Literature DB >> 28787537

Blood pressure targets for hypertension in older adults.

Scott R Garrison1, Michael R Kolber, Christina S Korownyk, Rita K McCracken, Balraj S Heran, G Michael Allan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Eight out of 10 major antihypertensive trials in older adults attempted to achieve a target systolic blood pressure (BP) less than 160 mmHg. Collectively these trials demonstrated benefit for treatment, as compared to no treatment, for an older adult with BP greater than 160 mmHg. However an even lower BP target of less than 140 mmHg is commonly applied to all age groups. At the present time it is not known whether a lower or higher BP target is associated with better cardiovascular outcomes in older adults.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of a higher (less than 150 to 160/95 to 105 mmHg) BP target compared to the lower BP target of less than 140/90 mmHg in hypertensive adults 65 years of age or older. SEARCH
METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to February 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, of at least one year's duration, conducted on hypertensive adults aged 65 years or older, which report the effect on mortality and morbidity of a higher systolic or diastolic BP treatment target (whether ambulatory, home, or office measurements) in the range of systolic BP less than 150 to 160 mmHg or diastolic BP less than 95 to 105 mmHg as compared to a lower BP treatment target of less than 140/90 mmHg or lower. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened and selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We combined data for dichotomous outcomes using the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and for continuous outcomes we used mean difference (MD). Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, stroke, institutionalisation, and cardiovascular serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, non-cardiovascular mortality, unplanned hospitalisation, each component of cardiovascular serious adverse events separately (including cerebrovascular disease, cardiac disease, vascular disease, and renal failure), total serious adverse events, total minor adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse effects, systolic BP achieved, and diastolic BP achieved. MAIN
RESULTS: We found and included three unblinded randomised trials in 8221 older adults (mean age 74.8 years), in which higher BP targets of less than 150/90 mmHg (two trials) and less than 160/90 mmHg (one trial) were compared to a lower target of less than 140/90 mmHg. Treatment to the two different BP targets over two to four years failed to produce a difference in any of our primary outcomes, including all-cause mortality (RR 1.24 95% CI 0.99 to 1.54), stroke (RR 1.25 95% CI 0.94 to 1.67) and total cardiovascular serious adverse events (RR 1.19 95% CI 0.98 to 1.45). However, the 95% confidence intervals of these outcomes suggest the lower BP target is probably not worse, and might offer a clinically important benefit. We judged all comparisons to be based on low-quality evidence. Data on adverse effects were not available from all trials and not different, including total serious adverse events, total minor adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse effects. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: At the present time there is insufficient evidence to know whether a higher BP target (less than150 to 160/95 to 105 mmHg) or a lower BP target (less than 140/90 mmHg) is better for older adults with high BP. Additional good-quality trials assessing BP targets in this population are needed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28787537      PMCID: PMC6483478          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011575.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  22 in total

1.  Risk of ESKD in Older Live Kidney Donors with Hypertension.

Authors:  Fawaz Al Ammary; Xun Luo; Abimereki D Muzaale; Allan B Massie; Deidra C Crews; Madeleine M Waldram; Mohamud A Qadi; Jacqueline Garonzik-Wang; Macey L Henderson; Daniel C Brennan; Alexander C Wiseman; Richard C Lindrooth; Jon J Snyder; Josef Coresh; Dorry L Segev
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2019-06-25       Impact factor: 8.237

Review 2.  Going Beyond the Guidelines in Individualising the Use of Antihypertensive Drugs in Older Patients.

Authors:  Ian A Scott; Sarah N Hilmer; David G Le Couteur
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 3.923

3.  Should All Patients 75 Years of Age or Older Receive Intensive Management for Hypertension?

Authors: 
Journal:  Can J Hosp Pharm       Date:  2018-06-30

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

Review 5.  Hypertension Management in Nursing Homes: Review of Evidence and Considerations for Care.

Authors:  Michelle Vu; Loren J Schleiden; Michelle L Harlan; Carolyn T Thorpe
Journal:  Curr Hypertens Rep       Date:  2020-01-14       Impact factor: 5.369

6.  Hypertension.

Authors:  James Brian Byrd; Robert D Brook
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2019-05-07       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Credibility of self-reported health parameters in elderly population.

Authors:  Roi Amster; Iris Reychav; Roger McHaney; Lin Zhu; Joseph Azuri
Journal:  Prim Health Care Res Dev       Date:  2020-06-10       Impact factor: 1.458

8.  Arterial Hypertension.

Authors:  Jens Jordan; Christine Kurschat; Hannes Reuter
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2018-08-20       Impact factor: 5.594

9.  Variation in hypertension clinical practice guidelines: a global comparison.

Authors:  Richu Philip; Thomas Beaney; Nick Appelbaum; Carmen Rodriguez Gonzalvez; Charlotte Koldeweij; Amelia Kataria Golestaneh; Neil Poulter; Jonathan M Clarke
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 8.775

Review 10.  Highlights of the 2019 Japanese Society of Hypertension Guidelines and perspectives on the management of Asian hypertensive patients.

Authors:  Satoshi Hoshide; Kazuomi Kario; Naoko Tomitani; Tomoyuki Kabutoya; Yook-Chin Chia; Sungha Park; Jinho Shin; Yuda Turana; Jam Chin Tay; Peera Buranakitjaroen; Chen-Huan Chen; Jennifer Nailes; Huynh Van Minh; Saulat Siddique; Jorge Sison; Arieska Ann Soenarta; Guru Prasad Sogunuru; Apichard Sukonthasarn; Boon Wee Teo; Narsingh Verma; Yuqing Zhang; Tzung-Dau Wang; Ji-Guang Wang
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2019-12-31       Impact factor: 3.738

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.