Blood pressure targets in people with cardiovascular disease

Review question

We assessed whether lower blood pressure goals are better than standard blood pressure goals for people with high blood pressure who also have heart or vascular problems.


Many people with heart or vascular (blood vessels and circulatory system) problems also have high blood pressure. Some clinical guidelines recommend a lower blood pressure goal (135/85 mmHg or lower) for people with previous heart or vascular problems than for with those without (140 to 160 mmHg or less systolic and 90 to 100 mmHg diastolic or less are standard blood pressure goals). It is unclear whether lower goals lead to overall health benefits.

Search date

We searched for evidence up to November 2019.

Study characteristics

For this updated review, we included six trials with 9484 participants who were followed up from one year to 4.7 years. We analyzed data to detect differences between lower and standard blood pressure goals in terms of numbers of deaths and numbers of serious side effects (leading to hospital admission).

Key results

We found little to no differences in total numbers of deaths, or heart or vascular deaths between lower and standard blood pressure goal approaches. Similar findings of little to no differences were also found for the total number of heart problems, or vascular problems and total serious harms, but the evidence was less certain. Based on very uncertain and limited information, we found more dropouts resulting from drug-related harms in the lower blood pressure target group and no overall health benefit among people in the lower target group.

Quality of the evidence

The evidence identified in this review does not support lower blood pressure goals over standard goals in people with elevated blood pressure and heart or vascular problems. More new trials are needed to examine this question. Overall, the quality of evidence was very low to moderate according to the GRADE assessment (a method for appraising clinical studies and making recommendations for reviews and guidelines).

Authors' conclusions: 

We found there is probably little to no difference in total mortality and cardiovascular mortality between people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease treated to a lower compared to a standard blood pressure target. There may also be little to no difference in serious adverse events or total cardiovascular events. This suggests that no net health benefit is derived from a lower systolic blood pressure target. We found very limited evidence on withdrawals due to adverse effects, which led to high uncertainty. At present, evidence is insufficient to justify lower blood pressure targets (135/85 mmHg or less) in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease. Several trials are still ongoing, which may provide an important input to this topic in the near future.

Read the full abstract...

This is the second update of the review first published in 2017.

Hypertension is a prominent preventable cause of premature morbidity and mortality. People with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease are at particularly high risk, so reducing blood pressure to below standard targets may be beneficial. This strategy could reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity but could also increase adverse events. The optimal blood pressure target in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease remains unknown.


To determine if lower blood pressure targets (135/85 mmHg or less) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity as compared with standard blood pressure targets (140 to 160/90 to 100 mmHg or less) in the treatment of people with hypertension and a history of cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, peripheral vascular occlusive disease).

Search strategy: 

For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to November 2019: Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (from 1982), along with the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. We applied no language restrictions.

Selection criteria: 

We included RCTs with more than 50 participants per group that provided at least six months' follow-up. Trial reports had to present data for at least one primary outcome (total mortality, serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality). Eligible interventions involved lower targets for systolic/diastolic blood pressure (135/85 mmHg or less) compared with standard targets for blood pressure (140 to 160/90 to 100 mmHg or less).

Participants were adults with documented hypertension and adults receiving treatment for hypertension with a cardiovascular history for myocardial infarction, stroke, chronic peripheral vascular occlusive disease, or angina pectoris.

Data collection and analysis: 

Two review authors independently assessed search results and extracted data using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.

Main results: 

We included six RCTs that involved 9484 participants. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (range 1.0 to 4.7 years). All RCTs provided individual participant data. None of the included studies was blinded to participants or clinicians because of the need to titrate antihypertensives to reach a specific blood pressure goal. However, an independent committee blinded to group allocation assessed clinical events in all trials. Hence, we assessed all trials at high risk of performance bias and low risk of detection bias. Other issues such as early termination of studies and subgroups of participants not predefined were also considered to downgrade the quality evidence.

We found there is probably little to no difference in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.23; 6 studies, 9484 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.29; 6 studies, 9484 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Similarly, we found there may be little to no differences in serious adverse events (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; 6 studies, 9484 participants; low-quality evidence) or total cardiovascular events (including myocardial infarction, stroke, sudden death, hospitalization, or death from congestive heart failure) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; 6 studies, 9484 participants; low-quality evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about withdrawals due to adverse effects. However, studies suggest more participants may withdraw due to adverse effects in the lower target group (RR 8.16, 95% CI 2.06 to 32.28; 2 studies, 690 participants; very low-quality evidence). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings were lower in the lower target group (systolic: mean difference (MD) –8.90 mmHg, 95% CI –13.24 to –4.56; 6 studies, 8546 participants; diastolic: MD –4.50 mmHg, 95% CI –6.35 to –2.65; 6 studies, 8546 participants). More drugs were needed in the lower target group (MD 0.56, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.96; 5 studies, 7910 participants), but blood pressure targets were achieved more frequently in the standard target group (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.24; 6 studies, 8588 participants).