Chang, Tara I.

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.

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.