An excessive blood pressure (BP) reduction might be dangerous in high-risk patients with cardiovascular disease. In the Studio Italiano Sugli Effetti CARDIOvascolari del Controllo della Pressione Arteriosa SIStolica (Cardio-Sis), 1111 nondiabetic patients with systolic BP ≥150 mm Hg were randomly assigned to a systolic BP target <140 mm Hg (standard control) or <130 mm Hg (tight control). We stratified patients by absence (n=895) or presence (n=216) of established cardiovascular disease at entry. Antihypertensive treatment was open-label and tailored to each patient's needs. After 2-year follow-up, the primary end point of the study, electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy, occurred less frequently in the tight than in the standard control group in the patients without (10.8% versus 15.2%) and with (14.1% versus 23.5%) established cardiovascular disease (P for interaction=0.82). The main secondary end point, a composite of cardiovascular events and all-cause death, occurred less frequently in the tight than in the standard control group both in patients without (1.47 versus 3.68 patient-years; P=0.016) and with (7.87 versus 11.22 patient-years; P=0.049) previous cardiovascular disease. In a multivariable Cox model, allocation to tight BP control reduced the risk of cardiovascular events to a similar extent in patients with or without overt cardiovascular disease at randomization (P for interaction=0.43). In conclusion, an intensive treatment aimed to lower systolic BP<130 mm Hg reduced left ventricular hypertrophy and improved clinical outcomes to a similar extent in patients with hypertension and without established cardiovascular disease.

Tight versus standard blood pressure control in patients with hypertension with and without cardiovascular disease.

MALATINO, Lorenzo
2014-01-01

Abstract

An excessive blood pressure (BP) reduction might be dangerous in high-risk patients with cardiovascular disease. In the Studio Italiano Sugli Effetti CARDIOvascolari del Controllo della Pressione Arteriosa SIStolica (Cardio-Sis), 1111 nondiabetic patients with systolic BP ≥150 mm Hg were randomly assigned to a systolic BP target <140 mm Hg (standard control) or <130 mm Hg (tight control). We stratified patients by absence (n=895) or presence (n=216) of established cardiovascular disease at entry. Antihypertensive treatment was open-label and tailored to each patient's needs. After 2-year follow-up, the primary end point of the study, electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy, occurred less frequently in the tight than in the standard control group in the patients without (10.8% versus 15.2%) and with (14.1% versus 23.5%) established cardiovascular disease (P for interaction=0.82). The main secondary end point, a composite of cardiovascular events and all-cause death, occurred less frequently in the tight than in the standard control group both in patients without (1.47 versus 3.68 patient-years; P=0.016) and with (7.87 versus 11.22 patient-years; P=0.049) previous cardiovascular disease. In a multivariable Cox model, allocation to tight BP control reduced the risk of cardiovascular events to a similar extent in patients with or without overt cardiovascular disease at randomization (P for interaction=0.43). In conclusion, an intensive treatment aimed to lower systolic BP<130 mm Hg reduced left ventricular hypertrophy and improved clinical outcomes to a similar extent in patients with hypertension and without established cardiovascular disease.
2014
LVH; left ventricular geometry; hypertension
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Tight versus standard blood pressure control.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 379.82 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
379.82 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11769/55308
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 36
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 32
social impact