Search

Objectives:In any treated hypertensive patient office blood pressure (BP) values may differ between visits and this variability (V) has an adverse prognostic impact. However, little information is available on visit-to-visit 24-h BPV.Methods:In 1114 hypertensives of the ELSA and PHYLLIS trials we compared visit-to-visit office and 24-h mean BPV by coefficient of variation (CV) of the mean systolic (S) and diastolic (D) BP obtained from yearly measurements during a 3-4 year treatment period. Visit-to-visit BPV during daytime and night-time were also compared.Results:Twenty-four-hour SBP-CV was about 20% less than office SBP-CV (P < 0.0001). SBP-CV was considerably greater for the night-time than for the daytime period (20%, P < 0.0001). Results were similar for DBP and in males and females, older and younger patients, patients under different antihypertensive drugs or with different baseline or achieved BP values. In the group as a whole and in subgroups there was significant correlations between office and 24-h BP-CV but the correlation coefficients was weak, indicating that office SBP or DBP CV accounted for only about 1-4% of 24-h SBP or DBP-CV values.Conclusion:Twenty-four-hour mean BP across visits is more stable than across visit office BP. Visit-to-visit office and 24-h BPV are significantly related to each other, but correlation coefficients are low, making visit-to-visit office BP variations poorly predictive of the concomitant 24-h BP variations and thus of on-treatment ambulatory BP stability.

Purpose: Few studies explored what patients initiated on blood pressure medication in primary care think about their disease and their medications. The aim of this study was to gain an understanding of hypertensive patients’ views on and experiences of hypertension and the use of antihypertensive medications. Methods: A qualitative study based on open-ended questions from a survey on medication adherence, which captured treated hypertensive patients’ perspective on their condition and treatment. Data were collected for 219 patients on antihypertensive medication, ≥ 30 years old, who consulted 25 primary health care centers in Stockholm, Sweden, during 2016. Thematic analysis with both inductive and deductive approach was applied. Results: We identified 21 codes from the data and grouped them under the World Health Organization’s five dimensions of adherence: condition-, therapy-, health care team and system-, patient-, and socioeconomic-related factors. The analyses revealed that many patients with hypertension have limited knowledge of their disease, are afraid of drug side effects and experience various issues in primary health care that may negatively impact adherence, including short doctor appointments, prescribing without communication and room for improvement in individualization of therapy and a person-centered approach. Conclusion: Many patients with hypertension have limited understanding of their hypertension and fear of adverse events from their antihypertensive medications. There is also room for improvement in how the patients are managed in primary health care. Interventions should focus on these issues to promote a better blood pressure target achievement.

Purpose: Few studies explored what patients initiated on blood pressure medication in primary care think about their disease and their medications. The aim of this study was to gain an understanding of hypertensive patients’ views on and experiences of hypertension and the use of antihypertensive medications. Methods: A qualitative study based on open-ended questions from a survey on medication adherence, which captured treated hypertensive patients’ perspective on their condition and treatment. Data were collected for 219 patients on antihypertensive medication, ≥ 30 years old, who consulted 25 primary health care centers in Stockholm, Sweden, during 2016. Thematic analysis with both inductive and deductive approach was applied. Results: We identified 21 codes from the data and grouped them under the World Health Organization’s five dimensions of adherence: condition-, therapy-, health care team and system-, patient-, and socioeconomic-related factors. The analyses revealed that many patients with hypertension have limited knowledge of their disease, are afraid of drug side effects and experience various issues in primary health care that may negatively impact adherence, including short doctor appointments, prescribing without communication and room for improvement in individualization of therapy and a person-centered approach. Conclusion: Many patients with hypertension have limited understanding of their hypertension and fear of adverse events from their antihypertensive medications. There is also room for improvement in how the patients are managed in primary health care. Interventions should focus on these issues to promote a better blood pressure target achievement.

Purpose: Few studies explored what patients initiated on blood pressure medication in primary care think about their disease and their medications. The aim of this study was to gain an understanding of hypertensive patients’ views on and experiences of hypertension and the use of antihypertensive medications. Methods: A qualitative study based on open-ended questions from a survey on medication adherence, which captured treated hypertensive patients’ perspective on their condition and treatment. Data were collected for 219 patients on antihypertensive medication, ≥ 30 years old, who consulted 25 primary health care centers in Stockholm, Sweden, during 2016. Thematic analysis with both inductive and deductive approach was applied. Results: We identified 21 codes from the data and grouped them under the World Health Organization’s five dimensions of adherence: condition-, therapy-, health care team and system-, patient-, and socioeconomic-related factors. The analyses revealed that many patients with hypertension have limited knowledge of their disease, are afraid of drug side effects and experience various issues in primary health care that may negatively impact adherence, including short doctor appointments, prescribing without communication and room for improvement in individualization of therapy and a person-centered approach. Conclusion: Many patients with hypertension have limited understanding of their hypertension and fear of adverse events from their antihypertensive medications. There is also room for improvement in how the patients are managed in primary health care. Interventions should focus on these issues to promote a better blood pressure target achievement.

Purpose: Few studies explored what patients initiated on blood pressure medication in primary care think about their disease and their medications. The aim of this study was to gain an understanding of hypertensive patients’ views on and experiences of hypertension and the use of antihypertensive medications. Methods: A qualitative study based on open-ended questions from a survey on medication adherence, which captured treated hypertensive patients’ perspective on their condition and treatment. Data were collected for 219 patients on antihypertensive medication, ≥ 30 years old, who consulted 25 primary health care centers in Stockholm, Sweden, during 2016. Thematic analysis with both inductive and deductive approach was applied. Results: We identified 21 codes from the data and grouped them under the World Health Organization’s five dimensions of adherence: condition-, therapy-, health care team and system-, patient-, and socioeconomic-related factors. The analyses revealed that many patients with hypertension have limited knowledge of their disease, are afraid of drug side effects and experience various issues in primary health care that may negatively impact adherence, including short doctor appointments, prescribing without communication and room for improvement in individualization of therapy and a person-centered approach. Conclusion: Many patients with hypertension have limited understanding of their hypertension and fear of adverse events from their antihypertensive medications. There is also room for improvement in how the patients are managed in primary health care. Interventions should focus on these issues to promote a better blood pressure target achievement.

BACKGROUND: Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) in middle-aged and elderly is associated with high cardiovascular risk, but no randomised controlled trial has assessed the effect of antihypertensive treatment in ISH using today's definition, i.e. systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥140 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) <90 mmHg. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was performed. Studies with ≥1000 patient-years of follow-up, comparing more intensive versus less intensive BP targets, or active drug versus placebo, were included if the mean baseline SBP was ≥140 mmHg and the mean baseline DBP was <90 mmHg. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Relative risks from each trial were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses, stratified by baseline and attained SBP level. RESULTS: Twenty-four trials, including 113,105 participants (mean age 67 years; mean blood pressure 149/83 mmHg) were included in the analysis. Overall, treatment reduced the risk of MACE by 9% (relative risk 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.88-0.93). Treatment was more effective if baseline SBP was ≥160 mmHg (RR 0.77, 95% CIs 0.70-0.86) compared to 140-159 mmHg (RR 0.92, 95% CIs 0.89-0.95; p = 0.002 for interaction), but provided equal additional benefit across all attained SBP levels (RR 0.80, 95% CIs 0.70-0.92 for <130 mmHg, RR 0.92, 95% CIs 0.89-0.96 for 130-139 mmHg, and RR 0.87, 95% CIs 0.82-0.93 for ≥140 mmHg; p = 0.070 for interaction). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support antihypertensive treatment of isolated systolic hypertension, regardless of baseline SBP, to target SBP <140 mmHg and even <130 mmHg if well tolerated.

BACKGROUND: Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) in middle-aged and elderly is associated with high cardiovascular risk, but no randomised controlled trial has assessed the effect of antihypertensive treatment in ISH using today's definition, i.e. systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥140 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) <90 mmHg. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was performed. Studies with ≥1000 patient-years of follow-up, comparing more intensive versus less intensive BP targets, or active drug versus placebo, were included if the mean baseline SBP was ≥140 mmHg and the mean baseline DBP was <90 mmHg. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Relative risks from each trial were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses, stratified by baseline and attained SBP level. RESULTS: Twenty-four trials, including 113,105 participants (mean age 67 years; mean blood pressure 149/83 mmHg) were included in the analysis. Overall, treatment reduced the risk of MACE by 9% (relative risk 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.88-0.93). Treatment was more effective if baseline SBP was ≥160 mmHg (RR 0.77, 95% CIs 0.70-0.86) compared to 140-159 mmHg (RR 0.92, 95% CIs 0.89-0.95; p = 0.002 for interaction), but provided equal additional benefit across all attained SBP levels (RR 0.80, 95% CIs 0.70-0.92 for <130 mmHg, RR 0.92, 95% CIs 0.89-0.96 for 130-139 mmHg, and RR 0.87, 95% CIs 0.82-0.93 for ≥140 mmHg; p = 0.070 for interaction). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support antihypertensive treatment of isolated systolic hypertension, regardless of baseline SBP, to target SBP <140 mmHg and even <130 mmHg if well tolerated.

BACKGROUND: Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) in middle-aged and elderly is associated with high cardiovascular risk, but no randomised controlled trial has assessed the effect of antihypertensive treatment in ISH using today's definition, i.e. systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥140 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) <90 mmHg. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was performed. Studies with ≥1000 patient-years of follow-up, comparing more intensive versus less intensive BP targets, or active drug versus placebo, were included if the mean baseline SBP was ≥140 mmHg and the mean baseline DBP was <90 mmHg. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Relative risks from each trial were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses, stratified by baseline and attained SBP level. RESULTS: Twenty-four trials, including 113,105 participants (mean age 67 years; mean blood pressure 149/83 mmHg) were included in the analysis. Overall, treatment reduced the risk of MACE by 9% (relative risk 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.88-0.93). Treatment was more effective if baseline SBP was ≥160 mmHg (RR 0.77, 95% CIs 0.70-0.86) compared to 140-159 mmHg (RR 0.92, 95% CIs 0.89-0.95; p = 0.002 for interaction), but provided equal additional benefit across all attained SBP levels (RR 0.80, 95% CIs 0.70-0.92 for <130 mmHg, RR 0.92, 95% CIs 0.89-0.96 for 130-139 mmHg, and RR 0.87, 95% CIs 0.82-0.93 for ≥140 mmHg; p = 0.070 for interaction). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support antihypertensive treatment of isolated systolic hypertension, regardless of baseline SBP, to target SBP <140 mmHg and even <130 mmHg if well tolerated.

Purpose: Few studies explored what patients initiated on blood pressure medication in primary care think about their disease and their medications. The aim of this study was to gain an understanding of hypertensive patients’ views on and experiences of hypertension and the use of antihypertensive medications. Methods: A qualitative study based on open-ended questions from a survey on medication adherence, which captured treated hypertensive patients’ perspective on their condition and treatment. Data were collected for 219 patients on antihypertensive medication, ≥ 30 years old, who consulted 25 primary health care centers in Stockholm, Sweden, during 2016. Thematic analysis with both inductive and deductive approach was applied. Results: We identified 21 codes from the data and grouped them under the World Health Organization’s five dimensions of adherence: condition-, therapy-, health care team and system-, patient-, and socioeconomic-related factors. The analyses revealed that many patients with hypertension have limited knowledge of their disease, are afraid of drug side effects and experience various issues in primary health care that may negatively impact adherence, including short doctor appointments, prescribing without communication and room for improvement in individualization of therapy and a person-centered approach. Conclusion: Many patients with hypertension have limited understanding of their hypertension and fear of adverse events from their antihypertensive medications. There is also room for improvement in how the patients are managed in primary health care. Interventions should focus on these issues to promote a better blood pressure target achievement.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 40% of people with hypertension have left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) detected by ECG or echocardiography. Because patients with LVH have poor myocardial microcirculation, they may be too sensitive to lowering systolic blood pressure (SBP) too much due to a lack of myocardial perfusion pressure. We aimed to investigate whether the average achieved SBP <130 mm Hg may cause harm in patients with LVH in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation trial (VALUE). METHODS: Of the 15 245 VALUE participants, we identified 13 803 patients without cardiovascular events during the first 6 months after randomization. Of these, 2458 patients had electrocardiographic LVH (ECG-LVH). Cox analyses adjusted for age, gender, and baseline variables compared cardiac and all-cause mortality and other prespecified end points for patients who achieved average SBP 130 to 139 mm Hg (No-LVH group n=4863; ECG-LVH group n=929) and <130 mm Hg (No-LVH group n=2107; ECG-LVH group n=305). Reference groups were patients who achieved average SBP ≥140 mm Hg following the first excluded 6 months (No-LVH group n=4375; ECG-LVH group n=1224). RESULTS: The No-LVH group achieving average SBP <130 mm Hg had a significantly lower incidence of several cardiovascular end points. The ECG-LVH group achieving average SBP <130 mm Hg had higher cardiac mortality (hazard ratio, 1.98 [95% CIs, 1.06-3.70]; P=0.032) and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.74 [95% CIs, 1.17-2.60]; P=0.007), and SBP <130 mm Hg was not associated with a reduction in any end point. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings may be seen as a signal that caution is warranted when treating middle-aged and older patients with electrocardiographic or echocardiographic LVH to SBP <130 mm Hg.

BACKGROUND: Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) in middle-aged and elderly is associated with high cardiovascular risk, but no randomised controlled trial has assessed the effect of antihypertensive treatment in ISH using today's definition, i.e. systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥140 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) <90 mmHg. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was performed. Studies with ≥1000 patient-years of follow-up, comparing more intensive versus less intensive BP targets, or active drug versus placebo, were included if the mean baseline SBP was ≥140 mmHg and the mean baseline DBP was <90 mmHg. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Relative risks from each trial were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses, stratified by baseline and attained SBP level. RESULTS: Twenty-four trials, including 113,105 participants (mean age 67 years; mean blood pressure 149/83 mmHg) were included in the analysis. Overall, treatment reduced the risk of MACE by 9% (relative risk 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.88-0.93). Treatment was more effective if baseline SBP was ≥160 mmHg (RR 0.77, 95% CIs 0.70-0.86) compared to 140-159 mmHg (RR 0.92, 95% CIs 0.89-0.95; p = 0.002 for interaction), but provided equal additional benefit across all attained SBP levels (RR 0.80, 95% CIs 0.70-0.92 for <130 mmHg, RR 0.92, 95% CIs 0.89-0.96 for 130-139 mmHg, and RR 0.87, 95% CIs 0.82-0.93 for ≥140 mmHg; p = 0.070 for interaction). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support antihypertensive treatment of isolated systolic hypertension, regardless of baseline SBP, to target SBP <140 mmHg and even <130 mmHg if well tolerated.

BACKGROUND: Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) in middle-aged and elderly is associated with high cardiovascular risk, but no randomised controlled trial has assessed the effect of antihypertensive treatment in ISH using today's definition, i.e. systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥140 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) <90 mmHg. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was performed. Studies with ≥1000 patient-years of follow-up, comparing more intensive versus less intensive BP targets, or active drug versus placebo, were included if the mean baseline SBP was ≥140 mmHg and the mean baseline DBP was <90 mmHg. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Relative risks from each trial were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses, stratified by baseline and attained SBP level. RESULTS: Twenty-four trials, including 113,105 participants (mean age 67 years; mean blood pressure 149/83 mmHg) were included in the analysis. Overall, treatment reduced the risk of MACE by 9% (relative risk 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.88-0.93). Treatment was more effective if baseline SBP was ≥160 mmHg (RR 0.77, 95% CIs 0.70-0.86) compared to 140-159 mmHg (RR 0.92, 95% CIs 0.89-0.95; p = 0.002 for interaction), but provided equal additional benefit across all attained SBP levels (RR 0.80, 95% CIs 0.70-0.92 for <130 mmHg, RR 0.92, 95% CIs 0.89-0.96 for 130-139 mmHg, and RR 0.87, 95% CIs 0.82-0.93 for ≥140 mmHg; p = 0.070 for interaction). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support antihypertensive treatment of isolated systolic hypertension, regardless of baseline SBP, to target SBP <140 mmHg and even <130 mmHg if well tolerated.

PURPOSE: Education and feedback on hypertension management has been associated with improved hypertension control. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of such interventions to reduce the risk of stroke and cardiovascular events. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individuals ≥18 years with a blood pressure (BP) recording in Västerbotten or Södermanland County during the study period 2001 to 2009 were included in 108 serial cohort studies, each with 24 months follow-up. The primary outcome was risk of first-ever stroke in Västerbotten County (intervention) compared with Södermanland County (control). Secondary outcomes were first-ever major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), myocardial infarction, and heart failure, as well as all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. All outcomes were analysed using time-to-event data included in a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, systolic BP at inclusion, marital status, and disposable income. RESULTS: A total of 121 365 individuals (mean [SD] age at inclusion 61.7 [16.3] years; 59.9% female; mean inclusion BP 142.3/82.6 mmHg) in the intervention county were compared to 131 924 individuals (63.6 [16.2] years; 61.2% female; 144.1/81.1 mmHg) in the control county. A first-ever stroke occurred in 2 823 (2.3%) individuals in the intervention county, and 3 584 (2.7%) individuals in the control county (adjusted hazard ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03). No differences were observed for MACE, myocardial infarction or heart failure, whereas all-cause mortality (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.95) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.98) were lower in the intervention county. CONCLUSIONS: This study does not support an association between education and feedback on hypertension management to primary care physicians and the risk for stroke or cardiovascular outcomes. The observed differences for mortality outcomes should be interpreted with caut

PURPOSE: Education and feedback on hypertension management has been associated with improved hypertension control. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of such interventions to reduce the risk of stroke and cardiovascular events. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individuals ≥18 years with a blood pressure (BP) recording in Västerbotten or Södermanland County during the study period 2001 to 2009 were included in 108 serial cohort studies, each with 24 months follow-up. The primary outcome was risk of first-ever stroke in Västerbotten County (intervention) compared with Södermanland County (control). Secondary outcomes were first-ever major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), myocardial infarction, and heart failure, as well as all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. All outcomes were analysed using time-to-event data included in a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, systolic BP at inclusion, marital status, and disposable income. RESULTS: A total of 121 365 individuals (mean [SD] age at inclusion 61.7 [16.3] years; 59.9% female; mean inclusion BP 142.3/82.6 mmHg) in the intervention county were compared to 131 924 individuals (63.6 [16.2] years; 61.2% female; 144.1/81.1 mmHg) in the control county. A first-ever stroke occurred in 2 823 (2.3%) individuals in the intervention county, and 3 584 (2.7%) individuals in the control county (adjusted hazard ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03). No differences were observed for MACE, myocardial infarction or heart failure, whereas all-cause mortality (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.95) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.98) were lower in the intervention county. CONCLUSIONS: This study does not support an association between education and feedback on hypertension management to primary care physicians and the risk for stroke or cardiovascular outcomes. The observed differences for mortality outcomes should be interpreted with caut

PURPOSE: Education and feedback on hypertension management has been associated with improved hypertension control. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of such interventions to reduce the risk of stroke and cardiovascular events. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individuals ≥18 years with a blood pressure (BP) recording in Västerbotten or Södermanland County during the study period 2001 to 2009 were included in 108 serial cohort studies, each with 24 months follow-up. The primary outcome was risk of first-ever stroke in Västerbotten County (intervention) compared with Södermanland County (control). Secondary outcomes were first-ever major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), myocardial infarction, and heart failure, as well as all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. All outcomes were analysed using time-to-event data included in a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, systolic BP at inclusion, marital status, and disposable income. RESULTS: A total of 121 365 individuals (mean [SD] age at inclusion 61.7 [16.3] years; 59.9% female; mean inclusion BP 142.3/82.6 mmHg) in the intervention county were compared to 131 924 individuals (63.6 [16.2] years; 61.2% female; 144.1/81.1 mmHg) in the control county. A first-ever stroke occurred in 2 823 (2.3%) individuals in the intervention county, and 3 584 (2.7%) individuals in the control county (adjusted hazard ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03). No differences were observed for MACE, myocardial infarction or heart failure, whereas all-cause mortality (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.95) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.98) were lower in the intervention county. CONCLUSIONS: This study does not support an association between education and feedback on hypertension management to primary care physicians and the risk for stroke or cardiovascular outcomes. The observed differences for mortality outcomes should be interpreted with caut

Objective:The aim of the study was to assess the use of antihypertensive combination treatment, both as the initial and as a subsequent therapeutic step, in a large Italian population.Methods:The residents of the Lombardy Region (Italy), aged 40 years or older, who were newly treated with antihypertensive drugs during 2012, 2015 and 2018 were identified and the drug treatment strategy (monotherapy and combination of two, three and more than three antihypertensive drugs) was assessed at treatment initiation, and after 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years of treatment. Data were also analysed after stratification for demographic and clinical categories.Results:About 100 000 patients were identified for each cohort. Monotherapy was the most common initial treatment strategy (75%), followed by two-drug single-pill combination (16%), two-drug free combination (6%), and combination of at least three drugs (3%). Use of two and three or more antihypertensive drugs increased during follow-up and reached about 32% (two drugs) and 11% (>2 drugs) of the patients after 3 years from treatment initiation. Among patients prescribed a two-drug combination, the single-pill was the most common approach, whereas the use of the three-drug single-pill combination was extremely rare. There were no substantial differences in the use of combination treatment between the three cohorts and the results were similar in all demographic and clinical categories.Conclusion:Our data show that in a real-life population use of antihypertensive drug combinations is low. They also show that, contrary to guideline recommendations, antihypertensive combination treatment did not show any noticeable increase in recent years.

Background: Several studies have reported an association between perinatal complications and the severity of the hypertensive disease. The increasing number of pregnancies complicated by hypertension and the small assurance about the perinatal effects of hypertensive drug use during pregnancy involves the need of studying the better management of hypertensive mothers. Objective: To evaluate the association between maternal use of antihypertensive drugs and maternal and neonatal outcomes in women with chronic hypertension. Study design: We conducted a population-based study including all deliveries of hypertensive women that occurred between 2007–2017 in the Lombardy region, Italy. We evaluated the risk of several maternal and neonatal outcomes among women who filled antihypertensive prescriptions within the 20th week of gestation. Propensity score stratification was used to account for key potential confounders. Results: Out of 5,553 pregnancies, 2,138 were exposed to antihypertensive treatment. With respect to no-users, users of antihypertensive drugs showed an increased risk of preeclampsia (RR:1.68, 95%CI:1.42–1.99), low birth weight (1.30,1.14–1.48), and preterm birth (1.25,1.11–1.42). These results were consistent in a range of sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Conclusion: Early exposure to antihypertensive drugs in the first 20 weeks of gestation was associated with an increased risk of preeclampsia, low birth weight, and preterm birth.

PURPOSE: Education and feedback on hypertension management has been associated with improved hypertension control. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of such interventions to reduce the risk of stroke and cardiovascular events. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individuals ≥18 years with a blood pressure (BP) recording in Västerbotten or Södermanland County during the study period 2001 to 2009 were included in 108 serial cohort studies, each with 24 months follow-up. The primary outcome was risk of first-ever stroke in Västerbotten County (intervention) compared with Södermanland County (control). Secondary outcomes were first-ever major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), myocardial infarction, and heart failure, as well as all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. All outcomes were analysed using time-to-event data included in a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, systolic BP at inclusion, marital status, and disposable income. RESULTS: A total of 121 365 individuals (mean [SD] age at inclusion 61.7 [16.3] years; 59.9% female; mean inclusion BP 142.3/82.6 mmHg) in the intervention county were compared to 131 924 individuals (63.6 [16.2] years; 61.2% female; 144.1/81.1 mmHg) in the control county. A first-ever stroke occurred in 2 823 (2.3%) individuals in the intervention county, and 3 584 (2.7%) individuals in the control county (adjusted hazard ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03). No differences were observed for MACE, myocardial infarction or heart failure, whereas all-cause mortality (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.95) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.98) were lower in the intervention county. CONCLUSIONS: This study does not support an association between education and feedback on hypertension management to primary care physicians and the risk for stroke or cardiovascular outcomes. The observed differences for mortality outcomes should be interpreted with caut

PURPOSE: Education and feedback on hypertension management has been associated with improved hypertension control. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of such interventions to reduce the risk of stroke and cardiovascular events. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individuals ≥18 years with a blood pressure (BP) recording in Västerbotten or Södermanland County during the study period 2001 to 2009 were included in 108 serial cohort studies, each with 24 months follow-up. The primary outcome was risk of first-ever stroke in Västerbotten County (intervention) compared with Södermanland County (control). Secondary outcomes were first-ever major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), myocardial infarction, and heart failure, as well as all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. All outcomes were analysed using time-to-event data included in a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, systolic BP at inclusion, marital status, and disposable income. RESULTS: A total of 121 365 individuals (mean [SD] age at inclusion 61.7 [16.3] years; 59.9% female; mean inclusion BP 142.3/82.6 mmHg) in the intervention county were compared to 131 924 individuals (63.6 [16.2] years; 61.2% female; 144.1/81.1 mmHg) in the control county. A first-ever stroke occurred in 2 823 (2.3%) individuals in the intervention county, and 3 584 (2.7%) individuals in the control county (adjusted hazard ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03). No differences were observed for MACE, myocardial infarction or heart failure, whereas all-cause mortality (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.95) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.98) were lower in the intervention county. CONCLUSIONS: This study does not support an association between education and feedback on hypertension management to primary care physicians and the risk for stroke or cardiovascular outcomes. The observed differences for mortality outcomes should be interpreted with caut

Hypertension is a common cardiovascular co-morbidity after kidney transplantation and contributes to shortened graft and patient survival outcomes. However, by contrast with adherence to immunosuppressive drugs, adherence to antihypertensive treatment in kidney transplant recipients has been seldom explored. The aim of the current study was to assess adherence to antihypertensive drugs in kidney transplant recipients from the Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc and to look for demographic and clinical characteristics associated with drug adherence. Demographic and clinical data were collected from medical files in a standardised case report form. Blood pressure was measured in the sitting position after 5 min rest, using validated oscillometric devices. Drug adherence was assessed by drug dosage in urine using liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry. Our analysis included 53 kidney transplants recipients (75% of men, mean age: 57.2 ± 12.6 years, time since kidney transplantation: 9.5 ± 7.3 years, blood pressure: 130 ± 16/78 ± 11 mmHg on 2.1 ± 1.1 antihypertensive drugs). The proportion of patients showing full drug adherence, partial drug adherence, and total non-adherence to antihypertensive drugs was 79% ( = 42), 15% ( = 8), and 6% ( = 3), respectively. Adherent patients did not differ from less or non- adherers in any of the analysed characteristics. The proportion of patients adhering to antihypertensive drug treatment among kidney transplant recipients appears similar to that reported for immunosuppressive drugs in renal transplanted patients (∼70%), but much higher than that observed in patients with drug-resistant hypertension (30-40%). Our results need further confirmation in a large, multicenter, prospective cohort.

The COVID-19 disease is the third outbreak of coronavirus pneumonia, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, so far this century. It most severely affects vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, with immunosuppression and chronic diseases, including high blood pressure, highly relevant in mortality from cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, being a clinical marker of severity of patients with COVID-19 , manifested mainly in ages older than 60 years, and the preventive suspension of the aforementioned antihypertensive treatments can lead to short- to long-term clinical complications.The objective of the study is to determine the prevalence of Arterial Hypertension in patients diagnosed with Covid- 19 at the IESS-Manta Hospital, Ecuador. A retrospective, cross-sectional, descriptive, observational, quantitative approach study was conducted in patients between 20 and 65 years old, who were admitted from March to October 2020 to the second-level Hospital and referral for patients with COVID-19 in the Province. of Manabí-Ecuador. With a population of 905 subjects diagnosed with Covid-19, the controlled variables of age and sex were analyzed. The statistical analysis was based on the descriptive statistics of the AS400 database of the Clinical History of the Health Center. The prevalence of hypertensive patients diagnosed with Covid-19 is 58 for every 100 patients who were admitted for Covid-19 and age between 20 to 65 is equivalent to 84.8%., La enfermedad COVID-19 es el tercer brote epidémico de neumonía por coronavirus, causado por coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, en lo que va de este siglo. Afecta de manera más severa a grupos vulnerables, como los adultos mayores, con inmunodepresión y enfermedades crónicas entre ellas, la hipertensión arterial, de gran relevancia en la mortalidad por enfermedades cardiovasculares y cerebrovasculares, siendo un marcador clínico de gravedad de pacientes con COVID-19, manifestado fundamentalmente en edades mayores de 60 años, y la suspensión de forma preventiva de los mencionados tratamientos antihipertensivos puede conducir a complicaciones clínicas de corto a largo plazo, El objetivo del estudio fue determinar la prevalencia de la hipertensión arterial en pacientes diagnosticados con Covid-19 en el Hospital IESS-Manta, Ecuador. Se realizó un estudio de enfoque cuantitativo, observacional descriptivo de corte transversal, retrospectivo, en pacientes comprendidos entre los 20 hasta 65 años,que ingresaron desde Marzo hasta Octubre del 2020 al Hospital de segundo nivel y de referencia para pacientes conCOVID-19 en la Provincia de Manabí-Ecuador. Con una población de 905 sujetos diagnosticados con Covid-19 se analizaron las variables controladas de edad y sexo. El análisis estadístico se basó en la estadística descriptiva de la base de datos AS400 de la historia Clínica del Centro de Salud. La prevalencia de pacientes hipertensos diagnosticados con Covid-19 es de 58 por cada 100 pacientes que ingresaron por covid-19 y edad comprendida entre 20 a 65 equivale al 84.8 %.

Purpose: Event-based clinical outcome trials have shown limited evidence to support guidelines recommendations to lower blood pressure (BP) to <130/80 mmHg in middle-aged and elderly hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus or with general high cardiovascular (CV) risk. We addressed this issue by post-hoc analysing the risk of CV events in patients who participated in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial and compared the hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with all high-risk hypertensive patients. Materials and methods: Patients were divided into 4 groups according to the proportion of on-treatment visits before the occurrence of an event (<25% to ≥75%) in which BP was reduced to <140/90 or <130/80 mmHg. Patients with diabetes mellitus (n = 5250) were compared with the entire VALUE population with high CV risk (n = 15,245). Results: After adjustments for baseline differences between groups, a reduction in the proportion of visits in which BP was reduced to <140/90 mmHg, but not to <130/80 mmHg, was accompanied by a progressive increase in the risk of CV morbidity and mortality as well as stroke, myocardial infarction and heart failure in both diabetes mellitus and in all high-risk patients. Target BP <130/80 mmHg reduced stroke risk in the main population but not in the diabetes mellitus patients. Patients with diabetes mellitus had higher event rates for the primary cardiac endpoint and all-cause mortality driven by a higher rate of heart failure. Conclusion: In the high-risk hypertensive patients of the VALUE trial achieving more frequently BP <140/90 mmHg, but not <130/80 mmHg, showed principally the same protective effect on overall and cause-specific cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus and in the general high-risk hypertensive population.

Purpose: Available data of event-based clinical outcomes trials show that little evidence supports the guidelines recommendations to lower blood pressure (BP) to <130/80 mmHg in middle-aged and elderly people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. We addressed this issue by post-hoc analysing the risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in mostly elderly high-risk hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus participating in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial. Material and methods: Patients (n = 5250) were divided into 4 groups according to the proportion of on-treatment visits before the occurrence of an event (<25% to ≥ 75%) in which BP was reduced to <140/90 or <130/80 mmHg. Results: After adjustment for baseline demographic differences between groups, a reduction in the proportion of visits in which BP achieved <140/90 mmHg accompanied a progressive increase in the risk of CV mortality and morbidity as well as of cause-specific events such as stroke, myocardial infarction and heart failure. A progressive reduction in the proportion of visits in which BP was reduced <130/80 mmHg did not have any effect on CV risks. Conclusion: In mostly elderly high-risk hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus participating in the VALUE trial, achieving more frequently BP <140/90 mmHg showed a marked protective effect on overall and all cause-specific cardiovascular outcomes. This was not the case for a more frequent achievement of the more intensive BP target, i.e. <130/80 mmHg.

The COVID-19 disease is the third outbreak of coronavirus pneumonia, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, so far this century. It most severely affects vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, with immunosuppression and chronic diseases, including high blood pressure, highly relevant in mortality from cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, being a clinical marker of severity of patients with COVID-19 , manifested mainly in ages older than 60 years, and the preventive suspension of the aforementioned antihypertensive treatments can lead to short- to long-term clinical complications.The objective of the study is to determine the prevalence of Arterial Hypertension in patients diagnosed with Covid- 19 at the IESS-Manta Hospital, Ecuador. A retrospective, cross-sectional, descriptive, observational, quantitative approach study was conducted in patients between 20 and 65 years old, who were admitted from March to October 2020 to the second-level Hospital and referral for patients with COVID-19 in the Province. of Manabí-Ecuador. With a population of 905 subjects diagnosed with Covid-19, the controlled variables of age and sex were analyzed. The statistical analysis was based on the descriptive statistics of the AS400 database of the Clinical History of the Health Center. The prevalence of hypertensive patients diagnosed with Covid-19 is 58 for every 100 patients who were admitted for Covid-19 and age between 20 to 65 is equivalent to 84.8%., La enfermedad COVID-19 es el tercer brote epidémico de neumonía por coronavirus, causado por coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, en lo que va de este siglo. Afecta de manera más severa a grupos vulnerables, como los adultos mayores, con inmunodepresión y enfermedades crónicas entre ellas, la hipertensión arterial, de gran relevancia en la mortalidad por enfermedades cardiovasculares y cerebrovasculares, siendo un marcador clínico de gravedad de pacientes con COVID-19, manifestado fundamentalmente en edades mayores de 60 años, y la suspensión de forma preventiva de los mencionados tratamientos antihipertensivos puede conducir a complicaciones clínicas de corto a largo plazo, El objetivo del estudio fue determinar la prevalencia de la hipertensión arterial en pacientes diagnosticados con Covid-19 en el Hospital IESS-Manta, Ecuador. Se realizó un estudio de enfoque cuantitativo, observacional descriptivo de corte transversal, retrospectivo, en pacientes comprendidos entre los 20 hasta 65 años,que ingresaron desde Marzo hasta Octubre del 2020 al Hospital de segundo nivel y de referencia para pacientes conCOVID-19 en la Provincia de Manabí-Ecuador. Con una población de 905 sujetos diagnosticados con Covid-19 se analizaron las variables controladas de edad y sexo. El análisis estadístico se basó en la estadística descriptiva de la base de datos AS400 de la historia Clínica del Centro de Salud. La prevalencia de pacientes hipertensos diagnosticados con Covid-19 es de 58 por cada 100 pacientes que ingresaron por covid-19 y edad comprendida entre 20 a 65 equivale al 84.8 %.

Few issues of modern cardiovascular medicine have been as controversial as the relationship between white-coat hypertension (WCH), that is, a common condition in which office blood pressure is elevated while out-of-office blood pressure (ambulatory blood pressure or home blood pressure) is normal. While earlier studies showed no increased risk of cardiovascular events in WCH compared with the normotensive state, more recent studies have changed this conclusion by showing that an increased cardiovascular risk represents a trait of this hypertensive phenotype. The present article will review a number of issues related to WCH, that is, its definition, pathophysiological background, clinical alterations, and prognostic significance. This will be done by considering the available evidence published during the last decades, with special focus on the data collected in PAMELA (Pressioni Arteriose Monitorate e Loro Associazioni)-a research project performed with a cross-sectional and longitudinal design, which has provided a series of novel clinical information on WCH throughout the years. The final part of the article will discuss the therapeutic implications of the abovementioned evidence, as well as some controversial or still undefined issues related to WCH, whose investigation will be an important goal to pursue by future research.

The presence of hypertension among the population with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has become a new threat to the health and well-being of people living with this disease, in particular, among those who received antiretroviral therapy. The estimated prevalence of high blood pressure in HIV-infected patients is significantly higher than the rate observed in HIV-uninfected subjects. The approach to the HIV-positive patient requires the assessment of individual cardiovascular risk and its consideration when designing the individualized target. On the other hand, the numerous pharmacological interactions of antiretroviral (ARV) drugs are essential elements to take into account. Serum levels of any kind of antihypertensive drugs may be influenced by the coadministration of protease inhibitors, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, or other antiretroviral. Similarly, plasma concentrations of antiretroviral drugs can be increased by the concomitant use of calcium channel blockers or diuretics. In this regard, the treatment of high blood pressure in HIV patients should be preferentially based on ACE inhibitors or thiazide/thiazide-like diuretics or their combination.

Background: Hypertension is common in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and optimal blood pressure (BP) control is advised to reduce arterial load and cardiovascular events. Whether calcium channel blockers (CCB) are safe is not known. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of 314 patients (age 65 ± 12 years, 68% men) with moderate or severe asymptomatic AS. Hypertension was defined from a history of hypertension, past or current antihypertensive treatment or a BP at the baseline clinic visit >140/90 mmHg. All patients underwent an exercise treadmill test (ETT) and echocardiography. Results: The prevalence of hypertension was 73.6%, and 65% took antihypertensive treatment. Patients who used a CCB (25%) (CCB+) were older, more likely to have hypercholesterolemia and coronary artery disease, and had higher systolic BP, stroke work, left ventricular mass compared to CCB-patients (all p < 0.05). During the baseline ETT, CCB+ patients achieved a lower peak heart rate, a shorter exercise time and were more likely to have a blunted BP response compared to CCB- patients (p < 0.05). Event-free survival was significantly lower in CCB+ than CCB- patients (all-cause mortality 16 [20.3%] versus 13 [5.6%]; p < 0.001). In a multivariable Cox regression model, CCB+ was associated with a 7-fold increased hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality (HR 7.09; 95% CI 2.15–23.38, p = 0.001), independent of age, hypertension, diabetes, left ventricular ejection fraction, and aortic valve area. Conclusion: The use of CCB was associated with an adverse effect on treadmill exercise and reduced survival in asymptomatic patients with moderate or severe AS.

Objective: Several factors affect adherence to antihypertensive drug treatment, but whether these factors include a sex difference is unclear. Aim of the study was to compare persistence with antihypertensive drug therapy between men and women in a large cohort of patients.Methods:The 60 526 residents of the Italian Lombardy Region aged 40-80 years newly treated with antihypertensive drugs during 2010 were identified and followed for 1 year after the first prescription. Discontinuation of treatment was defined as lack of prescription renewal for at least 90 days. Log-binomial regression models were fitted to estimate the risk ratio of treatment discontinuation in relation to sex. Other than for the whole population, analyses were stratified according to age, comorbidity status and the initial antihypertensive treatment strategy.Results:Thirty-seven percent of the patients discontinued the drug treatment during follow-up. Compared with women, men had a 10% lower risk of discontinuation of drug treatment (95% confidence interval: 8-12). Persistence on antihypertensive treatment was better in men than in women, this being the case in both younger (40-64 years) and older patients (65-80 years), in patients starting treatment with any major antihypertensive drug and in patients who had a low comorbidity status. There was no evidence that men and women had a different risk of treatment discontinuation when their comorbidity status was worse, or initial antihypertensive treatment was based on drug combinations.Conclusion:Our data show that in a real-life setting, men are more persistent to antihypertensive drug therapy than women.

Background: Vascular research demonstrated that pulse wave velocity (PWV), a measure of arterial stiffness, is inherently blood pressure dependent. Considering the hypothesized pathophysiological chain of increased arterial stiffness leading to increased blood pressure load with consequent left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) development, we conducted a systematic review of antihypertensive and lifestyle intervention studies to determine the association between, on the one hand, changes in arterial stiffness and blood pressure, and, on the other hand, changes in left ventricular mass (LVM).Methods: Using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science, we identified 23 studies, containing 2573 patients. Studies reported changes in arterial stiffness (assessed by means of PWV), SBP, DBP and LVM index (LVMI), respectively.Results: Statistically significant reductions in SBP, PWV and LVMI were reported in 16, 14 and 20 studies, respectively. Pooled analysis of studies showed that the proportion in SBP reduction did not correlate significantly to the proportion in reductions of the other two variables. On the contrary, we found a significant positive correlation (r = 0.61, P = 0.003) between arterial stiffness and reduction of LVM, expressed as a relevant reduction in LVMI of 6.9 g/m(2) per 1.0 m/s reduction in PWV.Conclusion: Our findings provide evidence that a decrease in arterial stiffness is associated with reduction of LVM. To investigate whether there exists a causal relation between LVH due to arterial stiffness increases and in turn blood pressure load increases, future studies should strive for a multiple follow-up design and use of blood pressure independent or corrected stiffness indices.

Introduction: hypertension is the main risk factor of cardiovascular diseases, therefore, the responsible adoption of antihypertensive treatment is fundamental for the adequate control of the blood pressure figures.Objective: to characterize adherence to antihypertensive treatment in elderly patients in the Arroyo Bueno clinic of the "Fausto Favier Favier" polyclinic in the health area of Palenque de Yateras in Guantánamo province from June to December 2017.Method: a study was conducted descriptive, cross-sectional in the 21 hypertensive elderly patients of the office. The information was obtained through an interview with patients and relatives supported by a guide in correspondence with the variables to be investigated (age, sex, prescribed medication, associated diseases, undesirable effects) and the medical records. Adherence was assessed according to the Morisky-Green Self-Reported Compliance Test.Results: 57.1% of the patients corresponded to the female sex and 52.4% were between 60 and 60 years of age; Most of the older adults did not have their blood pressure under control, 66.7% and in 80.9% of them inadequate adherence to antihypertensive treatment was identified for various reasons, but non-compliance due to adverse drug reactions was the most frequent. 28.6%; among these, the decline was reported in 52.4%, night cough in 47.6% and muscle cramps in 33.3%. Conclusions: the majority of patients did not adhere to antihypertensive treatment for various reasons, but the fear of adverse reactions prevailed, a situation that conditioned the poor control of their blood pressure., Introdução: a hipertensão é o principal fator de risco das doenças cardiovasculares, portanto, a adoção responsável do tratamento anti-hipertensivo é fundamental para o controle adequado dos valores da pressão arterial.Objetivo: Caracterizar a adesão ao tratamento anti-hipertensivo em pacientes idosos escritório Boa policlínica do Arroyo "Fausto Favier Favier" área de saúde de Palenque de Yateras na província de Guantánamo de junho a dezembro de 2017. Método: Foi realizado um estudo descritivo, transversal nos 21 pacientes idosos hipertensos do consultório. As informações foram obtidas por meio de entrevista com pacientes e familiares apoiados por um guia em correspondência às variáveis a serem investigadas (idade, sexo, medicação prescrita, doenças associadas, efeitos indesejáveis) e prontuários. A adesão foi avaliada de acordo com o Teste de Conformidade Auto-Relatado de Morisky-Green. Resultados: 57,1% dos pacientes correspondiam ao sexo feminino e 52,4% tinham entre 60 e 60 anos de idade; A maioria dos idosos não tinham a sua pressão sanguínea controlada 66,7% e 80,9% dos quais identificados adesão inadequada a um tratamento anti-hipertensivo, por várias razões, mas as reacções adversas de falha foram os mais frequentes 28,6%; dentre estes, o declínio foi relatado em 52,4%, tosse noturna em 47,6% e cãibras musculares em 33,3%.Conclusões: a maioria dos pacientes não aderiu ao tratamento anti-hipertensivo por várias razões, mas prevaleceu o medo de reações adversas, situação que condicionou o mau controle da pressão arterial., Introducción: la hipertensión es el principal factor de riesgo de enfermedades cardiovasculares, por tanto, la adopción responsable del tratamiento antihipertensivo es fundamental para el control adecuado de las cifras tensionales.Objetivo: caracterizar la adherencia al tratamiento antihipertensivo en los pacientes adultos mayores del consultorio de Arroyo Bueno del policlínico “Fausto Favier Favier” del área de salud de Palenque de Yateras en la provincia Guantánamo de junio a diciembre del 2017.Método: se realizó un estudio descriptivo, de corte transversal en los 21 pacientes adultos mayores hipertensos del consultorio. La información se obtuvo a través de una entrevista a pacientes y familiares apoyados en una guía en correspondencia con las variables a investigar (edad, sexo, medicamento prescrito, enfermedades asociadas, efectos indeseables) y de las historias clínicas. La adherencia se evaluó según el Test de Cumplimiento Autocomunicado de Morisky-Green. Resultados: el 57,1 % de los pacientes correspondieron al sexo femenino y el 52,4 % tenían entre 60 y 60 años de edad; la mayoría de los adultos mayores no tenían controlada su presión arterial 66,7 % y en el 80,9 % de ellos se identificó inadecuada adherencia al tratamiento antihipertensivo por diversos motivos pero el incumplimiento por las reacciones adversas de los medicamentos fue el más frecuente para un 28,6%; entre éstas se reportaron el decaimiento en un 52,4 %, la tos nocturna en un 47,6 % y los calambres musculares en el 33,3 %.Conclusiones: la mayoría de los pacientes no se adherían al tratamiento antihipertensivo por diversas causas, mas prevaleció el temor a las reacciones adversas, situación que condicionó el pobre control de la presión arterial de los mismos.

Background: Vascular research demonstrated that pulse wave velocity (PWV), a measure of arterial stiffness, is inherently blood pressure dependent. Considering the hypothesized pathophysiological chain of increased arterial stiffness leading to increased blood pressure load with consequent left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) development, we conducted a systematic review of antihypertensive and lifestyle intervention studies to determine the association between, on the one hand, changes in arterial stiffness and blood pressure, and, on the other hand, changes in left ventricular mass (LVM).Methods: Using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science, we identified 23 studies, containing 2573 patients. Studies reported changes in arterial stiffness (assessed by means of PWV), SBP, DBP and LVM index (LVMI), respectively.Results: Statistically significant reductions in SBP, PWV and LVMI were reported in 16, 14 and 20 studies, respectively. Pooled analysis of studies showed that the proportion in SBP reduction did not correlate significantly to the proportion in reductions of the other two variables. On the contrary, we found a significant positive correlation (r = 0.61, P = 0.003) between arterial stiffness and reduction of LVM, expressed as a relevant reduction in LVMI of 6.9 g/m(2) per 1.0 m/s reduction in PWV.Conclusion: Our findings provide evidence that a decrease in arterial stiffness is associated with reduction of LVM. To investigate whether there exists a causal relation between LVH due to arterial stiffness increases and in turn blood pressure load increases, future studies should strive for a multiple follow-up design and use of blood pressure independent or corrected stiffness indices.

Aggressive reduction of blood pressure (BP) may increase cardiovascular events (the J-curve phenomenon) in certain populations. There is a high number of available studies of antihypertensive treatment that provide strong evidence for J-shaped relationships between both diastolic and systolic BP and main cardiovascular outcomes. Nonetheless, most available studies were observational, and randomized trials might not have or lost their statistical power in post-hoc analysis. Contrariwise, most of prospective trial to demonstrate the benefits of intensive blood pressure control were inconclusive. Therefore, further studies are still necessary in order to clarify this issue

Objective: Office and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) measurements are the main techniques to detect the effects of antihypertensive treatments in clinical trials, but the treatment-induced changes in these BP values can differ markedly. We performed a meta-analysis of clinical trials to quantify these differences and identified some of the associated factors. Methods: We conducted a MEDLINE search for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hypertensive patients treated with at least one antihypertensive drug that reported changes in both office and 24-h BP. Random-effects models were fitted to estimate the summary of the difference between the changes as quantified by either technique. The I2 and Cochrane's Q statistics were calculated to evaluate the heterogeneity between studies. Results: A total of 52 studies were included in our metaanalysis with about 9500 patients. The summary estimate D of SBP and DBP was -6.5 (95% confidence interval: -7.5 to -5.6) and -3.3 (95% confidence interval, -3.9 to -2.7), respectively. The difference was independent on the treatment duration and use of mono or combination treatment but for SBP it varied with the different treatment types in monotherapy, and it was greater in relation to baseline office BP and age. Allowing for the placebo effect also reduced the difference. Absolute on treatment BP values were at target for either pressure and the rate of controlled hypertensive individuals was similar (around one-third) for either measuring approach. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis confirms that overall treatment-induced reduction is markedly greater for office BP than for 24-h BP, but it also shows that the quantitative relationship between these two measuring approaches varies with demographic, clinical and therapeutic conditions as well as in relation to placebo correction.

When associated with high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes mellitus is characterised by a high risk of adverse cardiovascular (CV) and renal outcomes. However, both can be effectively reduced by antihypertensive treatment. Current guidelines on the treatment of hypertension emphasize the need to effectively treat high blood pressure in diabetic individuals, but their recommendations differ in terms of the optimal target blood pressure value to aim for in order to maximise CV and renal protection. In some guidelines the recommended target blood pressure values are <140/90 mmHg (systolic/diastolic), whereas in others, blood pressure values close or even less than 130/80 mmHg are recommended. This paper will discuss the evidence for and against a conservative or more aggressive blood pressure target for treated diabetic hypertensive individuals based on the evidence provided by randomised trials, trial meta-analyses and large observational studies. Based on the available evidence, it appears that blood pressure targets will probably have to be lower than <140/90 mmHg, and that values approaching 130/80 mmHg should be recommended. However, evidence in favour of even lower systolic values, i.e. <130 mmHg, is limited and is definitively against a reduction to <120 mmHg.

This ESH update was deemed necessary with the publication of new results of sham-controlled randomized blinded prospective trials with renal denervation (RDN). Proof of concept studies and first randomized trials (some were sham-controlled) displayed discrepant results about the efficacy of RDN. Three sham-controlled randomized trials of the 2.0 generation yielded now similarity in the average blood pressure decrease following RDN. Reduction of ambulatory blood pressure was approximately 5 to 7 mmHg and of office blood pressure 10 mmHg. Such a decrease in blood pressure by pharmacologic therapy has been found to be associated with lower incidence of cardiovascular events in particular with respect to heart failure and stroke by roughly 25%. Nevertheless, some questions about renal denervation are unanswered. The heterogeneity of the blood pressure-lowering response point to the clinical need to identify predictors for efficacy, and questions on long-term safety could not have been answered due to the short duration of the sham-controlled randomized clinical trials.

This ESH update was deemed necessary with the publication of new results of sham-controlled randomized blinded prospective trials with renal denervation (RDN). Proof of concept studies and first randomized trials (some were sham-controlled) displayed discrepant results about the efficacy of RDN. Three sham-controlled randomized trials of the 2.0 generation yielded now similarity in the average blood pressure decrease following RDN. Reduction of ambulatory blood pressure was approximately 5 to 7 mmHg and of office blood pressure 10 mmHg. Such a decrease in blood pressure by pharmacologic therapy has been found to be associated with lower incidence of cardiovascular events in particular with respect to heart failure and stroke by roughly 25%. Nevertheless, some questions about renal denervation are unanswered. The heterogeneity of the blood pressure-lowering response point to the clinical need to identify predictors for efficacy, and questions on long-term safety could not have been answered due to the short duration of the sham-controlled randomized clinical trials.

When associated with high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes mellitus is characterised by a high risk of adverse cardiovascular (CV) and renal outcomes. However, both can be effectively reduced by antihypertensive treatment. Current guidelines on the treatment of hypertension emphasize the need to effectively treat high blood pressure in diabetic individuals, but their recommendations differ in terms of the optimal target blood pressure value to aim for in order to maximise CV and renal protection. In some guidelines the recommended target blood pressure values are <140/90 mmHg (systolic/diastolic), whereas in others, blood pressure values close or even less than 130/80 mmHg are recommended. This paper will discuss the evidence for and against a conservative or more aggressive blood pressure target for treated diabetic hypertensive individuals based on the evidence provided by randomised trials, trial meta-analyses and large observational studies. Based on the available evidence, it appears that blood pressure targets will probably have to be lower than <140/90 mmHg, and that values approaching 130/80 mmHg should be recommended. However, evidence in favour of even lower systolic values, i.e. <130 mmHg, is limited and is definitively against a reduction to <120 mmHg.

PURPOSE: To explore sex differences in spontaneously reported adverse drug events (ADEs) for antihypertensives in routine care. METHODS: A cross sectional analysis combining number of reports from the national pharmacovigilance database with data from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register, from 2005 to 2012 for ACE inhibitors (ACE-I) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), with or without thiazide, diuretics (thiazides, potassium-sparing agents, sulfonamides, aldosterone antagonists), selective betablockers, and dihydropyridine calcium-channel-blockers (DHPs). The total number of reports was adjusted to exposed patients and dispensed DDDs among women and men. Dose exposures, co-medications, and co-prescriptions were also analyzed. RESULTS: In women, a higher prevalence of ADE-reports was seen in ACE-I (odds ratio, OR 1.21; 95% CI 1.09-1.35), ACE-I-combinations (OR 1.61; 1.44-1.79), ARB-combinations (OR 2.12; 1.47-3.06), thiazides (OR 1.78; 1.33-2.39), diuretics and potassium-sparing agents (OR 1.62; 1.22-2.17), and DHPs (OR 1.40; 1.17-1.67), with a potential linkage to dose exposure. For aldosterone antagonists, we observed a higher prevalence of ADE reports in men (OR 0.75; 0.59-0.97) but without any sex difference in dose exposure. CONCLUSIONS: This ecological study of reported ADEs showed a higher prevalence of reports in women in six out of ten groups of antihypertensive drugs, and this may potentially be linked to dose exposure. Aldosterone antagonists was the only group with a higher prevalence of ADE-reports in men with a similar dose exposure between women and men.

Background High blood pressure is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and premature death. The shape of association between blood pressure and the risk of cardiovascular events is debated. Some researchers suggest that the association is linear or log-linear, whereas others suggest it is J-shaped. Randomized controlled trials of antihypertensive treatment have been successful in hypertension, but ambiguous in the high normal blood pressure range. Previous systematic reviews have not found any interaction between baseline systolic blood pressure and treatment effect, with beneficial effects at systolic blood pressure levels well below what is currently recommended. These reviews, however, use a method to standardize treatment effects and study weights according to within-trial blood pressure differences that may introduce bias. Methods We performed two systematic reviews to assess the effect of antihypertensive treatment on cardiovascular disease and mortality at different blood pressure levels. The first review was limited to people with diabetes mellitus. The second review included all patient categories except those with heart failure and acute myocardial infarction. Both reviews were designed with guidance from Cochrane Collaborations Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and are reported according to PRISMA guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials assessing any antihypertensive agent against placebo or any blood pressure targets against each other. Results were combined in random-effects meta-analyses, stratified by baseline systolic blood pressure. Non-stratified analyses were performed for coronary heart disease trials and post-stroke trials. Interaction between blood pressure level and treatment effect was assessed with Cochran’s Q in the first review, and multivariable-adjusted metaregression in the second review. The third paper builds on data from the second paper, and assesses the effect of standardization a, Hjärt-kärlsjukdomar leder till fler dödsfall och fler förlorade levnadsår än någon annan sjukdomsgrupp. Den enskilt viktigaste riskfaktorn som bidrar till hjärtkärlsjukdomar ur ett befolkningsperspektiv är högt blodtryck. Risken att drabbas av hjärt-kärlsjukdomar minskar om man behandlar högt blodtryck men till vilken nivå blodtrycket skall behandlas är kontroversiellt. Denna avhandling innefattar två systematiska översikter och meta-analyser samt ett arbete som jämför olika sätt att hantera skillnader mellan studier i meta-analyser. De systematiska översikterna sammanställer data från randomiserade kontrollerade studier av blodtryckssänkande behandling. Vår övergripande frågeställning var om effekten av behandling påverkas av blodtrycksnivån innan behandling. Mer specifikt studerades hur behandling påverkade risken att dö eller drabbas av hjärt-kärlsjukdom vid olika blodtrycksnivåer. Det första arbetet fokuserade på personer med diabetes. För dessa fann vi att blodtryckssänkande behandling minskar risken att dö eller drabbas av hjärtkärlsjukdom vid nivåer ≥ 140 mmHg. Vi fann ingen nytta, men möjligen en skadlig effekt av behandling, vid lägre blodtrycksnivåer. Det andra arbetet inkluderade studier oberoende av vilka sjukdomar deltagarna hade. Vi fann att den förebyggande effekten av blodtryckssänkande behandling berodde på blodtrycksnivån. Vid blodtryck > 160 mmHg minskade risken att drabbas av hjärt-kärlsjukdomar med 22 % hos de som erhöll behandling. Om blodtrycket var 140-160 mmHg minskade risken med 12 %, men om blodtrycket var < 140 mmHg sågs ingen behandlingseffekt. Hos personer med känd kranskärlssjukdom, och ett medelblodtryck på 138 mmHg, fann vi en något minskad risk för hjärt-kärlhändelser med ytterligare behandling. I det tredje arbetet fann vi att skillnader i resultat mellan olika studier inte kan antas bero endast på olika grad av blodtryckssänkning i studierna. När resultaten standardiserades, som om alla studier hade sänkt blodtrycket lika my

Background High blood pressure is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and premature death. The shape of association between blood pressure and the risk of cardiovascular events is debated. Some researchers suggest that the association is linear or log-linear, whereas others suggest it is J-shaped. Randomized controlled trials of antihypertensive treatment have been successful in hypertension, but ambiguous in the high normal blood pressure range. Previous systematic reviews have not found any interaction between baseline systolic blood pressure and treatment effect, with beneficial effects at systolic blood pressure levels well below what is currently recommended. These reviews, however, use a method to standardize treatment effects and study weights according to within-trial blood pressure differences that may introduce bias. Methods We performed two systematic reviews to assess the effect of antihypertensive treatment on cardiovascular disease and mortality at different blood pressure levels. The first review was limited to people with diabetes mellitus. The second review included all patient categories except those with heart failure and acute myocardial infarction. Both reviews were designed with guidance from Cochrane Collaborations Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and are reported according to PRISMA guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials assessing any antihypertensive agent against placebo or any blood pressure targets against each other. Results were combined in random-effects meta-analyses, stratified by baseline systolic blood pressure. Non-stratified analyses were performed for coronary heart disease trials and post-stroke trials. Interaction between blood pressure level and treatment effect was assessed with Cochran’s Q in the first review, and multivariable-adjusted metaregression in the second review. The third paper builds on data from the second paper, and assesses the effect of standardization a, Hjärt-kärlsjukdomar leder till fler dödsfall och fler förlorade levnadsår än någon annan sjukdomsgrupp. Den enskilt viktigaste riskfaktorn som bidrar till hjärtkärlsjukdomar ur ett befolkningsperspektiv är högt blodtryck. Risken att drabbas av hjärt-kärlsjukdomar minskar om man behandlar högt blodtryck men till vilken nivå blodtrycket skall behandlas är kontroversiellt. Denna avhandling innefattar två systematiska översikter och meta-analyser samt ett arbete som jämför olika sätt att hantera skillnader mellan studier i meta-analyser. De systematiska översikterna sammanställer data från randomiserade kontrollerade studier av blodtryckssänkande behandling. Vår övergripande frågeställning var om effekten av behandling påverkas av blodtrycksnivån innan behandling. Mer specifikt studerades hur behandling påverkade risken att dö eller drabbas av hjärt-kärlsjukdom vid olika blodtrycksnivåer. Det första arbetet fokuserade på personer med diabetes. För dessa fann vi att blodtryckssänkande behandling minskar risken att dö eller drabbas av hjärtkärlsjukdom vid nivåer ≥ 140 mmHg. Vi fann ingen nytta, men möjligen en skadlig effekt av behandling, vid lägre blodtrycksnivåer. Det andra arbetet inkluderade studier oberoende av vilka sjukdomar deltagarna hade. Vi fann att den förebyggande effekten av blodtryckssänkande behandling berodde på blodtrycksnivån. Vid blodtryck > 160 mmHg minskade risken att drabbas av hjärt-kärlsjukdomar med 22 % hos de som erhöll behandling. Om blodtrycket var 140-160 mmHg minskade risken med 12 %, men om blodtrycket var < 140 mmHg sågs ingen behandlingseffekt. Hos personer med känd kranskärlssjukdom, och ett medelblodtryck på 138 mmHg, fann vi en något minskad risk för hjärt-kärlhändelser med ytterligare behandling. I det tredje arbetet fann vi att skillnader i resultat mellan olika studier inte kan antas bero endast på olika grad av blodtryckssänkning i studierna. När resultaten standardiserades, som om alla studier hade sänkt blodtrycket lika my

Antihypertensive, lipid lowering, antidiabetic and antiplatelet treatments all substantially reduce the risk of cardiovascular morbid and fatal events. In real life, however, effective implementation of these treatments is rare, and thus their contribution to cardiovascular prevention is much less than it could be, based on research data. This article reviews the pros and cons of cardiovascular prevention by the polypill approach. It is argued that the high prevalence of individuals with a multifactorial risk profile provides a strong rationale for a therapeutic strategy based on the combination in a single tablet of drugs against different risk factors. It is further argued that other important favourable arguments exist. First, in real-life adherence to all above treatments is very low, leading to a major increase in the incidence and risk of cardiovascular outcomes. Second, although a large number of factors are involved, adherence is adversely affected by the complexity of the prescribed treatment regimen and can be considerably improved by treatment simplification. Third, recent studies in patients with a history of manifest cardiovascular disease have documented that different cardiovascular drugs can be combined in a single tablet with no loss of their individual efficacy or unexpected inconveniences and this does favour adherence to treatment and multiple risk factor control, supporting use of the polypill in secondary cardiovascular prevention. It is finally also mentioned, however, that the polypill may have some drawbacks and that at present no evidence is available that this approach reduces cardiovascular outcome to a greater degree than standard treatment strategies. Trials are under way to provide an answer to this question and thus allow the therapeutic value of this approach to be known.

Background High blood pressure is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and premature death. The shape of association between blood pressure and the risk of cardiovascular events is debated. Some researchers suggest that the association is linear or log-linear, whereas others suggest it is J-shaped. Randomized controlled trials of antihypertensive treatment have been successful in hypertension, but ambiguous in the high normal blood pressure range. Previous systematic reviews have not found any interaction between baseline systolic blood pressure and treatment effect, with beneficial effects at systolic blood pressure levels well below what is currently recommended. These reviews, however, use a method to standardize treatment effects and study weights according to within-trial blood pressure differences that may introduce bias. Methods We performed two systematic reviews to assess the effect of antihypertensive treatment on cardiovascular disease and mortality at different blood pressure levels. The first review was limited to people with diabetes mellitus. The second review included all patient categories except those with heart failure and acute myocardial infarction. Both reviews were designed with guidance from Cochrane Collaborations Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and are reported according to PRISMA guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials assessing any antihypertensive agent against placebo or any blood pressure targets against each other. Results were combined in random-effects meta-analyses, stratified by baseline systolic blood pressure. Non-stratified analyses were performed for coronary heart disease trials and post-stroke trials. Interaction between blood pressure level and treatment effect was assessed with Cochran’s Q in the first review, and multivariable-adjusted metaregression in the second review. The third paper builds on data from the second paper, and assesses the effect of standardization a, Hjärt-kärlsjukdomar leder till fler dödsfall och fler förlorade levnadsår än någon annan sjukdomsgrupp. Den enskilt viktigaste riskfaktorn som bidrar till hjärtkärlsjukdomar ur ett befolkningsperspektiv är högt blodtryck. Risken att drabbas av hjärt-kärlsjukdomar minskar om man behandlar högt blodtryck men till vilken nivå blodtrycket skall behandlas är kontroversiellt. Denna avhandling innefattar två systematiska översikter och meta-analyser samt ett arbete som jämför olika sätt att hantera skillnader mellan studier i meta-analyser. De systematiska översikterna sammanställer data från randomiserade kontrollerade studier av blodtryckssänkande behandling. Vår övergripande frågeställning var om effekten av behandling påverkas av blodtrycksnivån innan behandling. Mer specifikt studerades hur behandling påverkade risken att dö eller drabbas av hjärt-kärlsjukdom vid olika blodtrycksnivåer. Det första arbetet fokuserade på personer med diabetes. För dessa fann vi att blodtryckssänkande behandling minskar risken att dö eller drabbas av hjärtkärlsjukdom vid nivåer ≥ 140 mmHg. Vi fann ingen nytta, men möjligen en skadlig effekt av behandling, vid lägre blodtrycksnivåer. Det andra arbetet inkluderade studier oberoende av vilka sjukdomar deltagarna hade. Vi fann att den förebyggande effekten av blodtryckssänkande behandling berodde på blodtrycksnivån. Vid blodtryck > 160 mmHg minskade risken att drabbas av hjärt-kärlsjukdomar med 22 % hos de som erhöll behandling. Om blodtrycket var 140-160 mmHg minskade risken med 12 %, men om blodtrycket var < 140 mmHg sågs ingen behandlingseffekt. Hos personer med känd kranskärlssjukdom, och ett medelblodtryck på 138 mmHg, fann vi en något minskad risk för hjärt-kärlhändelser med ytterligare behandling. I det tredje arbetet fann vi att skillnader i resultat mellan olika studier inte kan antas bero endast på olika grad av blodtryckssänkning i studierna. När resultaten standardiserades, som om alla studier hade sänkt blodtrycket lika my

Background High blood pressure is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and premature death. The shape of association between blood pressure and the risk of cardiovascular events is debated. Some researchers suggest that the association is linear or log-linear, whereas others suggest it is J-shaped. Randomized controlled trials of antihypertensive treatment have been successful in hypertension, but ambiguous in the high normal blood pressure range. Previous systematic reviews have not found any interaction between baseline systolic blood pressure and treatment effect, with beneficial effects at systolic blood pressure levels well below what is currently recommended. These reviews, however, use a method to standardize treatment effects and study weights according to within-trial blood pressure differences that may introduce bias. Methods We performed two systematic reviews to assess the effect of antihypertensive treatment on cardiovascular disease and mortality at different blood pressure levels. The first review was limited to people with diabetes mellitus. The second review included all patient categories except those with heart failure and acute myocardial infarction. Both reviews were designed with guidance from Cochrane Collaborations Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and are reported according to PRISMA guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials assessing any antihypertensive agent against placebo or any blood pressure targets against each other. Results were combined in random-effects meta-analyses, stratified by baseline systolic blood pressure. Non-stratified analyses were performed for coronary heart disease trials and post-stroke trials. Interaction between blood pressure level and treatment effect was assessed with Cochran’s Q in the first review, and multivariable-adjusted metaregression in the second review. The third paper builds on data from the second paper, and assesses the effect of standardization a, Hjärt-kärlsjukdomar leder till fler dödsfall och fler förlorade levnadsår än någon annan sjukdomsgrupp. Den enskilt viktigaste riskfaktorn som bidrar till hjärtkärlsjukdomar ur ett befolkningsperspektiv är högt blodtryck. Risken att drabbas av hjärt-kärlsjukdomar minskar om man behandlar högt blodtryck men till vilken nivå blodtrycket skall behandlas är kontroversiellt. Denna avhandling innefattar två systematiska översikter och meta-analyser samt ett arbete som jämför olika sätt att hantera skillnader mellan studier i meta-analyser. De systematiska översikterna sammanställer data från randomiserade kontrollerade studier av blodtryckssänkande behandling. Vår övergripande frågeställning var om effekten av behandling påverkas av blodtrycksnivån innan behandling. Mer specifikt studerades hur behandling påverkade risken att dö eller drabbas av hjärt-kärlsjukdom vid olika blodtrycksnivåer. Det första arbetet fokuserade på personer med diabetes. För dessa fann vi att blodtryckssänkande behandling minskar risken att dö eller drabbas av hjärtkärlsjukdom vid nivåer ≥ 140 mmHg. Vi fann ingen nytta, men möjligen en skadlig effekt av behandling, vid lägre blodtrycksnivåer. Det andra arbetet inkluderade studier oberoende av vilka sjukdomar deltagarna hade. Vi fann att den förebyggande effekten av blodtryckssänkande behandling berodde på blodtrycksnivån. Vid blodtryck > 160 mmHg minskade risken att drabbas av hjärt-kärlsjukdomar med 22 % hos de som erhöll behandling. Om blodtrycket var 140-160 mmHg minskade risken med 12 %, men om blodtrycket var < 140 mmHg sågs ingen behandlingseffekt. Hos personer med känd kranskärlssjukdom, och ett medelblodtryck på 138 mmHg, fann vi en något minskad risk för hjärt-kärlhändelser med ytterligare behandling. I det tredje arbetet fann vi att skillnader i resultat mellan olika studier inte kan antas bero endast på olika grad av blodtryckssänkning i studierna. När resultaten standardiserades, som om alla studier hade sänkt blodtrycket lika my

In 28 790 patients recruited for the ONTARGET (Ongoing Treatment Alone and in Combination With Ramipril Global End Point Trials) and TRANSCEND (Telmisartan Randomized Assessment Study in ACE Intolerant Subjects With Cardiovascular Disease) trials, we investigated the prognostic value for cardiovascular events (primary outcome) of (1)on-treatment visit-to-visit systolic blood pressure (SBP) variability versus mean SBP and (2) the 2 measures together. SBP variability was measured by the coefficient of variation (CV) of mean SBP to which it was unrelated. Confounders such as variable time and number of visits from which to calculate SBP-CV were avoided by using the same number of visits at identical times in all patients. The covariate-adjusted risk of the primary outcome (Cox models) increased as SBP-CV or mean on-treatment quintile SBP increased, but only for mean on-treatment SBP, the relationship achieved statistical significance: global test for trend, P=0.12 versus P<0.0001. SBP-CV showed a relationship with fatal events, but it was unrelated to the risk of myocardial infarction and stroke, which were predicted by on-treatment mean SBP. Prediction of the primary outcome improved by the combined use of both measures: global test for trend, P<0.0001; hazard ratio for combined fifth versus first quintile, 1.42 (1.20-1.68) compared with 1.13 (1.01-1.27) for SBP-CV and 1.24 (1.11-1.40) for mean SBP. Thus, in the present study, on-treatment mean SBP provided an overall better prediction of cardiovascular risk than visit-to-visit SBP-CV. Prediction improved by their combined use, which may thus offer a more precise estimate of the protective effect of treatment.

We identified sociodemographic, medical, and psychosocial factors associated with unfavorable blood pressure (BP) control in 1012 patients, hospitalized with myocardial infarction and/or a coronary revascularization procedure. This cross-sectional study collected data from hospital records, a comprehensive self-report questionnaire, clinical examination, and blood samples after 2-36 (mean 17) months follow-up. Forty-six percent had unfavorable BP control (>= 140/90 [80 in diabetics] mm Hg) at follow-up. Low socioeconomic status and psychosocial factors did not predict unfavorable BP control. Patients with unfavorable BP used on average 1.9 (standard deviation 1.1) BP-lowering drugs at hospital discharge, and the proportion of patients treated with angiotensin inhibitors and beta-blockers decreased significantly (P < .001) from discharge to follow-up. Diabetes (odds ratio [OR] 2.4), higher body mass index (OR 1.05 per 1.0 kg/m(2)), and older age (OR 1.04 per year) were significantly associated with unfavorable BP control in adjusted analyses. Only age (standardized beta [beta] 0.24) and body mass index (beta 0.07) were associated with systolic BP in linear analyses. We conclude that BP control was insufficient after coronary events and associated with obesity and diabetes. Prescription of BP-lowering drugs in hypertensive patients seems suboptimal. Overweight and intensified drug treatment thus emerge as the major factors to target to improve BP control. (C) 2017 American Society of Hypertension. All rights reserved.