ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2022
Intensive Versus Standard Blood Pressure Lowering and Days Free of Cardiovascular Events and Serious Adverse Events: a Post Hoc Analysis of Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01206062 (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Balancing Benefit and Harm of Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering Based on Individual Outcome Profile Analysis.The American journal of medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 12 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCommunication of the benefits and harms of blood pressure lowering strategy is crucial for shared decision-making.
objectivesTo quantify the effect of intensive versus standard systolic blood pressure lowering in terms of the number of event-free days
designPost hoc analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial
participantsA total of 9361 adults 50 years or older without diabetes or stroke who had a systolic blood pressure of 130-180 mmHg and elevated cardiovascular risk
interventionsIntensive (systolic blood pressure goal <120 mmHg) versus standard blood pressure lowering (<140 mmHg) MAIN MEASURES: Days free of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), serious adverse events (SAE), and monitored adverse events (hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, electrolyte abnormalities, injurious falls, or acute kidney injury) over a median follow-up of 3.33 years KEY
resultsThe intensive treatment group gained 14.7 more MACE-free days over 4 years (difference, 14.7 [95% confidence interval: 5.1, 24.4] days) than the standard treatment group. The benefit of the intensive treatment varied by cognitive function (normal: difference, 40.7 [13.0, 68.4] days; moderate-to-severe impairment: difference, -15.0 [-56.5, 26.4] days; p-for-interaction=0.009) and self-rated health (excellent: difference, -22.7 [-51.5, 6.1] days; poor: difference, 156.1 [31.1, 281.2] days; p-for-interaction=0.001). The mean overall SAE-free days were not significantly different between the treatments (difference, -14.8 [-35.3, 5.7] days). However, the intensive treatment group had 28.5 fewer monitored adverse event-free days than the standard treatment group (difference, -28.5 [-40.3, -16.7] days), with significant variations by frailty status (non-frail: difference, 38.8 [8.4, 69.2] days; frail: difference, -15.5 [-46.6, 15.7] days) and self-rated health (excellent: difference, -12.9 [-45.5, 19.7] days; poor: difference, 180.6 [72.9, 288.4] days; p-for-interaction <0.001).
conclusionsOver 4 years, intensive systolic blood pressure lowering provides, on average, 14.7 more MACE-free days than standard treatment, without any difference in SAE-free days. Whether this time-based effect summary improves shared decision-making remains to be elucidated.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Registration: NCT01206062.
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.