Search

Objective: The FOURIER trial showed a benefit of the PCSK9 inhibitor evolocumab over placebo with respect to cardiovascular outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease. However, we observed some inconsistencies between the information in the Clinical Study Report (CSR) and that in the 2017 primary trial results publication. We aimed to restore the mortality data in the FOURIER trial based on the information contained in the death narratives in the CSR., Methods: Mortality data in the primary results publication were compared with that in the CSR. In cases of discrepancy between the sources, an independent committee blindly readjudicated and restored the cause of death according to the information in the CSR narratives., Results: For 360/870 deaths (41.4%), the cause of death adjudicated by the FOURIER clinical events committee differed from that declared by the local clinical investigator. When comparing the CSR information with the 2017 primary results publication, we found 11 more deaths from myocardial infarction in the evolocumab group (36 vs 25) and 3 less deaths in the placebo group (27 vs 30, respectively). In the CSR, the number of deaths due to cardiac failure in the evolocumab group was almost double those in the placebo group (31 vs 16). While cardiac and vascular deaths were not assessed as separate outcomes in the original trial analysis, after readjudication, we noted that cardiac deaths were numerically, but non-significantly, higher in the evolocumab group (113) than in the placebo group (88; relative risk (RR) 1.28, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.69, p=0.078), whereas non-cardiac vascular deaths were similar between groups (37 in each; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.58, p=0.999). The reported HR for cardiovascular mortality in the original trial analysis was 1.05 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.25); after readjudication, we found a greater (although still non-significant) relative increase in cardiovascular mortality in the evolocumab treatment group (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.51, p=0.13)., Conclusion: After readjudication, deaths of cardiac origin were numerically higher in the evolocumab group than in the placebo group in the FOURIER trial, suggesting possible cardiac harm. At the time the trial was terminated early, a non-significantly higher risk of cardiovascular mortality was observed with evolocumab, which was numerically greater in our readjudication. A complete restoration of the FOURIER trial data is required. In the meantime, clinicians should be sceptical about prescribing evolocumab for patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease., Trial Registration Numbers: NCT01764633., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: This is the third update of the review first published in 2017. Hypertension is a prominent preventable cause of premature morbidity and mortality. People with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease are at particularly high risk, so reducing blood pressure to below standard targets may be beneficial. This strategy could reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity but could also increase adverse events. The optimal blood pressure target in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease remains unknown., Objectives: To determine if lower blood pressure targets (systolic/diastolic 135/85 mmHg or less) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity compared with standard blood pressure targets (140 mmHg to 160mmHg/90 mmHg to 100 mmHg or less) in the treatment of people with hypertension and a history of cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, peripheral vascular occlusive disease)., Search Methods: For this updated review, we used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was January 2022. We applied no language restrictions., Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with more than 50 participants per group that provided at least six months' follow-up. Trial reports had to present data for at least one primary outcome (total mortality, serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality). Eligible interventions involved lower targets for systolic/diastolic blood pressure (135/85 mmHg or less) compared with standard targets for blood pressure (140 mmHg to 160 mmHg/90 mmHg to 100 mmHg or less). Participants were adults with documented hypertension and adults receiving treatment for hypertension with a cardiovascular history for myocardial infarction, stroke, chronic peripheral vascular occlusive disease, or angina pectoris., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence., Main Results: We included seven RCTs that involved 9595 participants. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (range 1.0 to 4.7 years). Six of seven RCTs provided individual participant data. None of the included studies was blinded to participants or clinicians because of the need to titrate antihypertensive drugs to reach a specific blood pressure goal. However, an independent committee blinded to group allocation assessed clinical events in all trials. Hence, we assessed all trials at high risk of performance bias and low risk of detection bias. We also considered other issues, such as early termination of studies and subgroups of participants not predefined, to downgrade the certainty of the evidence. We found there is probably little to no difference in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.23; 7 studies, 9595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.29; 6 studies, 9484 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Similarly, we found there may be little to no differences in serious adverse events (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; 7 studies, 9595 participants; low-certainty evidence) or total cardiovascular events (including myocardial infarction, stroke, sudden death, hospitalization, or death from congestive heart failure (CHF)) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; 7 studies, 9595 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about withdrawals due to adverse effects. However, studies suggest more participants may withdraw due to adverse effects in the lower target group (RR 8.16, 95% CI 2.06 to 32.28; 3 studies, 801 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings were lower in the lower target group (systolic: mean difference (MD) -8.77 mmHg, 95% CI -12.82 to -4.73; 7 studies, 8657 participants; diastolic: MD -4.50 mmHg, 95% CI -6.35 to -2.65; 6 studies, 8546 participants). More drugs were needed in the lower target group (MD 0.56, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.96; 5 studies, 7910 participants), but blood pressure targets at one year were achieved more frequently in the standard target group (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.23; 7 studies, 8699 participants)., Authors' Conclusions: We found there is probably little to no difference in total mortality and cardiovascular mortality between people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease treated to a lower compared to a standard blood pressure target. There may also be little to no difference in serious adverse events or total cardiovascular events. This suggests that no net health benefit is derived from a lower systolic blood pressure target. We found very limited evidence on withdrawals due to adverse effects, which led to high uncertainty. At present, evidence is insufficient to justify lower blood pressure targets (135/85 mmHg or less) in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease. Several trials are still ongoing, which may provide an important input to this topic in the near future., (Copyright © 2022 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: This is the second update of the review first published in 2017. Hypertension is a prominent preventable cause of premature morbidity and mortality. People with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease are at particularly high risk, so reducing blood pressure to below standard targets may be beneficial. This strategy could reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity but could also increase adverse events. The optimal blood pressure target in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease remains unknown., Objectives: To determine if lower blood pressure targets (135/85 mmHg or less) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity as compared with standard blood pressure targets (140 to 160/90 to 100 mmHg or less) in the treatment of people with hypertension and a history of cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, peripheral vascular occlusive disease)., Search Methods: For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to November 2019: Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (from 1982), along with the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. We applied no language restrictions., Selection Criteria: We included RCTs with more than 50 participants per group that provided at least six months' follow-up. Trial reports had to present data for at least one primary outcome (total mortality, serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality). Eligible interventions involved lower targets for systolic/diastolic blood pressure (135/85 mmHg or less) compared with standard targets for blood pressure (140 to 160/90 to 100 mmHg or less). Participants were adults with documented hypertension and adults receiving treatment for hypertension with a cardiovascular history for myocardial infarction, stroke, chronic peripheral vascular occlusive disease, or angina pectoris., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed search results and extracted data using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence., Main Results: We included six RCTs that involved 9484 participants. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (range 1.0 to 4.7 years). All RCTs provided individual participant data. None of the included studies was blinded to participants or clinicians because of the need to titrate antihypertensives to reach a specific blood pressure goal. However, an independent committee blinded to group allocation assessed clinical events in all trials. Hence, we assessed all trials at high risk of performance bias and low risk of detection bias. Other issues such as early termination of studies and subgroups of participants not predefined were also considered to downgrade the quality evidence. We found there is probably little to no difference in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.23; 6 studies, 9484 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.29; 6 studies, 9484 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Similarly, we found there may be little to no differences in serious adverse events (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; 6 studies, 9484 participants; low-quality evidence) or total cardiovascular events (including myocardial infarction, stroke, sudden death, hospitalization, or death from congestive heart failure) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; 6 studies, 9484 participants; low-quality evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about withdrawals due to adverse effects. However, studies suggest more participants may withdraw due to adverse effects in the lower target group (RR 8.16, 95% CI 2.06 to 32.28; 2 studies, 690 participants; very low-quality evidence). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings were lower in the lower target group (systolic: mean difference (MD) -8.90 mmHg, 95% CI -13.24 to -4.56; 6 studies, 8546 participants; diastolic: MD -4.50 mmHg, 95% CI -6.35 to -2.65; 6 studies, 8546 participants). More drugs were needed in the lower target group (MD 0.56, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.96; 5 studies, 7910 participants), but blood pressure targets were achieved more frequently in the standard target group (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.24; 6 studies, 8588 participants)., Authors' Conclusions: We found there is probably little to no difference in total mortality and cardiovascular mortality between people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease treated to a lower compared to a standard blood pressure target. There may also be little to no difference in serious adverse events or total cardiovascular events. This suggests that no net health benefit is derived from a lower systolic blood pressure target. We found very limited evidence on withdrawals due to adverse effects, which led to high uncertainty. At present, evidence is insufficient to justify lower blood pressure targets (135/85 mmHg or less) in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease. Several trials are still ongoing, which may provide an important input to this topic in the near future., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: This is the first update of the review published in 2017. Hypertension is a prominent preventable cause of premature morbidity and mortality. People with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease are at particularly high risk, so reducing blood pressure to below standard targets may be beneficial. This strategy could reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity but could also increase adverse events. The optimal blood pressure target in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease remains unknown., Objectives: To determine if 'lower' blood pressure targets (≤ 135/85 mmHg) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity as compared with 'standard' blood pressure targets (≤ 140 to 160/90 to 100 mmHg) in the treatment of people with hypertension and a history of cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, peripheral vascular occlusive disease)., Search Methods: For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to February 2018: Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (from 1982), along with the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. We applied no language restrictions., Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included more than 50 participants per group and provided at least six months' follow-up. Trial reports had to present data for at least one primary outcome (total mortality, serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality). Eligible interventions involved lower targets for systolic/diastolic blood pressure (≤ 135/85 mmHg) compared with standard targets for blood pressure (≤ 140 to 160/90 to 100 mmHg).Participants were adults with documented hypertension and adults receiving treatment for hypertension with a cardiovascular history for myocardial infarction, stroke, chronic peripheral vascular occlusive disease, or angina pectoris., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed search results and extracted data using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane., Main Results: We included six RCTs that involved a total of 9484 participants. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (range 1.0 to 4.7 years). All RCTs provided individual participant data.We found no change in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.23) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.29; moderate-quality evidence). Similarly, we found no differences in serious adverse events (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; low-quality evidence) or total cardiovascular events (including myocardial infarction, stroke, sudden death, hospitalization, or death from congestive heart failure) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; low-quality evidence). Studies reported more participant withdrawals due to adverse effects in the lower target arm (RR 8.16, 95% CI 2.06 to 32.28; very low-quality evidence). Blood pressures were lower in the lower target group by 8.9/4.5 mmHg. More drugs were needed in the lower target group, but blood pressure targets were achieved more frequently in the standard target group., Authors' Conclusions: We found no evidence of a difference in total mortality, serious adverse events, or total cardiovascular events between people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease treated to a lower or to a standard blood pressure target. This suggests that no net health benefit is derived from a lower systolic blood pressure target. We found very limited evidence on adverse events, which led to high uncertainty. At present, evidence is insufficient to justify lower blood pressure targets (≤ 135/85 mmHg) in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease. More trials are needed to examine this topic.

Background: Hypertension is a prominent preventable cause of premature morbidity and mortality. People with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease are at particularly high risk, so reducing blood pressure below standard targets may be beneficial. This strategy could reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity but could also increase adverse events. The optimal blood pressure target in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease remains unknown., Objectives: To determine if 'lower' blood pressure targets (≤ 135/85 mmHg) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity as compared with 'standard' blood pressure targets (≤ 140 to 160/ 90 to 100 mmHg) in the treatment of people with hypertension and a history of cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, peripheral vascular occlusive disease)., Search Methods: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to February 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Literature Database (from 1982) and contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. There were no language restrictions., Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with more than 50 participants per group and at least six months follow-up. Trial reports needed to present data for at least one primary outcome (total mortality, serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality). Eligible interventions were lower target for systolic/diastolic blood pressure (≤ 135/85 mmHg) compared with standard target for blood pressure (≤ 140 to 160/90 to 100 mmHg).Participants were adults with documented hypertension or who were receiving treatment for hypertension and cardiovascular history for myocardial infarction, stroke, chronic peripheral vascular occlusive disease or angina pectoris., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed search results and extracted data using standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration., Main Results: We included six RCTs that involved a total of 9795 participants. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (range 1.0 to 4.7 years). Five RCTs provided individual patient data for 6775 participants.We found no change in total mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.21; moderate-quality evidence). Similarly, no differences were found in serious adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.11; low-quality evidence). There was a reduction in fatal and non fatal cardiovascular events (including myocardial infarction, stroke, sudden death, hospitalization or death from congestive heart failure) with the lower target (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.98; ARR 1.6% over 3.7 years; low-quality evidence). There were more participant withdrawals due to adverse effects in the lower target arm (RR 8.16, 95% CI 2.06 to 32.28; very low-quality evidence). Blood pressures were lower in the lower' target group by 9.5/4.9 mmHg. More drugs were needed in the lower target group but blood pressure targets were achieved more frequently in the standard target group., Authors' Conclusions: No evidence of a difference in total mortality and serious adverse events was found between treating to a lower or to a standard blood pressure target in people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease. This suggests no net health benefit from a lower systolic blood pressure target despite the small absolute reduction in total cardiovascular serious adverse events. There was very limited evidence on adverse events, which lead to high uncertainty. At present there is insufficient evidence to justify lower blood pressure targets (≤ 135/85 mmHg) in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease. More trials are needed to answer this question.

Among cardiovascular diseases, hypertension is the most important risk factor for morbidity and mortality worldwide, and its pathogenesis is complex, involving genetic, dietary and environmental factors. The characteristics of the gut microbiota can vary in response to increased blood pressure (BP) and influence the development and progression of hypertension. This paper describes five aspects of the relationship between hypertension and the gut microbiota, namely, the different types of gut microbiota, metabolites of the gut microbiota, sympathetic activation, gut–brain interactions, the effects of exercise and dietary patterns and the treatment of the gut microbiota through probiotics, faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) and herbal remedies, providing new clues for the future prevention of hypertension. Diet, exercise and traditional Chinese medicine may contribute to long-term improvements in hypertension, although the effects of probiotics and FMT still need to be validated in large populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nutrition care in general practice is crucial for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention and management, although comparison between dietary strategies is lacking. Aim: To compare the best available (most recent, relevant, and high-quality) evidence for six dietary strategies that are effective for primary prevention/absolute risk reduction of CVD. Design and setting: A pragmatic narrative review of systematic reviews of randomised trials focused on primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Method: Studies about: 1) adults without a history of cardiovascular events; 2) target dietary strategies postulated to reduce CVD risk; and 3) direct cardiovascular or all-cause mortality outcomes were included. Six dietary strategies were examined: energy deficit, Mediterranean-like diet, sodium reduction (salt reduction and substitution), the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, alcohol reduction, and fish/fish oil consumption. Reviews were selected based on quality, recency, and relevance. Quality and certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Results: Twenty-five reviews met inclusion criteria; eight were selected as the highest quality, recent, and relevant. Three dietary strategies showed modest, significant reductions in cardiovascular events: energy deficit (relative risk reduction [RRR] 30%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 13 to 43), Mediterranean-like diet (RRR 40%, 95% CI = 20 to 55), and salt substitution (RRR 30%, 95% CI = 7 to 48). Still, some caveats remain on the effectiveness of these dietary strategies. Salt reduction, DASH diet, and alcohol reduction showed small, significant reductions in blood pressure, but no reduction in cardiovascular events. Fish/fish oil consumption showed little or no effect; supplementation of fish oil alone showed small reductions in CVD events. Conclusion: For primary prevention, energy deficit, Mediterranean-like diets, and sodium substitution have modest evidence for risk reduction of CVD events. Strategies incorporated into clinical nutrition care should ensure guidance is person centred and tailored to clinical circumstances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most common non-communicable disease occurring globally. Although previous literature has provided useful insights into the important role that diet plays in CVD prevention and treatment, understanding the causal role of diets is a difficult task considering inherent and introduced weaknesses of observational (e.g. not properly addressing confounders and mediators) and experimental research designs (e.g. not appropriate or well designed). In this narrative review, we organised current evidence linking diet, as well as conventional and emerging physiological risk factors, with CVD risk, incidence and mortality in a series of diagrams. The diagrams presented can aid causal inference studies as they provide a visual representation of the types of studies underlying the associations between potential risk markers/factors for CVD. This may facilitate the selection of variables to be considered and the creation of analytical models. Evidence depicted in the diagrams was systematically collected from studies included in the British Nutrition Task Force report on diet and CVD and database searches, including Medline and Embase. Although several markers and disorders linked to conventional and emerging risk factors for CVD were identified, the causal link between many remains unknown. There is a need to address the multifactorial nature of CVD and the complex interplay between conventional and emerging risk factors with natural and built environments, while bringing the life course into the spotlight. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: Social determinants of health (SDOH) are becoming increasingly recognised as mediators of human health. In the setting of metabolic dysfunction‐associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), most of the literature on SDOH relates to individual‐level risk factors. However, there are very limited data on neighbourhood‐level SDOH in MASLD. Aim: To assess whether SDOH impact fibrosis progression in patients who already have MASLD. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with MASLD seen at Michigan Medicine. The primary predictors were two neighbourhood‐level SDOH, 'disadvantage' and 'affluence'. The primary outcomes were mortality, incident liver‐related events (LREs) and incident cardiovascular disease (CVD). We modelled these outcomes using Kaplan–Meier statistics for mortality and competing risk analyses for LREs and CVD, using a 1‐year landmark. Results: We included 15,904 patients with MASLD with median follow‐up of 63 months. Higher affluence was associated with lower risk of overall mortality (hazard ratio 0.49 [0.37–0.66], p < 0.0001 for higher vs. lower quartile), LREs (subhazard ratio 0.60 [0.39–0.91], p = 0.02) and CVD (subhazard ratio 0.71 [0.57–0.88], p = 0.0018). Disadvantage was associated with higher mortality (hazard ratio 2.08 [95% confidence interval 1.54–2.81], p < 0.0001 for the highest vs. lowest quartile) and incident CVD (subhazard ratio 1.36 [95% confidence interval 1.10–1.68], p < 0.0001). These findings were robust across several sensitivity analyses. Discussion: Neighbourhood‐level SDOH are associated with mortality, incidence of LREs and incident CVD in patients with steatotic liver disease. Interventions aimed at disadvantaged neighbourhoods may improve clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the association between different antihypertensive regimens and cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes in hypertensive patients. Method: This single center retrospective cohort study analyzed 602 hypertensive patients with complete medical records at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, China, from January 2016 to November 2022. Baseline data and follow-up data of the included patients were collected, including demographic and clinical characteristics and laboratory results. Results: During the 5-year follow-up period, CVD outcomes occurred in 244 hypertensive patients (40.53%). Compared with patients receiving regular antihypertensive treatment, the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events in patients receiving irregular antihypertensive treatment was significantly higher (62 [55.86%] vs 182 [37.07%], HR 1.642, 95% CI 1.227–2.197, p < 0.001). In subgroup analysis, the results showed that the incidence of CVD was not identical (χ2 = 9.170, p = 0.010). The incidence of adverse cardiovascular events was highest in the single-drug antihypertensive treatment group (43.60%), followed by the multi-drug combination group (41.51%), and lowest in the two-drug combination group (29.58%). Kaplan–Meier curve showed that hypertensive patients treated with two-drug combination antihypertensive had longer overall survival time. We further compared the incidence of CVD between standard blood pressure and intensive blood pressure control, and found no significant difference in the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events between treatment to a systolic blood pressure (SBP) target of less than 140 mmHg compared with a SBP target of less than 120 mmHg (105 [43.93%] vs 35 [29.66%], HR 1.334, 95% CI 0.908–1.961, p = 0.142). Conclusion: The incidence of adverse cardiovascular events was significantly different among different antihypertension treatments. Kaplan–Meier survival curve showed that hypertensive patients receiving two-drug combination antihypertensive treatment had longer overall survival time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this study was to analyze the controversy regarding the optimal blood pressure (BP) target of <130/80 mmHg as proposed by the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) across all age groups. Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), stroke, and chronic kidney disease (CKD), and its optimal control is associated with lessening or preventing these complications. A recent study has argued that this BP level is universally accepted as an optimal and safe BP level. However, this argument is not accepted by other investigators, arguing that higher BP levels are as effective and safe. In order to investigate the current status of this level of BP control, a Medline search of the English literature was conducted between 2017 and February 2022, and 25 pertinent papers were selected. The analysis of data from these studies indicates that these BP are effective in lowering the BP and preventing cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease, and they are indeed universally accepted. Based on the current evidence, the current proposed by the 2017 ACC/AHA treatment guidelines are effective in lowering the BP and decreasing its cardiovascular complications and should followed, till perhaps, new data come out to the contrary [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Der Ophthalmologe is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The present study aimed to describe the blood pressure (BP) control rate and 10-years arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk estimation among community hypertensive patients. A total of 196,803 subjects were enrolled. The control rates calculated as the intensive (SBP < 130 mmHg and DBP < 80 mmHg) and standard (SBP < 140 mmHg and DBP < 90 mmHg) threshold. Multivariable logistic analysis was employed to assess the associations between cardiovascular factors and BP control. Sensitivity, specificity and Youden's index were used to identify the ability of high risk of ASCVD estimation by different thresholds. The control rate was 16.34% and 50.25% by the intensive and standard threshold, respectively. Besides regular medication, the risk factors for BP control included older age, male, unhealthy lifestyle, obesity, dyslipidemia and abnormal FPG. 25.08% of subjects had high risk of 10-years ASCVD estimation. The sensitivity, specificity and Youden's index of intensive threshold was 84.37%, 16.15% and 0.51%, and were significantly different from 50.55%, 50.42% and 0.98% of the standard threshold, respectively. Half of community hypertensive patients did not control BP, and nearly a quarter have high risk of 10-years ASCVD risk estimation. The intensive threshold resulted in a one-third reduction in the control rate compared to the standard threshold. No matter which threshold was used, a single BP control status seemed not a suitable indicator for identification of high risk of 10-years ASCVD risk estimation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims: The aim of this study was to investigate the association between walking speed and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk among community-dwelling middle-aged and elderly populations in Taiwan. Methods: This was a cross-sectional and community-based study with 400 participants aged 50 years and over recruited from a community health promotion project in 2014 in Guishan district, Taoyuan city. We excluded 91 people, and a total of 309 participants were eligible for analysis. The statistical methods used in this study were one-way ANOVA and the Chi-square test, Pearson's correlation test and logistic regression model. Results: In total, 309 participants (98 males and 211 females) aged 50 to 74 (62.05 ± 6.21) years without a CVD history were enrolled in this study. The walking speed gradually decreased from the low CVD risk group to the high CVD risk group (p < 0.05). A significant inverse association between walking speed and CVD risk was confirmed with a Pearson's correlation coefficient of-0.143 (p < 0.05) in middle-aged people, but this significant inverse association was not shown in elderly people. The multivariate logistic regression model for predicting CVD risk and walking speed with an adjusted odds ratio (OR) was 0.127 (95% CI = 0.021–0.771) in middle-aged people with adjustment for sex, age, waist circumference (WC), hypertension (HTN), diabetes mellitus (DM), and hyperlipidemia (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Our study clearly shows that slow walking speed is associated with an increased risk of CVD in middle-aged people rather than in elderly people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aims of the current review were to compare the efficacy of monotherapy with bendroflumethiazide vs. indapamide on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, blood pressure, need for intensification of treatment and treatment withdrawal. Two authors independently screened the results of a literature search, assessed the risk of bias and extracted relevant data. Randomized clinical trials of hypertensive patients of at least a 1‐year duration were included. When there was disagreement, a third reviewer was consulted. Risk ratio (RR) and mean differences were used as measures of effect. Two trials comparing bendroflumethiazide against placebo, one comparing indapamide with placebo and three of short duration directly comparing indapamide and Bendroflumethiazide, were included. No statistically significant difference was found between indapamide and bendroflumethiazide for all deaths [RR 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57, 1.18], cardiovascular deaths (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.55, 1.20), noncardiovascular deaths (0.81; 95% CI 0.54, 1.22), coronary events (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.30, 1.79) or all cardiovascular events (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.67, 1.18). Indapamide performed worse for stroke (RR 2.21; 95% CI 1.19, 4.11), even though a reduction in RR compared with placebo was observed in both groups. There was no statistically or clinically significant difference between indapamide and bendroflumethiazide in blood pressure reduction (mean absolute difference <1 mmHg). The present review highlights a lack of studies to answer the review question but also a lack of evidence of superiority of one drug over the other. Therefore, there is a clear need for new studies directly comparing the effect of these drugs on the outcomes of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Of Review: The last 2-3 decades have witnessed a decline in age-standardized cardiovascular mortality rates in high-income regions, whereas this has only slightly decreased or even increased in most of the low- and middle-income countries. A systematic comparison of global CVD mortality by regions attributable to various modifiable risk factors such as diabetes, obesity, hypertension, poor diet, and physical inactivity is not available.Recent Findings: We present a summary of time trends and heterogeneity in the distribution of global CVD mortality and the attribution of risk factors between 1990 and 2017 using the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 study. Globally, an estimated ~ 17.8 million (233.1 per 100,000) people died of CVD in 2017. The rate of CVD death was decreased in high-income countries (1990: 271.8 (95% UI (uncertainty interval), 270.9-273.5); 2017: 128.5 (95% UI, 126.4-130.7) per 100,000)) whereas it remained the same in lower- and middle-income countries (1990: 368.2 (95% UI, 335.6-383.3); 2017: 316.9 (95% UI, 307.0-325.5) per 100,000). Among the various traditional risk factors, high systolic blood pressure, unhealthy diet, high fasting plasma glucose, and high low-density lipoprotein levels were attributed to most of the CVD death and disability-adjusted life year lost. We also observed gender variations in tobacco and increased alcohol consumption. In addition to the traditional risk factors, poor air quality is associated with increased CVD burden in developing countries. Surveillance, country-specific guidelines, evidence-based policies, reinforcement of multisectoral health systems, and innovative solutions are urgently needed in resource-challenged settings to curb CVD risk factors and overall burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]