McMasterLogo_New-2017-300x165
Back
Clinician Article

Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering on cardiovascular and renal outcomes: updated systematic review and meta-analysis.



  • Xie X
  • Atkins E
  • Lv J
  • Bennett A
  • Neal B
  • Ninomiya T, et al.
Lancet. 2016 Jan 30;387(10017):435-43. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00805-3. Epub 2015 Nov 7. (Review)
PMID: 26559744
Read abstract Read evidence summary
Disciplines
  • Family Medicine (FM)/General Practice (GP)
    Relevance - 7/7
    Newsworthiness - 6/7
  • General Internal Medicine-Primary Care(US)
    Relevance - 7/7
    Newsworthiness - 6/7
  • Internal Medicine
    Relevance - 7/7
    Newsworthiness - 5/7
  • Endocrine
    Relevance - 6/7
    Newsworthiness - 6/7
  • Cardiology
    Relevance - 6/7
    Newsworthiness - 5/7
  • Public Health
    Relevance - 6/7
    Newsworthiness - 5/7

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recent hypertension guidelines have reversed previous recommendations for lower blood pressure targets in high-risk patients, such as those with cardiovascular disease, renal disease, or diabetes. This change represents uncertainty about whether more intensive blood pressure-lowering strategies are associated with greater reductions in risk of major cardiovascular and renal events. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of intensive blood pressure-lowering strategies.

METHODS: For this updated systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for trials published between Jan 1, 1950, and Nov 3, 2015. We included randomised controlled trials with at least 6 months' follow-up that randomly assigned participants to more intensive versus less intensive blood pressure-lowering treatment, with different blood pressure targets or different blood pressure changes from baseline. We did not use any age or language restrictions. We did a meta-analysis of blood pressure reductions on relative risk (RR) of major cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular death, separately and combined), and non-vascular and all-cause mortality, end-stage kidney disease, and adverse events, as well as albuminuria and progression of retinopathy in trials done in patients with diabetes.

FINDINGS: We identified 19 trials including 44,989 participants, in whom 2496 major cardiovascular events were recorded during a mean 3·8 years of follow-up (range 1·0-8·4 years). Our meta-analysis showed that after randomisation, patients in the more intensive blood pressure-lowering treatment group had mean blood pressure levels of 133/76 mm Hg, compared with 140/81 mm Hg in the less intensive treatment group. Intensive blood pressure-lowering treatment achieved RR reductions for major cardiovascular events (14% [95% CI 4-22]), myocardial infarction (13% [0-24]), stroke (22% [10-32]), albuminuria (10% [3-16]), and retinopathy progression (19% [0-34]). However, more intensive treatment had no clear effects on heart failure (15% [95% CI -11 to 34]), cardiovascular death (9% [-11 to 26]), total mortality (9% [-3 to 19]), or end-stage kidney disease (10% [-6 to 23]). The reduction in major cardiovascular events was consistent across patient groups, and additional blood pressure lowering had a clear benefit even in patients with systolic blood pressure lower than 140 mm Hg. The absolute benefits were greatest in trials in which all enrolled patients had vascular disease, renal disease, or diabetes. Serious adverse events associated with blood pressure lowering were only reported by six trials and had an event rate of 1·2% per year in intensive blood pressure-lowering group participants, compared with 0·9% in the less intensive treatment group (RR 1·35 [95% CI 0·93-1·97]). Severe hypotension was more frequent in the more intensive treatment regimen (RR 2·68 [1·21-5·89], p=0·015), but the absolute excess was small (0·3% vs 0·1% per person-year for the duration of follow-up).

INTERPRETATION: Intensive blood pressure lowering provided greater vascular protection than standard regimens. In high-risk patients, there are additional benefits from more intensive blood pressure lowering, including for those with systolic blood pressure below 140 mmHg. The net absolute benefits of intensive blood pressure lowering in high-risk individuals are large.

FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.


Clinical Comments

Cardiology

In light of the recent SPRINT study, the importance of lower 'events' CV, CHF and, with this paper, renal decline, should be placed in context summarizing the ACCORD data as well.

Cardiology

Particularly important and timely given the SPRINT trial results.

Endocrine

The authors conclude that intensive blood pressure lowering provided greater vascular protection than standard regimens. However if we rank all subjects by the ES of their trial, the majority of small trials with positive outcomes fall in the first 50% of subjects suggesting that the benefits were greatest in smaller trials and smaller in larger ones. While this is not evident on the funnel plot (which the authors do not actually report) this suggests there was a significant bias in favour of intensive BP lowering. Whether this was publication bias or small study effects is unclear as the authors did not undertake any such analysis. My best estimate of the results is that these are tenuous and really do not provide conclusive evidence for practice.

Endocrine

This information along with the results of the SPRINT study may cause a re-think of the new JNC8 guideline targets, at least in individual cases.

Endocrine

A meta-analysis that refutes the idea that intensive BP lowering is unhelpful. In fact, intensive BP lowering gave significant reductions in major cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, stroke, albuminuria, and retinopathy progression. There was no clear effect on heart failure, cardiovascular death, total mortality, or end-stage kidney disease.

Family Medicine (FM)/General Practice (GP)

This study needs to be evaluated closely before we change our guidelines. The discussion is critical in our day to day care of patients.

General Internal Medicine-Primary Care(US)

Nice meta-analysis in that it helps identify subgroups who might benefit from more intense blood pressure lowering who were not enrolled in the recent SPRINT trial.

Register for free access to all Professional content

Register