Rita Magriço1, Miguel Bigotte Vieira2, Catarina Viegas Dias3, Lia Leitão4, João Sérgio Neves5,6. 1. Masters in Medicine, Nephrology Department, Hospital Garcia de Orta, Lisbon, Portugal; rita.magrico@yahoo.com. 2. Masters in Medicine, Nephrology and Renal Transplantation Department, Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Norte, Lisbon, Portugal. 3. Masters in Medicine, Dafundo Family Health Unit, Agrupamento de Centros de Saúde Lisboa Ocidental e Oeiras, Lisbon, Portugal. 4. Masters in Medicine, Neurology Department, Hospital Prof. Doutor Fernando da Fonseca, Amadora, Portugal. 5. Masters in Medicine, Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, São João Hospital Center, Porto, Portugal; and. 6. Department of Surgery and Physiology, Cardiovascular Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), intensive systolic BP treatment (target <120 mm Hg) was associated with fewer cardiovascular events and higher incidence of kidney function decline compared with standard treatment (target <140 mm Hg). We evaluated the association between mean arterial pressure reduction, kidney function decline, and cardiovascular events in patients without CKD. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We categorized patients in the intensive treatment group of the SPRINT according to mean arterial pressure reduction throughout follow-up: <20, 20 to <40, and ≥40 mm Hg. We defined the primary outcome as kidney function decline (≥30% reduction in eGFR to <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 on two consecutive determinations at 3-month intervals), and we defined the secondary outcome as cardiovascular events. In a propensity score analysis, patients in each mean arterial pressure reduction category from the intensive treatment group were matched with patients from the standard treatment group to calculate the number needed to treat regarding cardiovascular events and the number needed to harm regarding kidney function decline. RESULTS: In the intensive treatment group, 1138 (34%) patients attained mean arterial pressure reduction <20 mm Hg, 1857 (56%) attained 20 to <40 mm Hg, and 309 (9%) attained ≥40 mm Hg. Adjusted hazard ratios for kidney function decline were 2.10 (95% confidence interval, 1.22 to 3.59) for mean arterial pressure reduction between 20 and 40 mm Hg and 6.22 (95% confidence interval, 2.75 to 14.08) for mean arterial pressure reduction ≥40 mm Hg. In propensity score analysis, mean arterial pressure reduction <20 mm Hg presented a number needed to treat of 44 and a number needed to harm of 65, reduction between 20 and <40 mm Hg presented a number needed to treat of 42 and a number needed to harm of 35, and reduction ≥40 mm Hg presented a number needed to treat of 95 and a number needed to harm of 16. CONCLUSIONS: In the intensive treatment group of SPRINT, larger declines in mean arterial pressure were associated with higher incidence of kidney function decline. Intensive treatment seemed to be less favorable when a larger reduction in mean arterial pressure was needed to attain the BP target.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), intensive systolic BP treatment (target <120 mm Hg) was associated with fewer cardiovascular events and higher incidence of kidney function decline compared with standard treatment (target <140 mm Hg). We evaluated the association between mean arterial pressure reduction, kidney function decline, and cardiovascular events in patients without CKD. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We categorized patients in the intensive treatment group of the SPRINT according to mean arterial pressure reduction throughout follow-up: <20, 20 to <40, and ≥40 mm Hg. We defined the primary outcome as kidney function decline (≥30% reduction in eGFR to <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 on two consecutive determinations at 3-month intervals), and we defined the secondary outcome as cardiovascular events. In a propensity score analysis, patients in each mean arterial pressure reduction category from the intensive treatment group were matched with patients from the standard treatment group to calculate the number needed to treat regarding cardiovascular events and the number needed to harm regarding kidney function decline. RESULTS: In the intensive treatment group, 1138 (34%) patients attained mean arterial pressure reduction <20 mm Hg, 1857 (56%) attained 20 to <40 mm Hg, and 309 (9%) attained ≥40 mm Hg. Adjusted hazard ratios for kidney function decline were 2.10 (95% confidence interval, 1.22 to 3.59) for mean arterial pressure reduction between 20 and 40 mm Hg and 6.22 (95% confidence interval, 2.75 to 14.08) for mean arterial pressure reduction ≥40 mm Hg. In propensity score analysis, mean arterial pressure reduction <20 mm Hg presented a number needed to treat of 44 and a number needed to harm of 65, reduction between 20 and <40 mm Hg presented a number needed to treat of 42 and a number needed to harm of 35, and reduction ≥40 mm Hg presented a number needed to treat of 95 and a number needed to harm of 16. CONCLUSIONS: In the intensive treatment group of SPRINT, larger declines in mean arterial pressure were associated with higher incidence of kidney function decline. Intensive treatment seemed to be less favorable when a larger reduction in mean arterial pressure was needed to attain the BP target.
Authors: Juan Carlos Q Velez; Manish Kadian; Margarita Taburyanskaya; Nicole M Bohm; Tracie A Delay; Nithin Karakala; Don C Rockey; Paul J Nietert; Andrew J Goodwin; Timothy P Whelan Journal: Nephron Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 2.847
Authors: Patricia M Kearney; Megan Whelton; Kristi Reynolds; Paul Muntner; Paul K Whelton; Jiang He Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Jan 15-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Glenn M Chertow; Srinivasan Beddhu; Julia B Lewis; Robert D Toto; Alfred K Cheung Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-11-09 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Alfred K Cheung; Mahboob Rahman; David M Reboussin; Timothy E Craven; Tom Greene; Paul L Kimmel; William C Cushman; Amret T Hawfield; Karen C Johnson; Cora E Lewis; Suzanne Oparil; Michael V Rocco; Kaycee M Sink; Paul K Whelton; Jackson T Wright; Jan Basile; Srinivasan Beddhu; Udayan Bhatt; Tara I Chang; Glenn M Chertow; Michel Chonchol; Barry I Freedman; William Haley; Joachim H Ix; Lois A Katz; Anthony A Killeen; Vasilios Papademetriou; Ana C Ricardo; Karen Servilla; Barry Wall; Dawn Wolfgram; Jerry Yee Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Eleni Rapsomaniki; Adam Timmis; Julie George; Mar Pujades-Rodriguez; Anoop D Shah; Spiros Denaxas; Ian R White; Mark J Caulfield; John E Deanfield; Liam Smeeth; Bryan Williams; Aroon Hingorani; Harry Hemingway Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-05-31 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Brad P Dieter; Kenn B Daratha; Sterling M McPherson; Robert Short; Radica Z Alicic; Katherine R Tuttle Journal: Am J Nephrol Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 3.754
Authors: Raymond Vanholder; Steven Van Laecke; Griet Glorieux; Francis Verbeke; Esmeralda Castillo-Rodriguez; Alberto Ortiz Journal: Toxins (Basel) Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 4.546
Authors: Girish N Nadkarni; Kinsuk Chauhan; Veena Rao; Joachim H Ix; Michael G Shlipak; Chirag R Parikh; Steven G Coca Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 8.860