Key result
Tight BP control linked to ~42% lower stroke risk vs standard control.
Why the study?
The 2017 ACC/AHA guideline definition of hypertension as BP >= 130/80 mmHg raised controversy regarding the impact of tight versus standard BP control on myocardial infarction and stroke.
Does tight blood pressure control (<130 mmHg) reduce the incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke in hypertensive ambulatory patients compared to standard control (130-139 mmHg)?
Cohort (n=5,640)
No
Does tight blood pressure control (<130 mmHg) reduce the incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke in hypertensive ambulatory patients compared to standard control (130-139 mmHg)?
Tight blood pressure control (<130 mmHg) in ambulatory hypertensive patients is associated with a reduced risk of stroke compared to standard control (130-139 mmHg), supporting the 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines.
May support tighter targets for stroke prevention in ambulatory hypertension; leaves open RCT confirmation and MI effects.
BACKGROUND: The 2017 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guideline defined hypertension as blood pressure (BP) ≥ 130/80 mmHg compared to the traditional definition of ≥140/90 mmHg. This change raised much controversy. We conducted this study to compare the impact of tight (TBPC) versus standard BP control (SBPC) on the incidence of myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all hypertensive patients in an ambulatory setting based on the diagnostic code for 1 year at our institution who were classified by the range of BP across 3 years into 2 groups of TBPC (< 130 mmHg) and SBPC (130-139 mmHg). We compared the incidence of new MI and stroke between the 2 groups across a 2-year follow-up. Multivariate analysis was done to identify independent predictors for the incidence of new MI and stroke. RESULTS: Of 5640 study patients, the TBPC group showed significantly less incidence of stroke compared to the SBPC group (1.5% vs. 2.7%, P < 0.010). No differences were found in MI incidence between the 2 groups (0.6% vs. 0.8%, P = 0.476). Multivariate analysis showed that increased age independently increased the incidence of both MI (OR 1.518, 95% CI 1.038-2.219) and stroke (OR 1.876, 95% CI 1.474-2.387), and TBPC independently decreased the incidence of stroke (OR 0.583, 95% CI 0.374-0.910) but not of MI. CONCLUSIONS: Our observational study suggests that TBPC may be beneficial in less stroke incidence compared to SBPC but it didn't seem to affect the incidence of MI. Our study is limited by its retrospective design with potential confounders.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Hypertension (n=5,640). Tight blood pressure control (TBPC) vs. Standard blood pressure control (SBPC) (SBP 130-139 mmHg) was evaluated on Incidence of stroke (OR 0.583, 95% CI 0.374-0.910, p=0.018). Tight blood pressure control (systolic < 130 mmHg) significantly reduced the incidence of stroke (OR 0.583) compared to standard control in hypertensive patients, but did not affect myocardial infarction.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: