Intensive blood pressure control may not be safe in subacute ischemic stroke by intracranial atherosclerosis

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (9) ◽  
pp. 1936-1941 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jong-Moo Park ◽  
Bum Joon Kim ◽  
Sun U. Kwon ◽  
Yang-Ha Hwang ◽  
Sung Hyuk Heo ◽  
...  
Stroke ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam H de Havenon ◽  
Eric Goldstein ◽  
Stephanie Lyden ◽  
Jennifer Majersik

Background: The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial enrolled patients aged 50 or older with at least one cardiovascular disease risk factor, but free of prior symptomatic stroke. Patients were assigned to two blood pressure reduction goals (<140 versus 120 mm Hg). There was not a significant difference in the rate of stroke, making this an ideal cohort to refine risk prediction of primary stroke, which is understudied in patients with adequate blood pressure control and a rigorously adjudicated outcome of stroke. Methods: The primary outcome is ischemic stroke. We fit Cox models to the primary outcome and evaluated all baseline demographic variables to determine which would be most predictive of stroke, which we then used to create a prediction score. Results: We included 9,361 patients with a mean (SD) age of 67.9 (9.4) years and 171 (1.8%) patients met the primary outcome of stroke. For our prediction model, we gave one point each for history of TIA, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure, or diabetes. Patients with 2 or more points were collapsed, making three possible scores of 0, 1, and 2, which had rates of stroke of 1.5% (117/8042), 3.2% (30/933), and 6.2% (24/386) (p<0.001). Compared to a score of 0, the hazard ratios for stroke of score 1 and 2 were 2.3 (95% CI, 1.6-3.5) and 4.6 (95% CI, 2.9-7.1) (both p<0.001) (Figure 1). Conclusion: A simple scoring system can improve prediction of ischemic stroke from 1.8% to 6.2% in patients with no prior history of stroke and excellent blood pressure control. This information could be used to improve patient selection for clinical trials or for identifying patients for more aggressive primary prevention strategies.


2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 108-115
Author(s):  
Teresa K. Chen ◽  
Chirag R. Parikh

Background: Recent studies have demonstrated that intensive blood pressure control is associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes. Acute kidney injury (AKI), however, was more common in the intensive treatment group prompting concern in the nephrology community. Summary: Clinical trials on hypertension control have traditionally defined AKI by changes in serum creatinine. However, serum creatinine has several inherent limitations as a marker of kidney injury, with various factors influencing its production, secretion, and elimination. Urinary biomarkers of kidney injury and repair have the potential to provide insight on the presence and phenotype of kidney injury. In both the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial and the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes study, urinary biomarkers have suggested that the increased risk of AKI associated with intensive treatment was due to hemodynamic changes rather than structural kidney injury. As such, clinicians who encounter rises in serum creatinine during intensification of hypertension therapy should “stay calm and carry on.” Alternative explanations for serum creatinine elevation should be considered and addressed if appropriate. When the rise in serum creatinine is limited, particularly if albuminuria is stable or improving, intensive blood pressure control should be continued for its potential long-term benefits. Key Messages: Increases in serum creatinine during intensification of blood pressure control may not necessarily reflect kidney injury. Clinicians should evaluate for other contributing factors before stopping therapy. Urinary biomarkers may address limitations of serum creatinine as a marker of kidney injury.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document