Trial reportJournal of the American College of Cardiology2025
Using PREVENT Equations to Compare Intensive vs Standard Systolic Blood Pressure Control for Primary Prevention in SPRINT.
Trial report in Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Predicting Risk of Cardiovascular Disease Events (PREVENT) equations may provide more precise risk stratification than older calculators by incorporating estimated glomerular filtration rate, excluding race, and capturing total cardiovascular disease (CVD) events including heart failure.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to quantify the relative and absolute benefits and harms of intensive vs standard systolic blood pressure (SBP) treatment by the new PREVENT risk levels.
methodsA secondary analysis of SPRING (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) was performed among participants without prevalent CVD and with complete data to calculate the baseline PREVENT 10-year risk for total CVD, which was categorized as low or borderline (<7.5%), intermediate (7.5% to <20%), and high (≥20%). Across these groups, the HRs and 4-year absolute risk differences were estimated for the effect of intensive (<120 mm Hg) vs standard (<140 mm Hg) SBP treatment on the primary composite outcome (myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, heart failure, or CVD death) and treatment-related serious adverse events.
resultsOf 6,554 SPRINT participants analyzed (mean age 65 years, 37% women, 53% non-Hispanic White), the median PREVENT
conclusionsAmong SPRINT participants without baseline CVD, the relative risk reduction with intensive vs standard SBP treatment was consistent across PREVENT risk strata. However, the absolute risks varied several-fold from the low- or borderline-risk group to the high-risk group. These findings underscore the utility of PREVENT to identify those most likely to derive substantial absolute benefit from intensive SBP control for primary prevention.
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.