↓ Skip to main content

Blood pressure targets for the treatment of people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
169 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Blood pressure targets for the treatment of people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010315.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Saiz, Luis Carlos, Gorricho, Javier, Garjón, Javier, Celaya, Mª Concepción, Muruzábal, Lourdes, Malón, Mª Del Mar, Montoya, Rodolfo, López, Antonio, Luis Carlos Saiz, Javier Gorricho, Javier Garjón, Mª Concepción Celaya, Lourdes Muruzábal, Mª del Mar Malón, Rodolfo Montoya, Antonio López

Abstract

Hypertension is a prominent preventable cause of premature morbidity and mortality. People with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease are at particularly high risk, so reducing blood pressure below standard targets may be beneficial. This strategy could reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity but could also increase adverse events. The optimal blood pressure target in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease remains unknown. To determine if 'lower' blood pressure targets (≤ 135/85 mmHg) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity as compared with 'standard' blood pressure targets (≤ 140 to 160/ 90 to 100 mmHg) in the treatment of people with hypertension and a history of cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, peripheral vascular occlusive disease). The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to February 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Literature Database (from 1982) and contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. There were no language restrictions. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with more than 50 participants per group and at least six months follow-up. Trial reports needed to present data for at least one primary outcome (total mortality, serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality). Eligible interventions were lower target for systolic/diastolic blood pressure (≤ 135/85 mmHg) compared with standard target for blood pressure (≤ 140 to 160/90 to 100 mmHg).Participants were adults with documented hypertension or who were receiving treatment for hypertension and cardiovascular history for myocardial infarction, stroke, chronic peripheral vascular occlusive disease or angina pectoris. Two review authors independently assessed search results and extracted data using standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We included six RCTs that involved a total of 9795 participants. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (range 1.0 to 4.7 years). Five RCTs provided individual patient data for 6775 participants.We found no change in total mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.21; moderate-quality evidence). Similarly, no differences were found in serious adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.11; low-quality evidence). There was a reduction in fatal and non fatal cardiovascular events (including myocardial infarction, stroke, sudden death, hospitalization or death from congestive heart failure) with the lower target (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.98; ARR 1.6% over 3.7 years; low-quality evidence). There were more participant withdrawals due to adverse effects in the lower target arm (RR 8.16, 95% CI 2.06 to 32.28; very low-quality evidence). Blood pressures were lower in the lower' target group by 9.5/4.9 mmHg. More drugs were needed in the lower target group but blood pressure targets were achieved more frequently in the standard target group. No evidence of a difference in total mortality and serious adverse events was found between treating to a lower or to a standard blood pressure target in people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease. This suggests no net health benefit from a lower systolic blood pressure target despite the small absolute reduction in total cardiovascular serious adverse events. There was very limited evidence on adverse events, which lead to high uncertainty. At present there is insufficient evidence to justify lower blood pressure targets (≤ 135/85 mmHg) in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease. More trials are needed to answer this question.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 169 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 31%
Student > Postgraduate 3 19%
Unspecified 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 6%
Other 3 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 63%
Unspecified 2 13%
Psychology 2 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 111. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 November 2017.
All research outputs
#81,994
of 8,660,544 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#218
of 8,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,515
of 214,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1
of 156 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,660,544 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,712 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 214,702 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 156 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.