Cited by 651Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsHeart rate and cardiovascular health

Tight Blood Pressure Control and Cardiovascular Outcomes Among Hypertensive Patients With Diabetes and Coronary Artery Disease

Open access
Cooper-DeHoff, Rhonda M., Gong, Yan, Handberg, Eileen M., Bavry, Anthony A., Denardo, Scott J., Bakris, George L., Pepine, Carl J.·2010·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Hypertension guidelines advocate treating systolic blood pressure (BP) to less than 130 mm Hg for patients with diabetes mellitus; however, data are lacking for the growing population who also have coronary artery disease (CAD). OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of systolic BP control achieved and adverse cardiovascular outcomes in a cohort of patients with diabetes and CAD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Observational subgroup analysis of 6400 of the 22,576 participants in the International Verapamil SR-Trandolapril Study (INVEST). For this analysis, participants were at least 50 years old and had diabetes and CAD. Participants were recruited between September 1997 and December 2000 from 862 sites in 14 countries and were followed up through March 2003 with an extended follow-up through August 2008 through the National Death Index for US participants. INTERVENTION: Patients received first-line treatment of either a calcium antagonist or beta-blocker followed by angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, a diuretic, or both to achieve systolic BP of less than 130 and diastolic BP of less than 85 mm Hg. Patients were categorized as having tight control if they could maintain their systolic BP at less than 130 mm Hg; usual control if it ranged from 130 mm Hg to less than 140 mm Hg; and uncontrolled if it was 140 mm Hg or higher. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including the primary outcomes which was the first occurrence of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. RESULTS: During 16,893 patient-years of follow-up, 286 patients (12.7%) who maintained tight control, 249 (12.6%) who had usual control, and 431 (19.8%) who had uncontrolled systolic BP experienced a primary outcome event. Patients in the usual-control group had a cardiovascular event rate of 12.6% vs a 19.8% event rate for those in the uncontrolled group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-1.71; P < .001). However, little difference existed between those with usual control and those with tight control. Their respective event rates were 12.6% vs 12.7% (adjusted HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.93-1.32; P = .24). The all-cause mortality rate was 11.0% in the tight-control group vs 10.2% in the usual-control group (adjusted HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.99-1.45; P = .06); however, when extended follow-up was included, risk of all-cause mortality was 22.8% in the tight control vs 21.8% in the usual control group (adjusted HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .04). CONCLUSION: Tight control of systolic BP among patients with diabetes and CAD was not associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes compared with usual control. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00133692.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2010.884

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cooper-DeHoff, R. M., Gong, Y., Handberg, E. M., Bavry, A. A., Denardo, S. J., Bakris, G. L., & Pepine, C. J.
Affiliations
University of Florida Health (US)
Venue
JAMA
Published
2010-07-07
Volume
304
Issue
1
Pages
61
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2048695535
Cited by
651
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 44 · 2015: 53 · 2014: 67 · 2013: 84 · 2012: 89
FWCI
66.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Public Health Service (U0IGM074492)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K23HL086558)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (U01GM074492)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart rate and cardiovascular health
Keywords
tight blood pressure control, systolic blood pressure, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, cardiovascular outcomes, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, antihypertensive therapy, ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, beta-blockers, diuretics, INVEST trial, older adults, cardiovascular risk stratification
MeSH terms
Aged, Antihypertensive Agents, Blood Pressure, Coronary Artery Disease, Diabetes Mellitus, Female, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, Myocardial Infarction, Risk, United States, Cohort Studies, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Stroke, Diabetes Complications

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review