Costas Thomopoulos1, Gianfranco Parati, Alberto Zanchetti. 1. aDepartment of Cardiology, Helena Venizelou Hospital, Athens, Greece bDepartment of Cardiovascular, Neural and Metabolic Sciences, San Luca Hospital, Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS cDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Milan Bicocca dScientific Direction, Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS eCentro Interuniversitario di Fisiologia Clinica e Ipertensione, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Relevant clinical questions not approached by randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment can be explored by meta-analyses stratified by clinical criteria. OBJECTIVES: Investigating whether all grades of hypertension benefit from BP-lowering treatment and which are the target BP levels to maximize outcome reduction. METHODS: Of the 68 RCTs of intentional and nonintentional BP-lowering, those without baseline antihypertensive drugs were stratified by the average baseline SBP and DBP (hypertension grades 1, 2, and 3). RCTs with or without baseline treatment were considered for investigating the effects of mean achieved SBP/DBP across three SBP cutoffs and two DBP cutoffs. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) (random-effects model), standardized to 10/5 mmHg SBP/DBP reduction, and absolute risk reductions of seven fatal and nonfatal outcomes were calculated. Differences between relative and absolute risk reductions in the different strata of baseline or achieved SBP/DBP were evaluated by trend or heterogeneity analyses. RESULTS: In 32 RCTs (104,359 individuals), significant outcome reductions were found independently of the hypertension grade, with no trend toward risk ratio changes with increasing baseline BP. A secondary analysis limited to RCTs on grade 1 hypertension at low-to-moderate risk showed significant outcome reductions [risk ratio: stroke 0.33 (0.11-0.98), coronary events 0.68 (0.48-0.95), and death 0.53 (0.35-0.80)]. In 32 RCTs (128,232 individuals), relative and absolute outcome reductions were significant for the SBP differences across 150 and 140 mmHg cutoffs. Below 130 mmHg, only stroke and all-cause death were significantly reduced. Absolute outcome reduction showed a significant trend to decrease, the lower the SBP cutoff considered. In 29 RCTs (107,665 individuals), outcomes were significantly reduced across DBP cutoffs of 90 and 80 mmHg. After excluding RCTs with baseline DBP less than 90 mmHg, only stroke reduction was significant at achieved DBP less than 80 mmHg. CONCLUSION: Meta-analyses favor BP-lowering treatment even in grade 1 hypertension at low-to-moderate risk, and lowering SBP/DBP to less than 140/90 mmHg. Achieving less than 130/80 mmHg appears safe, but only adds further reduction in stroke.
BACKGROUND: Relevant clinical questions not approached by randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment can be explored by meta-analyses stratified by clinical criteria. OBJECTIVES: Investigating whether all grades of hypertension benefit from BP-lowering treatment and which are the target BP levels to maximize outcome reduction. METHODS: Of the 68 RCTs of intentional and nonintentional BP-lowering, those without baseline antihypertensive drugs were stratified by the average baseline SBP and DBP (hypertension grades 1, 2, and 3). RCTs with or without baseline treatment were considered for investigating the effects of mean achieved SBP/DBP across three SBP cutoffs and two DBP cutoffs. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) (random-effects model), standardized to 10/5 mmHg SBP/DBP reduction, and absolute risk reductions of seven fatal and nonfatal outcomes were calculated. Differences between relative and absolute risk reductions in the different strata of baseline or achieved SBP/DBP were evaluated by trend or heterogeneity analyses. RESULTS: In 32 RCTs (104,359 individuals), significant outcome reductions were found independently of the hypertension grade, with no trend toward risk ratio changes with increasing baseline BP. A secondary analysis limited to RCTs on grade 1 hypertension at low-to-moderate risk showed significant outcome reductions [risk ratio: stroke 0.33 (0.11-0.98), coronary events 0.68 (0.48-0.95), and death 0.53 (0.35-0.80)]. In 32 RCTs (128,232 individuals), relative and absolute outcome reductions were significant for the SBP differences across 150 and 140 mmHg cutoffs. Below 130 mmHg, only stroke and all-cause death were significantly reduced. Absolute outcome reduction showed a significant trend to decrease, the lower the SBP cutoff considered. In 29 RCTs (107,665 individuals), outcomes were significantly reduced across DBP cutoffs of 90 and 80 mmHg. After excluding RCTs with baseline DBP less than 90 mmHg, only stroke reduction was significant at achieved DBP less than 80 mmHg. CONCLUSION: Meta-analyses favor BP-lowering treatment even in grade 1 hypertension at low-to-moderate risk, and lowering SBP/DBP to less than 140/90 mmHg. Achieving less than 130/80 mmHg appears safe, but only adds further reduction in stroke.
Authors: Thomas Weber; Irene Lang; Robert Zweiker; Sabine Horn; Rene R Wenzel; Bruno Watschinger; Jörg Slany; Bernd Eber; Franz Xaver Roithinger; Bernhard Metzler Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2016-06-09 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: F Fici; G Seravalle; N Koylan; I Nalbantgil; N Cagla; Y Korkut; F Quarti-Trevano; W Makel; G Grassi Journal: High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev Date: 2017-05-11
Authors: Dalton Bertolim Précoma; Gláucia Maria Moraes de Oliveira; Antonio Felipe Simão; Oscar Pereira Dutra; Otávio Rizzi Coelho; Maria Cristina de Oliveira Izar; Rui Manuel Dos Santos Póvoa; Isabela de Carlos Back Giuliano; Aristóteles Comte de Alencar Filho; Carlos Alberto Machado; Carlos Scherr; Francisco Antonio Helfenstein Fonseca; Raul Dias Dos Santos Filho; Tales de Carvalho; Álvaro Avezum; Roberto Esporcatte; Bruno Ramos Nascimento; David de Pádua Brasil; Gabriel Porto Soares; Paolo Blanco Villela; Roberto Muniz Ferreira; Wolney de Andrade Martins; Andrei C Sposito; Bruno Halpern; José Francisco Kerr Saraiva; Luiz Sergio Fernandes Carvalho; Marcos Antônio Tambascia; Otávio Rizzi Coelho-Filho; Adriana Bertolami; Harry Correa Filho; Hermes Toros Xavier; José Rocha Faria-Neto; Marcelo Chiara Bertolami; Viviane Zorzanelli Rocha Giraldez; Andrea Araújo Brandão; Audes Diógenes de Magalhães Feitosa; Celso Amodeo; Dilma do Socorro Moraes de Souza; Eduardo Costa Duarte Barbosa; Marcus Vinícius Bolívar Malachias; Weimar Kunz Sebba Barroso de Souza; Fernando Augusto Alves da Costa; Ivan Romero Rivera; Lucia Campos Pellanda; Maria Alayde Mendonça da Silva; Aloyzio Cechella Achutti; André Ribeiro Langowiski; Carla Janice Baister Lantieri; Jaqueline Ribeiro Scholz; Silvia Maria Cury Ismael; José Carlos Aidar Ayoub; Luiz César Nazário Scala; Mario Fritsch Neves; Paulo Cesar Brandão Veiga Jardim; Sandra Cristina Pereira Costa Fuchs; Thiago de Souza Veiga Jardim; Emilio Hideyuki Moriguchi; Jamil Cherem Schneider; Marcelo Heitor Vieira Assad; Sergio Emanuel Kaiser; Ana Maria Lottenberg; Carlos Daniel Magnoni; Marcio Hiroshi Miname; Roberta Soares Lara; Artur Haddad Herdy; Cláudio Gil Soares de Araújo; Mauricio Milani; Miguel Morita Fernandes da Silva; Ricardo Stein; Fernando Antonio Lucchese; Fernando Nobre; Hermilo Borba Griz; Lucélia Batista Neves Cunha Magalhães; Mario Henrique Elesbão de Borba; Mauro Ricardo Nunes Pontes; Ricardo Mourilhe-Rocha Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2019-11-04 Impact factor: 2.000