Saeed Shihab1, Robert E Boucher1, Nikita Abraham1, Guo Wei1, Srinivasan Beddhu1,2. 1. Division of Nephrology & Hypertension, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City (S.S., R.E.B., N.A., G.W., S.B.). 2. Medical Service, Veterans Affairs Salt Lake City Health Care System (S.B.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend lowering systolic blood pressure below 130 mm Hg, irrespective of previous strokes. However, there is a concern that lowering systolic blood pressure in people with low baseline diastolic blood pressure might increase the risk of stroke. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of the Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes trial that randomly assigned participants with a history of subcortical strokes to an intensive (<130 mm Hg; N=1519) or standard (130-149 mm Hg; N=1501) systolic targets. We examined the effects of blood pressure intervention on stroke and cardiovascular composite across the range of baseline diastolic blood pressure in spline regression models and tested for interaction of baseline diastolic blood pressure with the intervention on outcomes. RESULTS: Mean baseline systolic and diastolic blood pressures were 143±19 and 78±11 mm Hg, respectively. Within each baseline diastolic blood pressure tertile, the achieved diastolic was lower in the intensive versus standard arm. There were 275 stroke events over 10 889 years of follow-up. Lower baseline diastolic blood pressure was associated with increased risk of stroke in an observational spline regression model. Hazard ratios relating blood pressure intervention with the risk of stroke in the lowest (hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.52-1.16]) and the highest (hazard ratio, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.53-1.21]) baseline diastolic tertiles were similar (P=0.95). Results were similar for the cardiovascular composite. CONCLUSIONS: Intensive systolic control does not appear to increase the risk of stroke in those with low baseline diastolic blood pressure and prior stroke. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT00059306.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend lowering systolic blood pressure below 130 mm Hg, irrespective of previous strokes. However, there is a concern that lowering systolic blood pressure in people with low baseline diastolic blood pressure might increase the risk of stroke. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of the Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes trial that randomly assigned participants with a history of subcortical strokes to an intensive (<130 mm Hg; N=1519) or standard (130-149 mm Hg; N=1501) systolic targets. We examined the effects of blood pressure intervention on stroke and cardiovascular composite across the range of baseline diastolic blood pressure in spline regression models and tested for interaction of baseline diastolic blood pressure with the intervention on outcomes. RESULTS: Mean baseline systolic and diastolic blood pressures were 143±19 and 78±11 mm Hg, respectively. Within each baseline diastolic blood pressure tertile, the achieved diastolic was lower in the intensive versus standard arm. There were 275 stroke events over 10 889 years of follow-up. Lower baseline diastolic blood pressure was associated with increased risk of stroke in an observational spline regression model. Hazard ratios relating blood pressure intervention with the risk of stroke in the lowest (hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.52-1.16]) and the highest (hazard ratio, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.53-1.21]) baseline diastolic tertiles were similar (P=0.95). Results were similar for the cardiovascular composite. CONCLUSIONS: Intensive systolic control does not appear to increase the risk of stroke in those with low baseline diastolic blood pressure and prior stroke. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT00059306.
Entities:
Keywords:
United States; blood pressure; hypertension; risk; stroke
Authors: Oscar R Benavente; Carole L White; Lesly Pearce; Pablo Pergola; Ana Roldan; Marie-France Benavente; Christopher Coffey; Leslie A McClure; Jeff M Szychowski; Robin Conwit; Patricia A Heberling; George Howard; Carlos Bazan; Gabriela Vidal-Pergola; Robert Talbert; Robert G Hart Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2011-01-26 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: Emelia J Benjamin; Michael J Blaha; Stephanie E Chiuve; Mary Cushman; Sandeep R Das; Rajat Deo; Sarah D de Ferranti; James Floyd; Myriam Fornage; Cathleen Gillespie; Carmen R Isasi; Monik C Jiménez; Lori Chaffin Jordan; Suzanne E Judd; Daniel Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda Lisabeth; Simin Liu; Chris T Longenecker; Rachel H Mackey; Kunihiro Matsushita; Dariush Mozaffarian; Michael E Mussolino; Khurram Nasir; Robert W Neumar; Latha Palaniappan; Dilip K Pandey; Ravi R Thiagarajan; Mathew J Reeves; Matthew Ritchey; Carlos J Rodriguez; Gregory A Roth; Wayne D Rosamond; Comilla Sasson; Amytis Towfighi; Connie W Tsao; Melanie B Turner; Salim S Virani; Jenifer H Voeks; Joshua Z Willey; John T Wilkins; Jason Hy Wu; Heather M Alger; Sally S Wong; Paul Muntner Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Emmanuelle Vidal-Petiot; Ian Ford; Nicola Greenlaw; Roberto Ferrari; Kim M Fox; Jean-Claude Tardif; Michal Tendera; Luigi Tavazzi; Deepak L Bhatt; Philippe Gabriel Steg Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Franz H Messerli; Giuseppe Mancia; C Richard Conti; Ann C Hewkin; Stuart Kupfer; Annette Champion; Rainer Kolloch; Athanase Benetos; Carl J Pepine Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-06-20 Impact factor: 25.391
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