NA: Effect on Blood Pressure (2009)

Citation:
 
Study Design:
Class:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:

A meta-analysis of controlled trials to determine the effect of a reduction in salt intake on blood pressure in children.

Inclusion Criteria:
  • Children 18 years old and younger
  • Control group or control period
  • Duration of salt reduction must have been for at least two weeks.
Exclusion Criteria:
  • Salt reduction combined with another intervention
  • Participants were over 18 years of age
  • Participants were taking anti-hypertensive drugs or other medications
  • There was no control group or control period.
Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment

13 trials, 10 in children and adolescents and three in infants.

Design 

Meta-analysis

  • 10 trials in children and adolescents, six were crossover design and four were parallel comparisons
  • All but one was randomized
  • All three trials in infants used parallel comparisons and two were randomized.

Blinding used

  • 10 trials in children and adolescents:
    • One was double-blind
    • Seven were BP observer blind
    • Two did not report any blinding.
  • Three trials in infants: 
    • One was double-blind
    • One was BP observer blind
    • One did not report any blinding.

Intervention

Salt reduction.

Statistical Analysis

  • Fixed and random effects models
  • I2 and Q statistics
  • Funnel plot asymmetry
  • Egger's regression test
  • Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager 4.2 software
  • Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.

 

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements 

Various.

 Dependent Variables

  • BP in children and adolescents:
    • Random-0 sphygmomanometer (three trials)
    • MTA-STAT (one trial)
    • Mercury sphygmomanometer (four trials)
    • Dinamap 845 devices connected to computer (two trials).
  • BP in infants:
    • Shield BP Monitor (one trial)
    • Doppler Ultrasound device (one trial)
    • Dinamap 8100 Vital Signs Monitor (one trial). 

Independent Variables

  • Na intake in children and adolescents:
    • 24-hour urinary Na (three trials)
    • Overnight urinary Na (three trials)
    • Spot urinary Na/creatinine ratio (one trial)
    • Spot urinary Na (one trial)
    • Food diary (one trial)
    • Erythrocyte Na concentration (one trial).
  • Na intake in infants:
    • 24-hour urinary Na (one trial)
    • Spot urinary Na (one trial)
    • Spot urinary Na/creatinine ration (one trial).
Description of Actual Data Sample:

Initial N

  • Children and adolescents: 966 (sex not stated in some studies) 
  • Infants: 551 (sex not stated in some studies).

Attrition (Final N)

Same as above.

Age

  • Children and adolescents: Median 13 years (range eight to 16 years)
  • Infants: Two trials started in newborns and one started at three months of age. Median duration was 20 weeks (range eight weeks to six months).

Location

  • Children and adolescents
    • United States: Seven trials with N=822
    • Australia: Three trials with N=144.
  • Infants
    • One trial each in the United States (N=27)
    • The Netherlands (N=466)
    • Israel (N=58).
Summary of Results:
  • Children and Adolescents: All 10 trials
    • Median reduction in salt intake of 42% (interquartile range: 7% to 58%)
    • Net change in systolic BP was -1.17mm Hg (95% CI: -1.78 to -0.56; P<0.001)
    • Net change in diastolic BP was -1.29mm Hg (95% CI: -1.94 to -0.65; P<0.0001)
    • No significant heterogeneity for systolic BP (P=0.64, I2=0%)
    • No significant heterogeneity for diastolic BP (P=0.60, I2=0%).
  • Children and Adolescents: Nine trials (the one non-randomized trial excluded)
    • Net change in systolic BP was -0.93mm Hg (95% CI: -1.66 to -0.20; P=0.01)
    • Net change in diastolic BP was -1.07mm Hg (95% CI: -2.00 to -0.14; P=0.02)
    • No significant heterogeneity for systolic BP (P=0.69, I2=0%)
    • No significant heterogeneity for diastolic BP (P=0.54, I2=0%).
  • Children and Adolescents: Eight trials (two trials excluded with net changes in salt intake less than 5%)
    • Net change in systolic BP was -1.18mm Hg (95% CI: -1.82 to -0.55; P=0.0003)
    • Net change in diastolic BP was -1.20mm Hg (95% CI: -1.86 to -0.54; P=0.0003)
    • No significant heterogeneity for systolic BP (P=0.78, I2=0%)
    • No significant heterogeneity for diastolic BP (P=0.85, I2=0%).
  • Infants: All three trials
    • Median reduction in salt intake of 54% (interquartile range: 51% to 79%)
    • Net change in systolic BP was -2.47mm Hg (95% CI: -4.00 to -0.94; P<0.01)
    • No significant heterogeneity for systolic BP (P=0.33, I2=8.7%).

 

Author Conclusion:

This is the first meta-analysis of salt reduction in children, and it demonstrates that a modest reduction in salt intake causes immediate falls in blood pressure and, if continued, may well lessen the subsequent rise in blood pressure with age. This would result in major reductions in cardiovascular disease. These results in conjunction with other evidence provide strong support for a reduction in salt intake in children. 

Funding Source:
Reviewer Comments:
Quality Criteria Checklist: Review Articles
Relevance Questions
  1. Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients? Yes
  2. Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about? Yes
  3. Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to dietetics practice? Yes
  4. Will the information, if true, require a change in practice? Yes
 
Validity Questions
  1. Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate? Yes
  2. Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described? Yes
  3. Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified andappropriate? Wereselectionmethods unbiased? Yes
  4. Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methodsspecified,appropriate, andreproducible? Yes
  5. Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined? Yes
  6. Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered? Yes
  7. Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently acrossstudies and groups? Was thereappropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described? Yes
  8. Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels ofsignificance and/or confidence intervals included? Yes
  9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations ofthe review identified anddiscussed? Yes
  10. Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely? ???