Literature DB >> 21935648

[Blood pressure goals on the test bench].

Jörg Slany1.   

Abstract

There is little evidence from controlled prospective studies to support the low blood pressure goals stipulated for the treatment of hypertension by present guidelines, especially in high-risk patients with diabetes, renal insufficiency or coronary heart disease. Aim of this review is to scrutinize the potential benefit and risk of low blood pressure on the basis of recent studies and secondary analyses of older studies.
RESULTS: In patients with coronary heart disease or equivalent or with diabetes lowering systolic blood pressure to 130 to 135 mmHg reduced primary or secondary cardiovascular endpoints in the majority of studies. Between 120 and 129 mmHg some positive effects could be shown in patients with coronary heart disease but not in patients with diabetes or metabolic syndrome. In patients with diabetic or nondiabetic nephropathy including those with proteinurea no convincing data exist which show a better outcome with systolic blood pressure below 130 versus below 140 mmHg. However, several studies suggest that the risk of stroke may decrease by lowering systolic pressure to 120 mmHg or even lower. Below 120 mmHg an increased risk of cardiac and noncardiac events or death was shown in quite a number of studies. In patients between 70 and 80 years, current evidence suggests lowering systolic blood pressure to 135 to 145 mmHg and in those above 80 years to 145 to 155 mmHg. No evidence was found to justify different diastolic pressure goals for different groups of patients; optimal values fall between 70 and 85 mmHg. Limitations of recent studies are short follow-up, few event rates and small differences in achieved pressure between groups leaving uncertainty about long-term effects. PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES: Apart from prevention of stroke there is sparse evidence that lowering systolic blood pressure below 130 mmHg may be beneficial. Current evidence suggests that lowering systolic and diastolic pressure into a range of 130 to 140/70 to 85 may be adequate for all patients with the exception of children, adolescents and patients over 80 years. Further lowering of systolic pressure seems to offer little additional benefit and lowering diastolic pressure below 70 mmHg might increase risk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21935648     DOI: 10.1007/s00508-011-0022-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr        ISSN: 0043-5325            Impact factor:   1.704


  75 in total

1.  Renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  E J Lewis; L G Hunsicker; W R Clarke; T Berl; M A Pohl; J B Lewis; E Ritz; R C Atkins; R Rohde; I Raz
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2001-09-20       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Achievement and safety of a low blood pressure goal in chronic renal disease. The Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group.

Authors:  J M Lazarus; J J Bourgoignie; V M Buckalew; T Greene; A S Levey; N C Milas; L Paranandi; J C Peterson; J G Porush; S Rauch; J M Soucie; C Stollar
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 10.190

Review 3.  Bottom blood pressure or bottom cardiovascular risk? How far can cardiovascular risk be reduced?

Authors:  Alberto Zanchetti
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 4.844

4.  J-shaped relationship between blood pressure and mortality in hypertensive patients: new insights from a meta-analysis of individual-patient data.

Authors:  Florent Boutitie; François Gueyffier; Stuart Pocock; Robert Fagard; Jean Pierre Boissel
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-03-19       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Impact of achieved blood pressure on cardiovascular outcomes in the Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial.

Authors:  Tomas Berl; Lawrence G Hunsicker; Julia B Lewis; Marc A Pfeffer; Jerome G Porush; Jean-Lucien Rouleau; Paul L Drury; Enric Esmatjes; Donald Hricik; Marc Pohl; Itamar Raz; Philippe Vanhille; Thomas B Wiegmann; Bernard M Wolfe; Francesco Locatelli; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Edmund J Lewis
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2005-06-01       Impact factor: 10.121

6.  Effect of ramipril on the incidence of diabetes.

Authors:  Jackie Bosch; Salim Yusuf; Hertzel C Gerstein; Janice Pogue; Patrick Sheridan; Gilles Dagenais; Rafael Diaz; Alvaro Avezum; Fernando Lanas; Jeffrey Probstfield; George Fodor; Rury R Holman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-09-15       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  The Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE): principal results of a randomized double-blind intervention trial.

Authors:  Hans Lithell; Lennart Hansson; Ingmar Skoog; Dag Elmfeldt; Albert Hofman; Bertil Olofsson; Peter Trenkwalder; Alberto Zanchetti
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 4.844

8.  Randomised trial of a perindopril-based blood-pressure-lowering regimen among 6,105 individuals with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2001-09-29       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Rates and determinants of coronary and abdominal aortic artery calcium progression in the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT).

Authors:  Aramesh Saremi; Thomas E Moritz; Robert J Anderson; Carlos Abraira; William C Duckworth; Peter D Reaven
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2010-08-31       Impact factor: 19.112

10.  Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies.

Authors:  Sarah Lewington; Robert Clarke; Nawab Qizilbash; Richard Peto; Rory Collins
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-12-14       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  1 in total

1.  [J curve: when lowering blood pressure becomes a hazard?].

Authors:  J Slany
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 0.743

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.