HTN: Sodium (2015)
Citation:
Graudal NA, Hubeck-Gradual T, Jurgens G. Effects of a low-sodium diet vs. high-sodium diet on blood pressure, renin, aldosterone, catecholamines, cholesterol and triglycerides. Am J Hypertension. 2012; 25(1): 1-15.
PubMed ID: 22068710Study Design:
Meta-analysis or Systematic Review
Class:
M - Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:
To estimate the effects of low-sodium vs. high-sodium intake on blood pressure (BP) renin, aldosterone, catecholamines and lipids.
Inclusion Criteria:
Studies randomizing persons to low-sodium and high-sodium diets evaluating at least one of the parameters such as:
- Blood pressure
- Renin
- Aldosterone
- Catecholamines
- Lipids.
Exclusion Criteria:
Studies systematically investigating unhealthy patients with diseases other than elevated BP.
Description of Study Protocol:
Recruitment
Randomized controlled trials allocating persons with normal or elevated BP irrespective of race and age to either a low-or a high-sodium diet and in which the sodium intake was estimated by the 24-hour urinary sodium excretion (either measured on the basis of a 24-hour urine collection or estimated from a sample of at least eight hours).Design
Systematic literature review.Statistical Analysis
- Two authors independently recorded the following data from each trial such as the sample size, the mean age of participants, the fraction of females, males, Caucasians, blacks and Asians
- The duration of interventions, the sodium reduction measured as the difference between 24-hour urinary sodium excretion during low-sodium and high-sodium diets and SD
- SBP (SD) and DBP (SD) before and after intervention
- Difference between changes in SBP and DBP obtained during low-sodium and high-sodium diets and the SD of these differences
- For crossover studies, when possible, the overall effect estimate and SE
- Levels of hormones and lipids in the blood and their SD during low-sodium and high-sodium diets
- Concerning lipids, cholesterol units of mmol per L were transformed to mg per dL by means of the factor 38.6; triglyceride units of mmol per L were transformed to mg per dL by means of the factor 88.4
- If there were discrepancies between reviewers, they looked at the data together and came to an agreement.
Data Collection Summary:
Timing of Measurements
An electronic literature search in PUBMED, EMBASE and Cochrane Central was performed using the following combinations of search terms:- Salt or sodium
- Restriction or dietary
- Terms of outcome measures
- Randomized or random.
Dependent Variables
Outcome measures were effects on:- Systolic blood pressure (SBP)
- Diastolic blood pressure (DBP)
- Renin
- Aldosterone
- Adrenaline
- Noradrenaline
- Triglyceride
- Cholesterol
- LDL and HDL.
Description of Actual Data Sample:
- Initial N: 167 studies
- Attrition (final N): 167 studies
- Location: Denmark.
Summary of Results:
Key Findings
- A total of 167 studies were included
- The effect of sodium reduction in Normotensives:
- Caucasians: SBP -1.27mm Hg (95% CI: -1.88, -0.66; P=0.0001); DBP -0.05mm Hg (95% CI: -0.51, 0.42, P=0.85)
- Blacks: SPS -4.02mm Hg (95% CI: -7.37, -0.68; P=0.002); DBP -2.01mm Hg (95% CI: -4.37, 0.35; P=0.09)
- Asians: SBP -1.27mm Hg (95% CI: -3.07, 0.54; P=0.17); DBP -1.68mm Hg (95%CI: -3.29, -0.06; P=0.04).
- Hypertensives:
- Caucasians: SBP -5.48mm Hg (95% CI: -6.53, -4.43; P<0.00001); DBP -2.75mm Hg (95% CI: -3.34, -2.17; P<0.00001)
- Blacks: SBP -6.44mm Hg (95% CI: -8.85, -4.03; P=0.00001); DBP -2.40mm Hg (95% CI: -4.68, -0.12;P=0.04)
- Asians: SBP -10.21mm Hg (95% CI: -16.98, -3.44; P=0.003); DBP -2.60mm Hg (95% CI: -4.03, -1.16; P=0.0004)
- Sodium reduction resulted in significant increases in:
- Renin (P<0.00001)
- Aldosterone (P<0.000001)
- Noradrenaline (P<0.00001)
- Adrenaline (P<0.0002)
- Cholesterol (P<0.001)
- Triglycerides (P<0.0008).
Author Conclusion:
Sodium reduction resulted in a significantly decrease in BP of 1% (normotensives), 3.5% (hypertensives); and a significant increase in plasma renin, plasma aldosterone, plasma adrenaline and plasma noradrenaline; a 2.5% increase in cholesterol; and a 7% increase in triglyceride.
Funding Source:
Not-for-profit |
|
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? | No | |
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? | No | |
10. | Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely? | Yes | |