We are going to blog with Medium. Click here to open a second window with instructions on how to sign up and blog with Medium.
Here is a sample blogpost in medium about SPRINT.
For the Twitter debate: use the hashtag #SPRINT-Chat.
Here are links to the study:
SPRINT Study in the NEJM: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1511939
Link in PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26551272
The most appropriate targets for systolic blood pressure to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among persons without diabetes remain uncertain.
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.
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.
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.
- A nicely written editorial (with some additional meta-analysis) from Vlado Perkovic (who also has done a Youtube interview) and Anthony Rodgers
- Another perspective from Aram Chobanian
- An editorial from the NEJM editors, explaining their decision making
- A clinical case discussion vignette piece
- A quick take video
- A podcast interview with author Dr Whelton
- 3 editorials (PDF available at this link)