A Synopsis of the Evidence for the Science and Clinical Management of Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic (CKM) Syndrome: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

A growing appreciation of the pathophysiological interrelatedness of metabolic risk factors such as obesity and diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease has led to the conceptualization of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome. The confluence of metabolic risk factors and chronic kidney disease within cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome is strongly linked to risk for adverse cardiovascular and kidney outcomes. In addition, there are unique management considerations for individuals with established cardiovascular disease and coexisting metabolic risk factors, chronic kidney disease, or both. An extensive body of literature supports our scientific understanding of, and approach to, prevention and management for individuals with cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome. However, there are critical gaps in knowledge related to cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome in terms of mechanisms of disease development, heterogeneity within clinical phenotypes, interplay between social determinants of health and biological risk factors, and accurate assessments of disease incidence in the context of competing risks. There are also key limitations in the data supporting the clinical care for cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome, particularly in terms of early-life prevention, screening for risk factors, interdisciplinary care models, optimal strategies for supporting lifestyle modification and weight loss, targeting of emerging cardioprotective and kidney-protective therapies, management of patients with both cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease, and the impact of systematically assessing and addressing social determinants of health. This scientific statement uses a crosswalk of major guidelines, in addition to a review of the scientific literature, to summarize the evidence and fundamental gaps related to the science, screening, prevention, and management of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome.

Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Health: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association.

Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health reflects the interplay among metabolic risk factors, chronic kidney disease, and the cardiovascular system and has profound impacts on morbidity and mortality. There are multisystem consequences of poor cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health, with the most significant clinical impact being the high associated incidence of cardiovascular disease events and cardiovascular mortality. There is a high prevalence of poor cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health in the population, with a disproportionate burden seen among those with adverse social determinants of health. However, there is also a growing number of therapeutic options that favorably affect metabolic risk factors, kidney function, or both that also have cardioprotective effects. To improve cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health and related outcomes in the population, there is a critical need for (1) more clarity on the definition of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome; (2) an approach to cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic staging that promotes prevention across the life course; (3) prediction algorithms that include the exposures and outcomes most relevant to cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health; and (4) strategies for the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease in relation to cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health that reflect harmonization across major subspecialty guidelines and emerging scientific evidence. It is also critical to incorporate considerations of social determinants of health into care models for cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome and to reduce care fragmentation by facilitating approaches for patient-centered interdisciplinary care. This presidential advisory provides guidance on the definition, staging, prediction paradigms, and holistic approaches to care for patients with cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome and details a multicomponent vision for effectively and equitably enhancing cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health in the population.

Final Report of a Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control.

BACKGROUND: In a previously reported randomized trial of standard and intensive systolic blood-pressure control, data on some outcome events had yet to be adjudicated and post-trial follow-up data had not yet been collected. METHODS: We randomly assigned 9361 participants who were at increased risk for cardiovascular disease but did not have diabetes or previous stroke to adhere to an intensive treatment target (systolic blood pressure, <120 mm Hg) or a standard treatment target (systolic blood pressure, <140 mm Hg). The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. Additional primary outcome events occurring through the end of the intervention period (August 20, 2015) were adjudicated after data lock for the primary analysis. We also analyzed post-trial observational follow-up data through July 29, 2016. RESULTS: At a median of 3.33 years of follow-up, the rate of the primary outcome and all-cause mortality during the trial were significantly lower in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group (rate of the primary outcome, 1.77% per year vs. 2.40% per year; hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.86; all-cause mortality, 1.06% per year vs. 1.41% per year; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.92). Serious adverse events of hypotension, electrolyte abnormalities, acute kidney injury or failure, and syncope were significantly more frequent in the intensive-treatment group. When trial and post-trial follow-up data were combined (3.88 years in total), similar patterns were found for treatment benefit and adverse events; however, rates of heart failure no longer differed between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who were at increased cardiovascular risk, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg resulted in lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and lower all-cause mortality than targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg, both during receipt of the randomly assigned therapy and after the trial. Rates of some adverse events were higher in the intensive-treatment group. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; SPRINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062.).

Guideline-Driven Management of Hypertension: An Evidence-Based Update.

Several important findings bearing on the prevention, detection, and management of hypertension have been reported since publication of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Blood Pressure Guideline. This review summarizes and places in context the results of relevant observational studies, randomized clinical trials, and meta-analyses published between January 2018 and March 2021. Topics covered include blood pressure measurement, patient evaluation for secondary hypertension, cardiovascular disease risk assessment and blood pressure threshold for drug therapy, lifestyle and pharmacological management, treatment target blood pressure goal, management of hypertension in older adults, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, resistant hypertension, and optimization of care using patient, provider, and health system approaches. Presenting new information in each of these areas has the potential to increase hypertension awareness, treatment, and control which remain essential for the prevention of cardiovascular disease and mortality in the future.

Orthostatic Hypotension, Hypertension Treatment, and Cardiovascular Disease: An Individual Participant Meta-Analysis.

Importance: There are ongoing concerns about the benefits of intensive vs standard blood pressure (BP) treatment among adults with orthostatic hypotension or standing hypotension. Objective: To determine the effect of a lower BP treatment goal or active therapy vs a standard BP treatment goal or placebo on cardiovascular disease (CVD) or all-cause mortality in strata of baseline orthostatic hypotension or baseline standing hypotension. Data Sources: Individual participant data meta-analysis based on a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases through May 13, 2022. Study Selection: Randomized trials of BP pharmacologic treatment (more intensive BP goal or active agent) with orthostatic hypotension assessments. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Individual participant data meta-analysis extracted following PRISMA guidelines. Effects were determined using Cox proportional hazard models using a single-stage approach. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were CVD or all-cause mortality. Orthostatic hypotension was defined as a decrease in systolic BP of at least 20 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP of at least 10 mm Hg after changing position from sitting to standing. Standing hypotension was defined as a standing systolic BP of 110 mm Hg or less or standing diastolic BP of 60 mm Hg or less. Results: The 9 trials included 29 235 participants followed up for a median of 4 years (mean age, 69.0 [SD, 10.9] years; 48% women). There were 9% with orthostatic hypotension and 5% with standing hypotension at baseline. More intensive BP treatment or active therapy lowered risk of CVD or all-cause mortality among those without baseline orthostatic hypotension (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.76-0.86) similarly to those with baseline orthostatic hypotension (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-1.00; P = .68 for interaction of treatment with baseline orthostatic hypotension). More intensive BP treatment or active therapy lowered risk of CVD or all-cause mortality among those without baseline standing hypotension (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.85), and nonsignificantly among those with baseline standing hypotension (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.75-1.18). Effects did not differ by baseline standing hypotension (P = .16 for interaction of treatment with baseline standing hypotension). Conclusions and Relevance: In this population of hypertension trial participants, intensive therapy reduced risk of CVD or all-cause mortality regardless of orthostatic hypotension without evidence for different effects among those with standing hypotension.

Intensive Versus Standard Blood Pressure Lowering and Days Free of Cardiovascular Events and Serious Adverse Events: a Post Hoc Analysis of Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial.

BACKGROUND: Communication of the benefits and harms of blood pressure lowering strategy is crucial for shared decision-making. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effect of intensive versus standard systolic blood pressure lowering in terms of the number of event-free days DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial PARTICIPANTS: A total of 9361 adults 50 years or older without diabetes or stroke who had a systolic blood pressure of 130-180 mmHg and elevated cardiovascular risk INTERVENTIONS: Intensive (systolic blood pressure goal <120 mmHg) versus standard blood pressure lowering (<140 mmHg) MAIN MEASURES: Days free of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), serious adverse events (SAE), and monitored adverse events (hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, electrolyte abnormalities, injurious falls, or acute kidney injury) over a median follow-up of 3.33 years KEY RESULTS: The intensive treatment group gained 14.7 more MACE-free days over 4 years (difference, 14.7 [95% confidence interval: 5.1, 24.4] days) than the standard treatment group. The benefit of the intensive treatment varied by cognitive function (normal: difference, 40.7 [13.0, 68.4] days; moderate-to-severe impairment: difference, -15.0 [-56.5, 26.4] days; p-for-interaction=0.009) and self-rated health (excellent: difference, -22.7 [-51.5, 6.1] days; poor: difference, 156.1 [31.1, 281.2] days; p-for-interaction=0.001). The mean overall SAE-free days were not significantly different between the treatments (difference, -14.8 [-35.3, 5.7] days). However, the intensive treatment group had 28.5 fewer monitored adverse event-free days than the standard treatment group (difference, -28.5 [-40.3, -16.7] days), with significant variations by frailty status (non-frail: difference, 38.8 [8.4, 69.2] days; frail: difference, -15.5 [-46.6, 15.7] days) and self-rated health (excellent: difference, -12.9 [-45.5, 19.7] days; poor: difference, 180.6 [72.9, 288.4] days; p-for-interaction <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Over 4 years, intensive systolic blood pressure lowering provides, on average, 14.7 more MACE-free days than standard treatment, without any difference in SAE-free days. Whether this time-based effect summary improves shared decision-making remains to be elucidated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Registration: NCT01206062.

Effects of Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment on Orthostatic Hypotension : A Systematic Review and Individual Participant-based Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although intensive blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment reduces risk for cardiovascular disease, there are concerns that it might cause orthostatic hypotension (OH). PURPOSE: To examine the effects of intensive BP-lowering treatment on OH in hypertensive adults. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception through 7 October 2019, without language restrictions. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials of BP pharmacologic treatment (more intensive BP goal or active agent) that involved more than 500 adults with hypertension or elevated BP and that were 6 months or longer in duration. Trial comparisons were groups assigned to either less intensive BP goals or placebo, and the outcome was measured OH, defined as a decrease of 20 mm Hg or more in systolic BP or 10 mm Hg or more in diastolic BP after changing position from seated to standing. DATA EXTRACTION: 2 investigators independently abstracted articles and rated risk of bias. DATA SYNTHESIS: 5 trials examined BP treatment goals, and 4 examined active agents versus placebo. Trials examining BP treatment goals included 18 466 participants with 127 882 follow-up visits. Trials were open-label, with minimal heterogeneity of effects across trials. Intensive BP treatment lowered risk for OH (odds ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.86 to 0.99]). Effects did not differ by prerandomization OH (P for interaction = 0.80). In sensitivity analyses that included 4 additional placebo-controlled trials, overall and subgroup findings were unchanged. LIMITATIONS: Assessments of OH were done while participants were seated (not supine) and did not include the first minute after standing. Data on falls and syncope were not available. CONCLUSION: Intensive BP-lowering treatment decreases risk for OH. Orthostatic hypotension, before or in the setting of more intensive BP treatment, should not be viewed as a reason to avoid or de-escalate treatment for hypertension. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health. (PROSPERO: CRD42020153753).

Estimated GFR Variability and Risk of Cardiovascular Events and Mortality in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial).

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: Although low estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and mortality, the clinical significance of variability in eGFR over time is uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the associations between variability in eGFR and the risk of CVD events and all-cause mortality. STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal analysis of clinical trial participants. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: 7,520 Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) participants ≥50 year of age with 1 or more CVD risk factors. PREDICTORS: eGFR variability, estimated by the coefficient of variation of eGFR assessments at the 6th, 12th, and 18-month study visits. OUTCOMES: The SPRINT primary CVD composite outcome (myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, heart failure, or CVD death) and all-cause mortality from month 18 to the end of follow-up. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Cox models were used to evaluate associations between eGFR variability and CVD outcomes and all-cause mortality. Models were adjusted for demographics, randomization arm, CVD risk factors, albuminuria, and eGFR at month 18. RESULTS: Mean age was 68 ± 9 years; 65% were men; and 58% were White. The mean eGFR was 73 ± 21 (SD) mL/min/1.73 m2 at 6 months. There were 370 CVD events and 154 deaths during a median follow-up of 2.4 years. Greater eGFR variability was associated with higher risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] per 1 SD greater variability, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.14-1.45) but not CVD events (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.95-1.16) after adjusting for albuminuria, eGFR, and other CVD risk factors. Associations were similar when stratified by treatment arm and by baseline CKD status, when accounting for concurrent systolic blood pressure changes, use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, and diuretic medications during follow up. LIMITATIONS: Persons with diabetes and proteinuria > 1 g/d were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: In trial participants at high risk for CVD, greater eGFR variability was independently associated with all-cause mortality but not CVD events.

Policies to solve the salt problem.

Diets high in sodium have long been known to raise blood pressure, which, in turn, increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. Though authoritative recommendations have been made in the past several decades for federal policies and programs to reduce sodium consumption, measures adopted to date have not been effective. We recommend a comprehensive public health approach to reduce sodium in the food supply and prevent thousands of unnecessary deaths and billions of dollars in health-care costs each year.

Chronic kidney disease, atherosclerotic plaque characteristics on carotid magnetic resonance imaging, and cardiovascular outcomes.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether faster progression of atherosclerosis explains the higher risk of cardiovascular events in CKD. The objectives of this study were to 1. Characterize the associations of CKD with presence and morphology of atherosclerotic plaques on carotid magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and 2. Examine the associations of baseline CKD and carotid atherosclerotic plaques with subsequent cardiovascular events. METHODS: In a subgroup (N = 465) of Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial. (SPRINT) participants, we measured carotid plaque presence and morphology at baseline and after 30-months with MRI. We examined the associations of CKD (baseline eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2) with progression of carotid plaques and the SPRINT cardiovascular endpoint. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety six (42%) participants had CKD. Baseline eGFR in the non-CKD and CKD subgroups were 77 ± 14 and 49 ± 8 ml/min/1.73 m2, respectively. Lipid rich necrotic-core plaque was present in 137 (29.5%) participants. In 323 participants with both baseline and follow-up MRI measurements of maximum wall thickness, CKD was not associated with progression of maximum wall thickness (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.07, p = 0.082). In 96 participants with necrotic core plaque at baseline and with a valid follow-up MRI, CKD was associated with lower odds of progression of necrotic core plaque (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.95, p = 0.039). There were 28 cardiovascular events over 1764 person-years of follow-up. In separate Cox models, necrotic core plaque (HR 2.59, 95% CI 1.15 to 5.85) but not plaque defined by maximum wall thickness or presence of a plaque component (HR 1.79, 95% CI 0.73 to 4.43) was associated with cardiovascular events. Independent of necrotic core plaque, CKD (HR 3.35, 95% CI 1.40 to 7.99) was associated with cardiovascular events. CONCLUSIONS: Presence of necrotic core in carotid plaque rather than the presence of plaque per se was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events. We did not find CKD to be associated with faster progression of necrotic core plaques, although both were independently associated with cardiovascular events. Thus, CKD may contribute to cardiovascular disease principally via mechanisms other than atherosclerosis such as arterial media calcification or stiffening. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01475747 , registered on November 21, 2011.

Cost-Effectiveness of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control.

BACKGROUND: In the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), adults at high risk for cardiovascular disease who received intensive systolic blood-pressure control (target, <120 mm Hg) had significantly lower rates of death and cardiovascular disease events than did those who received standard control (target, <140 mm Hg). On the basis of these data, we wanted to determine the lifetime health benefits and health care costs associated with intensive control versus standard control. METHODS: We used a microsimulation model to apply SPRINT treatment effects and health care costs from national sources to a hypothetical cohort of SPRINT-eligible adults. The model projected lifetime costs of treatment and monitoring in patients with hypertension, cardiovascular disease events and subsequent treatment costs, treatment-related risks of serious adverse events and subsequent costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for intensive control versus standard control of systolic blood pressure. RESULTS: We determined that the mean number of QALYs would be 0.27 higher among patients who received intensive control than among those who received standard control and would cost approximately $47,000 more per QALY gained if there were a reduction in adherence and treatment effects after 5 years; the cost would be approximately $28,000 more per QALY gained if the treatment effects persisted for the remaining lifetime of the patient. Most simulation results indicated that intensive treatment would be cost-effective (51 to 79% below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY and 76 to 93% below the threshold of $100,000 per QALY), regardless of whether treatment effects were reduced after 5 years or persisted for the remaining lifetime. CONCLUSIONS: In this simulation study, intensive systolic blood-pressure control prevented cardiovascular disease events and prolonged life and did so at levels below common willingness-to-pay thresholds per QALY, regardless of whether benefits were reduced after 5 years or persisted for the patient's remaining lifetime. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; SPRINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062 .).

Serum bicarbonate and cardiovascular events in hypertensive adults: results from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial.

BACKGROUND: Low serum bicarbonate level is associated with increased mortality, but its role as a predictor of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is unclear. This study evaluates the association between serum bicarbonate concentration and CVD and whether the effect of intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering on CVD outcomes is modified by serum bicarbonate level. METHODS: The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) randomized participants to a systolic BP target <120 mmHg (intensive treatment) or <140 mmHg (standard treatment). The primary CVD outcome was a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), acute coronary syndrome not resulting in MI, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure and CVD death. Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for demographic, clinical and laboratory characteristics were used to evaluate the association of interest in 9334 SPRINT participants (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01206062). RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 3.33 years (interquartile range 2.87-3.87 years), 618 (6.6%) participants experienced a primary CVD outcome. Participants with serum bicarbonate <22 mEq/L had a significantly higher risk of the primary CVD outcome (hazard ratio 1.54; 95% confidence interval 1.11-2.14, P = 0.01), compared with participants with bicarbonate 22-26 mEq/L. The magnitude of the CVD risk reduction with intensive BP lowering was similar across bicarbonate strata (P-value for interaction = 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: In hypertensive individuals, serum bicarbonate level <22 mEq/L was associated with an increased CVD risk. The effect of intensive BP lowering on CVD outcomes was not modified by the serum bicarbonate level.

Potential US Population Impact of the 2017 ACC/AHA High Blood Pressure Guideline.

BACKGROUND: The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults provides recommendations for the definition of hypertension, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) thresholds for initiation of antihypertensive medication, and BP target goals. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the prevalence of hypertension, implications of recommendations for antihypertensive medication, and prevalence of BP above the treatment goal among US adults using criteria from the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline and the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC7). METHODS: The authors analyzed data from the 2011 to 2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (N = 9 623). BP was measured 3 times following a standardized protocol and averaged. Results were weighted to produce US population estimates. RESULTS: According to the 2017 ACC/AHA and JNC7 guidelines, the crude prevalence of hypertension among US adults was 45.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 43.6% to 47.6%) and 31.9% (95% CI: 30.1% to 33.7%), respectively, and antihypertensive medication was recommended for 36.2% (95% CI: 34.2% to 38.2%) and 34.3% (95% CI: 32.5% to 36.2%) of US adults, respectively. Nonpharmacological intervention is advised for the 9.4% of US adults with hypertension who are not recommended for antihypertensive medication according to the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline. Among US adults taking antihypertensive medication, 53.4% (95% CI: 49.9% to 56.8%) and 39.0% (95% CI: 36.4% to 41.6%) had BP above the treatment goal according to the 2017 ACC/AHA and JNC7 guidelines, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the JNC7 guideline, the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline results in a substantial increase in the prevalence of hypertension, a small increase in the percentage of US adults recommended for antihypertensive medication, and more intensive BP lowering for many adults taking antihypertensive medication.

Effect of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Control on Probable Dementia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There are currently no proven treatments to reduce the risk of mild cognitive impairment and dementia. Objective: To evaluate the effect of intensive blood pressure control on risk of dementia. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted at 102 sites in the United States and Puerto Rico among adults aged 50 years or older with hypertension but without diabetes or history of stroke. Randomization began on November 8, 2010. The trial was stopped early for benefit on its primary outcome (a composite of cardiovascular events) and all-cause mortality on August 20, 2015. The final date for follow-up of cognitive outcomes was July 22, 2018. Interventions: Participants were randomized to a systolic blood pressure goal of either less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment group; n = 4678) or less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment group; n = 4683). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary cognitive outcome was occurrence of adjudicated probable dementia. Secondary cognitive outcomes included adjudicated mild cognitive impairment and a composite outcome of mild cognitive impairment or probable dementia. Results: Among 9361 randomized participants (mean age, 67.9 years; 3332 women [35.6%]), 8563 (91.5%) completed at least 1 follow-up cognitive assessment. The median intervention period was 3.34 years. During a total median follow-up of 5.11 years, adjudicated probable dementia occurred in 149 participants in the intensive treatment group vs 176 in the standard treatment group (7.2 vs 8.6 cases per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-1.04). Intensive BP control significantly reduced the risk of mild cognitive impairment (14.6 vs 18.3 cases per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95) and the combined rate of mild cognitive impairment or probable dementia (20.2 vs 24.1 cases per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.97). Conclusions and Relevance: Among ambulatory adults with hypertension, treating to a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 120 mm Hg compared with a goal of less than 140 mm Hg did not result in a significant reduction in the risk of probable dementia. Because of early study termination and fewer than expected cases of dementia, the study may have been underpowered for this end point. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062.

Association of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Control With Cerebral White Matter Lesions.

Importance: The effect of intensive blood pressure lowering on brain health remains uncertain. Objective: To evaluate the association of intensive blood pressure treatment with cerebral white matter lesion and brain volumes. Design, Setting, and Participants: A substudy of a multicenter randomized clinical trial of hypertensive adults 50 years or older without a history of diabetes or stroke at 27 sites in the United States. Randomization began on November 8, 2010. The overall trial was stopped early because of benefit for its primary outcome (a composite of cardiovascular events) and all-cause mortality on August 20, 2015. Brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed on a subset of participants at baseline (n = 670) and at 4 years of follow-up (n = 449); final follow-up date was July 1, 2016. Interventions: Participants were randomized to a systolic blood pressure (SBP) goal of either less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment, n = 355) or less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment, n = 315). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in total white matter lesion volume from baseline. Change in total brain volume was a secondary outcome. Results: Among 670 recruited patients who had baseline MRI (mean age, 67.3 [SD, 8.2] years; 40.4% women), 449 (67.0%) completed the follow-up MRI at a median of 3.97 years after randomization, after a median intervention period of 3.40 years. In the intensive treatment group, based on a robust linear mixed model, mean white matter lesion volume increased from 4.57 to 5.49 cm3 (difference, 0.92 cm3 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.14]) vs an increase from 4.40 to 5.85 cm3 (difference, 1.45 cm3 [95% CI, 1.21 to 1.70]) in the standard treatment group (between-group difference in change, -0.54 cm3 [95% CI, -0.87 to -0.20]). Mean total brain volume decreased from 1134.5 to 1104.0 cm3 (difference, -30.6 cm3 [95% CI, -32.3 to -28.8]) in the intensive treatment group vs a decrease from 1134.0 to 1107.1 cm3 (difference, -26.9 cm3 [95% CI, 24.8 to 28.8]) in the standard treatment group (between-group difference in change, -3.7 cm3 [95% CI, -6.3 to -1.1]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among hypertensive adults, targeting an SBP of less than 120 mm Hg, compared with less than 140 mm Hg, was significantly associated with a smaller increase in cerebral white matter lesion volume and a greater decrease in total brain volume, although the differences were small. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062.

A Randomized Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control.

BACKGROUND: The most appropriate targets for systolic blood pressure to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among persons without diabetes remain uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 9361 persons with a systolic blood pressure of 130 mm Hg or higher and an increased cardiovascular risk, but without diabetes, to a systolic blood-pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) or a target of less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment). The primary composite outcome was myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: At 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 121.4 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group and 136.2 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group. The intervention was stopped early after a median follow-up of 3.26 years owing to a significantly lower rate of the primary composite outcome in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group (1.65% per year vs. 2.19% per year; hazard ratio with intensive treatment, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.89; P<0.001). All-cause mortality was also significantly lower in the intensive-treatment group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.90; P=0.003). Rates of serious adverse events of hypotension, syncope, electrolyte abnormalities, and acute kidney injury or failure, but not of injurious falls, were higher in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at high risk for cardiovascular events but without diabetes, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, resulted in lower rates of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events and death from any cause, although significantly higher rates of some adverse events were observed in the intensive-treatment group. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062.).

Influence of metabolic syndrome and race on the relationship between intensive blood pressure control and cardiovascular outcomes in the SPRINT cohort.

AIMS: To determine whether baseline metabolic syndrome (MetS) modifies the effect of intensive blood pressure control on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, and whether the effects varied by race/ethnicity. METHODS: We performed post hoc analyses among non-Hispanic black, non-hispanic white and Hispanic participants, with and without MetS, in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), who were randomized to a systolic blood pressure (SBP) target of <120 mm Hg (intensive group, N = 4544) or an SBP target of <140 mm Hg (standard group, N = 4553). The median follow-up was 3.26 years. The primary outcome was the composite of the first occurrence of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, non-myocardial infarction acute coronary syndrome or CV death. RESULTS: Overall, 3521/9097 participants (38.7%) met the criteria for MetS at baseline. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two SBP target groups within each MetS subgroup, except body mass index was slightly higher in the standard arm of the MetS subgroup (33.3 ± 5.6 vs 33.0 ± 5.3 kg/m2 ; P < .01), but were similar across treatment arms in the non-MetS subgroup. The hazard ratio for the primary outcome was similarly reduced in participants with or without baseline MetS: 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57, 0.96) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.57, 0.87), respectively (adjusted P value for treatment by subgroup interaction = .98). Similarly, there was no evidence of treatment × MetS subgroup interaction for all-cause mortality (adjusted interaction P value = .98). The findings were also similar across race/ethnic subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis the CV benefit of intensive SBP control did not differ among participants by baseline MetS status, regardless of race/ethnicity.

BP Control and Long-Term Risk of ESRD and Mortality.

We recently showed an association between strict BP control and lower mortality risk during two decades of follow-up of prior participants in the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) trial. Here, we determined the risk of ESRD and mortality during extended follow-up of the African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension (AASK) trial. We linked 1067 former AASK participants with CKD previously randomized to strict or usual BP control (mean arterial pressure ≤92 mmHg or 102-107 mmHg, respectively) to the US Renal Data System and Social Security Death Index; 397 patients had ESRD and 475 deaths occurred during a median follow-up of 14.4 years from 1995 to 2012. Compared with the usual BP arm, the strict BP arm had unadjusted and adjusted relative risks of ESRD of 0.92 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.75 to 1.12) and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.78 to 1.16; P=0.64), respectively, and unadjusted and adjusted relative risks of death of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.77 to 1.10) and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.98; P=0.03), respectively. In meta-analyses of individual-level data from the MDRD and the AASK trials, unadjusted relative risk of ESRD was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.78 to 1.00) and unadjusted relative risk of death was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.76 to 0.99) for strict versus usual BP arms. Our findings suggest that, during long-term follow-up, strict BP control does not delay the onset of ESRD but may reduce the relative risk of death in CKD.

Effects of Intensive BP Control in CKD.

The appropriate target for BP in patients with CKD and hypertension remains uncertain. We report prespecified subgroup analyses of outcomes in participants with baseline CKD in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial. We randomly assigned participants to a systolic BP target of <120 mm Hg (intensive group; n=1330) or <140 mm Hg (standard group; n=1316). After a median follow-up of 3.3 years, the primary composite cardiovascular outcome occurred in 112 intensive group and 131 standard group CKD participants (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.63 to 1.05). The intensive group also had a lower rate of all-cause death (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.99). Treatment effects did not differ between participants with and without CKD (P values for interactions ≥0.30). The prespecified main kidney outcome, defined as the composite of ≥50% decrease in eGFR from baseline or ESRD, occurred in 15 intensive group and 16 standard group participants (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.83). After the initial 6 months, the intensive group had a slightly higher rate of change in eGFR (-0.47 versus -0.32 ml/min per 1.73 m2 per year; P<0.03). The overall rate of serious adverse events did not differ between treatment groups, although some specific adverse events occurred more often in the intensive group. Thus, among patients with CKD and hypertension without diabetes, targeting an SBP<120 mm Hg compared with <140 mm Hg reduced rates of major cardiovascular events and all-cause death without evidence of effect modifications by CKD or deleterious effect on the main kidney outcome.