Cited by 6,325Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesSodium Intake and HealthCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention

A Randomized Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control

Open access
The SPRINT Research Group·2015·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The most appropriate targets for systolic blood pressure to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among persons without diabetes remain uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 9361 persons with a systolic blood pressure of 130 mm Hg or higher and an increased cardiovascular risk, but without diabetes, to a systolic blood-pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) or a target of less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment). The primary composite outcome was myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: At 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 121.4 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group and 136.2 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group. The intervention was stopped early after a median follow-up of 3.26 years owing to a significantly lower rate of the primary composite outcome in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group (1.65% per year vs. 2.19% per year; hazard ratio with intensive treatment, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.89; P<0.001). All-cause mortality was also significantly lower in the intensive-treatment group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.90; P=0.003). Rates of serious adverse events of hypotension, syncope, electrolyte abnormalities, and acute kidney injury or failure, but not of injurious falls, were higher in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at high risk for cardiovascular events but without diabetes, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, resulted in lower rates of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events and death from any cause, although significantly higher rates of some adverse events were observed in the intensive-treatment group. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062.).

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa1511939

Cites

27 of 27 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?

  • In the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial, patients at high cardiovascular risk targeting a systolic BP of 120 mmHg had an approximately twofold risk of syncope compared with the control group targeting a systolic BP of 140 mmHg.

    “In the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial, 261 patients at high cardiovascular risk who were already using antihypertensive drugs targeting a systolic BP of 120 mmHg had an approximately twofold risk of syncope vs. the control group targeting a systolic BP of 140 mmHg.”

    From 2018 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope (2018) · cites this paper as [261]

    The Abstract Methods report 9,361 high-risk participants assigned to targets of less than 120 or less than 140 mm Hg. The Discussion reports syncope in 3.5% of the intensive-treatment group versus 2.4% of the standard-treatment group—higher, but not approximately twofold. The cited paper also does not support the citing sentence’s description of the trial as involving 261 patients already using antihypertensive drugs. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The results of ACCORD BP and SPRINT have been interpreted to be generally consistent, but ACCORD BP was viewed as underpowered due to the composite primary end point being less sensitive to blood pressure regulation.

    “The results have been interpreted to be generally consistent between the two trials, but ACCORD BP was viewed as underpowered due to the composite primary end point being less sensitive to blood pressure regulation (38,40).”

    From 10. Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2025 (2025) · cites this paper as [38]

    The Discussion (page unavailable in our copy) says ACCORD BP’s nonsignificant cardiovascular result was consistent with the benefit observed in SPRINT and notes that ACCORD had about half SPRINT’s sample size. It does not say ACCORD was viewed as underpowered because its composite primary end point was less sensitive to blood-pressure regulation. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In SPRINT, adverse outcomes including hypotension, syncope, electrolyte abnormality, and acute kidney injury were more common in the intensive treatment arm.

    “Adverse outcomes, including hypotension, syncope, electrolyte abnormality, and acute kidney injury (AKI), were more common in the intensive treatment arm; risk of adverse outcomes needs to be weighed against the cardiovascular benefit of more intensive blood pressure lowering.”
  • In SPRINT, the primary composite outcome of MI, coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes was reduced by 25% in the intensive treatment group.

    “The primary composite outcome of MI, coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes was reduced by 25% in the intensive treatment group.”
  • SPRINT demonstrated that treatment to a goal systolic blood pressure of <120 mmHg decreases cardiovascular event rates by 25% in high-risk individuals, although people with diabetes were excluded from this trial.

    “The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) demonstrated that treatment to a goal systolic blood pressure of <120 mmHg decreases cardiovascular event rates by 25% in high-risk individuals, although people with diabetes were excluded from this trial (38).”

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: 7

  1. [2]Go AS Mozaffarian D Roger VL Heart disease and stroke statistics — 2014 update: a report from the American Heart Association Circulation 2014 129 3 e28 292 24352519 PMC5408159
  2. [4]Franklin SS Jacobs MJ Wong ND L’Italien GJ Lapuerta P Predominance of isolated systolic hypertension among middle-aged and elderly US hypertensives: analysis based on National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III Hypertension 2001 37 869 74 11244010
  3. [6]Collins R Peto R MacMahon S Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease. 2. Short-term reductions in blood pressure: overview of randomised drug trials in their epidemiological context Lancet 1990 335 827 38 1969567
  4. [13]Sundström J Arima H Jackson R Effects of blood pressure reduction in mild hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis Ann Intern Med 2015 162 184 91 25531552
  5. [20]Ogihara T Saruta T Rakugi H Target blood pressure for treatment of isolated systolic hypertension in the elderly: Valsartan in Elderly Isolated Systolic Hypertension study Hypertension 2010 56 196 202 20530299
  6. [33]Proschan MA Lan KKG Wittes JT Statistical monitoring of clinical trials: a unified approach New York Springer 2006
  7. [35]Bakris GL Weir MR Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-associated elevations in serum creatinine: is this a cause for concern? Arch Intern Med 2000 160 685 93 10724055

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
The SPRINT Research Group
Affiliations
University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
The SPRINT Research Group
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2015-11-26
Volume
373
Issue
22
Pages
2103-2116
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W3150595609
Cited by
6,325
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 390 · 2025: 449 · 2024: 437 · 2023: 498 · 2022: 523 · 2021: 602 · 2020: 570 · 2019: 694 · 2018: 734 · 2017: 767 · 2016: 613 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 3
FWCI
522.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000093, UL1TR000050, UL1TR001427, UL1TR000073, UL1TR001064, UL1TR001085, UL1TR000002, UL1TR000075, UL1TR000064, UL1TR000005, UL1TR000433, UL1TR000003, UL1TR000445, UL1TR000439, UL1TR000105)
  • National Institute on Aging (P30AG021332)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HHSN268200900040C, A-HL-13-002-001, HHSN268200900049C, HHSN268200900048C, HHSN268200900047C, HHSN268200900046C)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (P30GM103337)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR025755, UL1RR024134, UL1RR025752, UL1RR025771)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (9U54TR000017‐06)
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
intensive blood pressure control, systolic blood pressure target, antihypertensive therapy, cardiovascular risk, cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality, adverse events, hypotension, acute kidney injury, non-diabetic patients
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Aged, Antihypertensive Agents, Blood Pressure, Cardiovascular Diseases, Cause of Death, Female, Goals, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, Practice Guidelines as Topic

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