Safety and efficacy of intensive systolic blood pressure lowering after successful endovascular therapy: a post hoc analysis of the BP TARGET trial.

Background: The Safety and Efficacy of Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering after Successful Endovascular Therapy in Acute Ischaemic Stroke (BP TARGET) trial demonstrated no benefit from intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) treatment after successful reperfusion with endovascular therapy. However, it remains unknown if the response to blood pressure treatment is modified by other factors.
Objective: To carry out a post hoc analysis of the BP TARGET trial data to determine if the response to blood pressure treatment is modified by factors such as age, history of hypertension, recanalization status, location of occlusion, diabetes, hyperglycemia, or pretreatment with intravenous thrombolysis.
Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of the BP TARGET trial. Patients were divided into groups based on age, diabetes, blood glucose, site of occlusion, history of hypertension, and pretreatment with intravenous thrombolysis. The primary outcome was any intraparenchymal hemorrhage.
Results: 318 patients were included. Diabetes modified the treatment effect on favorable functional outcome (P _heteogenity =0.041). There was a trend towards benefit from intensive SBP treatment in diabetic patients (OR=2.81; 95% CI 0.88 to 8.88; p=0.08) but not in non-diabetic patients (OR=0.75; 95% 0.45 to 126; p 0.28). Age, location of occlusion, admission SBP, pretreatment with intravenous thrombolysis, and history of hypertension did not modify the effect of intensive SBP treatment on any of the outcomes.
Conclusion: The effect of SBP lowering treatment was not modified by age, location of occlusion history of hypertension, intravenous thrombolysis, and admission SBP. Diabetes modified the effect of intensive SBP lowering treatment, and there was a trend towards benefit from intensive SBP treatment in diabetic patients. This finding is hypothesis generating and requires further validation.
Competing Interests: Competing interests: RB, MP declare institutional fees for teaching presentations from Stryker, MicroVention, Balt; MM declares institutional fees for teaching presentations from Boerhinger Ingelheim, Amgen, and consulting fees from Boerhinger Ingelheim, Air liquide, Acticor Biotech; AdH declares grants from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; grants from AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; compensation from Integra for consultant services; and stock options in Certus.
(© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)