Is 120/80 the ideal blood pressure target? The NHLBI/NIH-led SPRINT study (Systolic Blood Pressure lntervention Trial) was designed to investigate the difference between intensive and lax blood pressure lowering and to demonstrate whether intensive blood pressure lowering significantly reduces the overall cardiovascular endpoint event rate. The study was initiated in 2009 and involved more than 100 health care providers across the United States, enrolling more than 9300 hypertensive patients aged ≥50 years with at least one cardiovascular risk factor, who were randomized into two groups, the standard blood pressure lowering group (which I defined as the lax blood pressure control group with a systolic blood pressure target of <140 mmHg) or the intensive blood pressure lowering group (with a systolic blood pressure target of <120 mmHg ), and subjects in both groups were required to have a systolic blood pressure difference of >10 mmHg during the follow-up period. The primary composite endpoint events were set as: first myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular death. Follow-up was originally planned to be 4-6 years, ending in 2017. According to official data from the study, tight control of systolic blood pressure at <120 mmHg resulted in a 30% reduction in cardiovascular events and a 25% reduction in all-cause mortality compared with a loose control target of <140 mmHg systolic blood pressure. This study again seemed to suggest that intensive antihypertensive therapy has positive implications for improving patient prognosis, so the official view was to terminate the study early and publish its findings in order to benefit more hypertensive patients. On the same day that the Yanks commemorated the September 11 attacks, the New York Times announced the early termination of the study and its significance in a major section with "Breaking News Alert: Lifesaving study points to overhaul in treating high blood pressure". This was followed by a major media blitz by both professional and lay media in China, as if strict blood pressure control and optimal blood pressure targets were clear, but they were not. There is no doubt that the SPRINT study results are subversive because he not only once again questioned the existence of the J-curve and its significance, but also subverted the latest US JNC8 guidelines: the blood pressure target is 150/90 mmHg in patients over 80 years of age and down to 140/90 mmHg in other patients; and also subverted the 2013 ESC/ESH hypertension guidelines: if possible, the optimal blood pressure target is 140-150/90 mmHg, and if well tolerated, can be reduced to 140/90 mmHg or less. Of course, the SPRINT study also reverses the ACCORD series that we previously parsed, which confirmed that neither intensive blood pressure lowering nor lipid lowering had a fully favorable clinical benefit. However, we have to remind again that in the early stage of hypertension, the remodeling of major target organs is not significant, and high blood pressure only aggravates the abnormal hemodynamic effects such as acute congestion of tissues and organs, and the pathophysiological processes such as chronic remodeling in the long term, when strict blood pressure control targets can benefit patients significantly both in the near and long term. However, in contrast, in the middle and late stages of most cardiovascular diseases, the tissue remodeling and autoregulatory dysfunction of important target organs such as heart, brain, and kidney have become more significant, and at this time, maintaining a certain level of basal blood pressure or a relaxed blood pressure target may be more beneficial to ensure the blood perfusion pressure of major organs and the basic blood supply and metabolic demand of target organs. Because, in most elderly hypertensive patients, especially those with combined diabetes mellitus, massive proteinuria, ischemic stroke, end-stage renal disease, chronic heart failure, and severe coronary artery disease such as acute coronary syndrome, the only benefit of strict blood pressure control is a reduced incidence of stroke, but it inevitably brings about a higher incidence of cardiovascular events. Therefore, in patients with the above-mentioned complex hypertension, the J curve effect (J curve effect) and blood pressure variablilty (BPV) brought about by excessive antihypertensive treatment deserve attention, and their blood pressure targets must not be simply defined, but still need attention to individualized adjustment. Based on the above analysis, we believe that strict blood pressure control may bring more clinical benefit in young and middle-aged hypertensive patients in the early stages of hypertension and without complications; loose blood pressure control may bring more long-term benefit in older hypertensive patients and patients with multiple comorbidities and co-morbidities, especially those with combined diabetes, massive proteinuria, ischemic stroke, end-stage renal disease, chronic heart failure, and severe coronary artery disease such as acute coronary syndrome. may provide additional long-term benefits.