PMC8224947

Intensive blood pressure control resulted in similar numbers of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke subtypes compared to standard control in SPRINT, with no subtype showing a statistically significant tre

Effect: null; Hemorrhagic: 6 vs 7; LAA: 11 vs 13; CE: 11 vs 15; SAO: 8 vs 8

Intensive blood pressure control resulted in similar numbers of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke subtypes compared to standard control in SPRINT, with no subtype showing a statistically significant tre

Effect: null; Hemorrhagic: 6 vs 7; LAA: 11 vs 13; CE: 11 vs 15; SAO: 8 vs 8

Intensive blood pressure control resulted in similar numbers of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke subtypes compared to standard control in SPRINT, with no subtype showing a statistically significant tre

Effect: null; Hemorrhagic: 6 vs 7; LAA: 11 vs 13; CE: 11 vs 15; SAO: 8 vs 8

Intensive blood pressure control resulted in similar numbers of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke subtypes compared to standard control in SPRINT, with no subtype showing a statistically significant tre

Effect: null; Hemorrhagic: 6 vs 7; LAA: 11 vs 13; CE: 11 vs 15; SAO: 8 vs 8

Intensive blood pressure control resulted in similar numbers of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke subtypes compared to standard control in SPRINT, with no subtype showing a statistically significant tre

Effect: null; Hemorrhagic: 6 vs 7; LAA: 11 vs 13; CE: 11 vs 15; SAO: 8 vs 8

Intensive blood pressure control resulted in similar numbers of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke subtypes compared to standard control in SPRINT, with no subtype showing a statistically significant tre

Effect: null; Hemorrhagic: 6 vs 7; LAA: 11 vs 13; CE: 11 vs 15; SAO: 8 vs 8

Intensive blood pressure control resulted in similar numbers of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke subtypes compared to standard control in SPRINT, with no subtype showing a statistically significant tre

Effect: null; Hemorrhagic: 6 vs 7; LAA: 11 vs 13; CE: 11 vs 15; SAO: 8 vs 8

Intensive blood pressure control resulted in similar numbers of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke subtypes compared to standard control in SPRINT, with no subtype showing a statistically significant tre

Effect: null; Hemorrhagic: 6 vs 7; LAA: 11 vs 13; CE: 11 vs 15; SAO: 8 vs 8

Intensive blood pressure control resulted in similar numbers of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke subtypes compared to standard control in SPRINT, with no subtype showing a statistically significant tre

Effect: null; Hemorrhagic: 6 vs 7; LAA: 11 vs 13; CE: 11 vs 15; SAO: 8 vs 8

Intensive blood pressure control resulted in similar numbers of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke subtypes compared to standard control in SPRINT, with no subtype showing a statistically significant tre

Effect: null; Hemorrhagic: 6 vs 7; LAA: 11 vs 13; CE: 11 vs 15; SAO: 8 vs 8

Intensive blood pressure control resulted in similar numbers of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke subtypes compared to standard control in SPRINT, with no subtype showing a statistically significant tre

Effect: null; Hemorrhagic: 6 vs 7; LAA: 11 vs 13; CE: 11 vs 15; SAO: 8 vs 8

Intensive blood pressure control resulted in similar numbers of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke subtypes compared to standard control in SPRINT, with no subtype showing a statistically significant tre

Effect: null; Hemorrhagic: 6 vs 7; LAA: 11 vs 13; CE: 11 vs 15; SAO: 8 vs 8

Intensive blood pressure control resulted in similar numbers of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke subtypes compared to standard control in SPRINT, with no subtype showing a statistically significant tre

Effect: null; Hemorrhagic: 6 vs 7; LAA: 11 vs 13; CE: 11 vs 15; SAO: 8 vs 8

Intensive blood pressure control resulted in similar numbers of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke subtypes compared to standard control in SPRINT, with no subtype showing a statistically significant tre

Effect: null; Hemorrhagic: 6 vs 7; LAA: 11 vs 13; CE: 11 vs 15; SAO: 8 vs 8

Intensive blood pressure control resulted in similar numbers of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke subtypes compared to standard control in SPRINT, with no subtype showing a statistically significant tre

Effect: null; Hemorrhagic: 6 vs 7; LAA: 11 vs 13; CE: 11 vs 15; SAO: 8 vs 8

Intensive blood pressure control resulted in similar numbers of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke subtypes compared to standard control in SPRINT, with no subtype showing a statistically significant tre

Effect: null; Hemorrhagic: 6 vs 7; LAA: 11 vs 13; CE: 11 vs 15; SAO: 8 vs 8

Intensive blood pressure control resulted in similar numbers of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke subtypes compared to standard control in SPRINT, with no subtype showing a statistically significant tre

Effect: null; Hemorrhagic: 6 vs 7; LAA: 11 vs 13; CE: 11 vs 15; SAO: 8 vs 8

Intensive blood pressure control resulted in similar numbers of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke subtypes compared to standard control in SPRINT, with no subtype showing a statistically significant tre

Effect: null; Hemorrhagic: 6 vs 7; LAA: 11 vs 13; CE: 11 vs 15; SAO: 8 vs 8

Intensive blood pressure control resulted in similar numbers of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke subtypes compared to standard control in SPRINT, with no subtype showing a statistically significant tre

Effect: null; Hemorrhagic: 6 vs 7; LAA: 11 vs 13; CE: 11 vs 15; SAO: 8 vs 8

Intensive blood pressure control resulted in similar numbers of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke subtypes compared to standard control in SPRINT, with no subtype showing a statistically significant tre

Effect: null; Hemorrhagic: 6 vs 7; LAA: 11 vs 13; CE: 11 vs 15; SAO: 8 vs 8

Intensive blood pressure control resulted in similar numbers of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke subtypes compared to standard control in SPRINT, with no subtype showing a statistically significant tre

Effect: null; Hemorrhagic: 6 vs 7; LAA: 11 vs 13; CE: 11 vs 15; SAO: 8 vs 8

Intensive blood pressure control resulted in similar numbers of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke subtypes compared to standard control in SPRINT, with no subtype showing a statistically significant tre

Effect: null; Hemorrhagic: 6 vs 7; LAA: 11 vs 13; CE: 11 vs 15; SAO: 8 vs 8

Intensive blood pressure control resulted in similar numbers of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke subtypes compared to standard control in SPRINT, with no subtype showing a statistically significant tre

Effect: null; Hemorrhagic: 6 vs 7; LAA: 11 vs 13; CE: 11 vs 15; SAO: 8 vs 8

Intensive blood pressure control resulted in similar numbers of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke subtypes compared to standard control in SPRINT, with no subtype showing a statistically significant tre

Effect: null; Hemorrhagic: 6 vs 7; LAA: 11 vs 13; CE: 11 vs 15; SAO: 8 vs 8

Intensive blood pressure control resulted in similar numbers of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke subtypes compared to standard control in SPRINT, with no subtype showing a statistically significant tre

Effect: null; Hemorrhagic: 6 vs 7; LAA: 11 vs 13; CE: 11 vs 15; SAO: 8 vs 8

Intensive blood pressure control resulted in similar numbers of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke subtypes compared to standard control in SPRINT, with no subtype showing a statistically significant tre

Effect: null; Hemorrhagic: 6 vs 7; LAA: 11 vs 13; CE: 11 vs 15; SAO: 8 vs 8

Intensive blood pressure control resulted in similar numbers of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke subtypes compared to standard control in SPRINT, with no subtype showing a statistically significant tre

Effect: null; Hemorrhagic: 6 vs 7; LAA: 11 vs 13; CE: 11 vs 15; SAO: 8 vs 8

Intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic BP <120 mmHg did not significantly reduce total stroke incidence compared to standard control targeting <140 mmHg over mean 3.33 years follow-up in

Effect: null; 69 vs 78 strokes

Intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic BP <120 mmHg did not significantly reduce total stroke incidence compared to standard control targeting <140 mmHg over mean 3.33 years follow-up in

Effect: null; 69 vs 78 strokes

Intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic BP <120 mmHg did not significantly reduce total stroke incidence compared to standard control targeting <140 mmHg over mean 3.33 years follow-up in

Effect: null; 69 vs 78 strokes

Intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic BP <120 mmHg did not significantly reduce total stroke incidence compared to standard control targeting <140 mmHg over mean 3.33 years follow-up in

Effect: null; 69 vs 78 strokes

Intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic BP <120 mmHg did not significantly reduce total stroke incidence compared to standard control targeting <140 mmHg over mean 3.33 years follow-up in

Effect: null; 69 vs 78 strokes

Intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic BP <120 mmHg did not significantly reduce total stroke incidence compared to standard control targeting <140 mmHg over mean 3.33 years follow-up in

Effect: null; 69 vs 78 strokes

Intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic BP <120 mmHg did not significantly reduce total stroke incidence compared to standard control targeting <140 mmHg over mean 3.33 years follow-up in

Effect: null; 69 vs 78 strokes

Intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic BP <120 mmHg did not significantly reduce total stroke incidence compared to standard control targeting <140 mmHg over mean 3.33 years follow-up in

Effect: null; 69 vs 78 strokes

Intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic BP <120 mmHg did not significantly reduce total stroke incidence compared to standard control targeting <140 mmHg over mean 3.33 years follow-up in

Effect: null; 69 vs 78 strokes

Intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic BP <120 mmHg did not significantly reduce total stroke incidence compared to standard control targeting <140 mmHg over mean 3.33 years follow-up in

Effect: null; 69 vs 78 strokes

Intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic BP <120 mmHg did not significantly reduce total stroke incidence compared to standard control targeting <140 mmHg over mean 3.33 years follow-up in

Effect: null; 69 vs 78 strokes

Intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic BP <120 mmHg did not significantly reduce total stroke incidence compared to standard control targeting <140 mmHg over mean 3.33 years follow-up in

Effect: null; 69 vs 78 strokes

Intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic BP <120 mmHg did not significantly reduce total stroke incidence compared to standard control targeting <140 mmHg over mean 3.33 years follow-up in

Effect: null; 69 vs 78 strokes

Intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic BP <120 mmHg did not significantly reduce total stroke incidence compared to standard control targeting <140 mmHg over mean 3.33 years follow-up in

Effect: null; 69 vs 78 strokes

Intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic BP <120 mmHg did not significantly reduce total stroke incidence compared to standard control targeting <140 mmHg over mean 3.33 years follow-up in

Effect: null; 69 vs 78 strokes

Intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic BP <120 mmHg did not significantly reduce total stroke incidence compared to standard control targeting <140 mmHg over mean 3.33 years follow-up in

Effect: null; 69 vs 78 strokes

Intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic BP <120 mmHg did not significantly reduce total stroke incidence compared to standard control targeting <140 mmHg over mean 3.33 years follow-up in

Effect: null; 69 vs 78 strokes

Intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic BP <120 mmHg did not significantly reduce total stroke incidence compared to standard control targeting <140 mmHg over mean 3.33 years follow-up in

Effect: null; 69 vs 78 strokes

Intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic BP <120 mmHg did not significantly reduce total stroke incidence compared to standard control targeting <140 mmHg over mean 3.33 years follow-up in

Effect: null; 69 vs 78 strokes

Intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic BP <120 mmHg did not significantly reduce total stroke incidence compared to standard control targeting <140 mmHg over mean 3.33 years follow-up in

Effect: null; 69 vs 78 strokes

Intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic BP <120 mmHg did not significantly reduce total stroke incidence compared to standard control targeting <140 mmHg over mean 3.33 years follow-up in

Effect: null; 69 vs 78 strokes

Intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic BP <120 mmHg did not significantly reduce total stroke incidence compared to standard control targeting <140 mmHg over mean 3.33 years follow-up in

Effect: null; 69 vs 78 strokes

Intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic BP <120 mmHg did not significantly reduce total stroke incidence compared to standard control targeting <140 mmHg over mean 3.33 years follow-up in

Effect: null; 69 vs 78 strokes