Why the study?
The study aimed to investigate the relationship between time in target range of systolic blood pressure and clinical outcomes in patients with AF.
Does high time in target range of systolic blood pressure improve clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Does high time in target range of systolic blood pressure improve clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation?
High time in target range of systolic blood pressure (120-140 mmHg) is associated with significantly lower rates of death, major bleeding, and heart failure in patients with atrial fibrillation.
May inform SBP targets in AF; hypothesis-generating and requires RCT confirmation before practice change.
We aimed to investigate the relationship between time in target range of systolic blood pressure (SBP-TTr) and clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We analyzed the results from multicenter AF registry in Thailand. Blood pressure was recorded at baseline and at every 6 monthly follow-up visit. SBP-TTr were calculated using the Rosendaal method, based on a target SBP 120-140 mmHg. The outcomes were death, ischemic stroke/systemic embolism (SSE), major bleeding, and heart failure. A total of 3355 patients were studied (mean age 67.8 years; 41.9% female). Average follow-up time was 32.1 ± 8.3 months. SBP-TTr was classified into 3 groups according to the tertiles. The incidence rates of all-cause death, SSE, major bleeding, and heart failure were 3.90 (3.51-4.34), 1.52 (1.27-1.80), 2.2 (1.90-2.53), and 2.83 (2.49-3.21) per 100 person-years, respectively. Patients in the 3rd tertile of SBP-TTr had lower rates of death, major bleeding and heart failure with adjusted hazard ratios 0.62 (0.48-0.80), p < 0.001, 0.64 (0.44-0.92), p = 0.016, and 0.61 (0.44-0.84), p = 0.003, respectively, compared to 1st SBP-TTr tertile. In conclusion, high SBP-TTr was associated with better clinical outcomes compared to other groups with lower SBP-TTr. This underscores the importance of good blood pressure control in AF patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Krittayaphong et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: