May 11, 2021Cardiology Research and PracticeOpen Access

Intensive BP control significantly reduced the primary outcome in patients with ASCVD risk 10-15% (HR 0.593; 95% CI 0.361-0.975; p=0.039) and ASCVD ≥15% (HR 0.778; 95% CI 0.644-0.940; p=0.009).

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

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?

Population

9361 nondiabetic patients without a history of stroke

Comparison

Intensive BP control (SBP target <120 mm Hg) vs standard treatment (SBP target <140 mm Hg)

Design

Post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial (SPRINT)

Authors

AAAlireza Alborzi AAArmin Attar MSMehrab Sayadi

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

May benefit intermediate-risk patients without diabetes; leaves open whether CVD risk stratification should guide intensive BP targets.

Structured PICO

Population

9,361 nondiabetic patients without a history of stroke, categorized by 10-year ASCVD risk score (<7.5%, 7.5-10%, 10-15%, and ≥15%)

Intervention

Intensive blood pressure control with a systolic blood pressure (SBP) target of <120 mm Hg

Comparator

Standard blood pressure control with a systolic blood pressure (SBP) target of <140 mm Hg

Outcome

Composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), acute coronary syndrome (ACS) not resulting in MI, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure (HF), or death from cardiovascular causescomposite

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.

Cite This Study

Alborzi et al. (2021) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a71a055660549caf2c62f16 https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6635345

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

May 11, 2021Cardiology Research and PracticeOpen Access

Intensive BP control significantly reduced the primary outcome in patients with ASCVD risk 10-15% (HR 0.593; 95% CI 0.361-0.975; p=0.039) and ASCVD ≥15% (HR 0.778; 95% CI 0.644-0.940; p=0.009).

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Why the study?

Controversy remains regarding whether clinicians should include cardiovascular disease risk stratification into treatment considerations for hypertension.

Population

9361 nondiabetic patients without a history of stroke

Comparison

Intensive BP control (SBP target <120 mm Hg) vs standard treatment (SBP target <140 mm Hg)

Design

Post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial (SPRINT)

Authors

AAAlireza Alborzi AAArmin Attar MSMehrab Sayadi

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

May benefit intermediate-risk patients without diabetes; leaves open whether CVD risk stratification should guide intensive BP targets.

Structured PICO

Population

9,361 nondiabetic patients without a history of stroke, categorized by 10-year ASCVD risk score (<7.5%, 7.5-10%, 10-15%, and ≥15%)

Intervention

Intensive blood pressure control with a systolic blood pressure (SBP) target of <120 mm Hg

Comparator

Standard blood pressure control with a systolic blood pressure (SBP) target of <140 mm Hg

Outcome

Composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), acute coronary syndrome (ACS) not resulting in MI, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure (HF), or death from cardiovascular causescomposite

Cite This Study

Alborzi et al. (2021) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a71a055660549caf2c62f16 https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6635345

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark