Tools for Practice Outils pour la pratique

#37 SPRINT don’t walk to Evidence for Specific BP Targets?

What is the evidence for blood pressure (BP) targets lower than 140/90?

Evidence supports BP targets of <140/90 for general hypertension and diabetic/renal subgroups. However, in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk ≥20% over 10 years, targets ~120 can be (carefully) considered. This does not include diabetics or post-stroke and standing BP should be monitored.

CFPCLearn Logo

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits

La lecture d'articles d'outils de pratique peut vous permettre de gagner des crédits MainPro+

Join Now S’inscrire maintenant

Already a CFPCLearn Member? Log in

Déjà abonné à CMFCApprendre? Ouvrir une session

Outcomes Statistically Significant:
  • SPRINT:1 Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) of 9,361 patients (CVD risk ~20% over ten years), target <140 versus <120, x3.3 years. Attained BP 136/76 versus 121/68 and average patient on 2.8 versus 1.8 medications.
    • CVD: 25% Relative Risk Reduction (RRR), Number Needed to Treat (NNT)=61.
    • Death: 27% RRR, NNT=90.
      • Similar benefits elderly (age ≥75) and other groups (example renal).
    • No diabetics, post-stroke, ejection fraction <35%, GFR <20, or standing BP <110.
  • General Hypertension, three Systematic Reviews (SR).2-4
    • Seven RCTs (22,089 patients)2 x3.8 years: Intense BP 4/3 lower.
      • No statistical differences in outcomes.
    • Nineteen RCTs (44,989 patients) x3.8 years:3 Attained BP 133/76 versus 140/81.
      • Death: No statistical difference.
      • CVD: RRR 14% (if CVD risk ~20% over 10 year, NNT=36).
    • Sixteen RCTs (52,235 patients)4 x3.7 years: Intense BP 8/3 lower, “standardized” to 10/5.
      • CVD: 25% RRR (if CVD risk ~20% over 10 years, NNT=28).
      • Limits: Some early trials not “intense” (example ≤150 systolic versus ≤180).3,4
  • Type II Diabetes: Two SR of five RCTs (7,314 patients) x4.5 years.5,6 BP Systolic target RCTs 119/64 versus 135/83 and diastolic target RCTs 128/76 versus 133/70.
    • Stroke: RRR 35%, NNT ~31 over ten years.
    • Death and other CVD: No statistical difference.
    • Two SR examined attained BP.7,8
      • Benefits for reduction <140 but ≤130 minimal stroke reductions lost against increased CVD mortality7 or serious adverse events.8
  • Renal Disease: Two SR of 3-11 RCTs (2,272-9,287 patients)9,10 ~3 years. Systolic BP ~10 lower in intense.
    • Mortality or any CVD: No statistical difference.
    • Prevent worsening renal function:9 RRR 18%, NNT=247.
  • Harms (intense versus standard):1 Hypotension (Number Needed to Harm (NNH)=72), syncope (NNH=91), acute kidney injury (NNH=56).
  • Large SR demonstrate absolute benefits of BP reduction are driven largely by baseline risk.11,12
  • Guideline13 recommended Systolic BP targets vary between 130-150.
  • If lower targets used: Advise of potential harms, monitor carefully, check standing BP.
  Reviewed Mar 25 2016

Latest Tools for Practice
Derniers outils pour la pratique

#370 Antibiotics or no antibiotics for acute diverticulitis, that is the question!

Do antibiotics change clinical outcomes for patients with acute uncomplicated diverticulitis?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#369 Remind me, do medications that target brain amyloid improve my dementia?

Are amyloid-targeting monoclonal antibodies safe and effective for mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s dementia?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#368 Sodium Restriction in Heart Failure: Beneficial or pouring salt in the wound?

Does sodium restriction improve outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

This content is certified for MainPro+ Credits, log in to access

Ce contenu est certifié pour les crédits MainPro+, Ouvrir une session

  • G. Michael Allan MD CCFP
  • Raj S. Padwal MD MSc FRCP(C)

1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD004349. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004349.pub2

2. N Engl J Med. 2010 Apr 29;362(17):1575-85

3. Lancet 2009; 374: 525–33

4. N Engl J Med 2010;363:918-29

5. Curr Hypertens Rep (2010) 12:290–295

6. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on: Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. August 2004.

7. 2009 Canadian Hypertension Education Program Recommendations: The Scientific Summary. 2009. (Web Link)

8. J Hypertension 2009, 27:2121–2158

9. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2010 Jul;25(4):350-4

10. Feldstein C, Julius S. Establishing Targets for Hypertension Control in Patients with Comorbidities. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2010 Dec;12(6):465-73.

Authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Les auteurs n’ont aucun conflit d’intérêts à déclarer.