Literature DB >> 25145522

2014 Eighth Joint National Committee panel recommendation for blood pressure targets revisited: results from the INVEST study.

Sripal Bangalore1, Yan Gong2, Rhonda M Cooper-DeHoff3, Carl J Pepine4, Franz H Messerli5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The 2014 Eighth Joint National Committee panel recommendations for management of high blood pressure (BP) recommend a systolic BP threshold for initiation of drug therapy and a therapeutic target of <150 mm Hg in those ≥60 years of age, a departure from prior recommendations of <140 mm Hg. However, it is not known whether this is an optimal choice, especially for the large population with coronary artery disease (CAD).
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate optimal BP in patients ≥60 years of age.
METHODS: Patients 60 years of age or older with CAD and baseline systolic BP >150 mm Hg randomized to a treatment strategy on the basis of either atenolol/hydrochlorothiazide or verapamil-SR (sustained release)/trandolapril in INVEST (INternational VErapamil SR Trandolapril STudy) were categorized into 3 groups on the basis of achieved on-treatment systolic BP: group 1, <140 mm Hg; group 2, 140 to <150 mm Hg; and group 3, ≥150 mm Hg. Primary outcome was first occurrence of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or nonfatal stroke. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, total MI, nonfatal MI, total stroke, nonfatal stroke, heart failure, or revascularization, tabulated separately. Outcomes for each group were compared in unadjusted and multiple propensity score-adjusted models.
RESULTS: Among 8,354 patients included in this analysis with an accumulated 22,308 patient-years of follow-up, 4,787 (57%) achieved systolic BP of <140 mm Hg (group 1), 1,747 (21%) achieved systolic BP of 140 to <150 mm Hg (group 2), and 1,820 (22%) achieved systolic BP of ≥150 mm Hg (group 3). In unadjusted models, group 1 had the lowest rates of the primary outcome (9.36% vs. 12.71% vs. 21.32%; p < 0.0001), all-cause mortality (7.92% vs. 10.07% vs. 16.81%; p < 0.0001), cardiovascular mortality (3.26% vs. 4.58% vs. 7.80%; p < 0.0001), MI (1.07% vs. 1.03% vs. 2.91%; p < 0.0001), total stroke (1.19% vs. 2.63% vs. 3.85%; p <0.0001), and nonfatal stroke (0.86% vs 1.89% vs 2.86%; p<0.0001) compared with groups 2 and 3, respectively. In multiple propensity score-adjusted models, compared with the reference group of <140 mm Hg (group 1), the risk of cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01 to 1.77; p = 0.04), total stroke (adjusted HR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.26 to 2.82; p = 0.002) and nonfatal stroke (adjusted HR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.06 to 2.72; p = 0.03) was increased in the group with BP of 140 to <150 mm Hg, whereas the risk of primary outcome, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, total MI, nonfatal MI, total stroke, and nonfatal stroke was increased in the group with BP ≥150 mm Hg.
CONCLUSIONS: In hypertensive patients with CAD who are ≥60 years of age, achieving a BP target of 140 to <150 mm Hg as recommended by the JNC-8 panel was associated with less benefit than the previously recommended target of <140 mm Hg.
Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  blood pressure; coronary artery disease; elderly; systolic; target

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25145522      PMCID: PMC4193384          DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.05.044

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  18 in total

1.  The multiple propensity score as control for bias in the comparison of more than two treatment arms: an introduction from a case study in mental health.

Authors:  Marieke Dingena Spreeuwenberg; Anna Bartak; Marcel A Croon; Jacques A Hagenaars; Jan J V Busschbach; Helene Andrea; Jos Twisk; Theo Stijnen
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group.

Authors:  R B D'Agostino
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-10-15       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Evidence supporting a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 150 mm Hg in patients aged 60 years or older: the minority view.

Authors:  Jackson T Wright; Lawrence J Fine; Daniel T Lackland; Gbenga Ogedegbe; Cheryl R Dennison Himmelfarb
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Dogma disputed: can aggressively lowering blood pressure in hypertensive patients with coronary artery disease be dangerous?

Authors:  Franz H Messerli; Giuseppe Mancia; C Richard Conti; Ann C Hewkin; Stuart Kupfer; Annette Champion; Rainer Kolloch; Athanase Benetos; Carl J Pepine
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2006-06-20       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  The sixth report of the Joint National Committee on prevention, detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure.

Authors: 
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1997-11-24

6.  A calcium antagonist vs a non-calcium antagonist hypertension treatment strategy for patients with coronary artery disease. The International Verapamil-Trandolapril Study (INVEST): a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Carl J Pepine; Eileen M Handberg; Rhonda M Cooper-DeHoff; Ronald G Marks; Peter Kowey; Franz H Messerli; Giuseppe Mancia; José L Cangiano; David Garcia-Barreto; Matyas Keltai; Serap Erdine; Heather A Bristol; H Robert Kolb; George L Bakris; Jerome D Cohen; William W Parmley
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-12-03       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Rationale and design of the International Verapamil SR/Trandolapril Study (INVEST): an Internet-based randomized trial in coronary artery disease patients with hypertension.

Authors:  C J Pepine; E Handberg-Thurmond; R G Marks; M Conlon; R Cooper-DeHoff; P Volkers; P Zellig
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 24.094

8.  Principal results of the Japanese trial to assess optimal systolic blood pressure in elderly hypertensive patients (JATOS).

Authors: 
Journal:  Hypertens Res       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.872

9.  Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years of age or older.

Authors:  Nigel S Beckett; Ruth Peters; Astrid E Fletcher; Jan A Staessen; Lisheng Liu; Dan Dumitrascu; Vassil Stoyanovsky; Riitta L Antikainen; Yuri Nikitin; Craig Anderson; Alli Belhani; Françoise Forette; Chakravarthi Rajkumar; Lutgarde Thijs; Winston Banya; Christopher J Bulpitt
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-03-31       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Verapamil-sustained release-based treatment strategy is equivalent to atenolol-based treatment strategy at reducing cardiovascular events in patients with prior myocardial infarction: an INternational VErapamil SR-Trandolapril (INVEST) substudy.

Authors:  Sripal Bangalore; Franz H Messerli; Jerome D Cohen; Peter H Bacher; Peter Sleight; Giuseppe Mancia; Peter Kowey; Qian Zhou; Annette Champion; Carl J Pepine
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 4.749

View more
  17 in total

Review 1.  Endogenous cardiotonic steroids in kidney failure: a review and an hypothesis.

Authors:  John M Hamlyn; Paolo Manunta
Journal:  Adv Chronic Kidney Dis       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 3.620

Review 2.  The Elusive Search for Optimal Blood Pressure Targets.

Authors:  Alan H Gradman
Journal:  Curr Hypertens Rep       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 5.369

Review 3.  New Hypertension Guidelines: Progression or a Step Backwards in Hypertension?

Authors:  Markus van der Giet; Markus Tölle
Journal:  Curr Hypertens Rep       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 5.369

Review 4.  [Blood pressure targets : The lower the better does not suit all].

Authors:  U Hoffmann
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 0.743

5.  Blood pressure treatment goals in hypertension.

Authors:  Rainer Düsing
Journal:  Ther Adv Cardiovasc Dis       Date:  2016-03-04

Review 6.  Implementation of management strategies for diabetes and hypertension: from local to global health in cardiovascular diseases.

Authors:  Gerald S Bloomfield; Tracy Y Wang; L Ebony Boulware; Robert M Califf; Adrian F Hernandez; Eric J Velazquez; Eric D Peterson; Jennifer S Li
Journal:  Glob Heart       Date:  2015-03

7.  Current Practice of Hypertension in India: Focus on Blood Pressure Goals.

Authors:  Jagdish S Hiremath; Vijay M Katekhaye; Vijay S Chamle; Rishi M Jain; Amit I Bhargava
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-12-01

8.  Blood Pressure Goals and Targets in the Elderly.

Authors:  Wilbert S Aronow
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2015-07

9.  Long-Term Mortality in Hypertensive Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: Results From the US Cohort of the International Verapamil (SR)/Trandolapril Study.

Authors:  Islam Y Elgendy; Anthony A Bavry; Yan Gong; Eileen M Handberg; Rhonda M Cooper-DeHoff; Carl J Pepine
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2016-09-12       Impact factor: 10.190

10.  Evidence to Maintain the Systolic Blood Pressure Treatment Threshold at 140 mm Hg for Stroke Prevention: The Northern Manhattan Study.

Authors:  Chuanhui Dong; David Della-Morte; Tatjana Rundek; Clinton B Wright; Mitchell S V Elkind; Ralph L Sacco
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 10.190

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.