Jingen Li1,2, Virend K Somers2, Xiang Gao3, Zhuo Chen4, Jianqing Ju4, Qian Lin4, Essa A Mohamed2, Shahid Karim2, Hao Xu4, Lijing Zhang1. 1. Department of Cardiology, Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China. 2. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 3. Internal Medicine Division, Tieying Hospital of Fengtai District, Beijing, China. 4. Cardiovascular Diseases Center, Xiyuan Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, National Clinical Research Center for Chinese Medicine Cardiology, Beijing, China.
Abstract
Importance: Extremely low diastolic blood pressure has been reported to be associated with increased adverse cardiovascular events (ie, the diastolic J-shape phenomenon); however, current US guidelines recommend an intensive blood pressure target of less than 130/80 mm Hg without mentioning the lower limits of diastolic blood pressure. Objectives: To evaluate whether there is a diastolic J-shape phenomenon for patients with an treated systolic blood pressure of less than 130 mm Hg and to explore the safe and optimal diastolic blood pressure ranges for this patient population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed outcome data of patients at high cardiovascular risk who were randomized tointensive or standard blood pressure control and achieved treated systolic blood pressure of less than 130 mm Hg in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) and Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes-Blood Pressure (ACCORD-BP) trial. Data were collected from October 2010 to August 2015 (SPRINT) and from September 1999 to June 2009 (ACCORD-BP). Data were analyzed from January to May 2020. Exposure: Treated diastolic blood pressure, divided in intervals of less than 60, 60 to less than 70, 70 to less than 80, and 80 mm Hg and greater. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. A composite cardiovascular outcome, including cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke, was among the key secondary outcomes. Results: A total of 7515 patients (mean [SD] age, 65.6 [8.7] years; 4553 [60.6%] men) were included in this analysis. The nominally lowest risk was observed at a diastolic blood pressure between 70 and 80 mm Hg for the primary outcome, the composite cardiovascular outcome, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular death. A mean diastolic blood pressure of less than 60 mm Hg was associated with significantly increased risk of the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 1.46; 95% CI, 1.13-1.90; P = .004), the composite cardiovascular outcome (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.26-2.41; P = .001), nonfatal myocardial infarction (HR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.15-2.59; P = .008), and nonfatal stroke (HR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.26-5.63; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that lowering diastolic blood pressure to less than 60 mm Hg was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events in patients with high cardiovascular risk and an treated systolic blood pressureless than 130 mm Hg. The finding that a diastolic blood pressure value between 70 and 80 mm Hg was an optimum target for this patient population merits further study.
RCT Entities:
Importance: Extremely low diastolic blood pressure has been reported to be associated with increased adverse cardiovascular events (ie, the diastolic J-shape phenomenon); however, current US guidelines recommend an intensive blood pressure target of less than 130/80 mm Hg without mentioning the lower limits of diastolic blood pressure. Objectives: To evaluate whether there is a diastolic J-shape phenomenon for patients with an treated systolic blood pressure of less than 130 mm Hg and to explore the safe and optimal diastolic blood pressure ranges for this patient population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed outcome data of patients at high cardiovascular risk who were randomized to intensive or standard blood pressure control and achieved treated systolic blood pressure of less than 130 mm Hg in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) and Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes-Blood Pressure (ACCORD-BP) trial. Data were collected from October 2010 to August 2015 (SPRINT) and from September 1999 to June 2009 (ACCORD-BP). Data were analyzed from January to May 2020. Exposure: Treated diastolic blood pressure, divided in intervals of less than 60, 60 to less than 70, 70 to less than 80, and 80 mm Hg and greater. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. A composite cardiovascular outcome, including cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke, was among the key secondary outcomes. Results: A total of 7515 patients (mean [SD] age, 65.6 [8.7] years; 4553 [60.6%] men) were included in this analysis. The nominally lowest risk was observed at a diastolic blood pressure between 70 and 80 mm Hg for the primary outcome, the composite cardiovascular outcome, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular death. A mean diastolic blood pressure of less than 60 mm Hg was associated with significantly increased risk of the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 1.46; 95% CI, 1.13-1.90; P = .004), the composite cardiovascular outcome (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.26-2.41; P = .001), nonfatal myocardial infarction (HR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.15-2.59; P = .008), and nonfatal stroke (HR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.26-5.63; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that lowering diastolic blood pressure to less than 60 mm Hg was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events in patients with high cardiovascular risk and an treated systolic blood pressure less than 130 mm Hg. The finding that a diastolic blood pressure value between 70 and 80 mm Hg was an optimum target for this patient population merits further study.
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: 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: Sripal Bangalore; Franz H Messerli; Chuan-Chuan Wun; Andrea L Zuckerman; David DeMicco; John B Kostis; John C LaRosa Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2010-09-16 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Michael Böhm; Helmut Schumacher; Koon K Teo; Eva M Lonn; Felix Mahfoud; Johannes F E Mann; Giuseppe Mancia; Josep Redon; Roland E Schmieder; Karen Sliwa; Michael A Weber; Bryan Williams; Salim Yusuf Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-04-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Karen C Johnson; Paul K Whelton; William C Cushman; Jeffrey A Cutler; Gregory W Evans; Joni K Snyder; Walter T Ambrosius; Srinivasan Beddhu; Alfred K Cheung; Lawrence J Fine; Cora E Lewis; Mahboob Rahman; David M Reboussin; Michael V Rocco; Suzanne Oparil; Jackson T Wright Journal: Hypertension Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Bernhard Haring; Aileen P McGinn; Victor Kamensky; Matthew Allison; Marcia L Stefanick; Peter F Schnatz; Lewis H Kuller; Jeffrey S Berger; Karen C Johnson; Nazmus Saquib; Lorena Garcia; Phyllis A Richey; JoAnn E Manson; Michael Alderman; Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 3.080
Authors: Akram Al-Makki; Donald DiPette; Paul K Whelton; M Hassan Murad; Reem A Mustafa; Shrish Acharya; Hind Mamoun Beheiry; Beatriz Champagne; Kenneth Connell; Marie Therese Cooney; Nnenna Ezeigwe; Thomas Andrew Gaziano; Agaba Gidio; Patricio Lopez-Jaramillo; Unab I Khan; Vindya Kumarapeli; Andrew E Moran; Margaret Mswema Silwimba; Brian Rayner; Apichard Sukonthasan; Jing Yu; Nizal Saraffzadegan; K Srinath Reddy; Taskeen Khan Journal: Hypertension Date: 2021-11-15 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Andrew J Foy; Edward J Filippone; Eric Schaefer; Matt Nudy; Mohammed Ruzieh; Anne-Marie Dyer; Vernon M Chinchilli; Gerald V Naccarelli Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-10-01