Medical Service, Veterans Affairs Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Internal Medicine, and.
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019 Aug;30(8):1523-1533. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2018121261. Epub 2019 Jul 19.
The Systolic BP Intervention Trial (SPRINT) found that intensive versus standard systolic BP control (targeting <120 or <140 mm Hg, respectively) reduced the risks of death and major cardiovascular events in persons with elevated cardiovascular disease risk. However, the intensive intervention was associated with an early decline in eGFR, and the clinical implications of this early decline are unclear.
In a analysis of SPRINT, we defined change in eGFR as the percentage change in eGFR at 6 months compared with baseline. We performed causal mediation analyses to separate the overall effects of the randomized systolic BP intervention on the SPRINT primary cardiovascular composite and all-cause mortality into indirect effects (mediated by percentage change in eGFR) and direct effects (mediated through pathways other than percentage change in eGFR).
About 10.3% of the 4270 participants in the intensive group had a ≥20% eGFR decline versus 4.4% of the 4256 participants in the standard arm (<0.001). After the 6-month visit, there were 591 cardiovascular composite events during 27,849 person-years of follow-up. The hazard ratios for total effect, direct effect, and indirect effect of the intervention on the cardiovascular composite were 0.67 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.56 to 0.78), 0.68 (95% CI, 0.57 to 0.79), and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.95 to 1.03), respectively. All-cause mortality results were similar.
Although intensive systolic BP lowering resulted in greater early decline in eGFR, there was no evidence that the reduction in eGFR owing to intensive systolic BP lowering attenuated the beneficial effects of this intervention on cardiovascular events or all-cause mortality.
收缩压干预试验(SPRINT)发现,与标准收缩压控制(目标分别为<120 或<140mmHg)相比,强化收缩压控制(目标<120mmHg)降低了心血管疾病风险升高人群的死亡和主要心血管事件风险。然而,强化干预与 eGFR 的早期下降有关,而这种早期下降的临床意义尚不清楚。
在 SPRINT 的一项分析中,我们将 eGFR 的变化定义为与基线相比,6 个月时 eGFR 的百分比变化。我们进行了因果中介分析,将随机收缩压干预对 SPRINT 主要心血管复合终点和全因死亡率的总体效应分离为间接效应(通过 eGFR 变化百分比介导)和直接效应(通过 eGFR 变化以外的途径介导)。
强化组约有 10.3%(4270 名参与者中的 470 名)发生 eGFR 下降≥20%,而标准组则有 4.4%(4256 名参与者中的 191 名)(<0.001)。在 6 个月就诊后,在 27849 人年的随访中,发生了 591 例心血管复合事件。干预对心血管复合终点的总效应、直接效应和间接效应的危险比分别为 0.67(95%置信区间[95%CI],0.56 至 0.78)、0.68(95%CI,0.57 至 0.79)和 0.99(95%CI,0.95 至 1.03)。全因死亡率结果相似。
尽管强化收缩压降低导致 eGFR 早期更明显下降,但没有证据表明,强化收缩压降低导致的 eGFR 下降削弱了这种干预对心血管事件或全因死亡率的有益作用。