Key result
Intensive BP control provides consistent relative gains but greater absolute risk reduction in high-risk KDIGO classes.
Why the study?
Intensive BP control reduces cardiovascular disease and mortality at the expense of kidney-related adverse events, and whether net benefits outweigh net harms across different KDIGO risk classes remained unknown.
Does intensive blood pressure control (targeting SBP <120 mm Hg) compared to standard blood pressure control (targeting SBP <140 mm Hg) reduce major cardiovascular events across different KDIGO renal risk classes in patients with high cardiovascular risk?
RCT (n=11,196)
Randomized
Does intensive blood pressure control (targeting SBP <120 mm Hg) compared to standard blood pressure control (targeting SBP <140 mm Hg) reduce major cardiovascular events across different KDIGO renal risk classes in patients with high cardiovascular risk?
Intensive blood pressure control (<120 mm Hg) provides consistent relative protection and progressively greater absolute cardiovascular risk reduction as baseline KDIGO renal risk increases, without enhancing safety risks in high-risk patients.
Background Previous trials have demonstrated that intensive blood pressure (BP) control reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality at the expenses of kidney-related adverse events. Whether the net benefits outweigh the net harms in patients with different KDIGO risk class or vice versa remain unknown. Methods Patients with high cardiovascular risk were randomized to intensive treatment (targeting SBP below 120 mm Hg) or standard treatment (targeting SBP below 140 mm Hg). We categorized participants into low, moderate, and high/very high KDIGO risk according to KDIGO heatmap. Treatment responses were assessed according to KDIGO risk class. The primary outcome of the study was a composite of myocardial infarction, coronary or non-coronary revascularization, hospitalization or emergency room visit for heart failure, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes. Safety outcomes included kidney outcomes, and other serious adverse events of special interest. Results Among 11,196 (99.5%) participants with classifiable KDIGO risk class at baseline, 7936 (70.9%), 2628 (23.5%), and 632 (5.6%) were low, moderate and high/very high risk, respectively. Higher KDIGO risk was associated with higher risk of primary outcome (moderate risk: HR 1.45, 95% CI: 1.27-1.65; high/very high risk: HR 2.09, 95% CI: 1.72-2.55, with low risk group as reference). Relative benefits of intensive BP control vs standard BP control on primary outcome and cardiovascular mortality were consistent across KDIGO risk class (P interaction = 0.12; P interaction = 0.16). However, in absolute terms, patients with greater KDIGO risk experienced greater risk reductions on primary outcome and cardiovascular mortality (P interaction = 0.047; P interaction =0.028). Risks of safety outcomes with intensive BP control were not enhanced among participants with high KDIGO risk. Conclusions Intensive BP control provides similar relative protection across the spectrum of KDIGO risk class studied, but progressively greater absolute risk reductions as baseline KDIGO risk increases. These data support the use of KDIGO heatmap to inform intensive BP control decisions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in High cardiovascular risk across KDIGO renal impairment risk classes (n=11,196). Intensive blood pressure control vs. Standard blood pressure control (targeting SBP <140 mm Hg) was evaluated on Composite of myocardial infarction, coronary or non-coronary revascularization, hospitalization or emergency room visit for heart failure, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes (p=0.12 for relative interaction; 0.047 for absolute interaction). Intensive BP control (<120 mm Hg) yielded consistent relative benefits across KDIGO risk classes (P interaction=0.12) but greater absolute risk reductions in higher KDIGO risk (P interaction=0.047).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: