Division of Nephrology, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas.
Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2024 May 1;19(5):620-627. doi: 10.2215/CJN.0000000000000406. Epub 2024 Jan 23.
In a post hoc analysis, we examined whether postrandomization diuretics use can explain and/or mediate the beneficial effects of intensive systolic BP lowering on cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).
SPRINT was a randomized, controlled trial of 9361 participants comparing the effects of intensive (systolic BP target <120 mm Hg) versus standard (systolic BP target <140 mm Hg) BP control on a primary composite cardiovascular end point in participants aged 50 years or older with systolic BP of 130-180 mm Hg. In time-varying multivariable Cox analyses, we assessed hazard ratios (HRs) of cardiovascular end points and all-cause mortality in participants on thiazide type, loop and/or potassium (K) sparing, or no diuretics. We also conducted mediation analysis to formally assess the role of diuretics in the effects of intensive systolic BP lowering.
At baseline, diuretics were prescribed in 46% and 48% of participants in standard and intensive systolic BP-lowering groups, respectively, and in 46% and 74% in the corresponding groups during the trial. The lower risk of cardiovascular end points in the intensive group (HR, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.89) persisted after adjustment for postrandomization time-varying diuretics use (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.89). Across the entire study population, time-varying diuretics use was not associated with cardiovascular end points (compared with no diuretics, HR for thiazide type, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.10, and loop/K sparing, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.73). However, thiazide-type diuretics were associated with lower risk of cardiovascular end points in the intensive (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.85) but not in the standard (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.39) group. In mediation analysis, HRs for total effect, direct effect (not mediated through diuretics use), and indirect effect (mediated through diuretics) of the intervention on cardiovascular end points were 0.66 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.79), 0.67 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.81), and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.10), respectively. The results were largely similar for all-cause mortality.
The favorable effects of intensive systolic BP lowering on cardiovascular end points and all-cause mortality in SPRINT were independent of and not mediated by time-varying diuretics use. However, thiazide-type diuretics use associated with benefit if intensive systolic BP lowering was targeted.
在一项事后分析中,我们研究了随机分组后利尿剂的使用是否可以解释和/或介导强化收缩压降低对收缩期血压干预试验(SPRINT)中心血管疾病和全因死亡率的有益影响。
SPRINT 是一项针对 9361 名参与者的随机对照试验,比较了强化(收缩压目标<120mmHg)与标准(收缩压目标<140mmHg)血压控制对收缩压为 130-180mmHg 的 50 岁或以上参与者主要复合心血管终点的影响。在时间变化的多变量 Cox 分析中,我们评估了噻嗪类、环利尿剂和/或保钾利尿剂(K 保留利尿剂)或无利尿剂组参与者心血管终点和全因死亡率的危险比(HR)。我们还进行了中介分析,以正式评估利尿剂在强化收缩压降低效果中的作用。
基线时,标准组和强化收缩压降低组分别有 46%和 48%的参与者开了利尿剂,而在试验期间分别有 46%和 74%的参与者开了利尿剂。强化组心血管终点风险降低(HR,0.75;95%置信区间[CI],0.64 至 0.89)在调整随机分组后时间变化的利尿剂使用后仍然存在(HR,0.74;95%CI,0.62 至 0.89)。在整个研究人群中,时间变化的利尿剂使用与心血管终点无关(与无利尿剂相比,噻嗪类 HR,0.89;95%CI,0.73 至 1.10,环/K 保留利尿剂 HR,1.29;95%CI,0.97 至 1.73)。然而,噻嗪类利尿剂与强化组心血管终点风险降低相关(HR,0.62;95%CI,0.46 至 0.85),但与标准组(HR,1.07;95%CI,0.82 至 1.39)无关。在中介分析中,干预对心血管终点的总效应、直接效应(不通过利尿剂使用介导)和间接效应(通过利尿剂介导)的 HR 分别为 0.66(95%CI,0.54 至 0.79)、0.67(95%CI,0.54 至 0.81)和 0.98(95%CI,0.88 至 1.10)。全因死亡率的结果基本相似。
SPRINT 中强化收缩压降低对心血管终点和全因死亡率的有益影响独立于且不受时间变化的利尿剂使用的影响。然而,如果目标是强化收缩压降低,噻嗪类利尿剂的使用与获益相关。