Brandão Andréa Araujo, Rodrigues Cibele Isaac Saad, Bortolotto Luiz Aparecido, Luna Leonardo Castro, Barros Bruno Monteiro, Neves Mario Fritsch Toros, Moura Ana Flávia de Souza, Plavnik Frida Liane, Drager Luciano Ferreira, Moreira Filho Osni, Souza Weimar Kunz Sebba Barroso de, Nadruz Wilson
Faculdade de Ciências Médicas - Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ - Brasil.
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, Sorocaba, SP - Brasil.
Arq Bras Cardiol. 2025 Mar;122(3):e20240761. doi: 10.36660/abc.20240761.
Strict blood pressure control has been investigated as a strategy to reduce severe cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension. However, there are still doubts about the impact of intensive antihypertensive treatment goals (< 130/80 mmHg) compared to conventional goals (≥ 130/80 mmHg) in preventing myocardial infarction, stroke, mortality, and possible treatment-related adverse effects.
To evaluate the effectiveness of intensive antihypertensive treatment goals in reducing critical cardiovascular events compared to usual goals.
This systematic review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared intensive blood pressure control goals with conventional goals in adults aged 18 years or older. Studies with at least one of the following outcomes were included: mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, progression to stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease, need for dialysis, or kidney transplantation. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to May 2024. Risk of bias assessment was performed by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. Synthesis of results was conducted through meta-analysis for the composite outcome of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality. The certainty of scientific evidence and strength of recommendation followed the methods proposed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool.
Nine RCTs with more than 34,000 participants were included. Intensive treatment was associated with a 13% reduction in cardiovascular events. In the studies with low risk of bias, the reduction was 17%, with high certainty of evidence. Separately, a significant reduction was observed in the outcomes of myocardial infarction and stroke, but not in all-cause mortality. Limited data were found on the progression of kidney disease and the need for dialysis or kidney transplantation.
High-quality evidence suggests that more intensive antihypertensive treatment goals significantly reduce cardiovascular events. However, the choice of treatment goals should be individualized, considering factors such as age, frailty, individual cardiovascular risk, and the possibility of adverse events. Adherence to treatment is essential to therapeutic success.
严格控制血压已作为一种降低高血压患者严重心血管事件的策略进行了研究。然而,与传统目标(≥130/80 mmHg)相比,强化降压治疗目标(<130/80 mmHg)在预防心肌梗死、中风、死亡率以及可能的治疗相关不良反应方面的影响仍存在疑问。
评估与常规目标相比,强化降压治疗目标在减少严重心血管事件方面的有效性。
本系统评价纳入了将18岁及以上成年人的强化血压控制目标与常规目标进行比较的随机对照试验(RCT)。纳入至少有以下一项结局的研究:死亡率、心肌梗死、中风、进展为4期或5期慢性肾病、需要透析或肾移植。截至2024年5月,检索了Medline、Embase和Cochrane图书馆数据库。由两名独立评价者使用Cochrane协作网的偏倚风险2(RoB 2)工具进行偏倚风险评估。通过对心肌梗死、中风和全因死亡率的复合结局进行荟萃分析来汇总结果。科学证据的确定性和推荐强度遵循推荐分级评估、制定和评价(GRADE)工具提出的方法。
纳入了9项随机对照试验,参与者超过34000名。强化治疗与心血管事件减少13%相关。在偏倚风险低的研究中,减少率为17%,证据确定性高。单独来看,心肌梗死和中风的结局有显著降低,但全因死亡率没有降低。关于肾病进展以及透析或肾移植需求的数据有限。
高质量证据表明,更强化的降压治疗目标可显著降低心血管事件。然而,治疗目标的选择应个体化,考虑年龄、虚弱程度、个体心血管风险和不良事件可能性等因素。坚持治疗对治疗成功至关重要。