Bergmann Felix, Prager Marlene, Pracher Lena, Sawodny Rebecca, Steiner-Gager Gloria M, Richter Bernhard, Jilma Bernd, Zeitlinger Markus, Gelbenegger Georg, Jorda Anselm
Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Department of Pathology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
J Intern Med. 2025 May;297(5):479-491. doi: 10.1111/joim.20078. Epub 2025 Mar 5.
The optimal systolic blood pressure (SBP) target in patients with increased cardiovascular risk remains uncertain. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of intensive SBP control (<120 mm Hg) compared to standard SBP control (<140 mm Hg) in patients with increased cardiovascular risk.
We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for RCTs published from database inception through November 2024 that compared intensive SBP control (<120 mm Hg) with standard SBP control (<140 mm Hg) in adults with high cardiovascular risk. Efficacy outcomes included all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and heart failure. Safety outcomes included hypotension, syncope, arrhythmia, acute kidney injury, and electrolyte abnormalities.
Five RCTs comprising 39,434 patients were included. The all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the intensive SBP control group (672 of 19,712 [3.4%]) compared to the standard SBP control group (778 of 19,722 [3.9%]) (risk ratio 0.87 [95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.99, p = 0.03]). The incidence of MACE, cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and heart failure was significantly lower in the intensive SBP control group as compared to standard SBP control group. The treatment effect (MACE) was consistent across all subgroups. Conversely, intensive SBP control was associated with an increased risk of hypotension, syncope, arrhythmia, acute kidney injury, and electrolyte abnormalities.
Targeting intensive SBP control to less than 120 mm Hg was associated with a lower incidence of all-cause mortality and MACE but a higher incidence of adverse events.
心血管风险增加患者的最佳收缩压(SBP)目标仍不确定。本研究评估了强化SBP控制(<120 mmHg)与标准SBP控制(<140 mmHg)相比,在心血管风险增加患者中的疗效和安全性。
我们对PubMed、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane图书馆进行了系统检索,以查找从数据库建立至2024年11月发表的随机对照试验(RCT),这些试验比较了强化SBP控制(<120 mmHg)与标准SBP控制(<140 mmHg)在心血管风险高的成年人中的效果。疗效结局包括全因死亡率、主要不良心血管事件(MACE)、心血管死亡、中风、心肌梗死(MI)和心力衰竭。安全性结局包括低血压、晕厥、心律失常、急性肾损伤和电解质异常。
纳入了5项RCT,共39434例患者。强化SBP控制组的全因死亡率(19712例中的672例[3.4%])显著低于标准SBP控制组(19722例中的778例[3.9%])(风险比0.87[95%置信区间,0.76 - 0.99,p = 0.03])。与标准SBP控制组相比,强化SBP控制组的MACE、心血管死亡、MI、中风和心力衰竭的发生率显著更低。治疗效果(MACE)在所有亚组中均一致。相反,强化SBP控制与低血压、晕厥、心律失常、急性肾损伤和电解质异常的风险增加相关。
将SBP强化控制至低于120 mmHg与全因死亡率和MACE的发生率较低相关,但不良事件的发生率较高。