4.7 Article

J-curve revisited: an analysis of blood pressure and cardiovascular events in the Treating to New Targets (TNT) Trial†

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 31, 期 23, 页码 2897-2908

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq328

关键词

Blood pressure; J-Curve; TNT trial

资金

  1. Pfizer Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), a J-curve relationship has been reported between blood pressure (BP) and future cardiovascular events. However, this is controversial. The purpose of the study was to determine the relationship between on-treatment BP and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with CAD. We evaluated 10 001 patients with CAD and a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level < 130 mg/dL, randomized to atorvastatin 80 vs. 10 mg, enroled in the TNT trial. The post-baseline, time-dependent BPs [systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP)] were categorized into 10 mmHg increments. The primary outcome was a composite of death from coronary disease, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), resuscitated cardiac arrest, and fatal or non-fatal stroke. Among the 10 001 patients, 982 (9.82%) experienced a primary outcome at 4.9 years (median) of follow-up. The relationship between SBP or DBP and primary outcome followed a J-curve with increased event rates above and below the reference BP range, both unadjusted and adjusted (for baseline covariates, treatment effect, and LDL levels). A time-dependent, non-linear, multivariate Cox proportional hazard model identified a nadir of 146.3/81.4 mmHg where the event rate was lowest. A similar non-linear relationship with a higher risk of events at lower pressures was found for most of the secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal MI, or angina. However, for the outcome of stroke, lower was better for SBP. In patients with CAD, a low BP (< 110-120/< 60-70 mmHg) portends an increased risk of future cardiovascular events (except stroke).

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

4.7
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