U Hoffmann1. 1. Klinik für Allgemeine Innere Medizin und Geriatrie/Angiologie, Diabetologie, Endokrinologie, Nephrologie, Krankenhaus Barmherzige Brüder Regensburg, Prüfeninger Str. 86, 93049, Regensburg, Deutschland. ute.hoffmann@barmherzige-regensburg.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The systolic blood pressure intervention trial (SPRINT) published in 2015 has opened up new discussions on whether a lower blood pressure target as recommended by the current guidelines would be better for some patient groups. OBJECTIVES: To review patient groups in which lower blood pressure targets would not be better. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The results of SPRINT, its post-hoc and subgroup analyses, other studies and newer studies, as well as metaanalyses on the topic of blood pressure targets are reviewed and discussed. Studies with patients excluded from the SPRINT study were also analysed. The current international guidelines and recommendations of the Deutsche Hochdruckliga e. V. DHL® are included. RESULTS: Blood pressure monitoring methods differed considerably in the previously published studies. The low blood pressure value in SPRINT was mainly achieved due to the unusual method of blood pressure monitoring used and, as such, cannot be compared with blood pressure values in other studies. Based on current evidence, "the lower the better" should not be recommended in the following patient groups: older patients, in particular infirm older patients, patients with diabetes, patients without coronary heart disease or with low cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSIONS: When determining a blood pressure target, the method of blood pressure monitoring should be defined. A lower blood pressure target has been shown to be better in some well defined patient groups. However, adverse events due to antihypertensive medications should always be taken into account. Given the multiple exclusion criteria in trials and the results of many studies, "new" lower blood pressure targets could not be recommended in a large population of patients.
BACKGROUND: The systolic blood pressure intervention trial (SPRINT) published in 2015 has opened up new discussions on whether a lower blood pressure target as recommended by the current guidelines would be better for some patient groups. OBJECTIVES: To review patient groups in which lower blood pressure targets would not be better. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The results of SPRINT, its post-hoc and subgroup analyses, other studies and newer studies, as well as metaanalyses on the topic of blood pressure targets are reviewed and discussed. Studies with patients excluded from the SPRINT study were also analysed. The current international guidelines and recommendations of the Deutsche Hochdruckliga e. V. DHL® are included. RESULTS: Blood pressure monitoring methods differed considerably in the previously published studies. The low blood pressure value in SPRINT was mainly achieved due to the unusual method of blood pressure monitoring used and, as such, cannot be compared with blood pressure values in other studies. Based on current evidence, "the lower the better" should not be recommended in the following patient groups: older patients, in particular infirm older patients, patients with diabetes, patients without coronary heart disease or with low cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSIONS: When determining a blood pressure target, the method of blood pressure monitoring should be defined. A lower blood pressure target has been shown to be better in some well defined patient groups. However, adverse events due to antihypertensive medications should always be taken into account. Given the multiple exclusion criteria in trials and the results of many studies, "new" lower blood pressure targets could not be recommended in a large population of patients.
Authors: Sripal Bangalore; Yan Gong; Rhonda M Cooper-DeHoff; Carl J Pepine; Franz H Messerli Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-08-26 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Paul K Whelton; Robert M Carey; Wilbert S Aronow; Donald E Casey; Karen J Collins; Cheryl Dennison Himmelfarb; Sondra M DePalma; Samuel Gidding; Kenneth A Jamerson; Daniel W Jones; Eric J MacLaughlin; Paul Muntner; Bruce Ovbiagele; Sidney C Smith; Crystal C Spencer; Randall S Stafford; Sandra J Taler; Randal J Thomas; Kim A Williams; Jeff D Williamson; Jackson T Wright Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Paul E Drawz; Nicholas M Pajewski; Jeffrey T Bates; Natalie A Bello; William C Cushman; Jamie P Dwyer; Lawrence J Fine; David C Goff; William E Haley; Marie Krousel-Wood; Andrew McWilliams; Dena E Rifkin; Yelena Slinin; Addison Taylor; Raymond Townsend; Barry Wall; Jackson T Wright; Mahboob Rahman Journal: Hypertension Date: 2016-11-14 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Dena Ettehad; Connor A Emdin; Amit Kiran; Simon G Anderson; Thomas Callender; Jonathan Emberson; John Chalmers; Anthony Rodgers; Kazem Rahimi Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-12-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Michelle C Odden; Carmen A Peralta; Dan R Berlowitz; Karen C Johnson; Jeffrey Whittle; Dalane W Kitzman; Srinivasan Beddhu; John W Nord; Vasilios Papademetriou; Jeff D Williamson; Nicholas M Pajewski Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Alexandra Yannoutsos; Rania Kheder-Elfekih; Jean-Michel Halimi; Michel E Safar; Jacques Blacher Journal: Pharmacol Res Date: 2016-12-02 Impact factor: 7.658
Authors: Adam P Bress; Rikki M Tanner; Rachel Hess; Lisandro D Colantonio; Daichi Shimbo; Paul Muntner Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2015-11-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Xinfang Xie; Emily Atkins; Jicheng Lv; Alexander Bennett; Bruce Neal; Toshiharu Ninomiya; Mark Woodward; Stephen MacMahon; Fiona Turnbull; Graham S Hillis; John Chalmers; Jonathan Mant; Abdul Salam; Kazem Rahimi; Vlado Perkovic; Anthony Rodgers Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-11-07 Impact factor: 79.321