Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2009 Aug 15;374(9689):525-33.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61340-4.

Usual Versus Tight Control of Systolic Blood Pressure in Non-Diabetic Patients With Hypertension (Cardio-Sis): An Open-Label Randomised Trial

Collaborators, Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Usual Versus Tight Control of Systolic Blood Pressure in Non-Diabetic Patients With Hypertension (Cardio-Sis): An Open-Label Randomised Trial

Paolo Verdecchia et al. Lancet. .

Erratum in

  • Lancet. 2009 Sep 12;374(9693):880

Abstract

Background: The level to which systolic blood pressure should be controlled in hypertensive patients without diabetes remains unknown. We tested the hypothesis that tight control compared with usual control of systolic blood pressure would be beneficial in such patients.

Methods: In this randomised open-label trial undertaken in 44 centres in Italy, 1111 non-diabetic patients with systolic blood pressure 150 mm Hg or greater were randomly assigned to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg (usual control; n=553) or less than 130 mm Hg (tight control; n=558). After stratification by centre, we used a computerised random function to allocate patients to either group. Observers who were unaware of randomisation read electrocardiograms and adjudicated events. Open-label agents were used to reach the randomised targets. The primary endpoint was the rate of electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy 2 years after randomisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00421863.

Results: Over a median follow-up of 2.0 years (IQR 1.93-2.03), systolic and diastolic blood pressure were reduced by a mean of 23.5/8.9 mm Hg (SD 10.6/7.0) in the usual-control group and by 27.3/10.4 mm Hg (11.0/7.5) in the tight-control group (between-group difference 3.8 mm Hg systolic [95% CI 2.4-5.2], p<0.0001; and 1.5 mm Hg diastolic [0.6-2.4]; p=0.041). The primary endpoint occurred in 82 of 483 patients (17.0%) in the usual-control group and in 55 of 484 patients (11.4%) of the tight-control group (odds ratio 0.63; 95% CI 0.43-0.91; p=0.013). A composite cardiovascular endpoint occurred in 52 (9.4%) patients in the usual-control group and in 27 (4.8%) in the tight-control group (hazard ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.31-0.79; p=0.003). Side-effects were rare and did not differ significantly between the two groups.

Interpretation: Our findings lend support to a lower blood pressure goal than is recommended at present in non-diabetic patients with hypertension.

Funding: Boehringer-Ingelheim, Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer.

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 82 articles

  • Tight versus standard blood pressure control on the incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke: an observational retrospective cohort study in the general ambulatory setting.
    Park B, Budzynska K, Almasri N, Islam S, Alyas F, Carolan RL, Abraham BE, Castro-Camero PA, Shreve ME, Rees DA, Lamerato L. Park B, et al. BMC Fam Pract. 2020 May 16;21(1):91. doi: 10.1186/s12875-020-01163-4. BMC Fam Pract. 2020. PMID: 32416722 Free PMC article.
  • Incidence and Implications of Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter in Hypertension: Insights From the SPRINT Trial.
    Parcha V, Patel N, Kalra R, Kim J, Gutiérrez OM, Arora G, Arora P. Parcha V, et al. Hypertension. 2020 Jun;75(6):1483-1490. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.14690. Epub 2020 May 4. Hypertension. 2020. PMID: 32362231
  • Effect of Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering on the Risk of Atrial Fibrillation.
    Soliman EZ, Rahman AF, Zhang ZM, Rodriguez CJ, Chang TI, Bates JT, Ghazi L, Blackshear JL, Chonchol M, Fine LJ, Ambrosius WT, Lewis CE. Soliman EZ, et al. Hypertension. 2020 Jun;75(6):1491-1496. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.14766. Epub 2020 May 4. Hypertension. 2020. PMID: 32362229
  • Determinants of adherence to anti-hypertensive medications among adult hypertensive patients on follow-up in Hawassa Referral Hospital: A case-control study.
    Getenet A, Tesfa M, Ferede A, Molla Y. Getenet A, et al. JRSM Cardiovasc Dis. 2019 Dec 13;8:2048004019892758. doi: 10.1177/2048004019892758. eCollection 2019 Jan-Dec. JRSM Cardiovasc Dis. 2019. PMID: 32010442 Free PMC article.
  • [Austrian Consensus on High Blood Pressure 2019].
    Weber T, Arbeiter K, Ardelt F, Auer J, Aufricht C, Brandt MC, Dichtl W, Ferrari J, Föger B, Henkel M, Hohenstein-Scheibenecker K, Horn S, Kautzky-Willer A, Kepplinger E, Knoflach M, Koppelstätter C, Mache C, Marschang P, Mayer G, Metzler B, Oberbauer R, Obermair F, Obermayer-Pietsch B, Perl S, Pilz S, Prischl FC, Podczeck-Schweighofer A, Rebhandl E, Rohla M, Roller-Wirnsberger R, Saely CH, Siostrzonek P, Slany J, Stoschitzky K, Waldegger S, Wenzel RR, Weiss T, Wirnsberger G, Winhofer-Stöckl Y, Zweiker D, Zweiker R, Watschinger B; Österreichische Gesellschaft für Hypertensiologie; Österreichische Atherosklerosegesellschaft; Österreichische Diabetes Gesellschaft; Österreichische Gesellschaft für Internistische Angiologie; Österreichische Gesellschaft für Nephrologie; Österreichische Kardiologische Gesellschaft; Österreichische Gesellschaft für Neurologie; Österreichische Schlaganfall-Gesellschaft; Österr. Gesellschaft für Allgemeinmedizin; Österr. Gesellschaft für Geriatrie; Österreichische Gesellschaft für Endokrinologie und Stoffwechsel; Österreichische Gesellschaft für Innere Medizin; Österreichische Gesellschaft für Kinder- und Jugendheilkunde. Weber T, et al. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2019 Nov;131(Suppl 6):489-590. doi: 10.1007/s00508-019-01565-0. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2019. PMID: 31792659 German.
See all "Cited by" articles

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback