ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2018
Dangers of Overly Aggressive Blood Pressure Control.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exercise dose and modality for blood pressure reduction in predominantly postmenopausal women: a dose-response network meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- The role of brain natriuretic peptide in atrial fibrillation: a substudy of the Substrate Modification with Aggressive Blood Pressure Control for Atrial Fibrillation (SMAC-AF) trial.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2021Trial
- Effects of Blood Pressure Lowering on Clinical Outcomes According to Baseline Blood Pressure and Cardiovascular Risk in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2019Trial
- Long-term systolic blood pressure and cardiovascular risks among patients with ischemic stroke: a register-based cohort study.Journal of global health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewRecent US guidelines have changed the definition of hypertension to ≥ 130/80 mmHg and recommended more intense blood pressure (BP) targets. We summarize the evidence for intense BP treatment and discuss risks that must be considered when choosing treatment goals for individual patients. RECENT
findingsThe SPRINT study reported that treating to a systolic BP target of 120 mmHg reduces cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk individuals, supporting more intensive BP reduction than previously recommended. However, recent observational studies have placed emphasis on the BP J-curve phenomenon, where low BPs are associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes, suggesting that overly aggressive BP targets may sometimes be harmful. We attempt to reconcile these apparent contradictions for the clinician. We also review other potential dangers of aggressive BP targets, including syncope, renal impairment, polypharmacy, drug interactions, subjective drug side-effects, and non-adherence. We suggest a personalized approach to BP drug management considering individual risks, benefits, and preferences when choosing therapeutic targets, recognizing that a goal of 130/80 mmHg should always be considered. Additionally, we recommend an intense focus on lifestyle changes and medication adherence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.