Bates, Jeffrey T.

In the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), the number of strokes did not differ significantly by treatment group. However, stroke subtypes have heterogeneous causes that could respond differently to intensive blood pressure control. SPRINT participants (N=9361) were randomized to target systolic blood pressures of <120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) compared with <140 mm Hg (standard treatment). We compared incident hemorrhage, cardiac embolism, large- and small-vessel infarctions across treatment arms. Participants randomized to the intensive arm had mean systolic blood pressures of 121.4 mm Hg in the intensive arm (N=4678) and 136.2 mm Hg in the standard arm (N=4683) at one year. Sixty-nine strokes occurred in the intensive arm and 78 in the standard arm when SPRINT was stopped. The breakdown of stroke subtypes across treatment arms included hemorrhagic (intensive treatment, n=6, standard treatment, n=7) and ischemic stroke subtypes (large artery atherosclerosis: intensive treatment n=11, standard treatment, n=13; cardiac embolism: intensive treatment n=11, standard treatment n=15; small artery occlusion: intensive treatment n=8, standard treatment n=8; other ischemic stroke: intensive treatment n=3, standard treatment n=1). Fewer strokes occurred among participants without prior cardiovascular disease in the intensive (n=43) than the standard arm (n=61), but the difference did not reach predefined statistical significance level of 0.05 ( P =0.09). The interaction between baseline cardiovascular risk factor status and treatment arm on stroke risk did not reach significance ( P =0.05). Similar numbers of stroke subtypes occurred in the intensive BP control and standard control arms of SPRINT.

It remains uncertain whether intensive control of blood pressure (BP) results in a lower risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with hypertension. Using data from SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), which enrolled participants with hypertension at increased risk of cardiovascular disease, we examined whether intensive BP lowering (target systolic BP [SBP] <120 mm Hg), compared with standard BP lowering (target SBP<140 mm Hg), results in a lower risk of AF. This analysis included 8022 participants (4003 randomized to the intensive arm and 4019 to standard BP arm) who were free of AF at the time of enrollment and with available baseline and follow-up electrocardiographic data. AF was ascertained from standard 12-lead electrocardiograms recorded at biannual study examinations and an exit visit. During up to 5.2 years of follow-up and a total of 28 322 person-years, 206 incident AF cases occurred; 88 in the intensive BP-lowering arm and 118 in the standard BP-lowering arm. Intensive BP lowering was associated with a 26% lower risk of developing new AF (hazard ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56–0.98]; P =0.037). This effect was consistent among prespecified subgroups of SPRINT participants stratified by age, sex, race, SBP tertiles, prior cardiovascular disease, and prior chronic kidney disease when interactions between treatment effect and these subgroups were assessed using Hommel adjusted P values. In conclusion, intensive treatment to a target of SBP <120 mm Hg in patients with hypertension at high risk of cardiovascular disease has the potential to reduce the risk of AF. Registration— URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

Background Blood pressure ( BP ) varies over time within individual patients and across different BP measurement techniques. The effect of different BP targets on concordance between BP measurements is unknown. The goals of this analysis are to evaluate concordance between (1) clinic and ambulatory BP , (2) clinic visit‐to‐visit variability and ambulatory BP variability, and (3) first and second ambulatory BP and to evaluate whether different clinic targets affect these relationships. Methods and Results The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) ambulatory BP monitoring ancillary study obtained ambulatory BP readings in 897 participants at the 27‐month follow‐up visit and obtained a second reading in 203 participants 293±84 days afterward. There was considerable lack of agreement between clinic and daytime ambulatory systolic BP with wide limits of agreement in Bland‐Altman plots of −21 to 34 mm Hg in the intensive‐treatment group and −26 to 32 mm Hg in the standard‐treatment group. Overall, there was poor agreement between clinic visit‐to‐visit variability and ambulatory BP variability with correlation coefficients for systolic and diastolic BP all <0.16. We observed a high correlation between first and second ambulatory BP ; however, the limits of agreement were wide in both the intensive group (−27 to 21 mm Hg) and the standard group (−23 to 20 mm Hg). Conclusions We found low concordance in BP and BP variability between clinic and ambulatory BP and second ambulatory BP . Results did not differ by treatment arm. These results reinforce the need for multiple BP measurements before clinical decision making.

Blood pressure (BP) varies over time within individual patients and across different BP measurement techniques. The effect of different BP targets on the concordance between BP measurements is unknown. The goal of this analysis was to evaluate concordance in: 1) clinic BP and ambulatory BP, 2) clinic visit-to-visit variability and ambulatory BP variability and 3) initial and repeat ambulatory BP. We also sought to evaluate whether treatment assignment of intensive vs standard BP target affected these relationships. The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) ambulatory blood pressure monitoring ancillary study obtained ambulatory BP readings in 897 SPRINT participants at the 27 month follow up visit and 203 consecutive repeat ambulatory BP readings taken an average of 9.8 months later. There was poor agreement between clinic systolic BP and daytime ambulatory systolic BP (limits of agreement in Bland-Altman plots of -21 to 34 mm Hg in the intensive treatment group and -26 to 32 mm Hg in the standard treatment group). There was poor agreement between clinic visit-to-visit variability (coefficient of variation) and ambulatory BP variability (coefficient of variation of a 24 hr ambulatory BP) with correlation coefficients for systolic BP <0.16. While there was a high correlation between ambulatory BP at 27 months and repeat ambulatory BP (r ~0.56), there was significant variability between repeat ambulatory BP assessments (limits of agreement of -27 to 21 mm Hg in the intensive group and -23 to 20 mm Hg in the standard group). In conclusion, irrespective of treatment target, we found low concordance in BP and BP variability between clinic BP and ambulatory BP, and additionally between repeat ambulatory BP assessments. These results reinforce the need for multiple guideline adherent BP measurements prior to clinical decision making.