The implications of blood pressure targets from the 2018 European Society of Cardiology hypertension guidelines in Asian patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

backgroundThe evidence for optimal blood pressure (BP) targets in Asian patients with hypertension is insufficient and controversial. Western guidelines should be used with caution in clinical practice until there is supporting evidence.

objectiveSystematically synthesize the evidence on the efficacy of achieving the strict 2018 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline BP targets versus standard BP targets in Asian patients. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials, and additional databases to retrieve relevant Asian studies. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that reported clinical endpoints, had a minimal follow-up period of one year and included Asian patients older than 18 years with essential hypertension. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators independently conducted the study selection with any discrepancies resolved between team members. DATA SYNTHESIS: We selected 15 studies for analysis (4 RCTs, 7 observational studies, and 4 post-hoc analyses). The evidence for the strict BP targets in elderly patients was insufficient. In middle-aged patients, the meta-analysis of observational studies revealed a significant reduction in major adverse cardiac events (MACCE) (hazard ratio (HR)=0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI: 0.74-0.81). For studies that reported results for patients of any age, the tight systolic BP-lowering therapy was associated with a decrease in MACCE (HR=0.80; 95% CI: 0.69-0.92), stroke (HR=0.82; 95% CI: 0.71-0.94), but not in cardiac events (HR=0.91; 95% CI: 0.72-1.14,

conclusionOur findings provide evidence for Asian patients that support the efficacy of the strict antihypertensive treatment with BP targets proposed by the 2018 ESC hypertension guidelines for the prevention of cardiovascular events. However, these data were obtained from only observational studies and the results were not confirmed by RCTs, probably due to insufficient power. Therefore, further high-quality RCTs are crucial. LIMITATIONS: Use of aggregated data, the subgroup and meta-regression analyses are inconclusive, limited to English language, unable to estimate summary measures for some outcomes, publication bias difficult to assess, and unclear that results could be extrapolated. REGISTRATION: The protocol registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018115570). CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None.