Key result
Diuretic treatment differences demasking heart failure may drive SPRINT outcomes, supporting a systolic blood pressure target below 140 mmHg rather than below 120 mmHg.
Why the study?
Does a systolic blood pressure target below 120 mmHg compared to below 140 mmHg improve true cardiovascular outcomes, or are the results driven by differences in diuretic treatment demasking heart failure?
Does a systolic blood pressure target below 120 mmHg compared to below 140 mmHg improve true cardiovascular outcomes, or are the results driven by differences in diuretic treatment demasking heart failure?
This analysis suggests the apparent benefits of a <120 mmHg systolic blood pressure target in the SPRINT trial may be an artifact of diuretic use unmasking heart failure, arguing instead for a <140 mmHg target.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Hypothesis-generating for intensive BP targets; leaves open need for confirmatory trials in broader populations.
The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) began in the autumn of 2009 and enrolled more than 9300 participants aged 50 and older in about 100 medical centres and clinical practices th...
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kjeldsen et al. (2016) studied this question. Diuretic treatment differences demasking heart failure may drive SPRINT outcomes, supporting a systolic blood pressure target below 140 mmHg rather than below 120 mmHg.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: