Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2026
Efficacy and safety of intensive antihypertensive strategy in patients with low diastolic blood pressure: a secondary analysis of a cluster randomised trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Xie Ziyi, Yang Chuan, Yin Yangzhi, Shi Chuning, Geng Danxi, Wang Chang, Ye Ning, Qiao Lixia, Ouyang Nanxiang, Zhang Linlin, Zhang Pengyu, Sun Zhaoqing, Sun Yingxian, Sun Guozhe
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Intensive blood pressure (BP) control <130/80 mm Hg could bring additional benefits for cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, it is unclear whether intensive BP control remains effective and safe in the general hypertensive population with low diastolic BP (DBP) since a J-shaped relationship between DBP and CVD was observed.
METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of the China Rural Hypertension Control Project. Mixed-effect Cox proportional regression and generalised estimating equation models were used to determine HRs of outcomes by intensive BP control, stratified by baseline DBP quartiles. The interaction between intervention and DBP levels was assessed.
RESULTS: A total of 33 288 participants were divided into four categories according to baseline DBP quartiles (Q1-Q4): DBP ≤80.7 mm Hg, 80.7-87.3 mm Hg, 87.3-94.3 mm Hg and >94.3 mm Hg, respectively. Compared with usual care, the intervention group reduced cardiovascular outcomes across DBP quartiles with adjusted HRs as follows: Q1: 0.69 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.83, p<0.001), Q2: 0.60 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.71, p<0.001), Q3: 0.59 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.71, p<0.001) and Q4: 0.67 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.78, p<0.001). There was no evidence of interaction between DBP quartiles and groups (p=0.987). The intervention group had a higher risk of hypotension, which was observed when stratifying by different baseline DBP levels. Intensive BP reduction did not increase the occurrence of injurious falls, syncope or adverse kidney outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: The intensive BP intervention led by non-physician providers is both effective and safe in reducing CVD and mortality across all baseline DBP groups.
METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of the China Rural Hypertension Control Project. Mixed-effect Cox proportional regression and generalised estimating equation models were used to determine HRs of outcomes by intensive BP control, stratified by baseline DBP quartiles. The interaction between intervention and DBP levels was assessed.
RESULTS: A total of 33 288 participants were divided into four categories according to baseline DBP quartiles (Q1-Q4): DBP ≤80.7 mm Hg, 80.7-87.3 mm Hg, 87.3-94.3 mm Hg and >94.3 mm Hg, respectively. Compared with usual care, the intervention group reduced cardiovascular outcomes across DBP quartiles with adjusted HRs as follows: Q1: 0.69 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.83, p<0.001), Q2: 0.60 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.71, p<0.001), Q3: 0.59 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.71, p<0.001) and Q4: 0.67 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.78, p<0.001). There was no evidence of interaction between DBP quartiles and groups (p=0.987). The intervention group had a higher risk of hypotension, which was observed when stratifying by different baseline DBP levels. Intensive BP reduction did not increase the occurrence of injurious falls, syncope or adverse kidney outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: The intensive BP intervention led by non-physician providers is both effective and safe in reducing CVD and mortality across all baseline DBP groups.