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, Marlene Prager, Lena Pracher, Rebecca Sawodny, Gloria M. Steiner-Gager, Bernhard Richter, Bernd Jilma, Markus Zeitlinger, Georg Gelbenegger, 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 (<120 mm Hg) compared to standard SBP control (<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 (<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.</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, Marlene Prager, Lena Pracher, Rebecca Sawodny, Gloria M. Steiner-Gager, Bernhard Richter, Bernd Jilma, Markus Zeitlinger, Georg Gelbenegger, 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 (<120 mm Hg) compared to standard SBP control (<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 (<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.</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。
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.
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.