Department of Neurology, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Chiayi Branch, Puzi, Taiwan.
UCLA Stroke Center, Department of Neurology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
JAMA Neurol. 2023 May 1;80(5):506-515. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2023.0218.
The degree to which more intensive blood pressure reduction is better than less intensive for secondary stroke prevention has not been delineated.
To perform a standard meta-analysis and a meta-regression of randomized clinical trials to evaluate the association of magnitude of differential blood pressure reduction and recurrent stroke in patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA).
PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from January 1, 1980, to June 30, 2022.
Randomized clinical trials that compared more intensive vs less intensive blood pressure lowering and recorded the outcome of recurrent stroke in patients with stroke or TIA.
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was used for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI was used as a measure of the association of more intensive vs less intensive blood pressure lowering with primary and secondary outcomes. The univariate meta-regression analyses were conducted to evaluate a possible moderating effect of magnitude of differential systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) reduction on the recurrent stroke and major cardiovascular events.
The primary outcome was recurrent stroke and the lead secondary outcome was major cardiovascular events.
Ten randomized clinical trials comprising 40 710 patients (13 752 women [34%]; mean age, 65 years) with stroke or TIA were included for analysis. The mean duration of follow-up was 2.8 years (range, 1-4 years). Pooled results showed that more intensive treatment compared with less intensive was associated with a reduced risk of recurrent stroke in patients with stroke or TIA (absolute risk, 8.4% vs 10.1%; RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.88). Meta-regression showed that the magnitude of differential SBP and DBP reduction was associated with a lower risk of recurrent stroke in patients with stroke or TIA in a log-linear fashion (SBP: regression slope, -0.06; 95% CI, -0.08 to -0.03; DBP: regression slope, -0.17; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.08). Similar results were found in the association between differential blood pressure lowering and major cardiovascular events.
More intensive blood pressure-lowering therapy might be associated with a reduced risk of recurrent stroke and major cardiovascular events. These results might support the use of more intensive blood pressure reduction for secondary prevention in patients with stroke or TIA.
更强化的降压治疗优于轻度降压治疗以预防二级卒中的程度仍未明确。
进行标准的荟萃分析和荟萃回归分析,以评估降压幅度与卒中或短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)患者复发性卒中之间的关联。
从 1980 年 1 月 1 日至 2022 年 6 月 30 日,检索了 PubMed、Embase、Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库和 ClinicalTrials.gov。
比较更强化与轻度降压治疗并记录卒中或 TIA 患者复发性卒中结局的随机临床试验。
使用系统评价和荟萃分析的 Preferred Reporting Items(PRISMA)报告指南提取数据并评估数据质量和有效性。风险比(RR)和 95%置信区间(CI)用于衡量更强化与轻度降压治疗与主要和次要结局的相关性。进行单变量荟萃回归分析,以评估差异收缩压(SBP)和舒张压(DBP)降低幅度对复发性卒中和主要心血管事件的潜在调节作用。
主要结局是复发性卒中,主要次要结局是主要心血管事件。
纳入了 10 项随机临床试验,共纳入了 40710 例卒中或 TIA 患者(13752 例女性[34%];平均年龄 65 岁)进行分析。中位随访时间为 2.8 年(范围,1-4 年)。汇总结果显示,与轻度降压治疗相比,强化降压治疗与卒中或 TIA 患者的复发性卒中风险降低相关(绝对风险,8.4% vs 10.1%;RR,0.83;95%CI,0.78-0.88)。荟萃回归显示,SBP 和 DBP 差异降低幅度与卒中或 TIA 患者的复发性卒中风险呈对数线性相关(SBP:回归斜率,-0.06;95%CI,-0.08 至-0.03;DBP:回归斜率,-0.17;95%CI,-0.26 至-0.08)。在降压差异与主要心血管事件的关联中也得到了类似的结果。
更强化的降压治疗可能与复发性卒中及主要心血管事件风险降低相关。这些结果可能支持在卒中或 TIA 患者中使用更强化的血压降低来进行二级预防。