收缩压目标低于120毫米汞柱与降低死亡率相关:一项荟萃分析。

IF 9 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Felix Bergmann, Marlene Prager, Lena Pracher, Rebecca Sawodny, Gloria M. Steiner-Gager, Bernhard Richter, Bernd Jilma, Markus Zeitlinger, Georg Gelbenegger, Anselm Jorda
{"title":"收缩压目标低于120毫米汞柱与降低死亡率相关:一项荟萃分析。","authors":"Felix Bergmann,&nbsp;Marlene Prager,&nbsp;Lena Pracher,&nbsp;Rebecca Sawodny,&nbsp;Gloria M. Steiner-Gager,&nbsp;Bernhard Richter,&nbsp;Bernd Jilma,&nbsp;Markus Zeitlinger,&nbsp;Georg Gelbenegger,&nbsp;Anselm Jorda","doi":"10.1111/joim.20078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The optimal systolic blood pressure (SBP) target in patients with increased cardiovascular risk remains uncertain. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of intensive SBP control (&lt;120 mm Hg) compared to standard SBP control (&lt;140 mm Hg) in patients with increased cardiovascular risk.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for RCTs published from database inception through November 2024 that compared intensive SBP control (&lt;120 mm Hg) with standard SBP control (&lt;140 mm Hg) in adults with high cardiovascular risk. Efficacy outcomes included all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and heart failure. Safety outcomes included hypotension, syncope, arrhythmia, acute kidney injury, and electrolyte abnormalities.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Five RCTs comprising 39,434 patients were included. The all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the intensive SBP control group (672 of 19,712 [3.4%]) compared to the standard SBP control group (778 of 19,722 [3.9%]) (risk ratio 0.87 [95% confidence interval, 0.76–0.99, <i>p</i> = 0.03]). The incidence of MACE, cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and heart failure was significantly lower in the intensive SBP control group as compared to standard SBP control group. The treatment effect (MACE) was consistent across all subgroups. Conversely, intensive SBP control was associated with an increased risk of hypotension, syncope, arrhythmia, acute kidney injury, and electrolyte abnormalities.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Targeting intensive SBP control to less than 120 mm Hg was associated with a lower incidence of all-cause mortality and MACE but a higher incidence of adverse events.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":196,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Internal Medicine","volume":"297 5","pages":"479-491"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joim.20078","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systolic blood pressure targets below 120 mm Hg are associated with reduced mortality: A meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Felix Bergmann,&nbsp;Marlene Prager,&nbsp;Lena Pracher,&nbsp;Rebecca Sawodny,&nbsp;Gloria M. Steiner-Gager,&nbsp;Bernhard Richter,&nbsp;Bernd Jilma,&nbsp;Markus Zeitlinger,&nbsp;Georg Gelbenegger,&nbsp;Anselm Jorda\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/joim.20078\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>The optimal systolic blood pressure (SBP) target in patients with increased cardiovascular risk remains uncertain. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of intensive SBP control (&lt;120 mm Hg) compared to standard SBP control (&lt;140 mm Hg) in patients with increased cardiovascular risk.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for RCTs published from database inception through November 2024 that compared intensive SBP control (&lt;120 mm Hg) with standard SBP control (&lt;140 mm Hg) in adults with high cardiovascular risk. Efficacy outcomes included all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and heart failure. Safety outcomes included hypotension, syncope, arrhythmia, acute kidney injury, and electrolyte abnormalities.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Five RCTs comprising 39,434 patients were included. The all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the intensive SBP control group (672 of 19,712 [3.4%]) compared to the standard SBP control group (778 of 19,722 [3.9%]) (risk ratio 0.87 [95% confidence interval, 0.76–0.99, <i>p</i> = 0.03]). The incidence of MACE, cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and heart failure was significantly lower in the intensive SBP control group as compared to standard SBP control group. The treatment effect (MACE) was consistent across all subgroups. Conversely, intensive SBP control was associated with an increased risk of hypotension, syncope, arrhythmia, acute kidney injury, and electrolyte abnormalities.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Targeting intensive SBP control to less than 120 mm Hg was associated with a lower incidence of all-cause mortality and MACE but a higher incidence of adverse events.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":196,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Internal Medicine\",\"volume\":\"297 5\",\"pages\":\"479-491\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joim.20078\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Internal Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.20078\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.20078","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:心血管风险增加患者的最佳收缩压(SBP)目标仍不确定。本研究评估了强化收缩压控制的有效性和安全性(方法:我们对PubMed、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane Library进行了系统检索,检索了从数据库建立到2024年11月发表的比较强化收缩压控制的随机对照试验(结果:包括39,434例患者的5项随机对照试验)。强化收缩压对照组的全因死亡率(672 / 19712例[3.4%])明显低于标准收缩压对照组(778 / 19722例[3.9%])(风险比0.87[95%可信区间,0.76-0.99,p = 0.03])。与标准收缩压对照组相比,强化收缩压对照组的MACE、心血管死亡、心肌梗死、卒中和心力衰竭发生率显著降低。治疗效果(MACE)在所有亚组中一致。相反,强化收缩压控制与低血压、晕厥、心律失常、急性肾损伤和电解质异常的风险增加有关。结论:强化收缩压控制在120 mm Hg以下与全因死亡率和MACE发生率较低相关,但不良事件发生率较高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Systolic blood pressure targets below 120 mm Hg are associated with reduced mortality: A meta-analysis

Systolic blood pressure targets below 120 mm Hg are associated with reduced mortality: A meta-analysis

Background

The optimal systolic blood pressure (SBP) target in patients with increased cardiovascular risk remains uncertain. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of intensive SBP control (<120 mm Hg) compared to standard SBP control (<140 mm Hg) in patients with increased cardiovascular risk.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for RCTs published from database inception through November 2024 that compared intensive SBP control (<120 mm Hg) with standard SBP control (<140 mm Hg) in adults with high cardiovascular risk. Efficacy outcomes included all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and heart failure. Safety outcomes included hypotension, syncope, arrhythmia, acute kidney injury, and electrolyte abnormalities.

Results

Five RCTs comprising 39,434 patients were included. The all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the intensive SBP control group (672 of 19,712 [3.4%]) compared to the standard SBP control group (778 of 19,722 [3.9%]) (risk ratio 0.87 [95% confidence interval, 0.76–0.99, p = 0.03]). The incidence of MACE, cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and heart failure was significantly lower in the intensive SBP control group as compared to standard SBP control group. The treatment effect (MACE) was consistent across all subgroups. Conversely, intensive SBP control was associated with an increased risk of hypotension, syncope, arrhythmia, acute kidney injury, and electrolyte abnormalities.

Conclusions

Targeting intensive SBP control to less than 120 mm Hg was associated with a lower incidence of all-cause mortality and MACE but a higher incidence of adverse events.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Internal Medicine
Journal of Internal Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
22.00
自引率
0.90%
发文量
176
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: JIM – The Journal of Internal Medicine, in continuous publication since 1863, is an international, peer-reviewed scientific journal. It publishes original work in clinical science, spanning from bench to bedside, encompassing a wide range of internal medicine and its subspecialties. JIM showcases original articles, reviews, brief reports, and research letters in the field of internal medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信