More Versus Less Intensive Blood Pressure-Lowering Strategy: Cumulative Evidence and Trial Sequential Analysis

The lowest well tolerated blood pressure: A personalized target for all?

The optimal blood pressure (BP) target for prevention of cardiovascular complications of hypertension remains uncertain. Most Guidelines suggest different targets depending on age, comorbidities and treatment tolerability, but the underlying evidence is not strong. Results of randomized strategy trials comparing lower (i.e., more intensive) versus higher (i.e., less intensive) BP targets should drive the definition. However, these trials tested different BP targets based on systolic BP, diastolic BP or combined systolic and diastolic BP goals. Overall, the more intensive treatment targets reduced the risk of major cardiovascular complications of hypertension when compared with the less intensive targets, despite a higher incidence of unwanted effects including, but not limited to, hypotension, electrolyte abnormalities and renal dysfunction. Consequently, some Guidelines defined low BP thresholds (i.e., 120/70 mmHg) not to exceed downward because of the expectation that unwanted effects may outweigh the outcome benefits. The present review discusses the evidence underlying the choice of BP targets, which remains an important step in the management of hypertensive patients. We conclude that, on the ground of the heterogeneity of available data in support to fixed BP targets, their definition should be personalized in all patients and based on best trade-off between efficacy and safety, i.e., the lowest well tolerated BP.

Mean arterial pressure and mortality in patients with heart failure: a retrospective analysis of Zigong heart failure database

BACKGROUND

It is commonly observed that a higher target of mean arterial pressure (MAP) is in previous studies. This study assessed the association of MAP with short-term mortality in heart failure (HF) patients.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted by using data from Hospitalized patients with heart failure: integrating electronic healthcare records and external outcome database (v1.2 ). The characteristic of patients was described by 3 groups of MAP: below 80 mmHg, 80-100 mmHg, and above 100 mmHg. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess the relevance between MAP and all-cause mortality within 28 days and 6 months. For assessing the effect of multiple variables on patient survival time, 28-day and 6-month, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Forest plot were performed.

RESULTS

The overall cohort comprised 2008 patients divided by MAP into 3 groups, each group had 344 (17.1%), 938 (46.7%), and 726 (36.2%) patients. Patients in MAP < 80 mmHg group had higher mortality than MAP 80-100 mmHg and MAP ≥ 100 mmHg in 28 days(3.8% versus 1.6% versus 1.2%) and in 6 months (4.9% versus 2.5% versus 2.3%). Univariate analysis showed that MAP as a continuous variate was associated with 28-day (OR was 0.98, 95% CIs: 0.96-0.99, P  = 0.011) and 6-month mortality (OR was 0.98, 95% CIs: 0.97-1, P  = 0.021) in HF patients. Model 4 put into multivariate logistic regression analyses showed MAP 80-100 mmHg (OR was 0.13, 95% CIs: 0.02-0.8, P  = 0.027) stably associated with 28-day and 6-month mortality after adjusted covariable. Kaplan-Meier survival curves revealed a higher survival rate in the MAP ≥ 80 mmHg group than in the MAP < 80 mmHg group. The forest plot showed the stable effect of MAP ≥ 80 mmHg compared with MAP < 80 mmHg, the interaction analysis had no statistical significance effect between the two groups of MAP and multi-variable.

CONCLUSION

It is indicated that MAP was independently associated with 28-day, 6-month all-cause mortality of HF patients, and compared with MAP < 80 mmHg, MAP ≥ 80 mmHg had a lower risk of 28-day, 6-month all-cause mortality of patients with HF.

The debate over the optimal blood pressure treatment target of less than 130/80 mmHg

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to analyze the controversy regarding the optimal blood pressure (BP) target of <130/80 mmHg as proposed by the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) across all age groups. Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), stroke, and chronic kidney disease (CKD), and its optimal control is associated with lessening or preventing these complications. A recent study has argued that this BP level is universally accepted as an optimal and safe BP level. However, this argument is not accepted by other investigators, arguing that higher BP levels are as effective and safe.

METHODS

In order to investigate the current status of this level of BP control, a Medline search of the English literature was conducted between 2017 and February 2022, and 25 pertinent papers were selected.

RESULTS

The analysis of data from these studies indicates that these BP are effective in lowering the BP and preventing cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease, and they are indeed universally accepted.

CONCLUSION

Based on the current evidence, the current proposed by the 2017 ACC/AHA treatment guidelines are effective in lowering the BP and decreasing its cardiovascular complications and should followed, till perhaps, new data come out to the contrary.

Blood pressure targets for the treatment of people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

This is the third 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.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if lower blood pressure targets (systolic/diastolic 135/85 mmHg or less) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity compared with standard blood pressure targets (140 mmHg to 160mmHg/90 mmHg 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 METHODS

For this updated review, we used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was January 2022. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (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 mmHg to 160 mmHg/90 mmHg 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

We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven RCTs that involved 9595 participants. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (range 1.0 to 4.7 years). Six of seven RCTs provided individual participant data. None of the included studies was blinded to participants or clinicians because of the need to titrate antihypertensive drugs 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. We also considered other issues, such as early termination of studies and subgroups of participants not predefined, to downgrade the certainty of the evidence. We found there is probably little to no difference in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.23; 7 studies, 9595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.29; 6 studies, 9484 participants; moderate-certainty 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; 7 studies, 9595 participants; low-certainty evidence) or total cardiovascular events (including myocardial infarction, stroke, sudden death, hospitalization, or death from congestive heart failure (CHF)) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; 7 studies, 9595 participants; low-certainty 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; 3 studies, 801 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings were lower in the lower target group (systolic: mean difference (MD) -8.77 mmHg, 95% CI -12.82 to -4.73; 7 studies, 8657 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 at one year were achieved more frequently in the standard target group (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.23; 7 studies, 8699 participants).

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.

Benefits of more intensive versus less intensive blood pressure control. Updated trial sequential analysis

Outcome data from randomized trials which compared different blood pressure (BP) targets grew impressively after publication of recent trials. We conducted a cumulative updated trial sequential analysis of studies which compared a more versus less intensive BP control strategy, for a total of 60,870 randomized patients. The compared BP targets differed across the trials. Outcome measures were stroke, heart failure, myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death. The average duration of follow-up was 3.95 years and achieved systolic BP was 7.69 mmHg lower with the more intensive than the less intensive BP control strategy. The more intensive BP control strategy significantly reduced the risk of stroke (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.67-0.93), heart failure (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55-0.96), myocardial infarction (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.73-0.91) and cardiovascular death (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.68-0.98) as compared to the less intensive strategy. In a trial sequential analysis, the more intensive BP control strategy provided conclusive benefits over the less intensive strategy on the risk of stroke, heart failure and myocardial infarction by definitely crossing the efficacy monitoring boundary. For cardiovascular death, the cumulative Z-curve of the sequential analysis touched the efficacy monitoring boundary, but did not cross it. In conclusion, data accrued from randomized trials conclusively demonstrate the superiority of a more intensive over a less intensive BP control strategy for the prevention of stroke, heart failure and myocardial infarction. Results also suggest a significant benefit, albeit not yet conclusive, of a more intensive over a less intensive strategy for prevention of cardiovascular death.

Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment Goals: Evidence for Cardiovascular Protection From Observational Studies and Clinical Trials

Epidemiologic studies have consistently identified a strong, progressive relationship between blood pressure (BP) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, in a range of systolic BP (SBP) from as low as 90 mm Hg to as high as 180 mm Hg. Clinical trials have demonstrated greater prevention of CVD with more compared with less intensive antihypertensive drug treatment. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials provide strong evidence for more intensive antihypertensive drug therapy down to an SBP of 130 mm Hg, and to an SBP 120-124 mm Hg in the meta-analysis with the greatest statistical power. In the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) randomization to an SBP treatment goal of <120 mm Hg compared with <140 mm Hg in persons with high CVD risk not only reduced the rate of CVD but also all-cause mortality. These benefits were noted in all of the prestated subgroups of interest, including those ≥65 years of age at baseline. In addition, cognitive impairment was less common in those randomized to the intensive compared with standard treatment. Most clinical practice guidelines recommend an SBP treatment target <130 mm Hg in adults with a high risk of CVD, which is the norm for many patients seen in clinical practice, especially those who are older, have diabetes mellitus, or chronic kidney disease.

SPRINT Revisited: Updated Results and Implications

The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) results have influenced clinical practice but have also generated discussion regarding the validity, generalizability, and importance of the findings. Following the SPRINT primary results manuscript in 2015, additional results and analyses of the data have addressed these concerns. The primary objective of this article is to respond to key questions that have been raised.

Impact of Guidelines on Hypertension Control in the Elderly

BACKGROUND

Hypertension control is a crucial measure to reduce cardiovascular (CV) risk, and blood pressure (BP) treatment targets have been recently revised to address this issue. However, achieving the recommended goal may be challenging.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension, according to the US hypertension guidelines, among elderly participants in an Italian nationwide epidemiological survey, the relevant clinical correlates, and the agreement with the application of the European guidelines.

METHODS

Elderly (≥65y) volunteers enrolled in an Italian nationwide survey underwent BP measurement using standard protocols. Uncontrolled hypertension was defined as BP≥130/80 mmHg. Agreement of this definition with those from European guidelines (≥140/90 mmHg; ≥140/80 mmHg) was tested using Cohen's kappa. Selfreported information on modifiable/non-modifiable CV risk factors was also collected.

RESULTS

Of the 13,162 treated hypertensive elderly, 69.8% had uncontrolled hypertension. They tended to be overweight/obese men with diabetes. Overall agreement between US and European guidelines was poor to good (κ = 0.289, p<0.001 and κ = 0.691, p<0.001 based on the 140/90 and 140/80 mmHg threshold, respectively). Elderly participants with controlled hypertension were more likely to report a history of CV or chronic kidney disease. No difference in lifestyle habits was observed by BP control status.

CONCLUSION

Real-world data identify limited concordance between guidelines in terms of BP target achievement among older hypertensive Italians and highlights the need to spread awareness of the CV risk, especially in the presence of diabetes and obesity.

The Impact of Hypertension and Atrial Fibrillation on Cognitive Decline and Subclinical Atherosclerosis

Background: Assessment of cognitive impairment and the presence of subclinical atherosclerosis are very important especially in patients with cardiovascular risk factors. Methods: We included 155 hypertensive patients (84 with AF versus 71 without AF) to identify the premature cognitive impairment, the earliest signs of subclinical atherosclerosis and onset of myocardial dysfunction and to evaluate the type of anticoagulation used, the importance of CHA₂DS₂-VASc score (</>3), age (</>65 years) in hypertensive patients with AF. Results: Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA), Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF) were significantly decreased, and Activities of Daily Living Score (ADL), Geriatric Depression Scale(GDS-15), and intima–media thickness (IMT) were significantly increased in hypertensive patients with AF vs. without AF (p < 0.05). MMSE was significantly decreased, ADL and IMT were significant increased in patients with AF and CHA₂DS₂-VASc>3 and non-vitamin K antagonists oral anticoagulants therapy (NOACs)(p < 0.05). Patients with age >65 with AF had higher rates of cognitive impairment (MMSE significant decrease) and a larger IMT (significant increase) versus patients with AF and age <65 (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Cognitive impairment is encountered in hypertensive patients having AF. Our conclusions suggest a direct link between cognitive impairment, depression, hypertension, AF, age, CHA₂DS₂-VASc score, type of anticoagulants used, LVEF, cognitive parameters, and IMT. We acknowledge the importance of identifying and preventing cognitive changes.

Application of the American College of Cardiology (ACC/AHA) 2017 Guideline for the Management of Hypertension in Adults and Comparison with the 2014 Eighth Joint National Committee Guideline

Objectives

This study aims to compare the 2017-ACC/AHA hypertension guideline with 2014-JNC-8 guideline in regard to the number of patients who are eligible for treatment and to determine the physicians’ adherence and the financial impact of implementing the new guideline.

Methods

A cross-sectional observational study was conducted on adult patients who attended the hospital outpatient setting in UAE during January 1, 2018 till February 28, 2018. Adults who are diagnosed with hypertension and those with blood pressure (BP) levels based on two or more readings obtained on two or more different occasions were screened for inclusion into this study and cardiovascular diseases (CVD) risk was calculated. The two guidelines were compared with respect to the number of patients diagnosed with hypertension and eligible for treatment. Results were extrapolated to the UAE population. Financial impact of applying the 2017-ACC/AHA guideline was also evaluated.

Results

In comparison with the JNC-8, the 2017-ACC/AHA guideline would increase the proportion of patients diagnosed with hypertension among UAE adults from 40.8% to 76.3% and the number of UAE adults recommended for antihypertensive medications would rise from 2.42 million (32.1%) to 4.71 million (62.5%). Among UAE adults, almost 4.42 million (58.6%) and 0.76 million (10.1%) would have BP above the target according to the 2017-ACC/AHA and JNC-8 guidelines, respectively. The expected increase in the cost of anti-hypertension medications prescribed for the new labeled cases according to 2017-ACC/AHA but not JNC-8 would reach 1.8 billion AED/year. For those who were recommended for antihypertensive medications, who had BP above target, the additional cost would reach 3.5 billion AED/year.

Conclusions

The current study reveals marked increase in the proportion of patients diagnosed with hypertension in concordance with the 2017-ACC/AHA guideline. This is also will be associated with almost double the number of UAE adults recommended for antihypertensive medications. The poor compliance with the 2017-ACC/AHA reflects the concern regarding the increase risk of adverse events.

The Impact of the New Hypertension Guidelines to Low-Dose Aspirin Prophylaxis Eligibility for the Prevention of Preeclampsia: A Cost-Benefit Analysis

OBJECTIVE

American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) published new guidelines which lower the cut-off for hypertension. We sought to evaluate the impact of these guidelines to cost and benefit of various low-dose aspirin prophylaxis approaches.

STUDY DESIGN

Decision tree analysis was created using R software to evaluate four approaches to aspirin prophylaxis in the United States: no aspirin, United States Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) with Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC7) hypertension guidelines, USPSTF with ACC/AHA hypertension guidelines, as well as universal aspirin prophylaxis. This model was executed to simulate a hypothetical cohort of 4 million pregnant women in the United States.

RESULTS

The new guidelines would expand the aspirin eligibility by 8% (76,953 women) in the USPSTF guidelines. Even with this increased eligibility, the USPSTF guidelines continue to be the approach with the most cost savings ($386.5 million) when compared with universal aspirin and no aspirin prophylaxis. The new hypertension guidelines are projected to increase the cost savings of the USPSTF approach by $9.4 million.

CONCLUSION

Despite the small change in aspirin prophylaxis, using ACC/AHA definition of hypertension still results in an annual cost-saving of $9.4 million in the United States when compared with JNC7.

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2021 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

BACKGROUND

The American Heart Association, in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors, including core health behaviors (smoking, physical activity, diet, and weight) and health factors (cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose control) that contribute to cardiovascular health. The Statistical Update presents the latest data on a range of major clinical heart and circulatory disease conditions (including stroke, congenital heart disease, rhythm disorders, subclinical atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, heart failure, valvular disease, venous disease, and peripheral artery disease) and the associated outcomes (including quality of care, procedures, and economic costs).

METHODS

The American Heart Association, through its Statistics Committee, continuously monitors and evaluates sources of data on heart disease and stroke in the United States to provide the most current information available in the annual Statistical Update. The 2021 Statistical Update is the product of a full year's worth of effort by dedicated volunteer clinicians and scientists, committed government professionals, and American Heart Association staff members. This year's edition includes data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population, an enhanced focus on social determinants of health, adverse pregnancy outcomes, vascular contributions to brain health, the global burden of cardiovascular disease, and further evidence-based approaches to changing behaviors related to cardiovascular disease.

RESULTS

Each of the 27 chapters in the Statistical Update focuses on a different topic related to heart disease and stroke statistics.

CONCLUSIONS

The Statistical Update represents a critical resource for the lay public, policy makers, media professionals, clinicians, health care administrators, researchers, health advocates, and others seeking the best available data on these factors and conditions.

Comparative Study of Metabolite Changes After Antihypertensive Therapy With Calcium Channel Blockers or Angiotensin Type 1 Receptor Blockers

ABSTRACT

The high prevalence of hypertension contributes to an increased global burden of cardiovascular diseases. Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and angiotensin type 1 receptor blockers (ARBs) are the most widely used antihypertensive drugs, and the effects of these drugs on serum metabolites remain unknown. Untargeted metabolomics has been proved to be a powerful approach for the detection of biomarkers and new compounds. In this study, we aimed to determine the changes in metabolites after single-drug therapy with a CCB or ARB in patients newly diagnosed with mild to moderate primary hypertension. We enrolled 33 patients and used an untargeted metabolomics approach to measure 625 metabolites associated with the response to a 4-week treatment of antihypertensive drugs. After screening based on P < 0.05, fold change > 1.2 or fold change < 0.83, and variable importance in projection > 1, 63 differential metabolites were collected. Four metabolic pathways-cysteine and methionine metabolism, phenylalanine metabolism, taurine and hypotaurine metabolism, and tyrosine metabolism-were identified in participants treated with ARBs. Only taurine and hypotaurine metabolism were identified in participants treated with CCBs. Furthermore, homocitrulline and glucosamine-6-phosphate were relevant to whether the blood pressure reduction achieved the target blood pressure (P < 0.05). Our study provides some evidence that changes in certain metabolites may be a potential marker for the dynamic monitoring of the protective effects and side effects of antihypertensive drugs.

Global epidemiology, health burden and effective interventions for elevated blood pressure and hypertension

High blood pressure is one of the most important risk factors for ischaemic heart disease, stroke, other cardiovascular diseases, chronic kidney disease and dementia. Mean blood pressure and the prevalence of raised blood pressure have declined substantially in high-income regions since at least the 1970s. By contrast, blood pressure has risen in East, South and Southeast Asia, Oceania and sub-Saharan Africa. Given these trends, the prevalence of hypertension is now higher in low-income and middle-income countries than in high-income countries. In 2015, an estimated 8.5 million deaths were attributable to systolic blood pressure >115 mmHg, 88% of which were in low-income and middle-income countries. Measures such as increasing the availability and affordability of fresh fruits and vegetables, lowering the sodium content of packaged and prepared food and staples such as bread, and improving the availability of dietary salt substitutes can help lower blood pressure in the entire population. The use and effectiveness of hypertension treatment vary substantially across countries. Factors influencing this variation include a country's financial resources, the extent of health insurance and health facilities, how frequently people interact with physicians and non-physician health personnel, whether a clear and widely adopted clinical guideline exists and the availability of medicines. Scaling up treatment coverage and improving its community effectiveness can substantially reduce the health burden of hypertension.

Blood pressure targets in adults with hypertension

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of this review first published in 2009. When treating elevated blood pressure, doctors usually try to achieve a blood pressure target. That target is the blood pressure value below which the optimal clinical benefit is supposedly obtained. "The lower the better" approach that guided the treatment of elevated blood pressure for many years was challenged during the last decade due to lack of evidence from randomised trials supporting that strategy. For that reason, the standard blood pressure target in clinical practice during the last years has been less than 140/90 mm Hg for the general population of patients with elevated blood pressure. However, new trials published in recent years have reintroduced the idea of trying to achieve lower blood pressure targets. Therefore, it is important to know whether the benefits outweigh harms when attempting to achieve targets lower than the standard target.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to determine if lower blood pressure targets (any target less than or equal to 135/85 mm Hg) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity as compared with standard blood pressure targets (less than or equal to 140/ 90 mm Hg) for the treatment of patients with chronic arterial hypertension. The secondary objectives were: to determine if there is a change in mean achieved systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP associated with "lower targets" as compared with "standard targets" in patients with chronic arterial hypertension; and to determine if there is a change in withdrawals due to adverse events with "lower targets" as compared with "standard targets", in patients with elevated blood pressure.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to May 2019: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2019, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing patients allocated to lower or to standard blood pressure targets (see above).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (JAA, VL) independently assessed the included trials and extracted data. Primary outcomes were total mortality; total serious adverse events; myocardial infarction, stroke, congestive heart failure, end stage renal disease, and other serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were achieved mean SBP and DBP, withdrawals due to adverse effects, and mean number of antihypertensive drugs used. We assessed the risk of bias of each trial using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.  MAIN RESULTS: This update includes 11 RCTs involving 38,688 participants with a mean follow-up of 3.7 years. This represents 7 new RCTs compared with the original version. At baseline the mean weighted age was 63.1 years and the mean weighted blood pressure was 155/91 mm Hg. Lower targets do not reduce total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.05; 11 trials, 38,688 participants; high-certainty evidence) and do not reduce total serious adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.08; 6 trials, 18,165 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that the benefits of lower targets do not outweigh the harms as compared to standard blood pressure targets. Lower targets may reduce myocardial infarction (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96; 6 trials, 18,938 participants, absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.4%, number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 250 over 3.7 years) and congestive heart failure (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.92; 5 trials, 15,859 participants, ARR 0.6%, NNTB  167 over 3.7 years) (low-certainty for both outcomes). Reduction in myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure was not reflected in total serious adverse events. This may be due to an increase in other serious adverse events (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.59; 6 trials. 18,938 participants, absolute risk increase (ARI) 3%,  number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) 33 over four years) (low-certainty evidence). Participants assigned to a "lower" target received one additional antihypertensive medication and achieved a significantly lower mean SBP (122.8 mm Hg versus 135.0 mm Hg, and a lower mean DBP (82.0 mm Hg versus 85.2 mm Hg, than those assigned to "standard target".

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the general population of persons with elevated blood pressure, the benefits of trying to achieve a lower blood pressure target rather than a standard target (≤ 140/90 mm Hg) do not outweigh the harms associated with that intervention. Further research is needed to see if some groups of patients would benefit or be harmed by lower targets. The results of this review are primarily applicable to older people with moderate to high cardiovascular risk. They may not be applicable to other populations.

Multifaceted strategies to improve blood pressure control in a primary care clinic: A quality improvement project

BACKGROUND

Approximately 80% of patients with hypertension in the Internal Medicine Clinic were uncontrolled (BP > 130/80 mmHg), according to the 2017 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) hypertension guidelines, leading to increased morbidity and mortality. The aim of this quality improvement (QI) was to improve BP control <130/80 from the baseline rates of 20%-30% and <140/90 from the baseline rates of 40%-60% between ages of 18-75 years, within 12 months.

METHODS

We used the Plan-Do-Study-Act method. A multidisciplinary QI team identified barriers by fish bone diagram. Barriers included: 1) Physicians' knowledge gap and clinical inertia in optimization of medications, and 2) Patients' nonadherence to medication and appointments. The outcome measures were the percentage of patients with BP < 140/90 and < 130/80. Process measures included: 1) attendance rates of physician and nurses at educational sessions, 2) medication reconciliation completion rates and 3) care guide order rates. Key interventions were: 1) physicians and nurses' education regarding ACC/AHA guidelines, 2) patient education and engagement and 3) enhancement of health information technology. Data analysis was performed using monthly statistical process control charts.

RESULTS

We achieved 62.6% (n = 885/1426) for BP < 140/90 and 24.47% (n = 349/1426) for BP < 130/80 within 12 months project period. We sustained and exceeded at 72.64% (n = 945/1301) for BP < 140/90 and 44.58% (n = 580/1301) for BP < 130/80 during the 10 months post-project period.

CONCLUSIONS

Overcoming physician clinical inertia, enhancing patient adherence to appointments and medications, and a high functioning multidisciplinary team were the key drivers for the success.

[Evidence-Based Information Which Could Influence Arterial Hypertension Treatment Approach after Publication of SPRINT Trial Results]

The article discusses results of secondary analysis of the data obtained in the SPRINT study and published in recent years. Unresolved issues in the tactics of managing patients with arterial hypertension are discussed. One of such issues is choosing an optimum level of blood pressure (BP) for a subgroup of patients with certain characteristics, including elderly and senile patients, patients with chronic kidney disease, and patients with arterial hypertension who continue smoking. The article discusses calculation of a threshold of risk for complications of cardiovascular diseases, at which a maximum advantage of intensified regimens of antihypertensive therapy could be achieved. In addition, the article addresses approaches to selection of antihypertensive drugs in the current conditions. The authors discussed the role of candesartan in the treatment of arterial hypertension, a sartan most studied in a broad range of patients. The issue of a rapid increase in BP without a damage to target organs is addressed; evidence for the role of captopril in such clinical situation is provided.

Blood pressure targets for the treatment of people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVES

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 METHODS

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 ClinicalTrials.gov. 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).

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.

Hypertension (Blood Pressure) and Lifetime Risk of Target Organ Damage

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to describe the long-term or lifetime relationship between blood pressure and target organ damage. The use of the term "blood pressure" as opposed to hypertension is purposeful. The risk of cardiovascular disease from blood pressure begins below the levels of blood pressure defined as hypertension by contemporary definitions.

RECENT FINDINGS

An important recent publication that bears on this topic was the 2017 ACC/AHA Blood Pressure Management Guidelines. The redefinition of hypertension and blood pressure treatment goal to 130/80 mmHg and the decision to rely almost exclusively on data from event-based randomized controlled clinical trials, which led to a recommendation for lifestyle therapy only for most with stage 1 hypertension, were important. A report from the CARDIA study demonstrated significant risk for cardiovascular disease at 20 years for stage 1 hypertension. Based on all evidence, clinicians should consider the use of medication for stage 1 hypertension in those uncontrolled on lifestyle therapy.

Treatment strategies for isolated systolic hypertension in elderly patients

INTRODUCTION

Hypertension is a major and modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Its prevalence is rising as the result of population aging. Isolated systolic hypertension mostly occurs in older patients accounting for up to 80% of cases.

AREAS COVERED

The authors systematically review published studies to appraise the scientific and clinical evidence supporting the role of blood pressure control in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension, and to assess the influence of different drug treatment regimens on outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

Antihypertensive treatment of isolated systolic hypertension significantly reduces the risk of morbidity and mortality in elderly patients. Thiazide diuretics and dihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers are the primary compounds used in randomized clinical trials. These drugs can be considered as first-line agents for the management of isolated systolic hypertension. Free or fixed combination therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers and calcium-channel blockers or thiazide-like diuretics should also be considered, particularly when compelling indications such as coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and congestive heart failure coexist. There is also hot scientific debate on the optimal blood pressure target to be achieved in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension, but current recommendations are scarcely supported by evidence.

Management of hypertension in the very old: an intensive reduction of blood pressure should be achieved in most patients

There is large evidence that treatment of hypertension significantly reduces the risk of morbidity and mortality in the elderly. Although it is generally accepted that the benefit of antihypertensive treatment is largely explained by the reduction in systolic blood pressure, the optimal blood pressure target in elderly patients is still a topic of debate. Unfortunately, the clinical trials which demonstrated the benefit of antihypertensive treatment in old and very old patients with hypertension included relatively fit patients since frail patients were generally excluded. Available data suggest that when treating older adults, and especially frail older hypertensive adults, extra caution is appropriate in the setting of significant adverse events. Nonetheless, recent observations demonstrated a similar benefit from a more intensive compared with a less intensive blood pressure lowering in both fit and frail older adults. Of note, the rate of serious adverse events appears not dissimilar in the two treatment strategies, and not associated to frailty. Taken together, these findings support the concept that an intensive therapeutic strategy appears reasonable even in elderly hypertensive patients, particularly when the treatment is well tolerated.

The implications of blood pressure targets from the 2018 European Society of Cardiology hypertension guidelines in Asian patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The evidence for optimal blood pressure (BP) targets in Asian patients with hypertension is insufficient and controversial. Western guidelines should be used with caution in clinical practice until there is supporting evidence.

OBJECTIVE

Systematically synthesize the evidence on the efficacy of achieving the strict 2018 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline BP targets versus standard BP targets in Asian patients.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials, and additional databases to retrieve relevant Asian studies.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that reported clinical endpoints, had a minimal follow-up period of one year and included Asian patients older than 18 years with essential hypertension.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two investigators independently conducted the study selection with any discrepancies resolved between team members.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We selected 15 studies for analysis (4 RCTs, 7 observational studies, and 4 post-hoc analyses). The evidence for the strict BP targets in elderly patients was insufficient. In middle-aged patients, the meta-analysis of observational studies revealed a significant reduction in major adverse cardiac events (MACCE) (hazard ratio (HR)=0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI: 0.74-0.81). For studies that reported results for patients of any age, the tight systolic BP-lowering therapy was associated with a decrease in MACCE (HR=0.80; 95% CI: 0.69-0.92), stroke (HR=0.82; 95% CI: 0.71-0.94), but not in cardiac events (HR=0.91; 95% CI: 0.72-1.14, P=.41), all-cause (HR=0.80; 95% CI: 0.57-1.13) and cardiovascular mortality (HR=0.73; 95% CI: 0.40-1.33, P=.30). Similar findings were obtained for the strict diastolic BP targets.

CONCLUSION

Our findings provide evidence for Asian patients that support the efficacy of the strict antihypertensive treatment with BP targets proposed by the 2018 ESC hypertension guidelines for the prevention of cardiovascular events. However, these data were obtained from only observational studies and the results were not confirmed by RCTs, probably due to insufficient power. Therefore, further high-quality RCTs are crucial.

LIMITATIONS

Use of aggregated data, the subgroup and meta-regression analyses are inconclusive, limited to English language, unable to estimate summary measures for some outcomes, publication bias difficult to assess, and unclear that results could be extrapolated.

REGISTRATION

The protocol registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018115570).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None.

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2020 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

BACKGROUND

The American Heart Association, in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports on the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors, including core health behaviors (smoking, physical activity, diet, and weight) and health factors (cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose control) that contribute to cardiovascular health. The Statistical Update presents the latest data on a range of major clinical heart and circulatory disease conditions (including stroke, congenital heart disease, rhythm disorders, subclinical atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, heart failure, valvular disease, venous disease, and peripheral artery disease) and the associated outcomes (including quality of care, procedures, and economic costs).

METHODS

The American Heart Association, through its Statistics Committee, continuously monitors and evaluates sources of data on heart disease and stroke in the United States to provide the most current information available in the annual Statistical Update. The 2020 Statistical Update is the product of a full year's worth of effort by dedicated volunteer clinicians and scientists, committed government professionals, and American Heart Association staff members. This year's edition includes data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population, metrics to assess and monitor healthy diets, an enhanced focus on social determinants of health, a focus on the global burden of cardiovascular disease, and further evidence-based approaches to changing behaviors, implementation strategies, and implications of the American Heart Association's 2020 Impact Goals.

RESULTS

Each of the 26 chapters in the Statistical Update focuses on a different topic related to heart disease and stroke statistics.

CONCLUSIONS

The Statistical Update represents a critical resource for the lay public, policy makers, media professionals, clinicians, healthcare administrators, researchers, health advocates, and others seeking the best available data on these factors and conditions.

Hypertension Drug Therapy

Hypertension is still the number one global killer. No matter what causes are, lowering blood pressure can significantly reduce cardiovascular complications, cardiovascular death, and total death. Unfortunately, some hypertensive individuals simply do not know having hypertension. Some knew it but either not being treated or treated but blood pressure does not achieve goal. The reasons for inadequate control of blood pressure are many. One important reason is that we are not very familiar with antihypertensive agents and less attention has been paid to comorbidities, complications as well as the hypertension-modified target organ damage in patients with hypertension. The right antihypertensive drug was not given to the right hypertensive patients at right time. This reviewer studied comprehensively the literature, hopefully that the review will help improve antihypertensive drug selection and antihypertensive therapy.

Impact of the SPRINT Trial on Hypertension Management

The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial is the first large prospective randomized controlled trial to demonstrate the benefit of an intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) treatment target (<120 mm Hg) compared to a standard target (<140 mm Hg) in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and all-cause mortality in high-risk hypertensive patients. The impact of SPRINT on hypertension treatment has been large, but major questions remain about the feasibility of achieving the SPRINT intensive SBP target in routine practice, the generalizability of the SPRINT findings to hypertensive populations that were excluded from the trial, and the cost effectiveness of adopting the SPRINT intensive treatment goal. In this review, we discuss the generalizability of SPRINT data to the general population of adults with hypertension and with various comorbidities, the cost effectiveness of intensive SBP-lowering therapy, and the implications of SPRINT for future hypertension guideline development and clinical practice.

2019 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines

A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines

Endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, the American Geriatrics Society, the American Society of Preventive Cardiology, and the Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association

2019 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines

1. The most important way to prevent atherosclerotic vascular disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation is to promote a healthy lifestyle throughout life.

2. A team-based care approach is an effective strategy for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Clinicians should evaluate the social determinants of health that affect individuals to inform treatment decisions.

3. Adults who are 40 to 75 years of age and are being evaluated for cardiovascular disease prevention should undergo 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk estimation and have a clinician–patient risk discussion before starting on pharmacological therapy, such as antihypertensive therapy, a statin, or aspirin. The presence or absence of additional risk-enhancing factors can help guide decisions about preventive interventions in select individuals, as can coronary artery calcium scanning.

4. All adults should consume a healthy diet that emphasizes the intake of vegetables, fruits, nuts, whole grains, lean vegetable or animal protein, and fish and minimizes the intake of trans fats, processed meats, refined carbohydrates, and sweetened beverages. For adults with overweight and obesity, counseling and caloric restriction are recommended for achieving and maintaining weight loss.

5. Adults should engage in at least 150 minutes per week of accumulated moderate-intensity physical activity or 75 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity physical activity.

6. For adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus, lifestyle changes, such as improving dietary habits and achieving exercise recommendations are crucial. If medication is indicated, metformin is first-line therapy, followed by consideration of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist.

7. All adults should be assessed at every healthcare visit for tobacco use, and those who use tobacco should be assisted and strongly advised to quit.

8. Aspirin should be used infrequently in the routine primary prevention of ASCVD because of lack of net benefit.

9. Statin therapy is first-line treatment for primary prevention of ASCVD in patients with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (≥190 mg/dL), those with diabetes mellitus, who are 40 to 75 years of age, and those determined to be at sufficient ASCVD risk after a clinician–patient risk discussion.

10. Nonpharmacological interventions are recommended for all adults with elevated blood pressure or hypertension. For those requiring pharmacological therapy, the target blood pressure should generally be <130/80 mm Hg.

2017 ACC/AHA Blood Pressure Treatment Guideline Recommendations and Cardiovascular Risk

BACKGROUND

The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) blood pressure (BP) guideline provides updated recommendations for antihypertensive medication initiation and intensification.

OBJECTIVES

Determine the risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) events among adults recommended and not recommended antihypertensive medication initiation or intensification by the 2017 ACC/AHA BP guideline.

METHODS

The authors analyzed data for black and white REGARDS (REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke) study participants (age ≥45 years). Systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) were measured twice at baseline (2003 to 2007) and averaged. Participants not taking (n = 14,039) and taking (n = 15,179) antihypertensive medication were categorized according to their recommendations for antihypertensive medication initiation and intensification by the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline. Overall, 4,094 CVD events (stroke, coronary heart disease, and heart failure) occurred by December 31, 2014.

RESULTS

Among participants not taking antihypertensive medication, 34.4% were recommended pharmacological antihypertensive treatment initiation. The CVD event rate per 1,000 person-years among participants recommended antihypertensive medication initiation with SBP/DBP ≥140/90 mm Hg was 22.7 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 20.3 to 25.0). Among participants with SBP/DBP 130 to 139/80 to 89 mm Hg, the CVD event rate was 20.5 (95% CI: 18.5 to 22.6) and 3.4 (95% CI: 2.4 to 4.4) for those recommended and not recommended antihypertensive medication initiation, respectively. Among participants taking antihypertensive medication, 62.8% were recommended treatment intensification. The CVD event rate per 1,000 person-years among participants recommended treatment intensification was 33.6 (95% CI: 31.5 to 35.6) and 22.4 (95% CI: 20.8 to 23.9) for those with SBP/DBP ≥140/90 mm Hg and 130 to 139/80 to 89 mm Hg, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline would direct antihypertensive medication initiation and intensification to adults with high CVD risk.

Hypertension and Atrial Fibrillation: Doubts and Certainties From Basic and Clinical Studies

Hypertension and atrial fibrillation (AF) are 2 important public health priorities. Their prevalence is increasing worldwide, and the 2 conditions often coexist in the same patient. Hypertension and AF are strikingly related to an excess risk of cardiovascular disease and death. Hypertension ultimately increases the risk of AF, and because of its high prevalence in the population, it accounts for more cases of AF than other risk factors. Among patients with established AF, hypertension is present in about 60% to 80% of individuals. Despite the well-known association between hypertension and AF, several pathogenetic mechanisms underlying the higher risk of AF in hypertensive patients are still incompletely known. From an epidemiological standpoint, it is unclear whether the increasing risk of AF with blood pressure (BP) is linear or threshold. It is uncertain whether an intensive control of BP or the use of specific antihypertensive drugs, such as those inhibiting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, reduces the risk of subsequent AF in hypertensive patients in sinus rhythm. Finally, in spite of the observational evidence suggesting a progressive relation between BP levels and the risk of thromboembolism and bleeding in patients with hypertension and AF, the extent to which BP should be lowered in these patients, including those who undergo catheter ablation, remains uncertain. This article summarizes the main basic mechanisms through which hypertension is believed to promote AF. It also explores epidemiological data supporting an evolutionary pathway from hypertension to AF, including the emerging evidence favoring an intensive BP control or the use of drugs, which inhibit the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system to reduce the risk of AF. Finally, it examines the impact of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin in relation to hypertension.

The relationship of all-cause mortality to average on-treatment systolic blood pressure is significantly related to baseline systolic blood pressure: implications for interpretation of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial study

BACKGROUND

The SPRINT study demonstrated that targeting systolic blood pressure (SBP) less than 120 mmHg was associated with lower cardiovascular event and mortality rates. In the LIFE study, however, a lower achieved SBP was associated with increased mortality. Mean baseline SBP in SPRINT was 140 mmHg and a third of the population had a baseline SBP 132 mmHg or less, raising the question of whether the lower baseline SBP in SPRINT could in part account for these differences.

METHODS

All-cause mortality during 4.8 ± 0.9 years follow-up was examined in relation to tertiles of achieved on-treatment average SBP in patients with baseline SBP of 25th percentile or less versus greater than 25th percentile value of 164 mmHg in 7998 nondiabetic hypertensive patients with ECG left ventricular hypertrophy randomly assigned to losartan-based or atenolol-based treatment. Average on-treatment SBP less than 142 mmHg (lowest tertile) and average SBP 142 mmHg to less than 152 mmHg (middle tertile) were compared with average SBP at least 152 mmHg (highest tertile and reference group).

RESULTS

In the overall population, there was a significant interaction between baseline SBP 164 mmHg or less and average on-treatment SBP less than 142 mmHg in Cox analysis (χ = 15.48, P < 0.001). Among patients with baseline SBP greater than 164 mmHg, in multivariate Cox analyses adjusting for other potential predictors of mortality and a propensity score for having baseline SBP 164 mmHg or less and compared with average on-treatment SBP at least 152 mmHg, average on-treatment SBP less than 142 mmHg was associated with 32% higher mortality (hazard ratio 1.32, 95% CI 1.01-1.65), whereas average SBP of 142 mmHg to less than 152 mmHg was associated with 24% lower mortality (hazard ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.59-0.98). In contrast, among patients with baseline SBP 164 mmHg or less, both average on-treatment SBP less than 142 mmHg (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.36-0.99) and average SBP of 142 mmHg to less than 152 mmHg (hazard ratio 0.51, 95% CI 0.30-0.89) were associated with significantly lower mortality compared with average SBP of at least 152 mmHg.

CONCLUSION

Achievement of an average SBP less than 142 mmHg was associated with reduced mortality in patients with baseline SBP 164 mmHg or less but with increased mortality in those with higher baseline SBP in LIFE. These findings suggest that the lower mortality associated with a lower targeted SBP in SPRINT may not be applicable to patients with considerably higher baseline SBP than SPRINT patients. Further study is necessary to better understand these findings.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00338260?order=1.

European and US guidelines for arterial hypertension: similarities and differences

Hypertension is one of the most common chronic diseases in adults and a leading cause of disability and mortality worldwide. Recently, new Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of hypertension have been released in Europe and in the United States, with changes regarding how to diagnose and treat the condition, and the extent to which intensive blood pressure control should be pursued. Important differences between the Guidelines exist in the classification of blood pressure levels and definition of treatment goals. Diagnosis of hypertension starts at 140/90 mmHg for the European Guidelines, and 130/80 mmHg for the US Guidelines. Besides, the European guidelines introduced the concept of "safety boundaries", consisting of BP thresholds not to be exceeded towards lower levels (120 mmHg for age < 65 years, 130 mmHg for older people) because of the fear of important adverse events associated with overtreatment. Such discrepancies can indeed have an impact on treatment attitudes and outcome incidence. Hence, we appraised facts in favor and against each of these controversial issues. In conclusion we believe that, instead of fixing rigid BP targets and boundaries, modern hypertension management should be aimed to achieve in each patient an optimal balance between intensive BP reduction and treatment safety.

Optimal blood pressure targets for patients with hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Optimal blood pressure (BP) targets for hypertension have been an important clinical issue but have been elusive. The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) showed significant benefits of intensive BP-lowering treatment with a target systolic BP level of < 120 mm Hg on major cardiovascular (CV) events and mortality, whereas there was a modest increase in renal events related to BP-lowering treatment. We searched the PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ICHUSHI databases for randomized trials that assigned participants to intensive versus usual BP-lowering treatment with different BP targets. The outcomes were major CV events, all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, renal events, and adverse events. Nineteen trials that enrolled a total of 55,529 participants with a mean follow-up duration ranging from 1.6 to 12.2 years were included in the present analysis. There was a significant reduction in major CV events, myocardial infarction, and stroke and a trend toward a reduction in heart failure associated with intensive BP-lowering treatment, but no differences in the risks of all-cause death, renal events, or adverse events were observed between the randomized groups. Subgroup analyses indicated that intensive BP-lowering treatment with a target of < 130/80 mm Hg and/or achievement of BP < 130/80 mm Hg were associated with a significant reduction in major CV events compared with the usual group. In conclusion, intensive BP-lowering treatment reduces the risk of CV events. A target BP level of < 130/80 mm Hg appears to be optimal for CV protection in patients with hypertension.

New Guidelines on Management of Arterial Hypertension: Key Similarities and Differences

Steady increase in worldwide prevalence of hypertension and hypertension-related cardiovascular morbidity and mortality necessitate new approaches to the management of hypertensive patients. It`s important to recognize that despite several differences the convergence of the 2017 ACC/AHA (US) and 2018 ESC/ESH (European) guidelines is greater now than ever before. The present review focuses on the key similarities and differences of these two documents. Among similarities we analyzed positions regarding the importance of cardiovascular risk evaluation for treatment initiation and choice of optimal treatment strategy: blood pressure (BP) treatment thresholds; drugs of choice for the initiation of antihypertensive therapy and treatment targets in different groups including elderly patients. Among key differences we analyzed sections concerning the classification of BP levels and target BP levels in patients with chronic kidney disease. In conclusion, we may say that in many ways the guidelines are just a different interpretation of the same data. There is no doubt in the importance of lowering high BP and evaluation and correction of high cardiovascular risk. One of the main purposes is to focus attention on younger patients with hypertension.

Managing hypertension in 2018: which guideline to follow?

Hypertension is a global public health issue and a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Its prevalence is increasing in many Asian countries, with a number of countries with blood pressure above the global average. Although the average systolic blood pressure is decreasing worldwide since the 1980s at the rate of about 1 mm Hg systolic blood pressure per decade, it is increasing in low-income and middle-income countries, especially in the East and South Asian population. Of note, the much larger base Asian population results in a considerably larger absolute number of individuals affected. When compared with Western countries, hypertension among Asian populations has unique features in terms of its onset, clustering of associated cardiovascular risk factors, complications and outcomes. Moreover, only a minority of hypertensive individuals are receiving treatment and achieving control. Projected number of deaths related to hypertension dramatically increased in the last 25 years in some Asian regions with a disproportionately high mortality and morbidity from stroke compared with Western countries. The relation between blood pressure and the risk of stroke is stronger in Asia than in Western regions. Although new Guidelines for hypertension diagnosis and management have been recently released from Europe and North America, the unique features of Asian hypertensive patients raise concerns on the clinical applicability of Western Guidelines to Asian populations. To this purpose, we critically reviewed key elements from the most updated Guidelines. We also discussed their core concepts to verify the impact on hypertension prevention and management in Asian countries.

New Challenges for Hypertension Treatment

In Mexico around 22.3 million adult Mexicans have hypertension. An estimated 65 million adult Americans, or nearly one in four of the adult population of the United States, have hypertension. However, with the new classification from 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines which considered ≥130/80 mmHg as the new cutoff point to diagnosis of hypertension, the number of patients is at least twice, in other words around 40 million adult Mexicans potentially have hypertension. Although this new classification is directed to be more efficient in the changes of life style and nondrug strategies to stage one hypertension the real word evidence suggest that we need to be more careful in the selection of patients to be introduced in a drug therapy strategy. Elevations in systemic arterial pressures have been associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, heart failure and stroke. It remains one of the most reversible causes of various disease states. This article aims to review current blood pressure (BP) targets and medical therapies for hypertension in the modern era, recognizing varying clinical characteristics such as comorbidities and patient risk profile.

Acute Tachycardia Increases Aortic Distensibility, but Reduces Total Arterial Compliance Up to a Moderate Heart Rate

Background: The differential effects of rapid cardiac pacing on small and large vessels have not been well-established. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of pacing-induced acute tachycardia on hemodynamics and arterial stiffness.

Methods: The pressure and flow waves in ascending aorta and femoral artery of six domestic swine were recorded simultaneously at baseline and heart rates (HR) of 135 and 155 beats per minutes (bpm) and analyzed by the models of Windkessel and Womersley types. Accordingly, the flow waves were simultaneously measured at carotid and femoral arteries to quantify aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV). The arterial distensibility was identified in small branches of coronary, carotid and femoral arteries with diameters of 300–600 μm by ex vivo experiments.

Results: The rapid pacing in HR up to 135 bpm reduced the total arterial compliance, stroke volume, systemic pulse pressure, and central systolic pressure by 36 ± 17, 38 ± 26, 29 ± 16, and 23 ± 12%, respectively, despite no statistical difference of mean aortic pressure, cardiac output, peripheral resistance, and vascular flow patterns. The pacing also resulted in a decrease of distensibility of small muscular arteries, but an increase of aortic distensibility. Pacing from 135 to 155 bpm had negligible effects on systemic and local hemodynamics and arterial stiffness.

Conclusions: There is an acute mismatch in the response of aorta and small arteries to pacing from basal HR to 135 bpm, which may have important pathological implications under chronic tachycardia conditions.

VEGF-C attenuates renal damage in salt-sensitive hypertension

Salt-sensitive hypertension is a major risk factor for renal impairment leading to chronic kidney disease. High-salt diet leads to hypertonic skin interstitial volume retention enhancing the activation of the tonicity-responsive enhancer-binding protein (TonEBP) within macrophages leading to vascular endothelial growth factor C (VEGF-C) secretion and NOS3 modulation. This promotes skin lymphangiogenesis and blood pressure regulation. Whether VEGF-C administration enhances renal and skin lymphangiogenesis and attenuates renal damage in salt-sensitive hypertension remains to be elucidated. Hypertension was induced in BALB/c mice by a high-salt diet. VEGF-C was administered subcutaneously to high-salt-treated mice as well as control animals. Analyses of kidney injury, inflammation, fibrosis, and biochemical markers were performed in vivo. VEGF-C reduced plasma inflammatory markers in salt-treated mice. In addition, VEGF-C exhibited a renal anti-inflammatory effect with the induction of macrophage M2 phenotype, followed by reductions in interstitial fibrosis. Antioxidant enzymes within the kidney as well as urinary RNA/DNA damage markers were all revelatory of abolished oxidative stress under VEGF-C. Furthermore, VEGF-C decreased the urinary albumin/creatinine ratio and blood pressure as well as glomerular and tubular damages. These improvements were associated with enhanced TonEBP, NOS3, and lymphangiogenesis within the kidney and skin. Our data show that VEGF-C administration plays a major role in preserving renal histology and reducing blood pressure. VEGF-C might constitute an interesting potential therapeutic target for improving renal remodeling in salt-sensitive hypertension.

Systematic Review for the 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines

Objective

To review the literature systematically and perform meta-analyses to address these questions: 1) Is there evidence that self-measured blood pressure (BP) without other augmentation is superior to office-based measurement of BP for achieving better BP control or for preventing adverse clinical outcomes that are related to elevated BP? 2) What is the optimal target for BP lowering during antihypertensive therapy in adults? 3) In adults with hypertension, how do various antihypertensive drug classes differ in their benefits and harms compared with each other as first-line therapy?

Methods

Electronic literature searches were performed by Doctor Evidence, a global medical evidence software and services company, across PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to 2015 using key words and relevant subject headings for randomized controlled trials that met eligibility criteria defined for each question. We performed analyses using traditional frequentist statistical and Bayesian approaches, including random-effects Bayesian network meta-analyses.

Results

Our results suggest that: 1) There is a modest but significant improvement in systolic BP in randomized controlled trials of self-measured BP versus usual care at 6 but not 12 months, and for selected patients and their providers self-measured BP may be a helpful adjunct to routine office care. 2) systolic BP lowering to a target of <130 mm Hg may reduce the risk of several important outcomes including risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and major cardiovascular events. No class of medications (ie, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, calcium channel blockers, or beta blockers) was significantly better than thiazides and thiazide-like diuretics as a first-line therapy for any outcome.

Sex Differences of Patients With Systemic Hypertension (From the Analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial [SPRINT])

There are differences in the incidence, pathophysiology, and long-term effects of hypertension between women and men. We assessed sex-specific benefit-risk tradeoffs of different blood pressure (BP) goals in patients enrolled in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) after propensity score matching those with standard therapy (systolic BP <140 mm Hg) to those with intensive therapy (systolic BP <120 mm Hg; n = 9,106). Cox regression was conducted to compare standard versus intensive therapy in women and men with the composite outcome of myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. Women were generally healthier at baseline and had a lower cardiovascular risk. Men on intensive therapy had a lower risk of the composite outcome compared to those on standard therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 0.86, p = 0.001) while in women no differences between therapy groups were observed (HR 0.82 [0.60 to 1.12], p = 0.206). For safety outcomes, women and men had increased risk of related serious adverse events with intensive treatment (HR 1.52 [1.06 to 2.18], p = 0.023 and HR 2.07 [1.55 to2.77], p < 0.001, respectively). In conclusion, our study demonstrated that women did not benefit from intensive compared to standard BP control. A potential explanation for this may be the lower baseline cardiovascular risk in women.