Background Elevated systolic blood pressure (SBP) in the acute phase after endovascular therapy (EVT) is associated with worse outcome. However, the association between systolic blood pressure reduction (SBPr) and the outcome of EVT is not well understood.
Objective To determine the association between SBPr and clinical outcomes after EVT in a prospective multicenter cohort.
Methods A post hoc analysis of the Blood Pressure after Endovascular Stroke Therapy (BEST) prospective observational cohort study was carried out. SBPr was defined as the absolute difference between admission SBP and mean SBP in the first 24 hours after EVT. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between SBPr and poor functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 3–6) at 90 days.
Results A total of 259/433 (58.5%) patients had poor outcome. SBPr was higher in the poor outcome group than in the good outcome group (26.6±27.4 vs 19.0±22.3 mm Hg; p<0.001). However, in adjusted models, SBPr was not independently associated with poor outcome (OR=1.00 per 1 mm Hg increase, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.01) or death (OR=0.9 per 1 mm Hg increase; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.00). No association remained when SBPr was divided into tertiles. Subgroup analyses based on history of hypertension, revascularization status, and antihypertensive treatment yielded similar results.
Conclusion The reduction in baseline SBP following EVT was not associated with poor functional outcomes. Most of the cohort (88%) achieved successful recanalization, and therefore, these results mainly apply to patients with successful recanalization.
- blood pressure
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. Data sharing statement: Additional data from this project can be acquired by contacting the corresponding author.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
MA and AdH contributed equally.
Contributors All authors provided a substantial contribution to the conception and design of the studies and/or the acquisition and/or the analysis of the data and/or the interpretation of the data. They have drafted the work or revised it for significant intellectual content and approved the final version of the manuscript. They agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work, including its accuracy and integrity.
Funding Supported by the Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology and the University of Cincinnati Gardner Neuroscience Institute pilot research grants. EAM reports a research grant from NIH/NINDS (K23NS113858).
Competing interests EAM reports grants from the Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology, University of Cincinnati Gardner Neuroscience Institute, and Vanderbilt Faculty Research Scholar Program. AdH reports a research grant from NIH/NINDS (K23NS105924).
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.