Departments of Family Medicine and Urology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Department of Family Medicine, Henry Ford Health System, Wayne State University School of Medicine, 3370 E. Jefferson Ave. Detroit, Detroit, MI, 48207-4236, USA.
BMC Fam Pract. 2020 May 16;21(1):91. doi: 10.1186/s12875-020-01163-4.
The 2017 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guideline defined hypertension as blood pressure (BP) ≥ 130/80 mmHg compared to the traditional definition of ≥140/90 mmHg. This change raised much controversy. We conducted this study to compare the impact of tight (TBPC) versus standard BP control (SBPC) on the incidence of myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke.
We retrospectively identified all hypertensive patients in an ambulatory setting based on the diagnostic code for 1 year at our institution who were classified by the range of BP across 3 years into 2 groups of TBPC (< 130 mmHg) and SBPC (130-139 mmHg). We compared the incidence of new MI and stroke between the 2 groups across a 2-year follow-up. Multivariate analysis was done to identify independent predictors for the incidence of new MI and stroke.
Of 5640 study patients, the TBPC group showed significantly less incidence of stroke compared to the SBPC group (1.5% vs. 2.7%, P < 0.010). No differences were found in MI incidence between the 2 groups (0.6% vs. 0.8%, P = 0.476). Multivariate analysis showed that increased age independently increased the incidence of both MI (OR 1.518, 95% CI 1.038-2.219) and stroke (OR 1.876, 95% CI 1.474-2.387), and TBPC independently decreased the incidence of stroke (OR 0.583, 95% CI 0.374-0.910) but not of MI.
Our observational study suggests that TBPC may be beneficial in less stroke incidence compared to SBPC but it didn't seem to affect the incidence of MI. Our study is limited by its retrospective design with potential confounders.
2017 年美国心脏病学会和美国心脏协会指南将高血压定义为血压(BP)≥130/80mmHg,与传统的定义≥140/90mmHg 相比。这一变化引起了很大的争议。我们进行这项研究是为了比较严格(TBPC)与标准血压控制(SBPC)对心肌梗死(MI)和中风发生率的影响。
我们根据我院 1 年内的诊断代码,回顾性地确定了所有在门诊环境中的高血压患者,并根据 3 年内的 BP 范围将他们分为 2 组:TBPC(<130mmHg)和 SBPC(130-139mmHg)。我们比较了两组患者在 2 年随访期间新发 MI 和中风的发生率。进行多变量分析以确定新发 MI 和中风的独立预测因素。
在 5640 名研究患者中,TBPC 组的中风发生率明显低于 SBPC 组(1.5% vs. 2.7%,P<0.010)。两组 MI 的发生率无差异(0.6% vs. 0.8%,P=0.476)。多变量分析显示,年龄的增加独立增加了 MI(OR 1.518,95%CI 1.038-2.219)和中风(OR 1.876,95%CI 1.474-2.387)的发生率,而 TBPC 独立降低了中风(OR 0.583,95%CI 0.374-0.910)的发生率,但对 MI 没有影响。
我们的观察性研究表明,与 SBPC 相比,TBPC 可能对降低中风发生率有益,但似乎对 MI 发生率没有影响。我们的研究受到其回顾性设计和潜在混杂因素的限制。