Key result
Intensive SBP target <120 mm Hg cuts major cardiovascular events ~25% vs. standard control.
Why the study?
The most appropriate systolic blood pressure targets to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among individuals without diabetes remained uncertain.
Does intensive systolic blood-pressure control targeting <120 mm Hg reduce cardiovascular events in adults with hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk without diabetes?
RCT (n=9,361)
Open-label
Randomized, stratified according to clinical site
Yes
Does intensive systolic blood-pressure control targeting <120 mm Hg reduce cardiovascular events in adults with hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk without diabetes?
Intensive blood pressure control to a target of <120 mm Hg significantly reduces major cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in high-risk patients without diabetes.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports intensive SBP targeting <120 mm Hg in high-risk non-diabetics; extends evidence for lower BP goals in hypertension.
BACKGROUND: The most appropriate targets for systolic blood pressure to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among persons without diabetes remain uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 9361 persons with a systolic blood pressure of 130 mm Hg or higher and an increased cardiovascular risk, but without diabetes, to a systolic blood-pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) or a target of less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment). The primary composite outcome was myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: At 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 121.4 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group and 136.2 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group. The intervention was stopped early after a median follow-up of 3.26 years owing to a significantly lower rate of the primary composite outcome in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group (1.65% per year vs. 2.19% per year; hazard ratio with intensive treatment, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.89; P<0.001). All-cause mortality was also significantly lower in the intensive-treatment group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.90; P=0.003). Rates of serious adverse events of hypotension, syncope, electrolyte abnormalities, and acute kidney injury or failure, but not of injurious falls, were higher in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at high risk for cardiovascular events but without diabetes, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, resulted in lower rates of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events and death from any cause, although significantly higher rates of some adverse events were observed in the intensive-treatment group. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062.).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2015 study conducted an RCT in Hypertension with increased cardiovascular risk (n=9,361). Intensive systolic blood-pressure control (target <120 mm Hg) vs. Standard systolic blood-pressure control (target <140 mm Hg) was evaluated on Composite of myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.89, p=<0.001). Targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg reduced the primary composite cardiovascular outcome by 25% (HR 0.75, p<0.001) compared to a target of less than 140 mm Hg.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: