Dangers of Overly Aggressive Blood Pressure Control

The debate over the optimal blood pressure treatment target of less than 130/80 mmHg

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to analyze the controversy regarding the optimal blood pressure (BP) target of <130/80 mmHg as proposed by the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) across all age groups. Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), stroke, and chronic kidney disease (CKD), and its optimal control is associated with lessening or preventing these complications. A recent study has argued that this BP level is universally accepted as an optimal and safe BP level. However, this argument is not accepted by other investigators, arguing that higher BP levels are as effective and safe.

METHODS

In order to investigate the current status of this level of BP control, a Medline search of the English literature was conducted between 2017 and February 2022, and 25 pertinent papers were selected.

RESULTS

The analysis of data from these studies indicates that these BP are effective in lowering the BP and preventing cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease, and they are indeed universally accepted.

CONCLUSION

Based on the current evidence, the current proposed by the 2017 ACC/AHA treatment guidelines are effective in lowering the BP and decreasing its cardiovascular complications and should followed, till perhaps, new data come out to the contrary.

The role of brain natriuretic peptide in atrial fibrillation: a substudy of the Substrate Modification with Aggressive Blood Pressure Control for Atrial Fibrillation (SMAC-AF) trial

BACKGROUND

Catheter ablation is an established therapy for atrial fibrillation but is limited by recurrence; efforts have been made to identify biomarkers that predict recurrence. We investigated the effect of baseline NT-proBNP on AF recurrence following catheter ablation in patients randomized to aggressive (< 120/80 mmHg) or standard blood pressure management (< 140/90 mmHg) in the Substrate Modification with Aggressive Blood Pressure Control trial (SMAC-AF).

METHODS

The SMAC-AF study included 173 patients resistant or intolerant to at least one class I or III antiarrhythmic drug. We studied the effect of baseline NT-proBNP on the primary outcome of AF recurrence > 3 months post-ablation.

RESULTS

Of the 173 patients, 88 were randomized to the aggressive cohort, and 85 into the standard group. The primary outcome occurred in 61.4% of those in the aggressive arm, versus 61.2% in the standard arm. In the aggressive group, logNT-proBNP predicted recurrence (HR 1.28, p = 0.04, adjusted HR 1.43, p = 0.03), while in the standard cohort, it did not (HR 0.94, p = 0.62, adjusted HR 0.83, p = 0.22). NT-proBNP ≥ 280 pg/mL also predicted occurrence in the aggressive (HR 1.98, p = 0.02) but not the standard cohort (HR 1.00, p = 1.00).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that pre-ablation NT-proBNP may be useful in predicting recurrence in hypertensive patients and identifying patients who benefit from aggressive blood control and upstream therapies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT00438113, registered February 21, 2007.

Effects of Blood Pressure Lowering on Clinical Outcomes According to Baseline Blood Pressure and Cardiovascular Risk in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

The optimal blood pressure (BP) goal in patients with diabetes mellitus remains controversial. We examined whether benefits and risks of intensified antihypertensive therapy in diabetes mellitus are influenced by either baseline BP or cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. We studied 10 948 people with diabetes mellitus, at moderate-to-high risk, in the ADVANCE trial (Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation). Cox models were used to determine whether baseline BP category or CVD risk modified the outcomes of combination perindopril-indapamide treatment, compared with placebo. During 4.3 years of follow-up, treatment with perindopril-indapamide versus placebo reduced mortality and major vascular (macrovascular or microvascular) events. There was no evidence of differences in these effects, regardless of baseline systolic BP (evaluated down to <120 mm Hg; P for heterogeneity, 0.85), diastolic BP (evaluated down to <70 mm Hg; P=0.49), or whether 10-year CVD risk was ≥20% or <20% ( P=0.08). The effects of randomized treatment on discontinuation of treatment because of cough or hypotension/dizziness were also statistically consistent across subgroups defined by baseline BP and CVD risk (all P ≥0.08). Adults with diabetes mellitus appear to benefit from more intensive BP treatment even at levels of BP and CVD risk that some guidelines do not currently recommend for intervention. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00751972.