Evidence mapPaperPMID 33589758Full record

Trial reportJournal of human hypertension2022

Intensive blood pressure treatment in coronary artery disease: implications from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).

Jiabin Zang, Jianwen Liang, Xiaodong Zhuang, Shaozhao Zhang, Xinxue Liao, Guifu Wu

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of human hypertension, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jiabin Zang *Department of Cardiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Jianwen Liang *Department of Cardiology, The Eighth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Xiaodong ZhuangDepartment of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6508-8507
Shaozhao ZhangDepartment of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Xinxue LiaoDepartment of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. liaoxinx@mail.sysu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7631-1866
Guifu WuDepartment of Cardiology, The Eighth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China. wuguifu@mail.sysu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2823-6643
Sun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To investigate the optimal blood pressure (BP) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), we conducted subgroup analysis using SPRINT data. The study sample included 1206 participants with CAD (of whom 692 underwent coronary revascularization) and 8127 participants without CAD. Participants were randomized into two groups (systolic BP target of 140 mm Hg vs. 120 mm Hg). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular events. After a median follow-up of 3.9 years, the hazard ratios (HRs) for the primary outcome were 0.65 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.79) and 1.05 (95% CI 0.76-1.46) among those in the non-CAD and CAD subgroups, respectively (P value for interaction 0.02). Intensive BP treatment was a protective factor for all-cause death (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37-0.96) in the CAD subgroup, compared with standard BP treatment. The HRs (95% CI) for stroke were 3.57 (1.17-10.85) and 1.03 (0.29-3.62) among those in the coronary revascularization and non-revascularization subgroups, respectively (P value for interaction 0.13). For safety events, intensive BP treatment increased the risk of hypotension (HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.06-3.79) and electrolyte abnormalities (HR 2.38, 95% CI 1.25-4.56) in the CAD subgroup, while the risk of serious adverse events did not increase (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.88-1.20). These results suggest that positive benefits from intensive BP treatment might be attenuated in patients with CAD who are under better secondary prevention. The risk of stroke might increase at the systolic BP target of 120 mm Hg in case of coronary revascularization, although the confidence interval was wide.

Indexed as

Antihypertensive AgentsCoronary Artery DiseaseHypertensionHypotensionBlood PressureHumansRisk FactorsSecondary PreventionStrokeTreatment OutcomeAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID33589758
PMCPMC8766284
OpenAlexW3131959984

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.