub 2019 Apr 2.
9
[The SPRINT Research. A Randomized Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control].[收缩压干预试验(SPRINT)研究。强化与标准血压控制的随机试验]
Vnitr Lek. 2016 Jan;62(1):44-7.
10
Final Report of a Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control.强化与标准血压控制的试验最终报告。
N Engl J Med. 2021 May 20;384(20):1921-1930. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1901281.

引用本文的文献

1
Controversy in Hypertension: Pro-Side of the Argument Using Artificial Intelligence for Hypertension Diagnosis and Management.高血压领域的争议:支持使用人工智能进行高血压诊断和管理的观点
Hypertension. 2025 Jun;82(6):929-944. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.124.22349. Epub 2025 Mar 17.
2
SPRINT Treatment Among Adults With Chronic Kidney Disease From 2 Large Health Care Systems.来自2个大型医疗保健系统的慢性肾病成人患者的强化血压干预治疗(SPRINT)
JAMA Netw Open. 2025 Jan 2;8(1):e2453458. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.53458.
3
Causal effect of video gaming on mental well-being in Japan 2020-2022.

本文引用的文献

1
Effects of Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment on Acute Kidney Injury Events in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).强化血压治疗对收缩压干预试验(SPRINT)中急性肾损伤事件的影响。
Am J Kidney Dis. 2018 Mar;71(3):352-361. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2017.08.021. Epub 2017 Nov 20.
2
Potential Deaths Averted and Serious Adverse Events Incurred From Adoption of the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) Intensive Blood Pressure Regimen in the United States: Projections From NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey).在美国采用收缩压干预试验(SPRINT)强化血压治疗方案避免的潜在死亡和发生的严重不良事件:来自美国国家健康与营养检查调查(NHANES)的预测
Circulation. 2017 Apr 25;135(17):1617-1628. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.025322. Epub 2017 Feb 13.
3
2020-2022 年日本电子游戏对心理健康的因果影响。
Nat Hum Behav. 2024 Oct;8(10):1943-1956. doi: 10.1038/s41562-024-01948-y. Epub 2024 Aug 19.
4
Estimated Population Health Benefits of Intensive Systolic Blood Pressure Treatment Among SPRINT-Eligible US Adults.SPRINT 资格美国成年人强化收缩压治疗的预估人群健康获益。
Am J Hypertens. 2023 Aug 5;36(9):498-508. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpad047.
5
Comparison of causal forest and regression-based approaches to evaluate treatment effect heterogeneity: an application for type 2 diabetes precision medicine.因果森林与基于回归方法比较评估治疗效果异质性:2 型糖尿病精准医学的应用
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2023 Jun 16;23(1):110. doi: 10.1186/s12911-023-02207-2.
6
Machine learning-based causal models for predicting the response of individual patients to dexamethasone treatment as prophylactic antiemetic.基于机器学习的因果模型,用于预测个体患者对地塞米松预防止吐治疗的反应。
Sci Rep. 2023 May 9;13(1):7549. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-34505-0.
7
Machine-learning-based high-benefit approach versus conventional high-risk approach in blood pressure management.基于机器学习的高获益方法与血压管理中的传统高风险方法。
Int J Epidemiol. 2023 Aug 2;52(4):1243-1256. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyad037.
8
Associations Between a New York City Paid Sick Leave Mandate and Health Care Utilization Among Medicaid Beneficiaries in New York City and New York State.纽约市带薪病假规定与纽约市和纽约州医疗补助受益人的医疗保健利用之间的关联。
JAMA Health Forum. 2021 May 6;2(5):e210342. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.0342. eCollection 2021 May.
9
The association of genetic susceptibility to smoking with cardiovascular disease mortality and the benefits of adhering to a DASH diet: The Singapore Chinese Health Study.遗传易感性与吸烟相关的心血管疾病死亡率的关联,以及坚持 DASH 饮食的益处:新加坡华人健康研究。
Am J Clin Nutr. 2022 Aug 4;116(2):386-393. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqac128.
10
Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects for Intensive Blood Pressure Therapy by Individual Components of FRS: An Unsupervised Data-Driven Subgroup Analysis in SPRINT and ACCORD.基于弗雷明汉风险评分(FRS)各组成部分的强化血压治疗效果异质性:SPRINT和ACCORD研究中的无监督数据驱动亚组分析
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022 Feb 3;9:778756. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.778756. eCollection 2022.
Blood pressure and acute kidney injury.血压与急性肾损伤。
Crit Care. 2017 Feb 10;21(1):28. doi: 10.1186/s13054-017-1611-7.
4
Blood pressure reduction in diabetes: lessons from ACCORD, SPRINT and EMPA-REG OUTCOME.糖尿病患者的血压降低:来自 ACCORD、SPRINT 和 EMPA-REG OUTCOME 的经验教训。
Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2017 Jun;13(6):365-374. doi: 10.1038/nrendo.2016.209. Epub 2017 Jan 20.
5
Detecting Heterogeneous Treatment Effects to Guide Personalized Blood Pressure Treatment: A Modeling Study of Randomized Clinical Trials.检测异质性治疗效果以指导个性化血压治疗:一项随机临床试验的建模研究
Ann Intern Med. 2017 Mar 7;166(5):354-360. doi: 10.7326/M16-1756. Epub 2017 Jan 3.
6
Blood pressure lowering for prevention of cardiovascular disease and death: a systematic review and meta-analysis.降压预防心血管疾病和死亡:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Lancet. 2016 Mar 5;387(10022):957-967. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01225-8. Epub 2015 Dec 24.
7
Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering on cardiovascular and renal outcomes: updated systematic review and meta-analysis.强化降压对心血管和肾脏结局的影响:更新的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Lancet. 2016 Jan 30;387(10017):435-43. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00805-3. Epub 2015 Nov 7.
8
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.
9
The Frequency and Outcome of Acute Kidney Injury in a Tertiary Hospital: Which Factors Affect Mortality?三级医院急性肾损伤的发生率及转归:哪些因素影响死亡率?
Artif Organs. 2015 Jul;39(7):597-606. doi: 10.1111/aor.12449. Epub 2015 Apr 10.
10
Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement.个体预后或诊断多变量预测模型的透明报告(TRIPOD):TRIPOD声明
BMC Med. 2015 Jan 6;13:1. doi: 10.1186/s12916-014-0241-z.