Why the study?
Controversy remains regarding whether clinicians should include cardiovascular disease risk stratification into treatment considerations for hypertension.
Does intensive blood pressure control (SBP target <120 mm Hg) reduce major cardiovascular events compared to standard control (SBP target <140 mm Hg) in nondiabetic patients without prior stroke across different ASCVD risk strata?
Does intensive blood pressure control (SBP target <120 mm Hg) reduce major cardiovascular events compared to standard control (SBP target <140 mm Hg) in nondiabetic patients without prior stroke across different ASCVD risk strata?
Intensive blood pressure control (SBP <120 mm Hg) significantly reduces major cardiovascular events in nondiabetic patients without prior stroke, particularly those with a 10-year ASCVD risk ≥7.5%, though with increased risk of hypotension and acute renal failure in the highest risk group.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May benefit intermediate-risk patients without diabetes; leaves open whether CVD risk stratification should guide intensive BP targets.
There is still controversy about whether clinicians should include cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk stratification into the consideration for treatment of hypertension. This was a post hoc analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT). A total of 9361 nondiabetic patients without a history of stroke were randomly assigned to the intensive-treatment group (with an SBP target of <120 mm Hg) and the standard-treatment group (with an SBP target of <140 mm Hg). The patients were categorized into four groups based on the Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) risk score. The groups contained participants with ASCVD < 7.5%, 7.5% ≤ ASCVD <10%, 10% ≤ ASCVD < 15%, and ASCVD ≥ 15%. The incidence of the primary outcome, secondary outcome, and serious adverse events was compared between the two groups. The primary outcome was a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), acute coronary syndrome (ACS) not resulting in MI, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure (HF), or death from cardiovascular causes. The secondary outcomes consisted of the individual components of the primary outcome and all-cause death. Intensive blood pressure (BP) control significantly reduced the incidence of primary outcome event in patients with 10% ≤ ASCVD < 15% (hazard ratio (HR) 0.593; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.361–0.975; <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"> <a:mi>P</a:mi> </a:math> = 0.039) and ASCVD ≥ 15% (HR 0.778; CI 0.644–0.940; <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"> <c:mi>P</c:mi> </c:math> = 0.009). Intensive BP control was also beneficial for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with an ASCVD risk of 7.5–10% (HR 0.187; 95% CI 0.040–0.862; <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"> <e:mi>P</e:mi> </e:math> = 0.032). However, intensive treatment was associated with higher incidence of hypotension and acute renal failure in participants with ASCVD ≥ 15%. In patients without diabetes mellitus and prior stroke who had a 10-year risk of cardiovascular events above 10% based on the ASCVD risk score, intensive BP control played an important role in the reduction of major cardiovascular events. Additionally, intensive treatment would be beneficial for primary prevention in patients with ASCVD ≥ 7.5% without previous history of any cardiovascular disorders. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number; the trial is registered with NCT01206062.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alborzi et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: