Why the study?
Does nitrendipine-based active treatment reduce mortality and cardiovascular endpoints in patients ≥60 years with isolated systolic hypertension?
Does nitrendipine-based active treatment reduce mortality and cardiovascular endpoints in patients ≥60 years with isolated systolic hypertension?
Blood-pressure lowering treatment reduces cardiovascular complications by decreasing the absolute level of systolic blood pressure, while blood pressure variability does not independently predict risk.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports BP lowering in elderly isolated systolic hypertension by targeting mean systolic level; confirms absolute pressure, not visit-to-visit variability, as the key risk driver.
BACKGROUND: In the Systolic Hypertension in Europe trial (NCT02088450), we investigated whether systolic blood pressure variability determines prognosis over and beyond level. METHODS: Using a computerised random function and a double-blind design, we randomly allocated 4695 patients (≥60 years) with isolated systolic hypertension (160-219/<95 mm Hg) to active treatment or matching placebo. Active treatment consisted of nitrendipine (10-40 mg/day) with possible addition of enalapril (5-20 mg/day) and/or hydrochlorothiazide (12.5-25.0 mg/day). We assessed whether on-treatment systolic blood pressure level (SBP), visit-to-visit variability independent of the mean (VIM) or within-visit variability (WVV) predicted total (n = 286) or cardiovascular (n = 150) mortality or cardiovascular (n = 347), cerebrovascular (n = 133) or cardiac (n = 217) endpoints. FINDINGS: At 2 years, mean between-group differences were 10.5 mm Hg (p<0.0001) for SBP, 0.29 units (p = 0.20) for VIM, and 0.07 mm Hg (p = 0.47) for WVV. Active treatment reduced (p≤0.048) cardiovascular (-28%), cerebrovascular (-40%) and cardiac (-24%) endpoints. In analyses dichotomised by the median, patients with low vs. high VIM had similar event rates (p≥0.14). Low vs. high WVV was not associated with event rates (p≥0.095), except for total and cardiovascular mortality on active treatment, which were higher with low WVV (p≤0.0003). In multivariable-adjusted Cox models, SBP predicted all endpoints (p≤0.0043), whereas VIM did not predict any (p≥0.058). Except for an inverse association with total mortality (p = 0.042), WVV was not predictive (p≥0.15). Sensitivity analyses, from which we excluded blood pressure readings within 6 months after randomisation, 6 months prior to an event or both were confirmatory. CONCLUSIONS: The double-blind placebo-controlled Syst-Eur trial demonstrated that blood-pressure lowering treatment reduces cardiovascular complications by decreasing level but not variability of SBP. Higher blood pressure level, but not higher variability, predicted risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02088450.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hara et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: