Hinda and Arthur Marcus Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, 1200 Centre Street, Boston, MA, 02131, USA.
Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
J Gen Intern Med. 2022 Nov;37(15):3797-3804. doi: 10.1007/s11606-022-07753-5. Epub 2022 Aug 9.
Communication of the benefits and harms of blood pressure lowering strategy is crucial for shared decision-making.
To quantify the effect of intensive versus standard systolic blood pressure lowering in terms of the number of event-free days DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial PARTICIPANTS: A total of 9361 adults 50 years or older without diabetes or stroke who had a systolic blood pressure of 130-180 mmHg and elevated cardiovascular risk INTERVENTIONS: Intensive (systolic blood pressure goal <120 mmHg) versus standard blood pressure lowering (<140 mmHg) MAIN MEASURES: Days free of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), serious adverse events (SAE), and monitored adverse events (hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, electrolyte abnormalities, injurious falls, or acute kidney injury) over a median follow-up of 3.33 years KEY RESULTS: The intensive treatment group gained 14.7 more MACE-free days over 4 years (difference, 14.7 [95% confidence interval: 5.1, 24.4] days) than the standard treatment group. The benefit of the intensive treatment varied by cognitive function (normal: difference, 40.7 [13.0, 68.4] days; moderate-to-severe impairment: difference, -15.0 [-56.5, 26.4] days; p-for-interaction=0.009) and self-rated health (excellent: difference, -22.7 [-51.5, 6.1] days; poor: difference, 156.1 [31.1, 281.2] days; p-for-interaction=0.001). The mean overall SAE-free days were not significantly different between the treatments (difference, -14.8 [-35.3, 5.7] days). However, the intensive treatment group had 28.5 fewer monitored adverse event-free days than the standard treatment group (difference, -28.5 [-40.3, -16.7] days), with significant variations by frailty status (non-frail: difference, 38.8 [8.4, 69.2] days; frail: difference, -15.5 [-46.6, 15.7] days) and self-rated health (excellent: difference, -12.9 [-45.5, 19.7] days; poor: difference, 180.6 [72.9, 288.4] days; p-for-interaction <0.001).
Over 4 years, intensive systolic blood pressure lowering provides, on average, 14.7 more MACE-free days than standard treatment, without any difference in SAE-free days. Whether this time-based effect summary improves shared decision-making remains to be elucidated.
ClinicalTrials.gov Registration: NCT01206062.
沟通降压策略的获益和危害对于共同决策至关重要。
以无主要不良心血管事件(MACE)天数来量化强化与标准收缩压降低策略的效果。
事后分析收缩期血压干预试验(Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial)。
共纳入 9361 名年龄在 50 岁及以上、无糖尿病或卒中、收缩压在 130-180mmHg 之间且心血管风险升高的成年人。
强化治疗(收缩压目标<120mmHg)与标准降压治疗(<140mmHg)。
主要不良心血管事件(MACE)、严重不良事件(SAE)和监测不良事件(低血压、晕厥、心动过缓、电解质异常、受伤性跌倒、急性肾损伤)无事件天数,中位随访时间为 3.33 年。
强化治疗组在 4 年内获得了 14.7 天更多的 MACE 无事件天数(差异,14.7[95%置信区间:5.1,24.4]天),优于标准治疗组。强化治疗的获益因认知功能(正常:差异,40.7[13.0,68.4]天;中重度损害:差异,-15.0[-56.5,26.4]天;交互作用 p 值=0.009)和自我报告的健康状况(优秀:差异,-22.7[-51.5,6.1]天;差:差异,156.1[31.1,281.2]天;交互作用 p 值=0.001)而有所不同。治疗组之间的平均 SAE 无事件天数没有显著差异(差异,-14.8[-35.3,5.7]天)。然而,强化治疗组的监测不良事件无事件天数比标准治疗组少 28.5 天(差异,-28.5[-40.3,-16.7]天),且与脆弱状态(非脆弱:差异,38.8[8.4,69.2]天;脆弱:差异,-15.5[-46.6,15.7]天)和自我报告的健康状况(优秀:差异,-12.9[-45.5,19.7]天;差:差异,180.6[72.9,288.4]天;交互作用 p 值<0.001)显著相关。
4 年内,强化收缩压降压平均提供了 14.7 天以上的 MACE 无事件天数,而 SAE 无事件天数没有差异。这种基于时间的效果总结是否能改善共同决策仍有待阐明。
ClinicalTrials.gov 注册:NCT01206062。