Chambergo-Michilot D, Brañez-Condorena A, Alva-Diaz C, Sequeiros J, Abanto C, Pacheco-Barrios K. Evidence-based appraisal of blood pressure reduction in spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage: A scoping review and overview.
Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2021;
202:106497. [PMID:
33517161 DOI:
10.1016/j.clineuro.2021.106497]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/12/2020] [Revised: 01/09/2021] [Accepted: 01/11/2021] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM
There is a current debate on the best approach for blood pressure (BP) reduction in patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). Through this scoping review, we aimed to examine how research on reducing BP in ICH patients has been conducted and to clarify the evidence on which approach is the best (intensive vs. standard BP reductions).
METHODS
We performed a scoping review and overview of reviews of the literature. We systematically searched clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), systematic reviews (SRs), and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared intensive versus standard BP reduction. We searched in three databases from inception until March 2020. Two independent authors conducted the study selection, data extraction, quality assessment, and overlapping analysis of SRs. We performed a description and critical appraisal of the current body of evidence.
RESULTS
We included three CPGs (with moderate to high quality); all of them recommended intensive reduction in specific clinical settings. We included eight SRs (with high overlap and critically low quality): two supported intensive reduction and four supported its safety, but not effectiveness. One SR reported that patients with intensive reduction had a significant risk of renal adverse events. We included seven RCTs (with limitations in randomization process); trials with large population did not found significant differences in mortality and disability. One RCT reported a significantly higher number of renal adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
CPGs support the use of intensive BP reduction; however, most recent SRs partially supported or did not support it due to the association with renal events. It seems the range goal between 140 and 180 mmHg could be safe and equally effective than intensive reduction. We recommend further research in serious and non-serious events promoted by intensive reduction and outcomes homogenization across studies to ensure correct comparison.
Collapse