cardiovascular

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a pathophysiological disorder that may involve multiple clinical conditions and may be associated with a variety of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. The complexity of managing PH requires a multifaceted, holistic, and multidisciplinary approach, with active involvement of patients with PH in partnership with clinicians. Streamlining the care of patients with PH in daily clinical practice is a challenging but essential requirement for effectively managing PH. In recent years, substantial progress has been made in detecting and managing PH, and new evidence has been timeously integrated in this fourth edition of the ESC/ERS Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension. Reflecting the multidisciplinary input into managing patients with PH and interpreting new evidence, the Task Force included cardiologists and pneumologists, a thoracic surgeon, methodologists, and patients. These comprehensive clinical practice guidelines cover the whole spectrum of PH, with an emphasis on diagnosing and treating pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and chronic thrombo-embolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH).

Background: In a previously reported randomized trial of standard and intensive systolic blood-pressure control, data on some outcome events had yet to be adjudicated and post-trial follow-up data had not yet been collected.

Methods: We randomly assigned 9361 participants who were at increased risk for cardiovascular disease but did not have diabetes or previous stroke to adhere to an intensive treatment target (systolic blood pressure, <120 mm Hg) or a standard treatment target (systolic blood pressure, <140 mm Hg). The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. Additional primary outcome events occurring through the end of the intervention period (August 20, 2015) were adjudicated after data lock for the primary analysis. We also analyzed post-trial observational follow-up data through July 29, 2016.

Results: At a median of 3.33 years of follow-up, the rate of the primary outcome and all-cause mortality during the trial were significantly lower in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group (rate of the primary outcome, 1.77% per year vs. 2.40% per year; hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.86; all-cause mortality, 1.06% per year vs. 1.41% per year; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.92). Serious adverse events of hypotension, electrolyte abnormalities, acute kidney injury or failure, and syncope were significantly more frequent in the intensive-treatment group. When trial and post-trial follow-up data were combined (3.88 years in total), similar patterns were found for treatment benefit and adverse events; however, rates of heart failure no longer differed between the groups.

Conclusions: Among patients who were at increased cardiovascular risk, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg resulted in lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and lower all-cause mortality than targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg, both during receipt of the randomly assigned therapy and after the trial. Rates of some adverse events were higher in the intensive-treatment group. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; SPRINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062.).