Search

Studies using ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring have shown that BP during night-time sleep is a stronger predictor of cardiovascular outcomes than daytime ambulatory or conventional office BP. However, night-time ambulatory BP recordings may interfere with sleep quality because of the device cuff inflation and frequency of measurements. Hence, there is an unmet need for obtaining high quality BP values during sleep. In the last two decades, technological development of home BP devices enabled automated BP measurements during night-time. Preliminary data suggest that nocturnal home BP measurements yield similar BP values and show good agreement in detecting nondippers when compared with ambulatory BP monitoring. Thus, nocturnal home BP measurements might be a reliable and practical alternative to ambulatory BP monitoring to evaluate BP during sleep. As the use of home BP devices is widespread, well accepted by users and has relatively low cost, it may prove to be more feasible and widely available for routine clinical assessment of nocturnal BP. At present, however, data on the prognostic relevance of nocturnal BP measured by home devices, the optimal measurement schedule, and other methodological issues are lacking and await further investigation. This article offers a systematic review of the current evidence on nocturnal home BP, highlights the remaining research questions, and provides preliminary recommendations for application of this novel approach in BP management. © 2018 The Author(s).

Previous catheter-based renal denervation studies have reported variable efficacy results. We aimed to evaluate safety and blood pressure response after renal denervation or sham control in patients with uncontrolled hypertension on antihypertensive medications with drug adherence testing. : In this international, randomised, single-blind, sham-control, proof-of-concept trial, patients with uncontrolled hypertension (aged 20-80 years) were enrolled at 25 centres in the USA, Germany, Japan, UK, Australia, Austria, and Greece. Eligible patients had an office systolic blood pressure of between 150 mm Hg and 180 mm Hg and a diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or higher; a 24 h ambulatory systolic blood pressure of between 140 mm Hg and 170 mm Hg at second screening; and were on one to three antihypertensive drugs with stable doses for at least 6 weeks. Patients underwent renal angiography and were randomly assigned to undergo renal denervation or sham control. Patients, caregivers, and those assessing blood pressure were masked to randomisation assignments. The primary efficacy endpoint was blood pressure change from baseline (measured at screening visit two), based on ambulatory blood pressure measurements assessed at 6 months, as compared between treatment groups. Drug surveillance was used to assess medication adherence. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. Safety events were assessed through 6 months as per major adverse events. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02439775, and follow-up is ongoing. : Between July 22, 2015, and June 14, 2017, 467 patients were screened and enrolled. This analysis presents results for the first 80 patients randomly assigned to renal denervation (n=38) and sham control (n=42). Office and 24 h ambulatory blood pressure decreased significantly from baseline to 6 months in the renal denervation group (mean baseline-adjusted treatment differences in 24 h systolic blood pressure -7·0 mm Hg, 95% CI -12·0 to -2·1; p=0·0059, 24 h diastolic blood pressure -4·3 mm Hg, -7·8 to -0·8; p=0.0174, office systolic blood pressure -6·6 mm Hg, -12·4 to -0·9; p=0·0250, and office diastolic blood pressure -4·2 mm Hg, -7·7 to -0·7; p=0·0190). The change in blood pressure was significantly greater at 6 months in the renal denervation group than the sham-control group for office systolic blood pressure (difference -6·8 mm Hg, 95% CI -12·5 to -1·1; p=0·0205), 24 h systolic blood pressure (difference -7·4 mm Hg, -12·5 to -2·3; p=0·0051), office diastolic blood pressure (difference -3·5 mm Hg, -7·0 to -0·0; p=0·0478), and 24 h diastolic blood pressure (difference -4·1 mm Hg, -7·8 to -0·4; p=0·0292). Evaluation of hourly changes in 24 h systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure showed blood pressure reduction throughout 24 h for the renal denervation group. 3 month blood pressure reductions were not significantly different between groups. Medication adherence was about 60% and varied for individual patients throughout the study. No major adverse events were recorded in either group. : Renal denervation in the main renal arteries and branches significantly reduced blood pressure compared with sham control with no major safety events. Incomplete medication adherence was common. : Medtronic.

Background: Previous catheter-based renal denervation studies have reported variable efficacy results. We aimed to evaluate safety and blood pressure response after renal denervation or sham control in patients with uncontrolled hypertension on antihypertensive medications with drug adherence testing. Methods: In this international, randomised, single-blind, sham-control, proof-of-concept trial, patients with uncontrolled hypertension (aged 20–80 years) were enrolled at 25 centres in the USA, Germany, Japan, UK, Australia, Austria, and Greece. Eligible patients had an office systolic blood pressure of between 150 mm Hg and 180 mm Hg and a diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or higher; a 24 h ambulatory systolic blood pressure of between 140 mm Hg and 170 mm Hg at second screening; and were on one to three antihypertensive drugs with stable doses for at least 6 weeks. Patients underwent renal angiography and were randomly assigned to undergo renal denervation or sham control. Patients, caregivers, and those assessing blood pressure were masked to randomisation assignments. The primary efficacy endpoint was blood pressure change from baseline (measured at screening visit two), based on ambulatory blood pressure measurements assessed at 6 months, as compared between treatment groups. Drug surveillance was used to assess medication adherence. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. Safety events were assessed through 6 months as per major adverse events. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02439775, and follow-up is ongoing. Findings: Between July 22, 2015, and June 14, 2017, 467 patients were screened and enrolled. This analysis presents results for the first 80 patients randomly assigned to renal denervation (n=38) and sham control (n=42). Office and 24 h ambulatory blood pressure decreased significantly from baseline to 6 months in the renal denervation group (mean baseline-adjusted treatment differences in 24 h systolic blood pressure −7·0 mm Hg, 95% CI −12·0 to −2·1; p=0·0059, 24 h diastolic blood pressure −4·3 mm Hg, −7·8 to −0·8; p=0.0174, office systolic blood pressure −6·6 mm Hg, −12·4 to −0·9; p=0·0250, and office diastolic blood pressure −4·2 mm Hg, −7·7 to −0·7; p=0·0190). The change in blood pressure was significantly greater at 6 months in the renal denervation group than the sham-control group for office systolic blood pressure (difference −6·8 mm Hg, 95% CI −12·5 to −1·1; p=0·0205), 24 h systolic blood pressure (difference −7·4 mm Hg, −12·5 to −2·3; p=0·0051), office diastolic blood pressure (difference −3·5 mm Hg, −7·0 to −0·0; p=0·0478), and 24 h diastolic blood pressure (difference −4·1 mm Hg, −7·8 to −0·4; p=0·0292). Evaluation of hourly changes in 24 h systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure showed blood pressure reduction throughout 24 h for the renal denervation group. 3 month blood pressure reductions were not significantly different between groups. Medication adherence was about 60% and varied for individual patients throughout the study. No major adverse events were recorded in either group. Interpretation: Renal denervation in the main renal arteries and branches significantly reduced blood pressure compared with sham control with no major safety events. Incomplete medication adherence was common. Funding: Medtronic. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd

Previous randomised renal denervation studies did not show consistent efficacy in reducing blood pressure. The objective of our study was to evaluate the effect of renal denervation on blood pressure in the absence of antihypertensive medications. SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED was a multicentre, international, single-blind, randomised, sham-controlled, proof-of-concept trial. Patients were enrolled at 21 centres in the USA, Europe, Japan, and Australia. Eligible patients were drug-naive or discontinued their antihypertensive medications. Patients with an office systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 150 mm Hg or greater and less than 180 mm Hg, office diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 90 mm Hg or greater, and a mean 24-h ambulatory SBP of 140 mm Hg or greater and less than 170 mm Hg at second screening underwent renal angiography and were randomly assigned to renal denervation or sham control. Patients, caregivers, and those assessing blood pressure were blinded to randomisation assignments. The primary endpoint, change in 24-h blood pressure at 3 months, was compared between groups. Drug surveillance was done to ensure patient compliance with absence of antihypertensive medication. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. Safety events were assessed at 3 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02439749. Between June 25, 2015, and Jan 30, 2017, 353 patients were screened. 80 patients were randomly assigned to renal denervation (n=38) or sham control (n=42) and followed up for 3 months. Office and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure decreased significantly from baseline to 3 months in the renal denervation group: 24-h SBP -5·5 mm Hg (95% CI -9·1 to -2·0; p=0·0031), 24-h DBP -4·8 mm Hg (-7·0 to -2·6; p

Background Previous randomised renal denervation studies did not show consistent efficacy in reducing blood pressure. The objective of our study was to evaluate the effect of renal denervation on blood pressure in the absence of antihypertensive medications. Methods SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED was a multicentre, international, single-blind, randomised, sham-controlled, proof-of-concept trial. Patients were enrolled at 21 centres in the USA, Europe, Japan, and Australia. Eligible patients were drug-naive or discontinued their antihypertensive medications. Patients with an office systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 150 mm Hg or greater and less than 180 mm Hg, office diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 90 mm Hg or greater, and a mean 24-h ambulatory SBP of 140 mm Hg or greater and less than 170 mm Hg at second screening underwent renal angiography and were randomly assigned to renal denervation or sham control. Patients, caregivers, and those assessing blood pressure were blinded to randomisation assignments. The primary endpoint, change in 24-h blood pressure at 3 months, was compared between groups. Drug surveillance was done to ensure patient compliance with absence of antihypertensive medication. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. Safety events were assessed at 3 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02439749. Findings Between June 25, 2015, and Jan 30, 2017, 353 patients were screened. 80 patients were randomly assigned to renal denervation (n=38) or sham control (n=42) and followed up for 3 months. Office and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure decreased significantly from baseline to 3 months in the renal denervation group: 24-h SBP −5·5 mm Hg (95% CI −9·1 to −2·0; p=0·0031), 24-h DBP −4·8 mm Hg (−7·0 to −2·6; p

OBJECTIVE: Blood pressure (BP) measuring devices may become inaccurate at high altitude due to low barometric pressure. Aim of this study was to assess the changes in the accuracy of different types of BP measuring devices between sea level and high altitude, taking auscultatory measurements with mercury sphygmomanometer as reference. DESIGN AND METHOD: In the frame of HIGHCARE-ALPS project, we obtained multiple BP measurements in 39 healthy, normotensive volunteers (age:36.4 ± 8.5y, M/F:21/18), using a mercury (MER, reference), an aneroid (ANE), and two validated oscillometric devices [one for home (OSC-HBP; AND UA-767PC) and one for ambulatory (OSC-ABP; AND TM2430)] BP monitoring, at sea level and during acute exposure to high altitude (4559m, 437-439 Torr). BP measurements with the different devices were performed sequentially on the same arm in random order, consistent under both study conditions. RESULTS: Mean systolic (S) and diastolic (D)BP were higher at high altitude than at sea level (MER: 117.6/80.3 vs. 110.9/74.1 mmHg, p

Background Body-mass index (BMI) and diabetes have increased worldwide, whereas global average blood pressure and cholesterol have decreased or remained unchanged in the past three decades. We quantified how much of the effects of BMI on coronary heart disease and stroke are mediated through blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose, and how much is independent of these factors. Methods We pooled data from 97 prospective cohort studies that collectively enrolled 1·8 million participants between 1948 and 2005, and that included 57 161 coronary heart disease and 31 093 stroke events. For each cohort we excluded participants who were younger than 18 years, had a BMI of lower than 20 kg/m2, or who had a history of coronary heart disease or stroke. We estimated the hazard ratio (HR) of BMI on coronary heart disease and stroke with and without adjustment for all possible combinations of blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose. We pooled HRs with a random-effects model and calculated the attenuation of excess risk after adjustment for mediators. Findings The HR for each 5 kg/m2 higher BMI was 1·27 (95% CI 1·23-1·31) for coronary heart disease and 1·18 (1·14-1·22) for stroke after adjustment for confounders. Additional adjustment for the three metabolic risk factors reduced the HRs to 1·15 (1·12-1·18) for coronary heart disease and 1·04 (1·01-1·08) for stroke, suggesting that 46% (95% CI 42-50) of the excess risk of BMI for coronary heart disease and 76% (65-91) for stroke is mediated by these factors. Blood pressure was the most important mediator, accounting for 31% (28-35) of the excess risk for coronary heart disease and 65% (56-75) for stroke. The percentage excess risks mediated by these three mediators did not differ significantly between Asian and western cohorts (North America, western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand). Both overweight (BMI ≥25 to