scholarly journals Benefits and harms of lower blood pressure treatment targets: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e026686 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mattias Brunström ◽  
Bo Carlberg
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Antihypertensive Treatment ◽  
Pressure Range ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Major Cardiovascular Events ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Blood Pressure Range

ObjectivesTo assess the effect of antihypertensive treatment in the 130–140 mm Hg systolic blood pressure range.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Information sourcesPubMed, CDSR and DARE were searched for the systematic reviews, which were manually browsed for clinical trials. PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for trials directly in February 2018.Eligibility criteriaRandomised double-blind trials with ≥1000 patient-years of follow-up, comparing any antihypertensive agent against placebo.Data extraction and risk of biasTwo reviewers extracted study-level data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane Collaborations risk of bias assessment tool, independently.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events and discontinuation due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, hypotension-related adverse events and renal impairment.ResultsEighteen trials, including 92 567 participants (34% women, mean age 63 years), fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Primary preventive antihypertensive treatment was associated with a neutral effect on all-cause mortality (relative risk 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.06) and major cardiovascular events (1.01, 0.96 to 1.06), but an increased risk of discontinuation due to adverse events (1.23, 1.03 to 1.47). None of the secondary efficacy outcomes were significantly reduced, but the risk of hypotension-related adverse events increased with treatment (1.71, 1.32 to 2.22). In coronary artery disease secondary prevention, antihypertensive treatment was associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality (0.91, 0.83 to 0.99) and major cardiovascular events (0.85, 0.77 to 0.94), but doubled the risk of adverse events leading to discontinuation (2.05, 1.62 to 2.61).ConclusionPrimary preventive blood pressure lowering in the 130–140 mm Hg systolic blood pressure range adds no cardiovascular benefit, but increases the risk of adverse events. In the secondary prevention, benefits should be weighed against harms.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018088642.

scholarly journals Blood pressure-lowering treatment for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with atrial fibrillation: An individual participant data meta-analysis

PLoS Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (6) ◽  
pp. e1003599
Author(s):  
Ana-Catarina Pinho-Gomes ◽  
Luis Azevedo ◽  
Emma Copland ◽  
Dexter Canoy ◽  
Milad Nazarzadeh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Blood Pressure Lowering ◽  
Major Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Pressure Lowering ◽  
Individual Participant ◽  
Meta Regression

Background Randomised evidence on the efficacy of blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment to reduce cardiovascular risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effects of BP-lowering drugs in patients with and without AF at baseline. Methods and findings The study was based on the resource provided by the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration (BPLTTC), in which individual participant data (IPD) were extracted from trials with over 1,000 patient-years of follow-up in each arm, and that had randomly assigned patients to different classes of BP-lowering drugs, BP-lowering drugs versus placebo, or more versus less intensive BP-lowering regimens. For this study, only trials that had collected information on AF status at baseline were included. The effects of BP-lowering treatment on a composite endpoint of major cardiovascular events (stroke, ischaemic heart disease or heart failure) according to AF status at baseline were estimated using fixed-effect one-stage IPD meta-analyses based on Cox proportional hazards models stratified by trial. Furthermore, to assess whether the associations between the intensity of BP reduction and cardiovascular outcomes are similar in those with and without AF at baseline, we used a meta-regression. From the full BPLTTC database, 28 trials (145,653 participants) were excluded because AF status at baseline was uncertain or unavailable. A total of 22 trials were included with 188,570 patients, of whom 13,266 (7%) had AF at baseline. Risk of bias assessment showed that 20 trials were at low risk of bias and 2 trials at moderate risk. Meta-regression showed that relative risk reductions were proportional to trial-level intensity of BP lowering in patients with and without AF at baseline. Over 4.5 years of median follow-up, a 5-mm Hg systolic BP (SBP) reduction lowered the risk of major cardiovascular events both in patients with AF (hazard ratio [HR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83 to 1.00) and in patients without AF at baseline (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.93), with no difference between subgroups. There was no evidence for heterogeneity of treatment effects by baseline SBP or drug class in patients with AF at baseline. The findings of this study need to be interpreted in light of its potential limitations, such as the limited number of trials, limitation in ascertaining AF cases due to the nature of the arrhythmia and measuring BP in patients with AF. Conclusions In this meta-analysis, we found that BP-lowering treatment reduces the risk of major cardiovascular events similarly in individuals with and without AF. Pharmacological BP lowering for prevention of cardiovascular events should be recommended in patients with AF.

Fried-food consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis of observational studies

Heart ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. heartjnl-2020-317883 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pei Qin ◽  
Ming Zhang ◽  
Minghui Han ◽  
Dechen Liu ◽  
Xinping Luo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Coronary Heart Disease ◽  
Food Consumption ◽  
Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Fried Food ◽  
Major Cardiovascular Events ◽  
All Cause Mortality

ObjectiveWe performed a meta-analysis, including dose–response analysis, to quantitatively determine the association of fried-food consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality in the general adult population.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science for all articles before 11 April 2020. Random-effects models were used to estimate the summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs.ResultsIn comparing the highest with lowest fried-food intake, summary RRs (95% CIs) were 1.28 (1.15 to 1.43; n=17, I2=82.0%) for major cardiovascular events (prospective: 1.24 (1.12 to 1.38), n=13, I2=75.7%; case–control: 1.91 (1.15 to 3.17), n=4, I2=92.1%); 1.22 (1.07 to 1.40; n=11, I2=77.9%) for coronary heart disease (prospective: 1.16 (1.05 to 1.29), n=8, I2=44.6%; case–control: 1.91 (1.05 to 3.47), n=3, I2=93.9%); 1.37 (0.97 to 1.94; n=4, I2=80.7%) for stroke (cohort: 1.21 (0.87 to 1.69), n=3, I2=77.3%; case–control: 2.01 (1.27 to 3.19), n=1); 1.37 (1.07 to 1.75; n=4, I2=80.0%) for heart failure; 1.02 (0.93 to 1.14; n=3, I2=27.3%) for cardiovascular mortality; and 1.03 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.12; n=6, I2=38.0%) for all-cause mortality. The association was linear for major cardiovascular events, coronary heart disease and heart failure.ConclusionsFried-food consumption may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease and presents a linear dose–response relation. However, the high heterogeneity and potential recall and misclassification biases for fried-food consumption from the original studies should be considered.

scholarly journals Ivabradine added to usual care in patients with heart failure: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2021-111724
Author(s):  
Mathias Maagaard ◽  
Emil Eik Nielsen ◽  
Naqash Javaid Sethi ◽  
Ning Liang ◽  
Si-Hong Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Sequential Analysis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Trial Sequential Analysis ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
All Cause Mortality

ObjectivesTo assess the beneficial and harmful effects of adding ivabradine to usual care in participants with heart failure.DesignA systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.Eligibility criteriaRandomised clinical trials comparing ivabradine and usual care with usual care (with or without) placebo in participants with heart failure.Information sourcesMedline, Embase, CENTRAL, LILACS, CNKI, VIP and other databases and trial registries up until 31 May 2021.Data extractionPrimary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction and non-serious adverse events. We performed meta-analysis of all outcomes. We used trial sequential analysis to control risks of random errors, the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the risks of systematic errors and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.ResultsWe included 109 randomised clinical trials with 26 567 participants. Two trials were at low risk of bias, although both trials were sponsored by the company that developed ivabradine. All other trials were at high risk of bias. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses showed that we could reject that ivabradine versus control reduced all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR)=0.94; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01; p=0.09; high certainty of evidence). Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis showed that ivabradine seemed to reduce the risk of serious adverse events (RR=0.90; 95% CI 0.87 to 0.94; p<0.00001; number needed to treat (NNT)=26.2; low certainty of evidence). This was primarily due to a decrease in the risk of ‘cardiac failure’ (RR=0.83; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; p=0.02; NNT=43.9), ‘hospitalisations’ (RR=0.89; 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94; p<0.0001; NNT=36.4) and ‘ventricular tachycardia’ (RR=0.59; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; p=0.001; NNT=212.8). However, the trials did not describe how these outcomes were defined and assessed during follow-up. Meta-analyses showed that ivabradine increased the risk of atrial fibrillation (RR=1.19; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.35; p=0.008; number needed to harm (NNH)=116.3) and bradycardia (RR=3.95; 95% CI 1.88 to 8.29; p=0.0003; NNH=303). Ivabradine seemed to increase quality of life on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) (mean difference (MD)=2.92; 95% CI 1.34 to 4.50; p=0.0003; low certainty of evidence), but the effect size was small and possibly without relevance to patients, and on the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHFQ) (MD=−5.28; 95% CI −6.60 to −3.96; p<0.00001; very low certainty of evidence), but the effects were uncertain. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between ivabradine and control when assessing cardiovascular mortality and myocardial infarction. Ivabradine seemed to increase the risk of non-serious adverse events.Conclusion and relevanceHigh certainty evidence shows that ivabradine does not seem to affect the risks of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. The effects on quality of life were small and possibly without relevance to patients on the KCCQ and were very uncertain for the MLWHFQ. The effects on serious adverse events, myocardial infarction and hospitalisation are uncertain. Ivabradine seems to increase the risk of atrial fibrillation, bradycardia and non-serious adverse events.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018112082.

scholarly journals Office Blood Pressure Range and Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Hypertension: A Nationwide Cohort Study in South Korea

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chang Hee Kwon ◽  
Woohyeun Kim ◽  
Jeong‐Hun Shin ◽  
Chan Joo Lee ◽  
Hyeon‐Chang Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Cardiovascular Death ◽  
Office Blood Pressure ◽  
Target Range ◽  
Major Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Blood Pressure Range

Background It is unclear what office blood pressure (BP) is the optimal treatment target range in patients with hypertension. Methods and Results Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, we extracted the data on 479 359 patients with hypertension with available BP measurements and no history of cardiovascular events from 2002 to 2011. The study end point was major cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. This cohort study evaluated the association of BP levels (<120/<70, 120–129/70–79, 130–139/80–89, 140–149/90–99, and ≥150/≥100 mm Hg) with MACE. During a median follow‐up of 9 years, 55 401 MACE were documented in our cohort. The risk of MACE was the lowest (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.76–0.84) at BP level of <120/<70 mm Hg, and was the highest (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.29–1.36) at ≥150/≥100 mm Hg in comparison with 130 to 139/80 to 89 mm Hg. These results were consistent in all age groups and both sexes. Among patients treated with antihypertensive medication (n=237 592, 49.5%), in comparison with a BP level of 130 to 139/80 to 89 mm Hg, the risk of MACE was significantly higher in patients with elevated BP (≥140/≥90 mm Hg), but not significantly lower in patients with BP of <130/<80 mm Hg. Low BP <120/70 mm Hg was associated with increased risk of all‐cause or cardiovascular death in all age groups. Conclusions BP level is significantly correlated with the risk of MACE in all Korean patients with hypertension. However, there were no additional benefits for MACE amongst those treated for hypertension with BP <120/70 mm Hg.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document