Optimal or standard control of systolic and diastolic blood pressure across risk factor categories in patients with chronic coronary syndromes

Lay Summary We aimed to compare the benefit associated with strict vs. standard control of blood pressure with the potential benefit of controlling other modifiable risk factors in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS).Our analysis conducted in nearly 20 000 patients from the CLARIFY registry (a prospective international cohort of patients with CCS) showed that the benefit associated with strict blood pressure (BP) control (BP < 130/80 mmHg) was marginal and only driven by the diastolic component of blood pressure, whereas having one or more uncontrolled other risk factors was associated with a gradually increasing risk, for all underlying BP levels.Patients with CCS should be treated to achieve BP <140/80 mmHg. However, our results suggest that optimizing the burden of other risk factors (lipid-lowering therapy, exercise, smoking cessation, diabetes control) may need to be prioritized before considering further reduction of systolic BP. Aims Guidelines have lowered blood pressure (BP) targets to <130/80 mmHg. We examined the benefit of intensive control for each BP component, vs. the burden of other modifiable risk factors, in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS). Methods and results The CLARIFY registry (ISRCTN43070564) enrolled 32 703 patients with CCS, from 2009 to 2010, with a 5-year follow-up. Patients with either BP component below European guideline safety boundaries (120/70 mmHg) were excluded, leaving 19 167 patients (mean age: 63.8 +/- 10.1 years, 78% men) in the present analysis. A multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards model showed a gradual increase in cardiovascular risk (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) when the number of uncontrolled risk factors (active smoking, no physical activity, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol >= 100 mg/dL, and diabetes with glycated haemoglobin >= 7%) increased [adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 1.34; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.17-1.52, 1.65 (1.40-1.94), and 2.47 (1.90-3.21) for 1, 2, and 3 or 4 uncontrolled risk factors, respectively, vs. 0], without significant interaction with BP. Although uncontrolled systolic (>= 140 mmHg) and diastolic (>= 90 mmHg) BP were both associated with higher risk than standard BP, standard BP was associated with higher risk than optimal control for only the diastolic component (adjusted HR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.94-1.25 for systolic BP 130-139 vs. 120-129 mmHg and 1.43; 95% CI: 1.27-1.62 for diastolic BP 80-89 vs. 70-79 mmHg). Conclusions Our results suggest that the optimal BP target in CCS may be <= 139/79 mmHg and that optimizing the burden of other risk factors should be prioritized over the further reduction of systolic BP.