Impact of cumulative SBP and serious adverse events on efficacy of intensive blood pressure treatment

Abstract Aims The 2018 ESC/ESH guidelines for hypertension recommend differential management of patients who are <65, 65–79, and ≥80 years of age. However, it is unclear whether intensive blood pressure lowering is well-tolerated and modifies risk uniformly across the age spectrum. Methods and results SPRINT randomized 9361 high-risk adults without diabetes and age ≥50 years with systolic blood pressure 130–180 mmHg to either intensive or standard antihypertensive treatment. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. The primary safety endpoint was composite serious adverse events. We assessed whether age modified the efficacy and safety of intensive vs. standard blood pressure lowering using Cox proportional-hazards regression and restricted cubic splines. In all, 3805 (41%), 4390 (47%), and 1166 (12%) were <65, 65–79, and ≥80 years. Mean age was similar between the two study groups (intensive group 67.9 ± 9.4 years vs. standard group 67.9 ± 9.5 years; P = 0.94). Median follow-up was 3.3 years. In multivariable models, age was linearly associated with the risk of stroke (P < 0.001) and non-linearly associated with the risk of primary efficacy events, death from cardiovascular causes, death from any cause, heart failure, and serious adverse events (P < 0.001). The safety and efficacy of intensive blood pressure lowering were not modified by age, whether tested continuously or categorically (P > 0.05). Conclusion In SPRINT, the benefits and risks of intensive blood pressure lowering did not differ according to the age categories proposed by the ESC/ESH guidelines for hypertension. Trial Registration SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial); ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01206062.

Download Full-text

P796Intensive blood pressure treatment significantly increases visit-to-visit systolic blood pressure variability. A randomized clinical trial

European Heart Journal ◽

10.1093/eurheartj/ehz747.0395 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽

Author(s):

O L Rueda-Ochoa ◽

L Z Rojas Sanchez ◽

M A Ikram ◽

J W Deckers ◽

O H Franco ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Blood Pressure ◽

Primary Outcome ◽

Total Population ◽

Standard Treatment ◽

Intensive Treatment ◽

Pressure Treatment ◽

Treatment Groups ◽

Blood Pressure Treatment ◽

Intensive Blood Pressure

Abstract Background Intensive blood pressure lowering is increasingly gaining attention. Besides higher baseline blood pressure, visit-to-visit variability has showed association with target organ damage and major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in multiple medical reports. Purpose Our aim was to assess the effect of intensive treatment on systolic blood pressure (SBP) visit-to-visit variability in the SPRINT trial population during follow-up. Methods We included 9068 SPRINT participants with 128139 repeated SBP measurements. Participants were randomly assigned to intensive (SBP <120 mmHg) vs standard treatment (SBP between 135–139 mmHg). The primary outcome was a composite outcome of myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, acute decompensated heart failure, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality. We calculated the coefficient of variation (CV) and standard deviation (SD), taking into account all SBP measurements prior to the SPRINT primary outcome. Comparison of CV between intensive and standard treatment in the total SPRINT population and among different subgroups was made. Results CVs in intensive treatment groups were higher in total population and in all groups under study (See table). While second and third CV quartile showed a larger tendency to increase the risk for the primary SPRINT outcome in the intensive treatment compared to the standard treatment group, fourth CV quartiles were significantly associated with increase in primary SPRINT outcome in both intensive and standard treatment groups. Coefficient of variation in SPRINT trial Group Intensive treatment Standard treatment Total population 9.80 (3.22)* 8.52 (2.96) Females 10.46 (3.29)* 9.18 (3.15) Black person 9.99 (3.38)* 8.82 (3.15) Prevalence CKD 10.14 (3.22)* 9.12 (3.06) Prevalence CVD 10.28 (3.32)* 8.93 (3.23) ≥75 year 10.40 (3.18)* 9.01 (3.07) SAEs 10.30 (3.39)* 9.08 (3.13) (CKD: chronic kidney disease; CVD: cardiovascular disease; SAEs: serious adverse events. *P<0.05). Conclusions Intensive blood pressure treatment significantly increases SBP visit-to-visit variability in total SPRINT population and in all subgroups under study. Additional longitudinal studies with long-term follow-up are warranted to evaluate the impact of increases in SBP visit-to-visit variability due to intensive treatment on risk of major cardiovascular events.

Download Full-text