Cited by 783Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesSodium Intake and HealthCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention

Systolic Blood Pressure Reduction and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease and Mortality: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Open access
Bundy, Joshua D., Li, Changwei, Stuchlik, Patrick, Bu, Xiaoqing, Kelly, Tanika N., Mills, Katherine T., He, Hua, Chen, Jing +2 more·2017·JAMA Cardiology

Abstract

Importance: Clinical trials have documented that lowering blood pressure reduces cardiovascular disease and premature deaths. However, the optimal target for reduction of systolic blood pressure (SBP) is uncertain. Objective: To assess the association of mean achieved SBP levels with the risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality in adults with hypertension treated with antihypertensive therapy. Data Sources: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from inception to December 15, 2015, supplemented by manual searches of the bibliographies of retrieved articles. Study Selection: Studies included were clinical trials with random allocation to an antihypertensive medication, control, or treatment target. Studies had to have reported a difference in mean achieved SBP of 5 mm Hg or more between comparison groups. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted from each study independently and in duplicate by at least 2 investigators according to a standardized protocol. Network meta-analysis was used to obtain pooled randomized results comparing the association of each 5-mm Hg SBP category with clinical outcomes after adjusting for baseline risk. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality. Results: Forty-two trials, including 144 220 patients, met the eligibility criteria. In general, there were linear associations between mean achieved SBP and risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality, with the lowest risk at 120 to 124 mm Hg. Randomized groups with a mean achieved SBP of 120 to 124 mm Hg had a hazard ratio (HR) for major cardiovascular disease of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.60-0.83) compared with randomized groups with a mean achieved SBP of 130 to 134 mm Hg, an HR of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.48-0.72) compared with those with a mean achieved SBP of 140 to 144 mm Hg, an HR of 0.46 (95% CI, 0.34-0.63) compared with those with a mean achieved SBP of 150 to 154 mm Hg, and an HR of 0.36 (95% CI, 0.26-0.51) compared with those with a mean achieved SBP of 160 mm Hg or more. Likewise, randomized groups with a mean achieved SBP of 120 to 124 mm Hg had an HR for all-cause mortality of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.58-0.93) compared with randomized groups with a mean achieved SBP of 130 to 134 mm Hg, an HR of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.45-0.77) compared with those with a mean achieved SBP of 140 to 144 mm Hg, an HR of 0.51 (95% CI, 0.36-0.71) compared with those with a mean achieved SBP of 150 to 154 mm Hg, and an HR of 0.47 (95% CI, 0.32-0.67) compared with those with a mean achieved SBP of 160 mm Hg or more. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that reducing SBP to levels below currently recommended targets significantly reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality. These findings support more intensive control of SBP among adults with hypertension.

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/jamacardio.2017.1421

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [17]17. Jones DW, Weatherly L, Hall JE. SPRINT: what remains unanswered and where do we go from here? Hypertension. 2016;67(2):261-262.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bundy, J. D., Li, C., Stuchlik, P., Bu, X., Kelly, T. N., Mills, K. T., He, H., Chen, J., Whelton, P. K., & He, J.
Affiliations
Tulane University (US)
Corresponding author
He, Jiang
Venue
JAMA Cardiology
Published
2017-07-01
Volume
2
Issue
7
Pages
775
ISSN
2380-6583 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2618382346
Cited by
783
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 59 · 2025: 102 · 2024: 96 · 2023: 99 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 95 · 2020: 80 · 2019: 78 · 2018: 73 · 2017: 35
FWCI
56.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (P20GM109036)
  • Fogarty International Center (D43TW009107)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Sodium Intake and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Keywords
systolic blood pressure, blood pressure targets, hypertension, antihypertensive therapy, cardiovascular disease, all-cause mortality, blood pressure reduction, linear dose-response relationship, cardiovascular risk reduction, cardiovascular disease prevention, cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment
MeSH terms
Antihypertensive Agents, Blood Pressure, Cardiovascular Diseases, Humans, Hypertension, Mortality, Patient Care Planning, Systole

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