Papademetriou, Vasilios

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.

Background and objectives It is unclear whether the presence of albuminuria modifies the effects of intensive systolic BP control on risk of eGFR decline, cardiovascular events, or mortality. Design, setting, participants, & measurements The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial randomized nondiabetic adults ≥50 years of age at high cardiovascular risk to a systolic BP target of <120 or <140 mm Hg, measured by automated office BP. We compared the absolute risk differences and hazard ratios of ≥40% eGFR decline, the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial primary cardiovascular composite outcome, and all-cause death in those with or without baseline albuminuria (urine albumin-creatinine ratio ≥30 mg/g). Results Over a median follow-up of 3.1 years, 69 of 1723 (4%) participants with baseline albuminuria developed ≥40% eGFR decline compared with 61 of 7162 (1%) participants without albuminuria. Incidence rates of ≥40% eGFR decline were higher in participants with albuminuria (intensive, 1.74 per 100 person-years; standard, 1.17 per 100 person-years) than in participants without albuminuria (intensive, 0.48 per 100 person-years; standard, 0.11 per 100 person-years). Although effects of intensive BP lowering on ≥40% eGFR decline varied by albuminuria on the relative scale (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.91 to 2.39 for albumin-creatinine ratio ≥30 mg/g; hazard ratio, 4.55; 95% confidence interval, 2.37 to 8.75 for albumin-creatinine ratio <30 mg/g; P value for interaction <0.001), the absolute increase in ≥40% eGFR decline did not differ by baseline albuminuria (incidence difference, 0.38 events per 100 person-years for albumin-creatinine ratio ≥30 mg/g; incidence difference, 0.58 events per 100 person-years for albumin-creatinine ratio <30 mg/g; P value for interaction =0.60). Albuminuria did not significantly modify the beneficial effects of intensive systolic BP lowering on cardiovascular events or mortality evaluated on relative or absolute scales. Conclusions Albuminuria did not modify the absolute benefits and risks of intensive systolic BP lowering.

Background: Direct stenting without pre-dilation or post-dilation has been advocated for saphenous vein graft percutaneous coronary intervention to decrease the incidence of distal embolization, periprocedural myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Methods: We performed a post hoc analysis of patients enrolled in the DIVA (Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare Metal Stents in Saphenous Vein Graft Angioplasty; NCT 01121224) prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Patients were stratified into stent-only and balloon-stent groups. Primary end point was 12-month incidence of target vessel failure (defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization). Secondary end points included all-cause death, stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization during follow-up. Results: Of the 575 patients included in this substudy, 185 (32%) patients underwent stent-only percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients in the stent-only versus balloon-stent group had similar baseline characteristics and similar incidence of target vessel failure at 12-months (15% versus 19%; hazard ratio, 1.34 [95% CI, 0.86–2.08]; P =0.19). During long-term follow-up (median of 2.7 years), the incidence of definite stent thrombosis (1% versus 5%; hazard ratio, 9.20 [95% CI, 1.23–68.92]; P =0.0085), the composite of definite or probable stent thrombosis (5% versus 11%; hazard ratio, 2.52 [95% CI, 1.23–5.18]; P =0.009), and target vessel myocardial infarction (8% versus 14%; hazard ratio, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.08–3.40]; P =0.023) was lower in the stent-only group. Multivariable analysis showed that a higher number of years since coronary artery bypass grafting and >1 target saphenous vein graft lesions were associated with increased target vessel failure during entire follow-up, while preintervention Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction-3 flow was protective. Conclusions: In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention of de novo saphenous vein graft lesions, there was no difference in target vessel failure at 12 months and long-term follow-up in the stent-only versus the balloon-stent group; however, the incidence of stent thrombosis was lower in the stent-only group, as was target vessel myocardial infarction. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT 01121224.

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.

In observational studies, left ventricular mass (LVM) and structure are strong predictors of mortality and cardiovascular events. However, the effect of hypertension treatment on LVM reduction and its relation to subsequent outcomes is unclear, particularly at lower blood pressure (BP) targets. In an ancillary study of SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), where participants were randomly assigned to intensive BP control (target systolic BP target <120 mm Hg) versus standard BP control (<140 mm Hg), cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed at baseline and 18-month follow-up to measure: LVM, volumes, ejection fraction, and native T1 mapping for myocardial fibrosis. At baseline, 337 participants were examined (age: 64±9 years, 45% women); 300 completed the 18-month exam (153 intensive control and 147 standard control). In the intensive versus standard BP control group at 18 months, there was no difference in change in LVM (mean±SE =−2.7±0.5 g versus −2.3±0.7 g; P =0.368), ejection fraction, or native T1 ( P =0.79), but there was a larger decrease in LVM/end-diastolic volume ratio (−0.04±0.01 versus −0.01±0.01; P =0.002) a measure of concentric LV remodeling. There were fewer cardiovascular events in the intensive control group, but no significant association between the reduced events and change in LVM or any other cardiac magnetic resonance imaging measure. In SPRINT-HEART, contrary to our hypothesis, there were no significant between-group differences in LVM, function, or myocardial T1 at 18-month follow-up. These results suggests that mediators other than these LV measures contribute to the improved cardiovascular outcomes with intensive BP control.

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.

Background: In individuals with a low diastolic blood pressure (DBP), the potential benefits or risks of intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) lowering are unclear. Methods: SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) was a randomized controlled trial that compared the effects of intensive (target <120 mm Hg) and standard (target <140 mm Hg) SBP control in 9361 older adults with high blood pressure at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular disease events. All-cause death and incident chronic kidney disease were secondary outcomes. This post hoc analysis examined whether the effects of the SBP intervention differed by baseline DBP. Results: Mean baseline SBP and DBP were 139.7±15.6 and 78.1±11.9 mm Hg, respectively. Regardless of the randomized treatment, baseline DBP had a U-shaped association with the hazard of the primary cardiovascular disease outcome. However, the effects of the intensive SBP intervention on the primary outcome were not influenced by baseline DBP level ( P for interaction=0.83). The primary outcome hazard ratio for intensive versus standard treatment was 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.57–1.07) in the lowest DBP quintile (mean baseline DBP, 61±5 mm Hg) and 0.74 (95% confidence interval, 0.61–0.90) in the upper 4 DBP quintiles (mean baseline DBP, 82±9 mm Hg), with an interaction P value of 0.78. Results were similar for all-cause death and kidney events. Conclusions: Low baseline DBP was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease events, but there was no evidence that the benefit of the intensive SBP lowering differed by baseline DBP. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

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 m 2 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.