Management and outcome of severely elevated blood pressure in primary care: a prospective observational study

One-year outcomes following a hypertensive urgency or emergency

There are scarce data on the comparative prognosis between patients with hypertensive emergencies (HE), urgencies (HU), and those without HU or HE (HP). Our study aimed to compare cardiovascular (CV) outcomes of HE, HU, and HP during a 12-month follow-up period. The population consisted of 353 consecutive patients presenting with HE or HU in a third-care emergency department and subsequently referred to our hypertension center for follow-up. After both groups completed scheduled follow-up visits, patients with HU were matched one-to-one by age, sex, and hypertension history with HP who attended our hypertension center during the same period. Primary outcomes were 1) a recurrent hypertensive HU or HE event and 2) non-fatal CV events (coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, or CV interventions), while secondary outcomes were 1) all-cause death, 2) CV death, 3) non-CV death, and 4) any-cause hospitalization. Events were prospectively registered for all three groups. During the study period, 81 patients were excluded for not completing follow-up. Among eligible patients(HE = 94; HU = 178), a total of 90 hospitalizations and 14 deaths were recorded; HE registered greater CV morbidity when compared with HU (29 vs. 9, HR 3.43, 95 % CI 1.7-6.9, p = 0.001), and increased CV mortality (8 vs. 1, HR 13.2, 95 % CI 1.57-110.8, p = 0.017). When opposing HU to HP, events did not differ substantially. Cox regression models were adjusted for age, sex, CV and chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, and smoking. During 1-year follow-up, the prognosis of HU was better than HE but not different compared to HP. These results highlight the need for improved care of HU and HE.

Clinical Characteristics and Predictors of All-Cause Mortality in Patients with Hypertensive Urgency at an Emergency Department

Hypertensive urgency is characterized by an acute increase in blood pressure without acute target organ damage, which is considered to be managed with close outpatient follow-up. However, limited data are available on the prognosis of these cases in emergency departments. We investigated the characteristics and predictors of all-cause mortality in Korean emergency patients with hypertensive urgency. This cross-sectional study included patients aged ≥18 years who visited an emergency tertiary referral center between January 2016 and December 2019 for hypertensive urgency, which was defined as a systolic blood pressure of ≥180 mmHg and a diastolic blood pressure of ≥110 mmHg, or both, without acute target organ damage. The 1 and 3 year all-cause mortality rates were 6.8% and 12.1%, respectively. The incidence of emergency department revisits and readmission after 3 months and 1 year was significantly higher in non-survivors than in survivors. In a multivariate analysis, age ≥ 60 years (hazard ratio (HR), 16.66; 95% CI, 6.20-44.80; p < 0.001), male sex (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.22-1.94; p < 0.001), history of chronic kidney disease (HR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.53-3.09; p < 0.001), and proteinuria (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.53-2.48; p < 0.001) were independent predictors of 3 year all-cause mortality. The all-cause mortality rate of hypertensive urgency remains high despite the increased utilization of antihypertensive medications. Old age, male sex, history of chronic kidney disease, and proteinuria were poor prognostic factors for all-cause mortality in patients with hypertensive urgency.

Hypertension Urgencies and Emergencies: The GEAR Project

Acute elevations in blood pressure (BP), usually defined as ≥ 180/110 mmHg, may present with highly heterogeneous profiles ranging from absence of symptoms to life-threatening target organ damage. In most recent years the diagnostic approach and the treatment of hypertension have gained interest by patients and physicians. The GEAR project (Gestione delle Emergenze e urgenze in ARea critica, management of hypertensive emergencies and hypertensive urgencies in the emergency setting) was proposed by the group of Young Investigators of the Italian Society of Hypertension as a survey aimed to evaluate the awareness, diagnosis and treatment of hypertensive emergencies and urgencies in Italy.

Pharmacologic Treatment of Hypertensive Urgency in the Outpatient Setting: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Hypertensive urgency (HU), defined as acute severe uncontrolled hypertension without end-organ damage, is a common condition. Despite its association with long-term morbidity and mortality, guidance regarding immediate management is sparse. Our objective was to summarize the evidence examining the effects of antihypertensive medications to treat.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Embase through May 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

We evaluated prospective controlled clinical trials, case-control studies, and cohort studies of HU in emergency room (ER) or clinic settings. We initially identified 11,223 published articles. We reviewed 10,748 titles and abstracts and identified 538 eligible articles. We assessed the full text for eligibility and included 31 articles written in English that were clinical trials or cohort studies and provided blood pressure data within 48 h of treatment. Studies were appraised for risk of bias using components recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. The main outcome measured was blood pressure change with antihypertensive medications. Since studies were too diverse both clinically and methodologically to combine in a meta-analysis, tabular data and a narrative synthesis of studies are presented.

RESULTS

We identified only 20 double-blind randomized controlled trials and 12 cohort studies, with 262 participants in prospective controlled trials. However, we could not pool the results of studies. In addition, comorbidities and their potential contribution to long-term treatment of these subjects were not adequately addressed in any of the reviewed studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Longitudinal studies are still needed to determine how best to lower blood pressure in patients with HU. Longer-term management of individuals who have experienced HU continues to be an area requiring further study, especially as applicable to care from the generalist.