Cargando…

Tight versus standard blood pressure control on the incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke: an observational retrospective cohort study in the general ambulatory setting

BACKGROUND: The 2017 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guideline defined hypertension as blood pressure (BP) ≥ 130/80 mmHg compared to the traditional definition of ≥140/90 mmHg. This change raised much controversy. We conducted this study to compare the impact of tight (...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Park, Bumsoo, Budzynska, Katarzyna, Almasri, Nada, Islam, Sumaiya, Alyas, Fanar, Carolan, Rachel L., Abraham, Benjamin E., Castro-Camero, Pamela A., Shreve, Maria E., Rees, Della A., Lamerato, Lois
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7231410/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32416722
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-020-01163-4
_version_ 1783535184820305920
author Park, Bumsoo
Budzynska, Katarzyna
Almasri, Nada
Islam, Sumaiya
Alyas, Fanar
Carolan, Rachel L.
Abraham, Benjamin E.
Castro-Camero, Pamela A.
Shreve, Maria E.
Rees, Della A.
Lamerato, Lois
author_facet Park, Bumsoo
Budzynska, Katarzyna
Almasri, Nada
Islam, Sumaiya
Alyas, Fanar
Carolan, Rachel L.
Abraham, Benjamin E.
Castro-Camero, Pamela A.
Shreve, Maria E.
Rees, Della A.
Lamerato, Lois
author_sort Park, Bumsoo
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The 2017 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guideline defined hypertension as blood pressure (BP) ≥ 130/80 mmHg compared to the traditional definition of ≥140/90 mmHg. This change raised much controversy. We conducted this study to compare the impact of tight (TBPC) versus standard BP control (SBPC) on the incidence of myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all hypertensive patients in an ambulatory setting based on the diagnostic code for 1 year at our institution who were classified by the range of BP across 3 years into 2 groups of TBPC (< 130 mmHg) and SBPC (130–139 mmHg). We compared the incidence of new MI and stroke between the 2 groups across a 2-year follow-up. Multivariate analysis was done to identify independent predictors for the incidence of new MI and stroke. RESULTS: Of 5640 study patients, the TBPC group showed significantly less incidence of stroke compared to the SBPC group (1.5% vs. 2.7%, P < 0.010). No differences were found in MI incidence between the 2 groups (0.6% vs. 0.8%, P = 0.476). Multivariate analysis showed that increased age independently increased the incidence of both MI (OR 1.518, 95% CI 1.038–2.219) and stroke (OR 1.876, 95% CI 1.474–2.387), and TBPC independently decreased the incidence of stroke (OR 0.583, 95% CI 0.374–0.910) but not of MI. CONCLUSIONS: Our observational study suggests that TBPC may be beneficial in less stroke incidence compared to SBPC but it didn’t seem to affect the incidence of MI. Our study is limited by its retrospective design with potential confounders.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7231410
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72314102020-05-27 Tight versus standard blood pressure control on the incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke: an observational retrospective cohort study in the general ambulatory setting Park, Bumsoo Budzynska, Katarzyna Almasri, Nada Islam, Sumaiya Alyas, Fanar Carolan, Rachel L. Abraham, Benjamin E. Castro-Camero, Pamela A. Shreve, Maria E. Rees, Della A. Lamerato, Lois BMC Fam Pract Research Article BACKGROUND: The 2017 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guideline defined hypertension as blood pressure (BP) ≥ 130/80 mmHg compared to the traditional definition of ≥140/90 mmHg. This change raised much controversy. We conducted this study to compare the impact of tight (TBPC) versus standard BP control (SBPC) on the incidence of myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all hypertensive patients in an ambulatory setting based on the diagnostic code for 1 year at our institution who were classified by the range of BP across 3 years into 2 groups of TBPC (< 130 mmHg) and SBPC (130–139 mmHg). We compared the incidence of new MI and stroke between the 2 groups across a 2-year follow-up. Multivariate analysis was done to identify independent predictors for the incidence of new MI and stroke. RESULTS: Of 5640 study patients, the TBPC group showed significantly less incidence of stroke compared to the SBPC group (1.5% vs. 2.7%, P < 0.010). No differences were found in MI incidence between the 2 groups (0.6% vs. 0.8%, P = 0.476). Multivariate analysis showed that increased age independently increased the incidence of both MI (OR 1.518, 95% CI 1.038–2.219) and stroke (OR 1.876, 95% CI 1.474–2.387), and TBPC independently decreased the incidence of stroke (OR 0.583, 95% CI 0.374–0.910) but not of MI. CONCLUSIONS: Our observational study suggests that TBPC may be beneficial in less stroke incidence compared to SBPC but it didn’t seem to affect the incidence of MI. Our study is limited by its retrospective design with potential confounders. BioMed Central 2020-05-16 /pmc/articles/PMC7231410/ /pubmed/32416722 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-020-01163-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Park, Bumsoo
Budzynska, Katarzyna
Almasri, Nada
Islam, Sumaiya
Alyas, Fanar
Carolan, Rachel L.
Abraham, Benjamin E.
Castro-Camero, Pamela A.
Shreve, Maria E.
Rees, Della A.
Lamerato, Lois
Tight versus standard blood pressure control on the incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke: an observational retrospective cohort study in the general ambulatory setting
title Tight versus standard blood pressure control on the incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke: an observational retrospective cohort study in the general ambulatory setting
title_full Tight versus standard blood pressure control on the incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke: an observational retrospective cohort study in the general ambulatory setting
title_fullStr Tight versus standard blood pressure control on the incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke: an observational retrospective cohort study in the general ambulatory setting
title_full_unstemmed Tight versus standard blood pressure control on the incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke: an observational retrospective cohort study in the general ambulatory setting
title_short Tight versus standard blood pressure control on the incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke: an observational retrospective cohort study in the general ambulatory setting
title_sort tight versus standard blood pressure control on the incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke: an observational retrospective cohort study in the general ambulatory setting
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7231410/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32416722
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-020-01163-4
work_keys_str_mv AT parkbumsoo tightversusstandardbloodpressurecontrolontheincidenceofmyocardialinfarctionandstrokeanobservationalretrospectivecohortstudyinthegeneralambulatorysetting
AT budzynskakatarzyna tightversusstandardbloodpressurecontrolontheincidenceofmyocardialinfarctionandstrokeanobservationalretrospectivecohortstudyinthegeneralambulatorysetting
AT almasrinada tightversusstandardbloodpressurecontrolontheincidenceofmyocardialinfarctionandstrokeanobservationalretrospectivecohortstudyinthegeneralambulatorysetting
AT islamsumaiya tightversusstandardbloodpressurecontrolontheincidenceofmyocardialinfarctionandstrokeanobservationalretrospectivecohortstudyinthegeneralambulatorysetting
AT alyasfanar tightversusstandardbloodpressurecontrolontheincidenceofmyocardialinfarctionandstrokeanobservationalretrospectivecohortstudyinthegeneralambulatorysetting
AT carolanrachell tightversusstandardbloodpressurecontrolontheincidenceofmyocardialinfarctionandstrokeanobservationalretrospectivecohortstudyinthegeneralambulatorysetting
AT abrahambenjamine tightversusstandardbloodpressurecontrolontheincidenceofmyocardialinfarctionandstrokeanobservationalretrospectivecohortstudyinthegeneralambulatorysetting
AT castrocameropamelaa tightversusstandardbloodpressurecontrolontheincidenceofmyocardialinfarctionandstrokeanobservationalretrospectivecohortstudyinthegeneralambulatorysetting
AT shrevemariae tightversusstandardbloodpressurecontrolontheincidenceofmyocardialinfarctionandstrokeanobservationalretrospectivecohortstudyinthegeneralambulatorysetting
AT reesdellaa tightversusstandardbloodpressurecontrolontheincidenceofmyocardialinfarctionandstrokeanobservationalretrospectivecohortstudyinthegeneralambulatorysetting
AT lameratolois tightversusstandardbloodpressurecontrolontheincidenceofmyocardialinfarctionandstrokeanobservationalretrospectivecohortstudyinthegeneralambulatorysetting