Faisal Rahman1,2, John W McEvoy3,4,5,6. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. jmcevoy1@jhmi.edu. 4. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. jmcevoy1@jhmi.edu. 5. Department of Epidemiology and the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. jmcevoy1@jhmi.edu. 6. Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Heart Disease, Division of Cardiology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Blalock 524C, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. jmcevoy1@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The definition and treatment of hypertension have both changed dramatically over the last century, with recent trials suggesting benefit for lower blood pressure (BP) targets than ever before considered. However, tempering the enthusiasm for more intensive BP targets are long-held concerns that BP reduction below a certain threshold may pose dangers, the so-called "J-curve." In this review, we summarize the evidence for a J-curve in the treatment of hypertension. RECENT FINDINGS: The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) reported that achieving a systolic BP target of 120 mmHg reduces cardiovascular disease in high-risk individuals, supporting more intensive BP reduction. However, contemporary observational studies consistently demonstrate a BP J-curve, the threshold of which is often close to the SPRINT target. Studies also suggest that the BP level of this J-curve may vary based on patient characteristics, including age and comorbidities. There is also more compelling evidence for the specific presence of a J-curve between diastolic BP and coronary events, in contrast to conflicting evidence of a J-curve with systolic BP and cardiovascular disease more generally. There is increased risk of coronary events below a diastolic BP of 60-70 mmHg. In comparison, the presence of a systolic J-curve is less clear and some persons at high risk may actually benefit from systolic levels down to 120 mmHg. Therefore, we suggest a personalized approach to BP management considering individual risks, benefits, and preferences when choosing therapeutic targets. Further, well-designed studies are required to support our suggestions and to define J-curve thresholds more clearly.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The definition and treatment of hypertension have both changed dramatically over the last century, with recent trials suggesting benefit for lower blood pressure (BP) targets than ever before considered. However, tempering the enthusiasm for more intensive BP targets are long-held concerns that BP reduction below a certain threshold may pose dangers, the so-called "J-curve." In this review, we summarize the evidence for a J-curve in the treatment of hypertension. RECENT FINDINGS: The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) reported that achieving a systolic BP target of 120 mmHg reduces cardiovascular disease in high-risk individuals, supporting more intensive BP reduction. However, contemporary observational studies consistently demonstrate a BP J-curve, the threshold of which is often close to the SPRINT target. Studies also suggest that the BP level of this J-curve may vary based on patient characteristics, including age and comorbidities. There is also more compelling evidence for the specific presence of a J-curve between diastolic BP and coronary events, in contrast to conflicting evidence of a J-curve with systolic BP and cardiovascular disease more generally. There is increased risk of coronary events below a diastolic BP of 60-70 mmHg. In comparison, the presence of a systolic J-curve is less clear and some persons at high risk may actually benefit from systolic levels down to 120 mmHg. Therefore, we suggest a personalized approach to BP management considering individual risks, benefits, and preferences when choosing therapeutic targets. Further, well-designed studies are required to support our suggestions and to define J-curve thresholds more clearly.
Authors: J A Staessen; R Fagard; L Thijs; H Celis; G G Arabidze; W H Birkenhäger; C J Bulpitt; P W de Leeuw; C T Dollery; A E Fletcher; F Forette; G Leonetti; C Nachev; E T O'Brien; J Rosenfeld; J L Rodicio; J Tuomilehto; A Zanchetti Journal: Lancet Date: 1997-09-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: John W McEvoy; Seth S Martin; Zeina A Dardari; Michael D Miedema; Veit Sandfort; Joseph Yeboah; Matthew J Budoff; David C Goff; Bruce M Psaty; Wendy S Post; Khurram Nasir; Roger S Blumenthal; Michael J Blaha Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-11-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: John W McEvoy; Yuan Chen; Andreea Rawlings; Ron C Hoogeveen; Christie M Ballantyne; Roger S Blumenthal; Josef Coresh; Elizabeth Selvin Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: William C Cushman; Gregory W Evans; Robert P Byington; David C Goff; Richard H Grimm; Jeffrey A Cutler; Denise G Simons-Morton; Jan N Basile; Marshall A Corson; Jeffrey L Probstfield; Lois Katz; Kevin A Peterson; William T Friedewald; John B Buse; J Thomas Bigger; Hertzel C Gerstein; Faramarz Ismail-Beigi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-03-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John D Sluyter; Alun D Hughes; Carlos A Camargo; Simon A McG Thom; Kim H Parker; Bernhard Hametner; Siegfried Wassertheurer; Robert Scragg Journal: Hypertension Date: 2019-08-26 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Rongzi Shan; Jie Ding; Daniel Weng; Erin M Spaulding; Shannon Wongvibulsin; Matthias A Lee; Ryan Demo; Francoise A Marvel; Seth S Martin Journal: Am J Prev Cardiol Date: 2020-09-17