Search

This study assesses trends in hypertension prevalence, blood pressure distributions and mean levels, and hypertension awareness, treatment, and control among US adults, age >or=18 years, between the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1988-1994) and the 1999-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a period of approximately 10 years. The age-standardized prevalence rate increased from 24.4% to 28.9% (P<0.001), with the largest increases among non-Hispanic women. Depending on gender and race/ethnicity, from one fifth to four fifths of the increase could be accounted for by increasing body mass index. Among hypertensive persons, there were modest increases in awareness (P=0.04), from 68.5% to 71.8%. The rate for men increased from 61.6% to 69.3% (P=0.001), whereas the rate for women did not change significantly. Rates remained higher for women than for men, although the difference narrowed considerably. Improvements in treatment and control rates were larger: 53.1% to 61.4% and 26.1% to 35.1%, respectively (both P<0.001). The greatest increases occurred among non-Hispanic white men and non-Hispanic black persons, especially men. Mexican American persons showed improvement in treatment and control rates, but these rates remained the lowest among race/ethnic subgroups (47.4% and 24.3%, respectively). Among all of the race/ethnic groups, women continued to have somewhat better awareness, treatment, and control, except for control rates among non-Hispanic white persons, which became higher in men. Differences between non-Hispanic black and white persons in awareness, treatment, and control were small. These divergent trends may translate into disparate trends in cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality.

Accurate measurement of blood pressure is essential to classify individuals, to ascertain blood pressure-related risk, and to guide management. The auscultatory technique with a trained observer and mercury sphygmomanometer continues to be the method of choice for measurement in the office, using the first and fifth phases of the Korotkoff sounds, including in pregnant women. The use of mercury is declining, and alternatives are needed. Aneroid devices are suitable, but they require frequent calibration. Hybrid devices that use electronic transducers instead of mercury have promise. The oscillometric method can be used for office measurement, but only devices independently validated according to standard protocols should be used, and individual calibration is recommended. They have the advantage of being able to take multiple measurements. Proper training of observers, positioning of the patient, and selection of cuff size are all essential. It is increasingly recognized that office measurements correlate poorly with blood pressure measured in other settings, and that they can be supplemented by self-measured readings taken with validated devices at home. There is increasing evidence that home readings predict cardiovascular events and are particularly useful for monitoring the effects of treatment. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory monitoring gives a better prediction of risk than office measurements and is useful for diagnosing white-coat hypertension. There is increasing evidence that a failure of blood pressure to fall during the night may be associated with increased risk. In obese patients and children, the use of an appropriate cuff size is of paramount importance.

This study aims to estimate the absolute number of persons with hypertension (the hypertension burden) and time trends using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey of United States resident adults who had hypertension in 1999 to 2000. This information is vitally important for health policy, medical care, and public health strategy and resource allocation. At least 65 million adults had hypertension in 1999 to 2000. The total hypertension prevalence rate was 31.3%. This value represents adults with elevated systolic or diastolic blood pressure, or using antihypertensive medications (rate of 28.4%; standard error [SE], 1.1), and adults who otherwise by medical history were told at least twice by a physician or other health professional that they had high blood pressure (rate of 2.9%; SE, 0.4). The number of adults with hypertension increased by approximately 30% for 1999 to 2000 compared with at least 50 million for 1988 to 1994. The 50 million value was based on a rate of 23.4% for adults with elevated blood pressure or using antihypertensive medications and 5.5% for adults classified as hypertensive by medical history alone (28.9% total; P<0.001). The approximately 30% increase in the total number of adults with hypertension was almost 4-times greater than the 8.3% increase in total prevalence rate. These trends were associated with increased obesity and an aging and growing population. Approximately 35 million women and 30 million men had hypertension. At least 48 million non-Hispanic white adults, approximately 9 million non-Hispanic black adults, 3 million Mexican American, and 5 million other adults had hypertension in 1999 to 2000.

The National High Blood Pressure Education Program presents the complete Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Like its predecessors, the purpose is to provide an evidence-based approach to the prevention and management of hypertension. The key messages of this report are these: in those older than age 50, systolic blood pressure (BP) of greater than 140 mm Hg is a more important cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor than diastolic BP; beginning at 115/75 mm Hg, CVD risk doubles for each increment of 20/10 mm Hg; those who are normotensive at 55 years of age will have a 90% lifetime risk of developing hypertension; prehypertensive individuals (systolic BP 120-139 mm Hg or diastolic BP 80-89 mm Hg) require health-promoting lifestyle modifications to prevent the progressive rise in blood pressure and CVD; for uncomplicated hypertension, thiazide diuretic should be used in drug treatment for most, either alone or combined with drugs from other classes; this report delineates specific high-risk conditions that are compelling indications for the use of other antihypertensive drug classes (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers); two or more antihypertensive medications will be required to achieve goal BP (<140/90 mm Hg, or <130/80 mm Hg) for patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease; for patients whose BP is more than 20 mm Hg above the systolic BP goal or more than 10 mm Hg above the diastolic BP goal, initiation of therapy using two agents, one of which usually will be a thiazide diuretic, should be considered; regardless of therapy or care, hypertension will be controlled only if patients are motivated to stay on their treatment plan. Positive experiences, trust in the clinician, and empathy improve patient motivation and satisfaction. This report serves as a guide, and the committee continues to recognize that the responsible physician's judgment remains paramount.

Using epidemiological and clinical trial evidence, the sixth report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC-VI) updated previous guidelines to suggest that in addition to blood pressure, decisions on initial treatment should emphasize absolute cardiovascular disease risk. We estimated the impact of using cardiovascular disease risk on treatment recommendations for the US population using data from 16 527 participants in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. In the US population > or =20 years of age, 36% (62 million) had high-normal blood pressure or greater (systolic/diastolic blood pressure > or =130 mm Hg/> or =85 mm Hg) or were taking antihypertensive medication. Of this population, 5.1% (3.2 million) were stratified into risk group A (no cardiovascular disease risk factors or prevalent cardiovascular disease), 66.3% (41.4 million) into risk group B (> or =1 major risk factor), and 28.6% (17.9 million) into risk group C (diabetes mellitus, clinical cardiovascular disease, target organ damage). Also, 26% of this group (16.2 million) had high-normal blood pressure and were in risk groups A or B, a context in which vigorous lifestyle modification is recommended in the JNC-VI guidelines. Additionally, 11% (7.0 million) had high-normal blood pressure (systolic/diastolic, 130 to 139 mm Hg/85 to 89 mm Hg, respectively) or stage-1 hypertension (140 to 159 mm Hg/90 to 99 mm Hg), and at least 1 factor, placing them in risk group C, but they were not currently on antihypertensive medication. JNC-VI, but not previous JNC guidelines, specifically recommends drug therapy as initial treatment for these patients. We conclude that JNC-VI refines cardiovascular risk and enfranchises more Americans to undertake more aggressive risk reduction maneuvers.