Benefits of Treating Higher Versus Lower BP Targets in Older Adults Across all trials , treating high BP in older adults was beneficial .
This is probably related to the higher frequency of cardiovascular events seen in these patients .
Treatment Effects According to Diastolic BP Evidence was insufficient to determine the benefit of treating diastolic hypertension in the absence of systolic hypertension .
A subgroup analysis of SPRINT showed a nonstatistically significant increase in the rate of serious adverse events , hypotension , syncope , electrolyte abnormalities , or acute
Hypertension , an elevation of systemic arterial blood pressure ( BP ) , is a very common chronic disease in the United States .
The overall prevalence of hypertension among U.S. adults is 29.0 % , and it increases to 64.9 % in adults aged 60 years or older ( 1 ) .
Hypertension was associated with a total of $ 46 billion in health care services , medications , and missed days of work in the United States in 2011 ( 2 ) .
Appropriate management of hypertension reduces the risk for cardiovascular disease , renal disease , cerebrovascular disease , and death ( 36 ) .
However , determining the most appropriate BP targets , particularly for adults aged 60 years or older , has been controversial .
Debate about the goal for systolic BP ( SBP ) among adults treated for hypertension has intensified , especially in light of recent recommendations ( 7 ) .
In addition , when selecting BP targets for adults aged 60 years or older , clinicians need to consider comorbid conditions that could affect treatment choice .
Original Version ( PDF ) Guideline Focus and Target Population The purpose of this American College of Physicians ( ACP ) and American Academy of Family Physicians ( AAFP ) joint guideline is to present evidence -based recommendations on the benefits and harms of higher ( < 150 mm Hg ) versus lower ( 140 mm Hg ) SBP targets for the treatment of hypertension in adults aged 60 years or older .
These recommendations are based on a background evidence review ( 8) and systematic review sponsored by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ( VA ) ( 9 ) .
Usual versus tight control of systolic blood pressure in non-diabetic patients with hypertension (Cardio-Sis): an open-label randomised trial
BACKGROUND The level to which systolic blood pressure should be controlled in hypertensive patients without diabetes remains unknown . We tested the hypothesis that tight control compared with usual control of systolic blood pressure would be beneficial in such patients . METHODS In this r and omised open-label trial undertaken in 44 centres in Italy , 1111 non-diabetic patients with systolic blood pressure 150 mm Hg or greater were r and omly assigned to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg ( usual control ; n=553 ) or less than 130 mm Hg ( tight control ; n=558 ) . After stratification by centre , we used a computerised r and om function to allocate patients to either group . Observers who were unaware of r and omisation read electrocardiograms and adjudicated events . Open-label agents were used to reach the r and omised targets . The primary endpoint was the rate of electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy 2 years after r and omisation . Analysis was by intention to treat . This study is registered with Clinical Trials.gov , number NCT00421863 . RESULTS Over a median follow-up of 2.0 years ( IQR 1.93 - 2.03 ) , systolic and diastolic blood pressure were reduced by a mean of 23.5/8.9 mm Hg ( SD 10.6/7.0 ) in the usual-control group and by 27.3/10.4 mm Hg ( 11.0/7.5 ) in the tight-control group ( between-group difference 3.8 mm Hg systolic [ 95 % CI 2.4 - 5.2 ] , p<0.0001 ; and 1.5 mm Hg diastolic [ 0.6 - 2.4 ] ; p=0.041 ) . The primary endpoint occurred in 82 of 483 patients ( 17.0 % ) in the usual-control group and in 55 of 484 patients ( 11.4 % ) of the tight-control group ( odds ratio 0.63 ; 95 % CI 0.43 - 0.91 ; p=0.013 ) . A composite cardiovascular endpoint occurred in 52 ( 9.4 % ) patients in the usual-control group and in 27 ( 4.8 % ) in the tight-control group ( hazard ratio 0.50 , 95 % CI 0.31 - 0.79 ; p=0.003 ) . Side-effects were rare and did not differ significantly between the two groups . INTERPRETATION Our findings lend support to a lower blood pressure goal than is recommended at present in non-diabetic patients with hypertension . FUNDING Boehringer-Ingelheim , Sanofi-Aventis , Pfizer
Benefits of Treating Higher Versus Lower BP Targets in Older Adults Across all trials , treating high BP in older adults was beneficial .
This is probably related to the higher frequency of cardiovascular events seen in these patients .
Treatment Effects According to Diastolic BP Evidence was insufficient to determine the benefit of treating diastolic hypertension in the absence of systolic hypertension .
A subgroup analysis of SPRINT showed a nonstatistically significant increase in the rate of serious adverse events , hypotension , syncope , electrolyte abnormalities , or acute
Hypertension , an elevation of systemic arterial blood pressure ( BP ) , is a very common chronic disease in the United States .
The overall prevalence of hypertension among U.S. adults is 29.0 % , and it increases to 64.9 % in adults aged 60 years or older ( 1 ) .
Hypertension was associated with a total of $ 46 billion in health care services , medications , and missed days of work in the United States in 2011 ( 2 ) .
Appropriate management of hypertension reduces the risk for cardiovascular disease , renal disease , cerebrovascular disease , and death ( 36 ) .
However , determining the most appropriate BP targets , particularly for adults aged 60 years or older , has been controversial .
Debate about the goal for systolic BP ( SBP ) among adults treated for hypertension has intensified , especially in light of recent recommendations ( 7 ) .
In addition , when selecting BP targets for adults aged 60 years or older , clinicians need to consider comorbid conditions that could affect treatment choice .
Original Version ( PDF ) Guideline Focus and Target Population The purpose of this American College of Physicians ( ACP ) and American Academy of Family Physicians ( AAFP ) joint guideline is to present evidence -based recommendations on the benefits and harms of higher ( < 150 mm Hg ) versus lower ( 140 mm Hg ) SBP targets for the treatment of hypertension in adults aged 60 years or older .
These recommendations are based on a background evidence review ( 8) and systematic review sponsored by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ( VA ) ( 9 ) .