John J Sim1, Jiaxiao Shi2, Csaba P Kovesdy3, Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh4, Steven J Jacobsen2. 1. Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: John.j.sim@kp.org. 2. Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, California. 3. Memphis VA Medical Center, Memphis, Tennessee. 4. Harold Simmons Center for Kidney Disease Research and Epidemiology, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medical data or clinical guidelines have not adequately addressed the ideal blood pressure (BP) treatment targets for survival and renal outcome. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate ranges of treated BP in a large hypertension population and compare risk of mortality and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study within the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health system was performed from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2010. Treated hypertensive subjects ≥ 18 years of age were studied. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate the risks (hazard ratios) for mortality and/or ESRD among different BP categories with and without stratification for diabetes mellitus and older age. RESULTS: Among 398,419 treated hypertensive subjects (30% with diabetes mellitus), mortality occurred in 25,182 (6.3%) and ESRD in 4,957 (1.2%). Adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals [CI]) for composite mortality/ESRD in systolic BP <110, 110 to 119, 120 to 129, 140 to 149, 150 to 159, 160 to 169, and ≥ 170 compared with 130 to 139 mm Hg were 4.1 (95% CI: 3.8 to 1.3), 1.8 (95% CI: 1.7 to 1.9), 1.1 (95% CI: 1.1 to 1.1), 1.4 (95% CI: 1.4 to 1.5), 2.3 (95% CI: 2.2 to 2.5), 3.3 (95% CI: 3.0 to 3.6), and 4.9 (95% CI: 4.4 to 5.5) respectively. Diastolic BP 60 to 79 mm Hg were associated with the lowest risk. The nadir systolic and diastolic BP for the lowest risk was 137 and 71 mm Hg, respectively. Stratified analyses revealed that the diabetes mellitus population had a similar hazard ratio curve but a lower nadir at 131 and 69 mm Hg but age ≥ 70 had a higher nadir (140 and 70 mm Hg). CONCLUSIONS: Both higher and lower treated BP compared with 130 to 139 mm Hg systolic and 60 to 79 mm Hg diastolic ranges had worsened outcomes. Our study adds to the growing uncertainty about BP treatment targets.
BACKGROUND: Medical data or clinical guidelines have not adequately addressed the ideal blood pressure (BP) treatment targets for survival and renal outcome. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate ranges of treated BP in a large hypertension population and compare risk of mortality and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study within the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health system was performed from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2010. Treated hypertensive subjects ≥ 18 years of age were studied. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate the risks (hazard ratios) for mortality and/or ESRD among different BP categories with and without stratification for diabetes mellitus and older age. RESULTS: Among 398,419 treated hypertensive subjects (30% with diabetes mellitus), mortality occurred in 25,182 (6.3%) and ESRD in 4,957 (1.2%). Adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals [CI]) for composite mortality/ESRD in systolic BP <110, 110 to 119, 120 to 129, 140 to 149, 150 to 159, 160 to 169, and ≥ 170 compared with 130 to 139 mm Hg were 4.1 (95% CI: 3.8 to 1.3), 1.8 (95% CI: 1.7 to 1.9), 1.1 (95% CI: 1.1 to 1.1), 1.4 (95% CI: 1.4 to 1.5), 2.3 (95% CI: 2.2 to 2.5), 3.3 (95% CI: 3.0 to 3.6), and 4.9 (95% CI: 4.4 to 5.5) respectively. Diastolic BP 60 to 79 mm Hg were associated with the lowest risk. The nadir systolic and diastolic BP for the lowest risk was 137 and 71 mm Hg, respectively. Stratified analyses revealed that the diabetes mellitus population had a similar hazard ratio curve but a lower nadir at 131 and 69 mm Hg but age ≥ 70 had a higher nadir (140 and 70 mm Hg). CONCLUSIONS: Both higher and lower treated BP compared with 130 to 139 mm Hg systolic and 60 to 79 mm Hg diastolic ranges had worsened outcomes. Our study adds to the growing uncertainty about BP treatment targets.
Authors: Csaba P Kovesdy; Anthony J Bleyer; Miklos Z Molnar; Jennie Z Ma; John J Sim; William C Cushman; L Darryl Quarles; Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-08-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Paula H Diehr; Stephen M Thielke; Anne B Newman; Calvin Hirsch; Russell Tracy Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2013-05-10 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Lawrence J Appel; Jackson T Wright; Tom Greene; Lawrence Y Agodoa; Brad C Astor; George L Bakris; William H Cleveland; Jeanne Charleston; Gabriel Contreras; Marquetta L Faulkner; Francis B Gabbai; Jennifer J Gassman; Lee A Hebert; Kenneth A Jamerson; Joel D Kopple; John W Kusek; James P Lash; Janice P Lea; Julia B Lewis; Michael S Lipkowitz; Shaul G Massry; Edgar R Miller; Keith Norris; Robert A Phillips; Velvie A Pogue; Otelio S Randall; Stephen G Rostand; Miroslaw J Smogorzewski; Robert D Toto; Xuelei Wang Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-09-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John J Sim; Simran K Bhandari; Jiaxiao Shi; Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh; Scott A Rasgon; Jean E Sealey; John H Laragh Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2011-12-08 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Sripal Bangalore; Franz H Messerli; Chuan-Chuan Wun; Andrea L Zuckerman; David DeMicco; John B Kostis; John C LaRosa Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2010-09-16 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: O R Benavente; C S Coffey; R Conwit; R G Hart; L A McClure; L A Pearce; P E Pergola; J M Szychowski Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Corinna Koebnick; Annette M Langer-Gould; Michael K Gould; Chun R Chao; Rajan L Iyer; Ning Smith; Wansu Chen; Steven J Jacobsen Journal: Perm J Date: 2012
Authors: Simran K Bhandari; Shahe Pashayan; In Lu A Liu; Scott A Rasgon; Dean A Kujubu; Thomas Y Tom; John J Sim Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Amanda H Anderson; Wei Yang; Raymond R Townsend; Qiang Pan; Glenn M Chertow; John W Kusek; Jeanne Charleston; Jiang He; RadhaKrishna Kallem; James P Lash; Edgar R Miller; Mahboob Rahman; Susan Steigerwalt; Matthew Weir; Jackson T Wright; Harold I Feldman Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-02-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Srinivasan Beddhu; Glenn M Chertow; Alfred K Cheung; William C Cushman; Mahboob Rahman; Tom Greene; Guo Wei; Ruth C Campbell; Margaret Conroy; Barry I Freedman; William Haley; Edward Horwitz; Dalane Kitzman; James Lash; Vasilios Papademetriou; Roberto Pisoni; Erik Riessen; Clive Rosendorff; Suzanne G Watnick; Jeffrey Whittle; Paul K Whelton Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-10-11 Impact factor: 29.690