Original Investigation
2014 Eighth Joint National Committee Panel Recommendation for Blood Pressure Targets Revisited: Results From the INVEST Study

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2014.05.044Get rights and content
Under an Elsevier user license
open archive

Abstract

Background

The 2014 Eighth Joint National Committee panel recommendations for management of high blood pressure (BP) recommend a systolic BP threshold for initiation of drug therapy and a therapeutic target of <150 mm Hg in those ≥60 years of age, a departure from prior recommendations of <140 mm Hg. However, it is not known whether this is an optimal choice, especially for the large population with coronary artery disease (CAD).

Objectives

This study sought to evaluate optimal BP in patients ≥60 years of age.

Methods

Patients 60 years of age or older with CAD and baseline systolic BP >150 mm Hg randomized to a treatment strategy on the basis of either atenolol/hydrochlorothiazide or verapamil-SR (sustained release)/trandolapril in INVEST (INternational VErapamil SR Trandolapril STudy) were categorized into 3 groups on the basis of achieved on-treatment systolic BP: group 1, <140 mm Hg; group 2, 140 to <150 mm Hg; and group 3, ≥150 mm Hg. Primary outcome was first occurrence of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or nonfatal stroke. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, total MI, nonfatal MI, total stroke, nonfatal stroke, heart failure, or revascularization, tabulated separately. Outcomes for each group were compared in unadjusted and multiple propensity score–adjusted models.

Results

Among 8,354 patients included in this analysis with an accumulated 22,308 patient-years of follow-up, 4,787 (57%) achieved systolic BP of <140 mm Hg (group 1), 1,747 (21%) achieved systolic BP of 140 to <150 mm Hg (group 2), and 1,820 (22%) achieved systolic BP of ≥150 mm Hg (group 3). In unadjusted models, group 1 had the lowest rates of the primary outcome (9.36% vs. 12.71% vs. 21.32%; p < 0.0001), all-cause mortality (7.92% vs. 10.07% vs. 16.81%; p < 0.0001), cardiovascular mortality (3.26% vs. 4.58% vs. 7.80%; p < 0.0001), MI (1.07% vs. 1.03% vs. 2.91%; p < 0.0001), total stroke (1.19% vs. 2.63% vs. 3.85%; p <0.0001), and nonfatal stroke (0.86% vs 1.89% vs 2.86%; p<0.0001) compared with groups 2 and 3, respectively. In multiple propensity score–adjusted models, compared with the reference group of <140 mm Hg (group 1), the risk of cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01 to 1.77; p = 0.04), total stroke (adjusted HR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.26 to 2.82; p = 0.002) and nonfatal stroke (adjusted HR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.06 to 2.72; p = 0.03) was increased in the group with BP of 140 to <150 mm Hg, whereas the risk of primary outcome, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, total MI, nonfatal MI, total stroke, and nonfatal stroke was increased in the group with BP ≥150 mm Hg.

Conclusions

In hypertensive patients with CAD who are ≥60 years of age, achieving a BP target of 140 to <150 mm Hg as recommended by the JNC-8 panel was associated with less benefit than the previously recommended target of <140 mm Hg.

Key Words

blood pressure
coronary artery disease
elderly
systolic
target

Abbreviations and Acronyms

BP
blood pressure
CAD
coronary artery disease
MI
myocardial infarction
SBP
systolic blood pressure

Cited by (0)

Drs. Gong and Cooper-DeHoff are supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of General Medical Sciences (U01 GM074492). Dr. Bangalore serves on advisory boards for Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Abbott, Gilead, and Abbott Vascular. Dr. Cooper-DeHoff is supported by a research grant from Abbott Laboratories. Dr. Meserli is an ad-hoc consultant for Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Servier, Medtronic Inc., and Ipca Laboratories Ltd. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Listen to this manuscript's audio summary by JACC Editor-in-Chief Dr. Valentin Fuster.

You can also listen to this issue's audio summary by JACC Editor-in-Chief Dr. Valentin Fuster.