Key result
Compared to high-normal SBP (130-<140 mm Hg), very low-normal SBP (<120 mm Hg) was associated with an increased risk of recurrent stroke (8.0% vs 6.8%; AHR 1.29; 95% CI 1.07-1.56).
Why the study?
Does maintaining very low-normal SBP (<120 mm Hg) compared to high-normal SBP (130-<140 mm Hg) reduce the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with recent non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke?
Observational (n=20,330)
Yes
Does maintaining very low-normal SBP (<120 mm Hg) compared to high-normal SBP (130-<140 mm Hg) reduce the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with recent non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke?
Hazard Ratio: 1.29 (95% CI 1.07–1.56)
Absolute Event Rate: 8% vs 6.8%
Maintaining SBP in the very low-normal range (<120 mm Hg) is associated with an increased risk of recurrent stroke compared to high-normal SBP (130-<140 mm Hg) in patients with recent non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke.
Caution against SBP <120 mm Hg targets after stroke; leaves open optimal BP goals pending randomized trials.
CONTEXT: Recurrent stroke prevention guidelines suggest that larger reductions in systolic blood pressure (SBP) are positively associated with a greater reduction in the risk of recurrent stroke and define an SBP level of less than 120 mm Hg as normal. However, the association of SBP maintained at such levels with risk of vascular events after a recent ischemic stroke is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of maintaining low-normal vs high-normal SBP levels with risk of recurrent stroke. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Post hoc observational analysis of a multicenter trial involving 20,330 patients (age ≥50 years) with recent non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke; patients were recruited from 695 centers in 35 countries from September 2003 through July 2006 and followed up for 2.5 years (follow-up ended on February 8, 2008). Patients were categorized based on their mean SBP level: very low-normal (<120 mm Hg), low-normal (120-<130 mm Hg), high-normal (130-<140 mm Hg), high (140-<150 mm Hg), and very high (≥150 mm Hg). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was first recurrence of stroke of any type and the secondary outcome was a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from vascular causes. RESULTS: The recurrent stroke rates were 8.0% (95% CI, 6.8%-9.2%) for the very low-normal SBP level group, 7.2% (95% CI, 6.4%-8.0%) for the low-normal SBP group, 6.8% (95% CI, 6.1%-7.4%) for the high-normal SBP group, 8.7% (95% CI, 7.9%-9.5%) for the high SBP group, and 14.1% (95% CI, 13.0%-15.2%) for the very high SBP group. Compared with patients in the high-normal SBP group, the risk of the primary outcome was higher for patients in the very low-normal SBP group (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.07-1.56), in the high SBP group (AHR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07-1.41), and in the very high SBP group (AHR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.83-2.37). Compared with patients in the high-normal SBP group, the risk of secondary outcome was higher for patients in the very low-normal SBP group (AHR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.13-1.52), in the low-normal SBP group (AHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.03-1.31), in the high SBP group (AHR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.11-1.39), and in the very high SBP group (AHR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.74-2.16). CONCLUSION: Among patients with recent non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke, SBP levels during follow-up in the very low-normal (<120 mm Hg), high (140-<150 mm Hg), or very high (≥150 mm Hg) range were associated with increased risk of recurrent stroke. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00153062.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ovbiagele et al. (2011) conducted an observational in recent non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke (n=20,330). Very low-normal systolic blood pressure (<120 mm Hg) vs. High-normal systolic blood pressure (130-<140 mm Hg) was evaluated on first recurrence of stroke of any type (AHR 1.29, 95% CI 1.07-1.56). Compared to high-normal SBP (130-<140 mm Hg), very low-normal SBP (<120 mm Hg) was associated with an increased risk of recurrent stroke (8.0% vs 6.8%; AHR 1.29; 95% CI 1.07-1.56).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: