Systematic Review for the 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines

被引:101
作者
Reboussin, David M.
Allen, Norrina B.
Griswold, Michael E.
Guallar, Eliseo
Hong, Yuling
Lackland, Daniel T.
Miller, Edgar R., III
Polonsky, Tamar
Thompson-Paul, Angela M.
Vupputuri, Suma
机构
关键词
AHA Scientific Statements; antihypertensive drug class; blood pressure; cardiovascular disease; Evidence Review Committee; home blood pressure monitoring; hypertension; meta-analysis; risk reduction; targets; treatment outcomes; AGED; 60; YEARS; IMPROVE HYPERTENSION CONTROL; KIDNEY-DISEASE; RANDOMIZED-TRIAL; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE TREATMENT; CARDIOVASCULAR OUTCOMES; NETWORK METAANALYSIS; AFRICAN-AMERICAN; HOME; TARGET;
D O I
10.1161/CIR.0000000000000601
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective To review the literature systematically and perform meta-analyses to address these questions: 1) Is there evidence that self-measured blood pressure (BP) without other augmentation is superior to office-based measurement of BP for achieving better BP control or for preventing adverse clinical outcomes that are related to elevated BP? 2) What is the optimal target for BP lowering during antihypertensive therapy in adults? 3) In adults with hypertension, how do various antihypertensive drug classes differ in their benefits and harms compared with each other as first-line therapy? Methods Electronic literature searches were performed by Doctor Evidence, a global medical evidence software and services company, across PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to 2015 using key words and relevant subject headings for randomized controlled trials that met eligibility criteria defined for each question. We performed analyses using traditional frequentist statistical and Bayesian approaches, including random-effects Bayesian network meta-analyses. Results Our results suggest that: 1) There is a modest but significant improvement in systolic BP in randomized controlled trials of self-measured BP versus usual care at 6 but not 12 months, and for selected patients and their providers self-measured BP may be a helpful adjunct to routine office care. 2) systolic BP lowering to a target of <130 mmHg may reduce the risk of several important outcomes including risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and major cardiovascular events. No class of medications (ie, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, calcium channel blockers, or beta blockers) was significantly better than thiazides and thiazide-like diuretics as a first-line therapy for any outcome.
引用
收藏
页码:E595 / E616
页数:22
相关论文
共 86 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], SELF MEAS BLOOD PRES
  • [2] [Anonymous], METH MAN POL ACCF AH
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2017, MED CLIN N AM, DOI DOI 10.1016/j.mcna.2016.08.016
  • [4] [Anonymous], 2011, CLIN PRACTICE GUIDEL
  • [5] [Anonymous], 2011, Hypertension: clinical management of primary hypertension in adults
  • [6] [Anonymous], 2016, LANCET, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01225-8
  • [7] [Anonymous], BMJ
  • [8] Cardiovascular outcomes in the first trial of antihypertensive therapy guided by self-measured home blood pressure
    Asayama, Kei
    Ohkubo, Takayoshi
    Metoki, Hirohito
    Obara, Taku
    Inoue, Ryusuke
    Kikuya, Masahiro
    Thijs, Lutgarde
    Staessen, Jan A.
    Imai, Yutaka
    [J]. HYPERTENSION RESEARCH, 2012, 35 (11) : 1102 - 1110
  • [9] Optimal Systolic Blood Pressure Target After SPRINT: Insights from a Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials
    Bangalore, Sripal
    Toklu, Bora
    Gianos, Eugenia
    Schwartzbard, Arthur
    Weintraub, Howard
    Ogedegbe, Gbenga
    Messerli, Franz H.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2017, 130 (06) : 707 - U382
  • [10] Outcomes of Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering in Older Hypertensive Patients
    Bavishi, Chirag
    Bangalore, Sripal
    Messerli, Franz H.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2017, 69 (05) : 486 - 493