Search

Resistant hypertension is defined as blood pressure above goal despite confirmed adherence to 3 first-line antihypertensive agents or when blood pressure is controlled with 4 or more medications at maximal or maximally tolerated doses. In addition to meeting these criteria, identifying patients with true resistant hypertension requires both accurate in-office blood pressure measurement as well as excluding white coat effects through out-of-office blood pressure measurements. Patients with resistant hypertension are at higher risk for adverse cardiovascular events and are more likely to have a potentially treatable secondary cause contributing to their hypertension. Effective treatment of resistant hypertension includes ongoing lifestyle modifications and collaboration with patients to detect and address barriers to optimal medication adherence. Pharmacologic treatment should prioritize optimizing first-line, once daily, longer acting medications followed by the stepwise addition of second-, third-, and fourth-line agents as tolerated. Physicians should systematically evaluate for and address any underlying secondary causes. A coordinated, multidisciplinary team approach including clinicians with experience in treating resistant hypertension is essential. New treatment options, including both pharmacologic and device-based therapies, have recently been approved, and more are in the pipeline; their optimal role in the management of resistant hypertension is an area of ongoing research., (Copyright © 2024 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Hypertension is a leading risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite the widespread availability of both pharmacological and lifestyle therapeutic options, blood pressure control rates across the globe are worsening. In fact, only 23% of individuals with high blood pressure in the United States achieve treatment goals. In 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration approved renal denervation, a catheter-based procedure that ablates the renal sympathetic nerves, as an adjunctive treatment for patients in whom lifestyle modifications and antihypertensive medications do not adequately control blood pressure. This approval followed the publication of multiple randomized clinical studies using rigorous trial designs, all incorporating renal angiogram as the sham control. Most but not all of the new generation of trials reached their primary end point, demonstrating modest efficacy of renal denervation in lowering blood pressure across a spectrum of hypertension, from mild to truly resistant. Individual patient responses vary, and further research is needed to identify those who may benefit most. The initial safety profile appears favorable, and multiple ongoing studies are assessing longer-term efficacy and safety. Multidisciplinary teams that include hypertension specialists and adequately trained proceduralists are crucial to ensure that referrals are made appropriately with full consideration of the potential risks and benefits. Incorporating patient preferences and engaging in shared decision-making conversations will help patients make the best decisions given their individual circumstances. Although further research is clearly needed, renal denervation presents a novel treatment strategy for patients with uncontrolled blood pressure.

Background: Self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) monitoring is increasingly used for remote hypertension management, but the real-world performance of home blood pressure (BP) devices is unknown. We examined BP measurements from patients' home devices using the American Medical Association's (AMA) SMBP Device Accuracy Test tool., Methods: Patients at a single internal medicine clinic underwent up to five seated, same-arm BP readings using a home device and an automated BP device (Omron HEM-907XL). Following the AMA's three-step protocol, we used the patient's home device for the first, second, and fourth measurements and the office device for the third and fifth (if needed) measurements. Device agreement failure was defined as an absolute difference in systolic BP >10 mm Hg between the home and office devices in either of two confirmatory steps. Performance was examined by brand (Omron vs. non-Omron). Moreover, we examined patient factors associated with agreement failure via logistic regression models adjusted for demographic characteristics., Results: We evaluated 152 patients (mean age 60 ± 15 years, 58% women, 31% Black) seen between October 2020 and November 2021. Device agreement failure occurred in 22.4% (95% CI: 16.4%, 29.7%) of devices tested, including 19.1% among Omron devices and 27.6% among non-Omron devices (P = 0.23). No patient characteristics were associated with agreement failure., Conclusions: Over one-fifth of home devices did not agree based on the AMA SMBP device accuracy protocol. These findings confirm the importance of office-based device comparisons to ensure the accuracy of home BP monitoring., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd.)

Background: Management of elevated blood pressure (BP) during hospitalization varies widely, with many hospitalized adults experiencing BPs higher than those recommended for the outpatient setting., Purpose: To systematically identify guidelines on elevated BP management in the hospital., Data Sources: MEDLINE, Guidelines International Network, and specialty society websites from 1 January 2010 to 29 January 2024., Study Selection: Clinical practice guidelines pertaining to BP management for the adult and older adult populations in ambulatory, emergency department, and inpatient settings., Data Extraction: Two authors independently screened articles, assessed quality, and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved via consensus. Recommendations on treatment targets, preferred antihypertensive classes, and follow-up were collected for ambulatory and inpatient settings., Data Synthesis: Fourteen clinical practice guidelines met inclusion criteria (11 were assessed as high-quality per the AGREE II [Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II] instrument), 11 provided broad BP management recommendations, and 1 each was specific to the emergency department setting, older adults, and hypertensive crises. No guidelines provided goals for inpatient BP or recommendations for managing asymptomatic moderately elevated BP in the hospital. Six guidelines defined hypertensive urgency as BP above 180/120 mm Hg, with hypertensive emergencies requiring the addition of target organ damage. Hypertensive emergency recommendations consistently included use of intravenous antihypertensives in intensive care settings. Recommendations for managing hypertensive urgencies were inconsistent, from expert consensus, and focused on the emergency department. Outpatient treatment with oral medications and follow-up in days to weeks were most often advised. In contrast, outpatient BP goals were clearly defined, varying between 130/80 and 140/90 mm Hg., Limitation: Exclusion of non-English-language guidelines and guidelines specific to subpopulations., Conclusion: Despite general consensus on outpatient BP management, guidance on inpatient management of elevated BP without symptoms is lacking, which may contribute to variable practice patterns., Primary Funding Source: National Institute on Aging. (PROSPERO: CRD42023449250)., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M23-3251.

Hypertension guidelines recommend team-based care for the treatment of high blood pressure (BP). Clinical pharmacists can help patients get to goal BP with rapid medication titration in conjunction with telehealth visits. We conducted a pharmacist-led home BP monitoring pilot program from June 2020 to September 2021. Forty-two patients with a SBP ≥140 despite using ≤2 antihypertensive medications were referred for pharmacist telehealth with expedited medication titration to achieve a BP goal <130/80. The mean enrollment SBP/DBP was 155.2 (SD, 15.8)/89.7 (SD, 11.5) mm Hg, and the mean completion SBP/DBP was 132.1 (SD, 10.9)/77.6 (SD, 10). The number of hypertension medications prescribed increased from 1.3 to 1.6 with no instances of falls or hypotension. At completion, 31% of patients had an automated office blood pressure (AOBP) with SBP <130 mm Hg and DBP <80 mm Hg. A pharmacist-led, home BP monitoring telehealth pilot program helped patients safely achieve BP goals., (© 2023 The Authors. The Journal of Clinical Hypertension published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Competing Interests: Disclosures None.

Background: Management of orthostatic hypotension (OH) prioritizes prevention of standing hypotension, sometimes at the expense of supine hypertension. It is unclear whether supine hypertension is associated with adverse outcomes relative to standing hypotension., Objectives: To compare the long-term clinical consequences of supine hypertension and standing hypotension among middle-aged adults with and without OH., Methods: The ARIC study (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) measured supine and standing blood pressure (BP) in adults aged 45 to 64 years, without neurogenic OH, between 1987 and 1989. We defined OH as a positional drop in systolic BP ≥20 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥10 mm Hg, supine hypertension as supine BP≥140/≥90 mm Hg, and standing hypotension as standing BP≤105/≤65 mm Hg. Participants were followed for >30 years. We used Cox regression models to examine associations with cardiovascular disease events, all-cause mortality, falls, and syncope., Results: Of 12 489 participants (55% female, 26% Black, mean age 54 years, SD 6), 4.4% had OH. Among those without OH (N=11 943), 19% had supine hypertension and 21% had standing hypotension, while among those with OH (N=546), 58% had supine hypertension and 38% had standing hypotension. Associations with outcomes did not differ by OH status ( P -interactions >0.25). Supine hypertension was associated with heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.83 [95% CI, 1.68-1.99]), falls (hazard ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.02-1.22]), and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.37-1.54]), while standing hypotension was only significantly associated with mortality (hazard ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.00-1.14])., Conclusions: Supine hypertension was associated with higher risk of adverse events than standing hypotension, regardless of OH status. This challenges conventional OH management, which prioritizes standing hypotension over supine hypertension., Competing Interests: Disclosures None.

Importance: There are ongoing concerns about the benefits of intensive vs standard blood pressure (BP) treatment among adults with orthostatic hypotension or standing hypotension., Objective: To determine the effect of a lower BP treatment goal or active therapy vs a standard BP treatment goal or placebo on cardiovascular disease (CVD) or all-cause mortality in strata of baseline orthostatic hypotension or baseline standing hypotension., Data Sources: Individual participant data meta-analysis based on a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases through May 13, 2022., Study Selection: Randomized trials of BP pharmacologic treatment (more intensive BP goal or active agent) with orthostatic hypotension assessments., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Individual participant data meta-analysis extracted following PRISMA guidelines. Effects were determined using Cox proportional hazard models using a single-stage approach., Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were CVD or all-cause mortality. Orthostatic hypotension was defined as a decrease in systolic BP of at least 20 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP of at least 10 mm Hg after changing position from sitting to standing. Standing hypotension was defined as a standing systolic BP of 110 mm Hg or less or standing diastolic BP of 60 mm Hg or less., Results: The 9 trials included 29 235 participants followed up for a median of 4 years (mean age, 69.0 [SD, 10.9] years; 48% women). There were 9% with orthostatic hypotension and 5% with standing hypotension at baseline. More intensive BP treatment or active therapy lowered risk of CVD or all-cause mortality among those without baseline orthostatic hypotension (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.76-0.86) similarly to those with baseline orthostatic hypotension (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-1.00; P = .68 for interaction of treatment with baseline orthostatic hypotension). More intensive BP treatment or active therapy lowered risk of CVD or all-cause mortality among those without baseline standing hypotension (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.85), and nonsignificantly among those with baseline standing hypotension (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.75-1.18). Effects did not differ by baseline standing hypotension (P = .16 for interaction of treatment with baseline standing hypotension)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this population of hypertension trial participants, intensive therapy reduced risk of CVD or all-cause mortality regardless of orthostatic hypotension without evidence for different effects among those with standing hypotension.

Background: ACC/AHA guidelines caution against the use of antihypertensive therapy in the setting of low standing systolic BP (SBP) < 110 mm Hg due to unclear benefits., Methods: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study measured supine and standing SBP in adults aged 45-64 years between 1987 and 1989. We used Cox regression to evaluate the associations of low standing SBP (<110 mm Hg) with risk of falls, syncope, coronary heart disease (CHD), and mortality through December 31, 2019. Falls and syncope were ascertained by hospitalization and outpatient claims; CHD events were adjudicated. Associations were examined overall and in strata of hypertension stage, 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk, age, and sex., Results: Among 12,467 adults followed a median of 24 years (mean age at enrollment 54.1 ± 5.8 years, 55% women, 26% Black adults), 3,000 (24%) had a standing SBP < 110 mm Hg. A standing SBP < 110 mm Hg compared to standing SBP ≥ 110 mm Hg was not significantly associated with falls or syncope, and was associated with a lower risk of CHD events and mortality with HRs of 1.02 (95% CI 0.94, 1.11), 1.02 (0.93, 1.11), 0.88 (0.80, 0.97), and 0.91 (0.86, 0.97), respectively. There were no clinically meaningful differences when stratified by hypertension stage, 10-year ASCVD risk, age, and sex., Conclusions: In this community-based population, low standing SBP was common and not significantly associated with falls or syncope, but was associated with a lower risk of CHD and mortality. These findings do not support screening for low standing BP as a risk factor for adverse events., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Competing Interests: Disclosures None.

Background: Poor diet quality significantly contributes to hypertension disparities affecting Black adults. While the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) eating pattern lowers blood pressure (BP), access to DASH-patterned groceries is a major barrier for residents of urban food deserts., Methods: The Groceries for Black Residents of Boston to Stop Hypertension among Adults without Treated Hypertension (GoFresh) study is one of five projects in the RESTORE Network, an AHA-funded initiative focused on hypertension prevention. GoFresh is testing whether online, dietitian-assisted, home-delivered, DASH-patterned groceries lowers BP among Black adults with elevated BP. This individual-level, parallel-arm trial will enroll up to 176 Black adults with SBP (systolic blood pressure) between 120 and <150 mm Hg residing in Boston-area communities with reduced grocery store access. Following randomization, half of the participants will be assigned to weekly sessions with a dietitian who will assist participants in ordering DASH-patterned groceries online for home delivery; the remainder will receive a $500 monthly stipend. Both interventions will last 3 months, followed by a 9-month maintenance phase., Results: The primary outcome is the difference in SBP after 3 months. Secondary outcomes include a change in 24-hour ambulatory BP, body mass index, 24-hour urine sodium and potassium, hemoglobin A1C, lipids, fruit and vegetable intake, and saturated fat intake. Qualitative interviews with 45 participants 6 months after baseline assessments will determine barriers and facilitators to long-term maintenance of DASH-patterned grocery shopping., Discussion: Findings from this study will inform ongoing work on scalable interventions to prevent hypertension among Black adults with implications for public and healthcare-based food supplementation programs., Trial Registration: NCT05121337. Registered on 16 November 2021, at ClinicalTrials.gov: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05121337., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The Trial of Nonpharmacologic Interventions in the Elderly (TONE) demonstrated the efficacy of weight loss and sodium reduction to reduce hypertension medication use in older adults. However, the longer-term effects of drug withdrawal (DW) on blood pressure (BP), adverse events, and orthostatic symptoms were not reported., Methods: TONE enrolled adults, ages 60-80 years, receiving treatment with a single antihypertensive and systolic BP (SBP)/diastolic BP <145/<85 mm Hg. Participants were randomized to weight loss, sodium reduction, both, or neither (usual care) and followed up to 36 months; ~3 months postrandomization, the antihypertensive was withdrawn and only restored if needed for uncontrolled hypertension. BP and orthostatic symptoms (lightheadedness, feeling faint, imbalance) were assessed at randomization and throughout the study. Two physicians independently adjudicated adverse events, masked to intervention, classifying symptomatic (lightheadedness, dizziness, vertigo), or clinical events (fall, fracture, syncope)., Results: Among the 975 participants (mean age 66 years, 48% women, 24% black), mean (±SD) BP was 128 ± 9/71 ± 7 mm Hg. Independent of assignment, DW increased SBP by 4.59 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.89, 5.28) compared with baseline. There were 113 adverse events (84 symptomatic, 29 clinical), primarily during DW. Compared with usual care, combined weight loss and sodium reduction mitigated the effects of DW on BP (β = -4.33 mm Hg; 95% CI: -6.48, -2.17) and reduced orthostatic symptoms long term (odds ratio = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.41, 0.92), without affecting adverse events (hazard ratio = 1.81; 95% CI: 0.90, 3.65). In contrast, sodium reduction alone increased risk of adverse events (hazard ratio = 1.75; 95% CI: 1.04, 2.95), mainly during DW., Conclusions: In older adults, antihypertensive DW may increase risk of symptomatic adverse events, highlighting the need for caution in withdrawing their antihypertensive medications., Clinical Trials Registration: Trial Number NCT00000535., (© American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd 2021. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

[Figure: see text].

Prescription stimulants are an important cause of secondary hypertension and their use is increasing in adult patients who are also at risk for essential hypertension. Although stimulants increase blood pressure, a systematic approach for assessing their impact in individual patients is lacking. We developed a protocol using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring for up to 36 h to compare blood pressure over two sequential days. Average blood pressure on the first day (without stimulant medication) was compared to average blood pressure on the second day (after re-starting stimulant medication). We describe the outcomes of this protocol for a case series of eleven adults. Patients demonstrated one of three outcomes: normal blood pressure on both days, hypertension on both days, or hypertension only on the day patients received their stimulant medications. This novel protocol provides valuable information on the blood pressure effects of stimulant medications and allows clinicians to make personalized decisions regarding treatment., (© 2021 The Authors. The Journal of Clinical Hypertension published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Reduced sodium meal plans are recommended by the Centers of Disease Control to lower blood pressure in older adults; however, this strategy has not been tested in a clinical trial. The Satter House Trial of Reduced Sodium Meals (SOTRUE) was an individual-level, double-blind, randomized controlled pilot study of adults living in a congregate living facility subsidized by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Adults over age 60 years ate 3 isocaloric meals with two snacks daily for 14 days. The meal plans differed in sodium density (<0.95 vs. >2 mg/kcal), but were equivalent in potassium and macronutrients. Seated systolic BP (SBP) was the primary outcome, while urine sodium-creatinine ratio was used to measure compliance. Twenty participants were randomized (95% women; 95% white; mean age 78 ± 8 years), beginning in 7 October 2019. Retention was 100% with the last participant ending 4 November 2019. Mean baseline SBP changed from 121 to 116 mmHg with the typical sodium diet (-5 mmHg; 95% CI: -18, 8) and from 123 to 112 mmHg with the low sodium diet (-11 mmHg; 95% CI: -15.2, -7.7). Compared to the typical sodium meal plan, the low sodium meal plan lowered SBP by 4.8 mmHg (95% CI: -14.4, 4.9; p = 0.31) and urine sodium-creatinine ratio by 36% (-36.0; 95% CI: -60.3, 3.4; p = 0.07), both non-significant. SOTRUE demonstrates the feasibility of sodium reduction in federally mandated meal plans. A longer and larger study is needed to establish the efficacy and safety of low sodium meals in older adults.

Background: Although intensive blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment reduces risk for cardiovascular disease, there are concerns that it might cause orthostatic hypotension (OH)., Purpose: To examine the effects of intensive BP-lowering treatment on OH in hypertensive adults., Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception through 7 October 2019, without language restrictions., Study Selection: Randomized trials of BP pharmacologic treatment (more intensive BP goal or active agent) that involved more than 500 adults with hypertension or elevated BP and that were 6 months or longer in duration. Trial comparisons were groups assigned to either less intensive BP goals or placebo, and the outcome was measured OH, defined as a decrease of 20 mm Hg or more in systolic BP or 10 mm Hg or more in diastolic BP after changing position from seated to standing., Data Extraction: 2 investigators independently abstracted articles and rated risk of bias., Data Synthesis: 5 trials examined BP treatment goals, and 4 examined active agents versus placebo. Trials examining BP treatment goals included 18 466 participants with 127 882 follow-up visits. Trials were open-label, with minimal heterogeneity of effects across trials. Intensive BP treatment lowered risk for OH (odds ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.86 to 0.99]). Effects did not differ by prerandomization OH ( P for interaction = 0.80). In sensitivity analyses that included 4 additional placebo-controlled trials, overall and subgroup findings were unchanged., Limitations: Assessments of OH were done while participants were seated (not supine) and did not include the first minute after standing. Data on falls and syncope were not available., Conclusion: Intensive BP-lowering treatment decreases risk for OH. Orthostatic hypotension, before or in the setting of more intensive BP treatment, should not be viewed as a reason to avoid or de-escalate treatment for hypertension., Primary Funding Source: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health. (PROSPERO: CRD42020153753).

Introduction: Guidelines recommend individualized breast cancer screening and prevention interventions for women in their 40s. Yet, few primary care clinicians assess breast cancer risk., Study Design: Pretest-Posttest trial., Setting/participants: Women aged 40-49 years were recruited from one large Boston-based academic primary care practice between July 2017 and April 2019., Intervention: Participants completed a pretest, received a personalized breast cancer risk report, saw their primary care clinician, and completed a posttest., Main Outcome Measures: Using mixed effects models, changes in screening intentions (0-100 scale [0=will not screen to 100=will screen]), mammography knowledge, decisional conflict, and receipt of screening were examined. Analyses were conducted from June 2019 to February 2020., Results: Patient (n=337) mean age was 44.1 (SD=2.9) years, 61.4% were non-Hispanic white, and 76.6% were college graduates; 306 (90.5%) completed follow-up (203 with 5-year breast cancer risk <1.1%). Screening intentions declined from pre- to post-visit (79.3 to 68.0, p<0.0001), especially for women with 5-year risk <1.1% (77.2 to 63.3, p<0.0001), but still favored screening. In the 2 years prior, 37.6% had screening mammography compared with 41.8% over a mean 16 months follow-up (p=0.17). Mammography knowledge increased and decisional conflict declined. Eleven (3.3%) women met criteria for breast cancer prevention medications (ten discussed medications with their clinicians), 22 (6.5%) for MRI (19 discussed MRI with their clinician), and 67 (19.8%) for genetic counseling (47 discussed with the clinician)., Conclusions: Receipt of a personalized breast cancer report was associated with women in their 40s making more-informed and less-conflicted mammography screening decisions and with high-risk women discussing breast cancer prevention interventions with clinicians., Trial Registration: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.govNCT03180086., (Copyright © 2020 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)