临床荟萃 ›› 2022, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (3): 197-203.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-583X.2022.03.001

• 循证研究 •    下一篇

卒中后不同降压方案的有效性及安全性:系统评价及meta分析

王晓庆1, 郭毅佳2, 唐镱方2, 唐琴2, 杨杰2()   

  1. 1.成都市公共卫生临床医疗中心,四川 成都 610500
    2.成都医学院,四川 成都 610500
  • 收稿日期:2020-11-03 出版日期:2022-03-20 发布日期:2022-04-02
  • 通讯作者: 杨杰 E-mail:892878026@qq.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金资助项目——MiR-150-5p通过调控GP Ⅱb/Ⅲa受体改善替罗非班疗效的机制研究(81870940);成都市科技局国际科技合作项目——脑卒中急救车超早期强化降压的研究(2020-GH02-00057-HZ)

The efficacy and safety of different blood pressure target on secondary stroke prevention: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Wang Xiaoqing1, Guo Yijia2, Tang Yifang2, Tang Qin2, Yang Jie2()   

  1. 1. Public Health Clinical Center of Chengdu, Chengdu 610500, China
    2. Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu 610500, China
  • Received:2020-11-03 Online:2022-03-20 Published:2022-04-02
  • Contact: Yang Jie E-mail:892878026@qq.com

摘要:

目的 评价不同降压方案在卒中二级预防中的有效性及安全性。方法 检索Pubmed、Embase、Cochrane图书馆、万方、中国知网、重庆维普、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)等中英文数据库,检索时间为数据库起始时间至2020年6月1日。纳入标准:比较降压治疗组与对照组(安慰剂或空白对照)或比较强化降压组与标准降压组(强化降压定义为血压目标<130/85 mmHg,标准降压定义为血压目标<140/90 mmHg)预防卒中复发的随机对照临床试验。结局指标:主要血管性事件、卒中、心肌梗死为有效性指标,血管性死亡、全因死亡为安全性指标。结果 本研究纳入10项临床研究,患者39 931例。其中,6项研究(n=35 040)比较降压治疗组与对照组,4项研究(n=4 891)比较强化降压组与标准降压组。与对照组相比,降压治疗组卒中风险(Risk Ratios,RR)为0.80(95%CI:0.69~0.93,P=0.003),血管性死亡RR为0.85(95%CI: 0.77~0.94,P=0.002),两组间主要血管性事件、心肌梗死及全因死亡风险差异无统计学意义。与标准降压组相比,强化降压组卒中RR为0.78(95%CI: 0.64~0.95,P=0.01)、主要血管性事件RR为0.82(95%CI: 0.69~0.97,P=0.02),两组间心肌梗死、血管性死亡及全因死亡风险差异无统计学意义。结论 降压治疗组较对照组可降低卒中患者的卒中复发及血管性死亡风险,强化降压较标准降压可进一步降低卒中复发及主要血管性事件风险。

关键词: 卒中, 降压, 强化降压, 二级预防, Meta分析

Abstract:

Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of different blood pressure target on secondary stroke prevention. Methods We searched English and Chinese databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Wanfang database, China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI), Chongqing VIP, and China Biology Medicine disc (CBM). The search time of database was up to June 1, 2020. Inclusion criteria: in randomized controlled trials (RCT) of stroke recurrence prevention, we included trials comparing BPLDs group (blood pressure-lowering drugs) versus control group (placebo or no treatment); we also included trials comparing intensive blood pressure lowering group with standard blood pressure lowering group (intensive blood pressure lowering defined as blood pressure <130/85 mmHg, standard blood pressure lowering defined as blood pressure <140/90 mmHg). Outcomes index: major vascular event, stroke, and myocardial infarction were used as efficacy outcomes. Vascular death and all-cause death were used as safety outcomes. Results Ten trials were included, with 39, 931 patients were included; of which, six studies were included in BPLDs group and the control group (35, 040 participants), and four studies were included intensive blood pressure lowering group and standard blood pressure lowering group (4, 891 participants). Compared with the control group, the pooled risk ratio (Risk Ratios, RR) of BPLDs was 0.80(95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69 to 0.93; P=0.003) for recurrent stroke, 0.85(95%CI 0.77 to 0.94; P=0.002) for vascular death in BPLDs group; there was no significant difference in the incidence of major vascular event, myocardial infarction and all-cause death between the two groups. Compared with standard blood pressure lowering group, the pooled RRs were 0.78 (95%CI 0.64 to 0.95; P=0.01) for recurrent stroke and 0.82 (95%CI 0.69 to 0.97; P=0.02) for major vascular event in intensive blood pressure lowering group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction, vascular death and all-cause death between the two groups. Conclusion BPLDs reduce the risk of stroke recurrence and vascular death for stroke patients compared with no antihypertensive treatment. Intensive antihypertensive therapy for stroke patients can further reduce stroke recurrence and major vascular event compared with standard antihypertensive therapy.

Key words: stroke, antihypertensive treatment, intensive blood pressure lowering, secondary prevention, meta-analysis

中图分类号: