4.5 Review

Optimal blood pressure targets for patients with hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

HYPERTENSION RESEARCH
卷 42, 期 4, 页码 483-495

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41440-018-0123-4

关键词

Blood pressure target; Achieved blood pressure; Cardiovascular events; Randomized trial; Systematic review; Meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Optimal blood pressure (BP) targets for hypertension have been an important clinical issue but have been elusive. The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) showed significant benefits of intensive BP-lowering treatment with a target systolic BP level of < 120 mm Hg on major cardiovascular (CV) events and mortality, whereas there was a modest increase in renal events related to BP-lowering treatment. We searched the PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ICHUSHI databases for randomized trials that assigned participants to intensive versus usual BP-lowering treatment with different BP targets. The outcomes were major CV events, all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, renal events, and adverse events. Nineteen trials that enrolled a total of 55,529 participants with a mean follow-up duration ranging from 1.6 to 12.2 years were included in the present analysis. There was a significant reduction in major CV events, myocardial infarction, and stroke and a trend toward a reduction in heart failure associated with intensive BP-lowering treatment, but no differences in the risks of all-cause death, renal events, or adverse events were observed between the randomized groups. Subgroup analyses indicated that intensive BP-lowering treatment with a target of < 130/80 mm Hg and/or achievement of BP < 130/80 mm Hg were associated with a significant reduction in major CV events compared with the usual group. In conclusion, intensive BP-lowering treatment reduces the risk of CV events. A target BP level of < 130/80 mm Hg appears to be optimal for CV protection in patients with hypertension.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据