Effect of Intensive Blood Pressure Control on Aortic Stiffness in the SPRINT-HEART.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Upadhya B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8035296 | biostudies-literature | 2021 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Effect of Intensive Blood Pressure Control on Aortic Stiffness in the SPRINT-HEART.
Upadhya Bharathi B Pajewski Nicholas M NM Rocco Michael V MV Hundley W Gregory WG Aurigemma Gerard G Hamilton Craig A CA Bates Jeffrey T JT He Jiang J Chen Jing J Chonchol Michel M Glasser Steve P SP Hung Adriana M AM Pisoni Roberto R Punzi Henry H Supiano Mark A MA Toto Robert R Taylor Addison A Kitzman Dalane W DW
Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) 20210329 5
[Figure: see text]. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9071486 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We evaluated the association between orthostatic hypertension and cardiovascular outcomes and the effect of intensive blood pressure (BP) control on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with orthostatic hypertension. Post hoc analyses of the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) data were conducted; orthostatic hypertension was defined as increase in systolic BP≥20 mm Hg or increase in diastolic BP≥10 mm Hg with standing. Of 9329 participants, 1986 (21.2%) had orthostatic hypertension at baseline. Within the intensive treatment group, participants with orthostatic hypertension were at higher risk of developing the composite cardiovascular outcome (hazard ratio, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.1-1.87], P=0.007) compared with participants without orthostatic hypertension. Within the standard treatment group, there were no significant differences in cardiovascular outcome between participants with and without orthostatic hypertension. In participants with orthostatic hypertension, there was no statistically significant difference in risk of the composite cardiovascular outcome between the intensive and the standard BP treatment group (hazard ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.78-1.47], P=0.68). In participants without orthostatic hypertension at baseline, the intensive treatment group was associated with a lower risk of the composite cardiovascular outcome (hazard ratio, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.56-0.79], P<0.0001). Orthostatic hypertension was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular outcomes in the intensive and not in the standard treatment group; intensive treatment of BP did not reduce the risk of cardiovascular outcomes compared with standard treatment in patients with orthostatic hypertension. These post hoc analyses are hypothesis generating and will need to be confirmed in future studies.
| S-EPMC8830850 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In observational studies, left ventricular mass (LVM) and structure are strong predictors of mortality and cardiovascular events. However, the effect of hypertension treatment on LVM reduction and its relation to subsequent outcomes is unclear, particularly at lower blood pressure (BP) targets. In an ancillary study of SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), where participants were randomly assigned to intensive BP control (target systolic BP target <120 mm Hg) versus standard BP control (<140 mm Hg), cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed at baseline and 18-month follow-up to measure: LVM, volumes, ejection fraction, and native T1 mapping for myocardial fibrosis. At baseline, 337 participants were examined (age: 64±9 years, 45% women); 300 completed the 18-month exam (153 intensive control and 147 standard control). In the intensive versus standard BP control group at 18 months, there was no difference in change in LVM (mean±SE =-2.7±0.5 g versus -2.3±0.7 g; P=0.368), ejection fraction, or native T1 (P=0.79), but there was a larger decrease in LVM/end-diastolic volume ratio (-0.04±0.01 versus -0.01±0.01; P=0.002) a measure of concentric LV remodeling. There were fewer cardiovascular events in the intensive control group, but no significant association between the reduced events and change in LVM or any other cardiac magnetic resonance imaging measure. In SPRINT-HEART, contrary to our hypothesis, there were no significant between-group differences in LVM, function, or myocardial T1 at 18-month follow-up. These results suggests that mediators other than these LV measures contribute to the improved cardiovascular outcomes with intensive BP control.
| S-EPMC7098010 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8341691 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo examine the effect of intensive blood pressure control on the occurrence of subtypes of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and determine the risk of progression to dementia or death.MethodsSecondary analysis of a randomized trial of community-dwelling adults (≥50 years) with hypertension. Participants were randomized to a systolic blood pressure (SBP) goal of <120 mm Hg (intensive treatment; n = 4678) or <140 mm Hg (Standard treatment; n = 4683). Outcomes included adjudicated MCI, MCI subtype (amnestic, non-amnestic, multi-domain, single domain), and probable dementia. Multistate survival models were used to examine transitions in cognitive status accounting for the competing risk of death.ResultsAmong 9361 randomized participants (mean age, 67.9 years; 3332 women [35.6%]), 640 participants met the protocol definition for MCI, with intensive treatment reducing the risk of MCI overall (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.69-0.94]), as previously reported. This effect was largely reflected in amnestic subtypes (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.66-0.92]) and multi-domain subtypes (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.65-0.93]). An adjudication of MCI, as compared with normal cognitive function, substantially increased the probability of progressing to probable dementia (5.9% [95% CI: 4.5%-7.7%] vs. 0.6% [95% CI: 0.3%-0.9%]) and to death (10.0% [95% CI: 8.3%-11.9%] vs. 2.3% [95% CI: 2.0%-2.7%]) within 2 years.ConclusionsIntensive treatment reduced the risk for amnestic and multi-domain subtypes of MCI. An adjudication of MCI was associated with increased risk of progression to dementia and death, highlighting the relevance of MCI as a primary outcome in clinical and research settings.
| S-EPMC9106821 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIt is currently unknown whether intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering beyond that recommended would lead to more lowering of the risk of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in patients with hypertension and whether reducing the risk of LVH explains the reported cardiovascular disease (CVD) benefits of intensive BP lowering in this population.MethodsThis analysis included 8164 participants (mean age, 67.9 years; 35.3% women; 31.2% blacks) with hypertension but no diabetes mellitus from the SPRINT trial (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial): 4086 randomly assigned to intensive BP lowering (target SBP <120 mm Hg) and 4078 assigned to standard BP lowering (target SBP <140 mm Hg). Progression and regression of LVH as defined by Cornell voltage criteria derived from standard 12-lead ECGs recorded at baseline and biannually were compared between treatment arms during a median follow-up of 3.81 years. The effect of intensive (versus standard) BP lowering on the SPRINT primary CVD outcome (a composite of myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, heart failure, and CVD death) was compared before and after adjustment for LVH as a time-varying covariate.ResultsAmong SPRINT participants without baseline LVH (n=7559), intensive (versus standard) BP lowering was associated with a 46% lower risk of developing LVH (hazard ratio=0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.68). Similarly, among SPRINT participants with baseline LVH (n=605, 7.4%), those assigned to the intensive (versus standard) BP lowering were 66% more likely to regress/improve their LVH (hazard ratio=1.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-2.11). Adjustment for LVH as a time-varying covariate did not substantially attenuate the effect of intensive BP therapy on CVD events (hazard ratio of intensive versus standard BP lowering on CVD, 0.76 [95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.90] and 0.77 [95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.91] before and after adjustment for LVH as a time-varying covariate, respectively).ConclusionsAmong patients with hypertension but no diabetes mellitus, intensive BP lowering (target systolic BP <120 mm Hg) compared with standard BP lowering (target systolic BP <140 mm Hg) resulted in lower rates of developing new LVH in those without LVH and higher rates of regression of LVH in those with existing LVH. This favorable effect on LVH did not explain most of the reduction in CVD events associated with intensive BP lowering in the SPRINT trial.Clinical trial registrationURL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01206062.
| S-EPMC5538944 | biostudies-literature
Project description:[Figure: see text].
| S-EPMC8917941 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The effect of clinic-based intensive hypertension treatment on ambulatory blood pressure (BP) is unknown. The goal of the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) ambulatory BP ancillary study was to evaluate the effect of intensive versus standard clinic-based BP targets on ambulatory BP. Ambulatory BP was obtained within 3 weeks of the 27-month study visit in 897 SPRINT participants. Intensive treatment resulted in lower clinic systolic BP (mean difference between groups=16.0 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, 14.1-17.8 mm Hg), nighttime systolic BP (mean difference=9.6 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, 7.7-11.5 mm Hg), daytime systolic BP (mean difference=12.3 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, 10.6-13.9 mm Hg), and 24-hour systolic BP (mean difference=11.2 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, 9.7-12.8 mm Hg). The night/day systolic BP ratio was similar between the intensive (0.92±0.09) and standard-treatment groups (0.91±0.09). There was considerable lack of agreement within participants between clinic systolic BP and daytime ambulatory systolic BP with wide limits of agreement on Bland-Altman plots. In conclusion, targeting a systolic BP of <120 mm Hg, when compared with <140 mm Hg, resulted in lower nighttime, daytime, and 24-hour systolic BP, but did not change the night/day systolic BP ratio. Ambulatory BP monitoring may be required to assess the effect of targeted hypertension therapy on out of office BP. Further studies are needed to assess whether targeting hypertension therapy based on ambulatory BP improves clinical outcomes.Clinical trial registrationURL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01835249.
| S-EPMC5145774 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) control improved outcomes in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial). Our objective was to expand on reported findings by analysis of baseline characteristics, primary outcomes, adverse events, follow-up blood pressure, and medication use differences by baseline SBP (tertile 1 [T1], <132; tertile 2 [T2], 132-145; and tertile 3 [T3], >145 mm Hg). Participants with higher baseline SBP tertile were more often women and older, had higher cardiovascular risk, and lower utilization of antihypertensive medications, statins, and aspirin. Achieved SBP in both treatment arms was slightly higher in T2 and T3 compared with T1 and fewer in the T3 groups achieved SBP targets compared with T1 and T2 groups. The primary composite outcome with intensive versus standard SBP treatment was reduced by 30% in T1, 23% in T2, and 17% in T3 with no evidence of an interaction (P=0.77). Event rates were lower in the intensive arm, and there was no evidence that this benefit differed by SBP tertile. There was no difference in the hazard for serious adverse events in any of the 3 tertiles. Medication utilization differed across the SBP tertiles at baseline with a lesser percentage of diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blocker drugs in the higher tertiles-a finding that reversed during the trial. The beneficial effects of intensive SBP lowering were not modified by the level of baseline SBP. Within the parameters of this population, these findings add support for clinicians to treat blood pressure to goal irrespective of baseline SBP.
| S-EPMC5945323 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The association between elevated resting heart rate (RHR) as a cardiovascular risk factor and lowering of systolic blood pressure (SBP) to currently recommended values remain unknown. Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) data obtained from the NHLBI were used to describe the relationship between RHR and SBP reduction to <120 mmHg compared to SBP reduction to <140 mmHg. The composite clinical endpoint (CE) was defined as myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, decompensation of heart failure, stroke, or cardiovascular death. Increased RHR was associated with a higher CE risk compared with low RHR in both treatment arms. A more potent increase of risk for CE was observed in subjects who were allocated to the SBP < 120 mmHg treatment goal. A similar effect of intensive and standard blood pressure (BP) reduction (p for interaction, 0.826) was observed in subjects with RHR in the 5th quintile (hazard ratio, 0.78, with 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.55-1.11) and in other quintiles of baseline RHR (hazard ratio, 0.75, with 95% CI, 0.62-0.90). Lower in-trial than baseline RHR was associated with reduced CE risk (hazard ratio, 0.80, with 95% CI, 0.66-0.98). We concluded that elevated RHR remains an essential risk factor independent of SBP reduction.
| S-EPMC8347499 | biostudies-literature