4.3 Article

Cardiovascular Outcomes According to Systolic Blood Pressure in Patients With and Without Diabetes: An ACCOMPLISH Substudy

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPERTENSION
卷 18, 期 4, 页码 299-307

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jch.12816

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
  2. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
  3. Novartis
  4. Amgen
  5. Pfizer
  6. Alynylam
  7. Medtronic Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To evaluate the effects of achieved systolic blood pressure (SBP) during treatment on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, the authors measured event rates of a composite primary endpoint (CV death or nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke) at on-treatment SBPs of 140mm Hg and the 10mm Hg intervals of <140mm Hg, <130mm Hg, and <120mm Hg in 6459 patients with diabetes (mean age, 67) and 4246 patients without diabetes (mean age, 69) from the Avoiding Cardiovascular Events in Combination Therapy in Patients Living With Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial. In the diabetic cohort, the primary endpoint was 49% lower (P<.001) at <140mm Hg than at 140mm Hg, and the separate components of this endpoint were also significantly reduced. Further SBP reductions did not improve outcomes, and at <120mm Hg they were no longer different (except for stroke) from 140mm Hg. In contrast, in the nondiabetic cohort, the primary endpoint event rate fell steadily (although not significantly) through the decreasing SBP categories until it was reduced by 45% (P=.0413) at <120mm Hg. Total stroke rates for both the diabetic (-56%, P=.0120) and nondiabetic (-68%, P=.0067) cohorts were lowest at <120mm Hg, and adverse renal events (serum creatinine increase 50%) were significantly lowest in the range of 130mm Hg to 139mm Hg for both cohorts. Diabetic patients (<140 mm Hg or <130 mm Hg) and nondiabetic patients (<120 mm Hg) may require different SBP targets for optimal CV protection, although stroke and renal considerations should also influence the selection of blood pressure targets.

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

4.3
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