Key result
Intensive systolic blood pressure control (<120 mmHg) in diabetic patients significantly reduced the risk of stroke (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.66-0.87; p<0.001) but increased the risk of hypotension.
Why the study?
The optimal SBP target for diabetic patients remains debated, with cardiovascular benefits of intensive control weighed against potential adverse effects.
Does intensive systolic blood pressure control (<120 mmHg) reduce stroke and cardiovascular events in diabetic patients compared to standard control (<140 mmHg)?
Meta-Analysis (n=9,072)
Does intensive systolic blood pressure control (<120 mmHg) reduce stroke and cardiovascular events in diabetic patients compared to standard control (<140 mmHg)?
Effect estimate: HR 0.76 (95% CI 0.66-0.87)
p-value: p=<0.001
In diabetic patients, targeting a systolic blood pressure <120 mmHg reduces stroke risk but significantly increases the risk of hypotension without improving mortality or myocardial infarction.
Intensive SBP control reduces stroke in diabetes despite more hypotension; reinforces stroke benefit but leaves mortality and MI impact unresolved.
Background The optimal systolic blood pressure (SBP) target for diabetic patients remains a subject of debate. While intensive SBP control (<120 mmHg) has demonstrated cardiovascular benefits, concerns about potential adverse effects persist. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate whether intensive SBP reduction leads to better outcomes than the standard target (<140 mmHg). Purpose We aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the benefits and harms of intensive versus standard SBP targets in diabetic patients. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared intensive and standard SBP targets in patients with diabetes. Statistical analysis was carried out utilizing R version 4.4.2. Heterogeneity was assessed with I² statistics; p-values inferior to 0.05 and I²>25% were considered significant heterogeneity. Results Three RCTs were included, involving a total of 9,072 participants. The incidence of all types of stroke was significantly lower in the intensive SBP control group compared to the standard group (HR 0.76; 95% CI: 0.66-0.87; p < 0.001; Figure 1). However, there was no significant reduction in all-cause mortality (HR 1.00; 95% CI: 0.86-1.17; p = 0.978), cardiovascular death (HR 0.89; 95% CI: 0.64-1.23; p = 0.483) or myocardial infarction (RR 0.86; 95% CI: 0.71-1.03; p = 0.106). A significant increase in the incidence of hypotension was observed in the intensive SBP group (HR 11.81; 95% CI: 2.78-50.22; p < 0.001; Figure 2). The incidence of syncope (HR 1.48; 95% CI: 0.63-3.49; p = 0.370) and renal failure (HR 0.28; 95% CI: 0.28-9.45; p = 0.584) were similar between groups. Conclusion Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that intensive SBP control reduces stroke risk but does not improve mortality or myocardial infarction and increases the risk of hypotension. An individual careful risk-benefit assessment is essential.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lucena et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in Diabetes (n=9,072). Intensive systolic blood pressure control vs. Standard systolic blood pressure target (<140 mmHg) was evaluated on All types of stroke (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66-0.87, p=<0.001). Intensive systolic blood pressure control (<120 mmHg) in diabetic patients significantly reduced the risk of stroke (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.66-0.87; p<0.001) but increased the risk of hypotension.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: