诊断学理论与实践 ›› 2023, Vol. 22 ›› Issue (04): 348-361.doi: 10.16150/j.1671-2870.2023.04.004

• 国内外学术动态 • 上一篇    下一篇

从学术角度看高血压诊断界值不应下调至130/80 mmHg

施仲伟()   

  1. 上海交通大学医学院附属瑞金医院心脏科,上海 200025
  • 收稿日期:2023-06-24 出版日期:2023-08-25 发布日期:2023-12-18
  • 通讯作者: 施仲伟 E-mail: shizhongwei1952@hotmail.com

The diagnostic threshold for hypertension should not be lowered down to 130/80 mmhg: an academic perspective

SHI Zhongwei()   

  1. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China
  • Received:2023-06-24 Online:2023-08-25 Published:2023-12-18

摘要:

高血压是一种临床诊断,其定义为血压水平高于某一界值,此时降压治疗的获益明显大于风险。我国目前的高血压诊断标准是诊室收缩压≥140 mmHg和(或)舒张压≥90 mmHg(≥140/90 mmHg)。过去几十年间积累的循证医学,尤其是随机对照试验(randomized controlled trial, RCT)证据显示,高血压患者接受降压药物治疗并使血压降至<140/90 mmHg后,其发生主要心血管事件的风险显著降低。然而,美国2017年美国心脏学院(American College of Cardiology, ACC)和美国心脏学会(American Heart Association, AHA)联合发布的高血压指南(ACC/AHA指南)推荐强化降压,将高血压诊断标准下调至≥130/80 mmHg。我国有专家建议采用这一新标准,但更多的专家指出下调高血压诊断界值,将极大增加慢病管理的负担。2003年,美国高血压指南将糖尿病和慢性肾脏病患者的降压目标下调至<130/80 mmHg,但欧洲专家指出,没有随机对照试验(randomized controlled trial, RCT)支持这种下调能进一步降低主要心血管事件。2014年美国高血压指南得出同样结论,并推荐60岁以下成人(包括糖尿病和慢性肾脏病患者)的降压目标为<140/90 mmHg。新发表的6项RCT显示出不同的结果。皮质下小卒中二级预防试验显示强化降压不能降低卒中后患者的卒中复发率,糖尿病患者控制心血管风险行动试验显示,强化降压不能降低高危糖尿病患者的主要心血管事件发生率。心脏后果预防评价试验-3和中国正常高值血压人群降压治疗试验显示,在中低心血管风险的正常高值血压人群中,降压药物治疗不能减少心血管事件。收缩压干预试验(systolic blood pressure intervention trial,SPRINT)和老年高血压患者血压干预策略试验则显示,强化降压能显著降低主要心血管事件。SPRINT试验是美国ACC/AHA指南下调高血压诊断标准的主要依据,但该试验采用独特的血压测量方法导致血压测值低于常规诊室血压测值。SPRINT试验和老年高血压患者血压干预策略试验均为开放设计、提前终止的研究,且通过停药或减量来升高部分标准治疗组患者血压,这些方法夸大了强化治疗组的获益程度。可见,目前仍然缺乏将高血压诊断界值从140/90 mmHg下调至130/80 mmHg能带来临床获益的高质量证据。

关键词: 高血压, 诊断临界值, 循证医学

Abstract:

Hypertension is a clinical diagnosis and is defined as the level of blood pressure (BP) at which the benefits of treatment unequivocally outweigh the risks of treatment, as documented by randomized controlled trials (RCTs). According to the current Chinese hypertension guidelines, the office BP threshold for diagnosing hypertension is systolic BP (SBP) ≥140 mmHg and/or diastolic BP (DBP) ≥90 mmHg. However, in the 2017 ACC/AHA hypertension guidelines the diagnostic threshold for hypertension was reduced to ≥130/80 mmHg with purpose of promoting more intensive BP treatment. Some Chinese experts suggest to adopt this new standard, but many more point out that such a change will impact severely on our healthcare system. This paper will explain why the BP threshold should not be lowered down to 130/80 mmHg from an academic perspective.During the past several decades a large number of RCTs have shown that, in hypertensive patients with drug treatment, lowering SBP/DBP to <140/90 mmHg is associated with significant reductions in major cardiovascular (CV) events and all-cause mortality. In 2003 American hypertension guidelines (JNC 7) recommended to treat patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease (CKD) to BP goal of <130/80 mmHg. However, European experts found that recommendation was not supported by RCT evidence. The 2014 evidence-based American guidelines (JNC 8) drew the same conclusion and recommended a BP goal of <140/90 mmHg for hypertensive persons young than 60 years, including those with diabetes or CKD. The six recently published RCTs showed different results. Lowering SBP to <130/80 mmHg in patients with recent lacunar stroke did not result in a significant reduction of recurrent stroke in the SPS3 trial. Targeting a SBP of <120 mmHg did not reduce the rate of major CV events in the ACCORD study. Both the HOPE-3 trial and the CHINOM trial showed that in low-to-moderate risk patients with a BP in the high-normal range, antihypertensive drug treatment was not associated with a lower rate of major CV events than placebo. The SPRINT trial and the STEP study showed that intensive treatment with a SBP target of <120 mmHg or <130 mmHg resulted in a lower incidence of CV events. SPRINT trial was the major driver for the BP threshold changes introduced in the 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines. However, in the SPRINT trial a unique unattended BP measurement method was used that was different from methods used in previous studies. The SBP levels, when assessed by the unattended method, are usually much lower than when measured with conventional office BP measurement. Both the SPRINT trial and the STEP study are open-labelled and stopped early that typically provide exaggerated estimates of benefits. Both the studies required that patients in the standard treatment group stop taking antihypertensive drugs or have the doses reduced if their SBP dropped to below the lower limit of the target range. Reduction of therapy is not in line with clinical practice and would seem to bias the trial against the standard treatment. Thus, there still lacks high-quality evidence to convince us to reset the diagnostic threshold for hypertension to 130/80 mmHg, down from the current trigger of 140/90.

Key words: Hypertension, Diagnostic Threshold, Evidence-based medicine

中图分类号: