Treating acute hypertension in the hospital: a Lacuna in the guidelines

An audit for the inpatient management of patients with severe hypertension without acute end-organ damage at the Northern Sydney Local Health District

Severe hypertension without acute end-organ damage is commonly encountered in inpatients. Despite this, there is a lack of international guidelines to manage this disorder. We conducted an audit to investigate the local practices within our health district. Current practices favour the use of rapidly acting antihypertensive drugs, which have been associated with iatrogenic injury.

Defining systolic blood pressure normative values in hospitalized pediatric patients: a single center experience

BACKGROUND

Normative blood pressure (BP) values and definition of hypertension (HTN) in children in outpatient setting cannot be reliably used for inpatient therapy initiation. No normative exists to describe HTN in hospitalized pediatric populations. We aimed to study the prevalence of hypertension and produce normative BP values in hospitalized children.

METHODS

Cross sectional observational study of all children hospitalized on acute care floors, ≥2 and <18 years age, at Stanford Children's Hospital, from Jan-01-2014 to Dec-31-2018. Cohort included 7468 hospital encounters with a total of 118,423 automated, oscillometric, BPs measured in the upper extremity during a hospitalization of >24 hours.

RESULTS

Overall prevalence of HTN, defined by outpatient guidelines, was 12-48% in boys and 6-39% in girls, stage 1 systolic HTN in 12-38% of boys and 6-31% of girls, stage 2 systolic HTN in 3-10% of boys and 1-8% of girls. Centile curves were derived demonstrating overall higher BP reading for hospitalized patients compared to the outpatient setting.

CONCLUSION

Higher blood pressures are anticipated during hospitalization. Thresholds provided by the centile curves generated in this study may provide the clinician with some guidance on how to manage hospitalized pediatric patients based on clinical circumstances.

IMPACT

Hospitalized children have higher blood pressures compared to patients in the ambulatory setting, hence outpatient normative blood pressure values cannot be reliably used for inpatient therapy initiation. No normative exists to describe hypertension in hospitalized pediatric populations. The thresholds provided by the centile curves generated in this study may provide the clinician with some guidance on how to manage hospitalized pediatric patients based on clinical circumstances.

Management of Inpatient Elevated Blood Pressures : A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines

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).

A Retrospective Cohort Study of the Association of Inpatient Amlodipine Dose With Renal Complication Rates and Hospital Length of Stay

Background Correct hospital medication reconciliation is important for continuity of care, but optimal home antihypertensive medication ordering has not been adequately studied. Since excessive hospital blood pressure control is associated with adverse renal and cardiovascular outcomes, we assessed the association of inpatient doses of amlodipine (10mg vs. 5mg) with length of stay and renal failure and fluid and electrolyte disorders (RF/FED). Methods In this retrospective cohort study, clinical and demographic data on patients not initially admitted to the ICU between 2008 and 2019 were extracted from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC-IV). Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between amlodipine dose during the first 24 hours of admission and RF/FED. Multivariable linear regression was used to assess the association between amlodipine dose and length of stay when controlling for RF/FED or maximum blood urea nitrogen (BUN) concentration and other confounders. Results There were 5,932 patients included in this study, and 3,038 of whom received 10mg of amlodipine. A 10mg dose of amlodipine was associated with an increased likelihood of RF/FED (OR: 1.248, 95% CI (1.104, 1.412), p<0.001). It was also associated with a longer length of stay (coef.: 0.338, 95% CI (0.067, 0.609), p=0.015). This was not significant when controlling for RF/FED (dose coef.: 0.197, 95% CI (-0.070, 0.464), p=0.147) or maximum BUN (dose coef.: 0.082, 95% CI (-0.147, 0.312), p=0.482). Interpretation Higher amlodipine dose was associated with longer length of stay, and this is likely mediated by RF/FED. Randomized trials are needed to determine which home blood pressure medications should be ordered in the hospital.

Within-Person Blood Pressure Variability During Hospitalization and Clinical Outcomes Following First-Ever Acute Ischemic Stroke

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty remains over the relationship between blood pressure (BP) variability (BPV), measured in hospital settings, and clinical outcomes following acute ischemic stroke (AIS). We examined the association between within-person systolic blood pressure (SBP) variability (SBPV) during hospitalization and readmission-free survival, all-cause readmission, or all-cause mortality 1 year after AIS.

METHODS

In a cohort of 862 consecutive patients (age [mean ± SD] 75 ± 15 years, 55% women) with AIS (2005-2018, follow-up through 2019), we measured SBPV as quartiles of standard deviations (SD) and coefficient of variation (CV) from a median of 16 SBP readings obtained throughout hospitalization.

RESULTS

In the cumulative cohort, the measured SD and CV of SBP in mmHg were 16 ± 6 and 10 ± 5, respectively. The hazard ratios (HR) for readmission-free survival between the highest vs. lowest quartiles were 1.44 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.81) for SD and 1.29 (95% CI 0.94-1.78) for CV after adjustment for demographics and comorbidities. Similarly, incident readmission or mortality remained consistent between the highest vs. lowest quartiles of SD and CV (readmission: HR 1.29 [95% CI 0.90-1.78] for SD, HR 1.29 [95% CI 0.94-1.78] for CV; mortality: HR 1.15 [95% CI 0.71-1.87] for SD, HR 0.86 [95% CI 0.55-1.36] for CV).

CONCULSIONS

In patients with first AIS, SBPV measured as quartiles of SD or CV based on multiple readings throughout hospitalization has no independent prognostic implications for the readmission-free survival, readmission, or mortality. This underscores the importance of overall patient care rather than a specific focus on BP parameters during hospitalization for AIS.

A Machine Learning Model to Predict Length of Stay and Mortality among Diabetes and Hypertension Inpatients

Background and Objectives: Taiwan is among the nations with the highest rates of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) and Hypertension (HTN). As more cases are reported each year, there is a rise in hospital admissions for people seeking medical attention. This creates a burden on hospitals and affects the overall management and administration of the hospitals. Hence, this study aimed to develop a machine learning (ML) model to predict the Length of Stay (LoS) and mortality among T2DM and HTN inpatients. Materials and Methods: Using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD), this cohort study consisted of 58,618 patients, where 25,868 had T2DM, 32,750 had HTN, and 6419 had both T2DM and HTN. We analyzed the data with different machine learning models for the prediction of LoS and mortality. The evaluation was done by plotting descriptive statistical graphs, feature importance, precision-recall curve, accuracy plots, and AUC. The training and testing data were set at a ratio of 8:2 before applying ML algorithms. Results: XGBoost showed the best performance in predicting LoS (R2 0.633; RMSE 0.386; MAE 0.123), and RF resulted in a slightly lower performance (R2 0.591; RMSE 0.401; MAE 0.027). Logistic Regression (LoR) performed the best in predicting mortality (CV Score 0.9779; Test Score 0.9728; Precision 0.9432; Recall 0.9786; AUC 0.97 and AUPR 0.93), closely followed by Ridge Classifier (CV Score 0.9736; Test Score 0.9692; Precision 0.9312; Recall 0.9463; AUC 0.94 and AUPR 0.89). Conclusions: We developed a robust prediction model for LoS and mortality of T2DM and HTN inpatients. Linear Regression showed the best performance for LoS, and Logistic Regression performed the best in predicting mortality. The results showed that ML algorithms can not only help healthcare professionals in data-driven decision-making but can also facilitate early intervention and resource planning.

Treatment of Hypertension Among Non-Cardiac Hospitalized Patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review provides a contemporary perspective and approach for the treatment of hypertension (HTN) among patients hospitalized for non-cardiac reasons.

RECENT FINDINGS

Elevated blood pressure (BP) is a common dilemma encountered by physicians, but guidelines are lacking to assist providers in managing hospitalized patients with elevated BP. Inpatient HTN is common, and management remains challenging given the paucity of data and misperceptions among training and practicing physicians. The outcomes associated with intensifying BP treatment during hospitalization can be harmful, with little to no long-term benefits. Data also suggests that medication intensification at discharge is not associated with improved outpatient BP control. Routine inpatient HTN control in the absence of end-organ damage has not shown to be helpful and may have deleterious effects. Since routine use of intravenous antihypertensives in hospitalized non-cardiac patients has been shown to prolong inpatient stay without benefits, their routine use should be avoided for inpatient HTN control. Future large-scale trials measuring clinical outcomes during prolonged follow-up may help to identify specific circumstances where inpatient HTN control may be beneficial.

Hypertension in the hospitalized patient: An update

In-patient hypertension is a common problem seen in the hospital setting. Current evidence-based guidelines define and address management of hypertension in ambulatory care and hypertensive emergencies in the hospital setting. However, they lack guidance for the management of acute asymptomatic/non-emergent hypertension in the hospitalised patient. The risk-benefit of treating inpatient asymptomatic hypertension is largely unknown. In this narrative review, we discuss current evidence-based perspectives to address this clinical entity.

Impact of Intravenous Antihypertensives on Outcomes Among Hospitalized Patients

BACKGROUND

Many hospitalized patients with acute elevations in blood pressure (BP) are treated with intravenous (IV) antihypertensive medications without evidence of benefit. This study investigated the effects of IV as-needed (PRN) antihypertensives on BP, hospital length of stay, and mortality.

METHODS

We included hospitalized patients with an order for an IV PRN antihypertensive medication. We excluded patients with target organ damage. We performed multivariate analysis to assess whether the medication was independently associated with outcomes.

RESULTS

1,784 out of 5,680 patients (31%) had an administration of the PRN medication. Patients who received the medication had a longer hospital stay compared with patients with an order for the medication who did not receive it (4.9 ± 6.1 vs. 3.1 ± 4.1 days, P < 0.001). This remained statistically significant after adjusting for covariates. In-hospital mortality was higher in the group that received the medication (3.3% vs. 1.6%, P < 0.001), but this was not statistically significant on multivariate analysis. IV hydralazine caused the most significant reduction in BP and led to a shorter length of stay when compared with enalapril and labetalol. A total of 62% of patients received the medication for a systolic BP lower than 180 mm Hg.

CONCLUSIONS

Treating hypertension in the in-patient setting remains complex. Rapid lowering of BP can cause harm to patients, and this study showed that antihypertensive medication increased hospital length of stay. Once assuring no target organ damage, a strategic approach should be to treat modifiable factors and gradually reduce BP.

Pro Re Nata Antihypertensive Medications and Adverse Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study

[Figure: see text].

Hypertension in the hospitalized patient: An update

In-patient hypertension is a common problem seen in the hospital setting. Current evidence-based guidelines define and address management of hypertension in ambulatory care and hypertensive emergencies in the hospital setting. However, they lack guidance for the management of acute asymptomatic/non-emergent hypertension in the hospitalised patient. The risk-benefit of treating inpatient asymptomatic hypertension is largely unknown. In this narrative review, we discuss current evidence-based perspectives to address this clinical entity.

Treatment and Outcomes of Inpatient Hypertension Among Adults With Noncardiac Admissions

IMPORTANCE

Despite high prevalence of elevated blood pressure (BP) among medical inpatients, BP management guidelines are lacking for this population. The outcomes associated with intensifying BP treatment in the hospital are poorly studied.

OBJECTIVES

To characterize clinician response to BP in the hospital and at discharge and to compare short- and long-term outcomes associated with antihypertensive treatment intensification.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study took place from January 1 to December 31, 2017, with 1 year of follow-up at 10 hospitals within the Cleveland Clinic Hospitals health care system. All adults admitted to a medicine service in 2017 were evaluated for inclusion. Patients with cardiovascular diagnoses were excluded. Demographic and BP characteristics were used for propensity matching.

EXPOSURES

Acute hypertension treatment, defined as administration of an intravenous antihypertensive medication or a new class of an oral antihypertensive treatment.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The association between acute hypertension treatment and subsequent inpatient acute kidney injury, myocardial injury, and stroke was measured. Postdischarge outcomes included stroke and myocardial infarction within 30 days and BP control up to 1 year.

RESULTS

Among 22 834 adults hospitalized for noncardiovascular diagnoses (mean [SD] age, 65.6 [17.9] years; 12 993 women [56.9%]; 15 963 White patients [69.9%]), 17 821 (78%) had at least 1 hypertensive BP recorded during their admission. Of these patients, 5904 (33.1%) were treated. A total of 8692 of 106 097 cases (8.2%) of hypertensive systolic BPs were treated; of these, 5747 (66%) were treated with oral medications. In a propensity-matched sample controlling for patient and BP characteristics, treated patients had higher rates of subsequent acute kidney injury (466 of 4520 [10.3%] vs 357 of 4520 [7.9%]; P < .001) and myocardial injury (53 of 4520 [1.2%] vs 26 of 4520 [0.6%]; P = .003). There was no BP interval in which treated patients had better outcomes than untreated patients. A total of 1645 of 17 821 patients (9%) with hypertension were discharged with an intensified antihypertensive regimen. Medication intensification at discharge was not associated with better BP control in the following year.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, hypertension was common among medical inpatients, but antihypertensive treatment intensification was not. Intensification of therapy without signs of end-organ damage was associated with worse outcomes.

Outcomes of minority patients with very severe hypertension (>220/>120 mmHg)

OBJECTIVES

Acute severe hypertension is a common problem among inner-city ethnic minority populations. Nevertheless, the effects of currently employed treatment regimens on blood pressure have not been determined in a clinical practice setting. We determined the SBP responses to acute antihypertensive drug protocols and the 2-year natural history of patients presenting with severe hypertension.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort investigation in consecutive patients with SBP at least 220 mmHg and/or DBP at least 120 mmHg during 3-month enrollment in 2014 with 2-year follow-up. Primary outcomes were SBP versus time for the first 5 h of emergency treatment and 2-year follow-up including repeat visits, target organ events, and hospitalizations.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-six unique patients met criteria with 69% Black; 34% Hispanic; 56% had previous visits for severe hypertension; 31% had preexisting target injury. Acute management: Acute antihypertensive regimens resulted in grossly unpredictable and often exaggerated effects on SBP. Treatment acutely reduced SBP to less than 140 mmHg in 30 of 159 patients. Clonidine reduced SBP to less than 140 mmHg in 19/61. Two-year follow-up: We observed 389 repeat visits for severe hypertension, 99 new target events, and 76 hospitalizations accounting for 620 hospital days.

CONCLUSION

Acute treatment of severe hypertension produced unpredictable and potentially dangerous responses in SBP. Two-year follow-up demonstrated extraordinary rates of recurrent visits, target organ events, and hospitalizations. Our findings indicate a need to develop effective management strategies to lower blood pressure safely and to prevent long-term consequences. Our findings may apply to other hospitals caring for ethnic minority populations.

An Evidence-Based Review of Elevated Blood Pressure for the Inpatient

Elevated blood pressure is common in patients who are hospitalized. There are no guidelines and few recommendations to help inpatient providers manage patients with elevated blood pressure. There are no normal reported values for blood pressure in the inpatient and recording circumstances often widely vary. Many factors may influence blood pressure such as pain, anxiety, malaise, nicotine withdrawal, or withholding home medications. This review of available literature suggests potential harm and little to no potential benefit in treating asymptomatic patients with elevated blood pressure. This review also found no evidence that asymptomatic elevated blood pressure progresses to lead to end-organ damage. However, there are clear instances of hypertensive emergency where treatment is indicated. Conscientious adjustment of an anti-hypertensive regimen should be undertaken during episode of elevated blood pressure associated with end-organ damage.

Diagnosis and treatment of hypertensive emergencies and urgencies among Italian emergency and intensive care departments. Results from an Italian survey: Progetto GEAR (Gestione dell'Emergenza e urgenza in ARea critica)

Hypertensive emergencies (HE) and urgencies (HU) are frequent causes of patients referral to Emergency Department (ED) and the approach may be different according to local clinical practice. Our aim was to explore awareness, management, treatment and counselling after discharge of HE and HU in Italy, by mean of an on-line survey. The young investigator research group of the Italian Society of Hypertension developed a 23-item questionnaire spread by e-mail invitation to the members of Italian Scientific societies in the field of Hypertension. 665 questionnaires were collected from EDs, Emergency and Urgency Medicine, Cardiology or Coronary Units, Internal Medicines, Intensive care, Stroke units. Symptoms considered suspicious of acute organ damage were: chest pain (89.0%), visual disturbances (89.8%), dyspnoea (82.7%), headache (82.1%), dizziness (52.0%), conjunctival haemorrhages (41.5%), tinnitus (38.2%) and epistaxis (34.4%). Exams more frequent prescribed were: electrocardiogram (97.2%), serum creatinine (91.4%), markers of cardiomyocyte necrosis (66.2%), echocardiography (65.1%). The use of intravenous or oral medications to treat HEs was 94.7% and 3.5%, while for HUs 24.4% and 70.8% respectively. Of note, a surprisingly high percentage of physicians (22 % overall, 24.5% in North Italy) used to prescribe sublingual nifedipine. After discharge, home blood pressure monitoring and general practitioner re-evaluation were more frequently suggested, while ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and hypertension specialist examination were less prescribed. The differences observed across the different macro-areas, regarded prescription of diagnostic test and drug administration. This survey depicts a complex situation of shades and lights in the real-life management of HE and HU in Italy.

Improving the use of intravenous antihypertensive medications in the hospital setting: a quality improvement initiative for patient safety

Intravenous (IV) hydralazine, enalapril and labetalol are oftentimes used without indication for the treatment of asymptomatic hypertension in the hospital setting and have been shown to have substantial adverse effects that are associated with increased morbidity and mortality, as well as longer length of stay. Their use is also associated with greater monetary costs. In this project, we studied the frequency of use and consequences of these medications before and after a series of education cycles which clarified when and when not to use intravenous antihypertensives (IVAHs). Our initial aim was to decrease the unindicated use of IVAH by at least 25% in the setting of asymptomatic hypertension in our community hospital within a 1-year period after introducing education on the topic. Multidisciplinary involvement throughout three Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles yielded favourable results. We focused on education towards a hospital-wide knowledge gap stemming from a lack of guidelines regarding the treatment of asymptomatic hypertension, as well as the guideline indications for IVAH. After three cycles of education targeting different groups, the unindicated use of IVAH fell by a total of 66%, decreasing patient exposure by approximately 248 cases over the total course of the study and ultimately, yielding a 52% increase in patient safety. Secondary outcome included a reduction in cost. It was noted that IV drugs cost more than their oral counterparts. The culture change in switching away from IVAH unless otherwise indicated was driven by repetitive education and group discussion to close the gap created by a lack of guidelines.

Conditional prescriptions of oral antihypertensive drugs for the management of hypertension urgencies in the inpatient setting: An observational study

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVES

The management of hypertension urgencies during hospitalization may generally not necessitate urgent care. However, physicians frequently prescribe 'as needed' antihypertensive drugs for which administration is triggered by blood pressure thresholds. The lack of rationale for this hospital practice led us to study oral conditional antihypertensive (OCA) prescriptions. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of OCA prescriptions and to establish their characteristics.

METHODS

In our institution, prescriptions are computerized. The study was retrospectively performed using a hospital clinical data warehouse over a 5-year period.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The prevalence of OCA prescriptions was 6.9% among subjects treated with an antihypertensive drug. The median duration of these prescriptions was 4 days, until the day of the patient discharge in 78.8% stays. The calcium channel inhibitors were the main (79.9%) pharmacological class prescribed, with mostly prescriptions of nicardipine. OCA prescriptions were associated with another antihypertensive medication in 58.8% of the prescriptions; for 19.3%, it was a medication belonging to the same pharmacological class than the OCA drug prescribed. Regarding the computerized drafting, 39.6% of the conditional prescriptions were considered uninterpretable. At least one administration by nurses concerned 65.1% of the OCA prescriptions. The mean SBP and DBP before the initiation of an OCA drug was 142.9 ± 28.2 and 75.8 ± 24.5 mm Hg, respectively, relative to 143.0 ± 24.9 and 77.6 ± 19.9 mm Hg after the initiation (P = .8 for SBP and P = .06 for DBP).

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The originality of this study lies in the use of a clinical data warehouse to evaluate OCA prescriptions in hospital. These prescriptions are current, often uninterpretable and mostly ordered until patient discharge. Such drug orders could be associated with an increased risk of iatrogenic events and/or administration errors. This underlies the need for developing decision support tools and computerized protocols to manage hypertension urgencies.

Intensification of older adults' outpatient blood pressure treatment at hospital discharge: national retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To assess how often older adults admitted to hospital for common non-cardiac conditions were discharged with intensified antihypertensive treatment, and to identify markers of appropriateness for these intensifications.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

US Veterans Administration Health System.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 65 years or over with hypertension admitted to hospital with non-cardiac conditions between 2011 and 2013.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Intensification of antihypertensive treatment, defined as receiving a new or higher dose antihypertensive agent at discharge compared with drugs used before admission. Hierarchical logistic regression analyses were used to control for characteristics of patients and hospitals.

RESULTS

Among 14 915 older adults (median age 76, interquartile range 69-84), 9636 (65%) had well controlled outpatient blood pressure before hospital admission. Overall, 2074 (14%) patients were discharged with intensified antihypertensive treatment, more than half of whom (1082) had well controlled blood pressure before admission. After adjustment for potential confounders, elevated inpatient blood pressure was strongly associated with being discharged on intensified antihypertensive regimens. Among patients with previously well controlled outpatient blood pressure, 8% (95% confidence interval 7% to 9%) of patients without elevated inpatient blood pressure, 24% (21% to 26%) of patients with moderately elevated inpatient blood pressure, and 40% (34% to 46%) of patients with severely elevated inpatient blood pressure were discharged with intensified antihypertensive regimens. No differences were seen in rates of intensification among patients least likely to benefit from tight blood pressure control (limited life expectancy, dementia, or metastatic malignancy), nor in those most likely to benefit (history of myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular disease, or renal disease).

CONCLUSIONS

One in seven older adults admitted to hospital for common non-cardiac conditions were discharged with intensified antihypertensive treatment. More than half of intensifications occurred in patients with previously well controlled outpatient blood pressure. More attention is needed to reduce potentially harmful overtreatment of blood pressure as older adults transition from hospital to home.

Retrospective review of the use of as-needed hydralazine and labetalol for the treatment of acute hypertension in hospitalized medicine patients

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of as-needed (PRN) labetalol and hydralazine [intravenous (IV) or oral] in hospitalized medicine patients for the treatment of severe asymptomatic hypertension and to examine the potential negative outcomes associated with their use.

METHODS

The electronic health record of 250 medicine patients hospitalized at the University of Colorado Hospital between November 2014 and April 2016 who received at least one dose of PRN IV or oral hydralazine or labetalol were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcome was to describe the use of PRN antihypertensive medications in this population.

RESULTS

A total of 573 PRN doses of antihypertensive medication were administered. Oral hydralazine was the most common (521 doses, 90.9%). A total of 36% of PRN administrations were given for a systolic blood pressure (SBP) <180 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) <110 mmHg (cut-point for acute severe hypertension). No serious adverse events were related to PRN antihypertensive administration. Despite receiving at least one PRN antihypertensive medication during hospitalization, 40.8% of patients were not continued on their home antihypertensive medication(s) while hospitalized, and 62.4% of patients did not have their home regimens intensified at discharge.

CONCLUSION

As-needed oral hydralazine is frequently prescribed for acute blood pressure lowering with administration thresholds often less than what are used to define acute severe hypertension. Many patients are prescribed PRN antihypertensive medication instead of being continued on their home regimens, and most patients do not have the intensity of their home regimens increased. Providers need to be educated about the use of PRN antihypertensive medication for the management of severe asymptomatic hypertension in the hospital setting.

Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in very elderly patients: Comparison of in-hospital versus home follow-up results

Elevated blood pressure (BP) is frequently diagnosed in very elderly hospitalized patients. Accurate diagnosis of hypertension is challenging in the hospital environment, due to the "white coat effect," and both overtreatment and undertreatment can adversely affect clinical outcome. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) has the potential to avoid the "white coat effect" and accurately guide the management of hypertension. However, effects of the hospital environment on ABPM are unknown in the very elderly. We set out to enroll 45 patients, age ≥70 years, with elevated conventional BP during hospitalization in this observational study. It was prespecified by protocol to assess initially the difference between 24-hour BP during hospital-admission and home follow-up. Subsequent analysis should investigate the change in anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-A [HADS-A]) after discharge, the correlation with change in 24-hour BP after discharge, and the prevalence of orthostatic hypertension. Thirty-one patients were included in the final analysis (age 83.5 ± 4.4 years; 71% female). Twenty-four-hour BP decreased significantly after hospital discharge (systolic from 133.5 ± 15.6 to 126.2 ± 14.4 mm Hg [millimeter of mercury], P = .008; diastolic from 71.0 ± 9.0 to 68.3 ± 8.6 mm Hg, P = .046). Anxiety level (HADS-A) decreased significantly after discharge, from 7.5 (interquartile range [IQR]: 4.0-13.8) to 5.0 (IQR: 4.0-8.0, P = .012). The change in anxiety was a predictor of change in systolic BP after discharge (F[1,20] = 5.9, P = .025). Sixty-one percent of the patients had significant orthostatic hypotension during hospital stay. In conclusion, 24-hour BP in very elderly patients is lower in the home environment than during hospitalization. This phenomenon seems to be directly linked to a lower anxiety-level at home. Reassessing hypertension at home may decrease the need for (intensified) antihypertensive medical therapy in a substantial number of patients. This is particularly important in the very elderly, who have a high prevalence of symptomatic and asymptomatic orthostatic hypotension, making them prone to hazardous effects of antihypertensive therapy.

Appropriateness of Bolus Antihypertensive Therapy for Elevated Blood Pressure in the Emergency Department

INTRODUCTION

While moderate to severely elevated blood pressure (BP) is present in nearly half of all emergency department (ED) patients, the incidence of true hypertensive emergencies in ED patients is low. Administration of bolus intravenous (IV) antihypertensive treatment to lower BP in patients without a true hypertensive emergency is a wasteful practice that is discouraged by hypertension experts; however, anecdotal evidence suggests this occurs with relatively high frequency. Accordingly, we sought to assess the frequency of inappropriate IV antihypertensive treatment in ED patients with elevated BP absent a hypertensive emergency.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study from a single, urban, teaching hospital. Using pharmacy records, we identified patients age 18-89 who received IV antihypertensive treatment in the ED. We defined treatment as inappropriate if documented suspicion for an indicated cardiovascular condition or acute end-organ injury was lacking. Data abstraction included adverse events and 30-day readmission rates, and analysis was primarily descriptive.

RESULTS

We included a total of 357 patients over an 18-month period. The mean age was 55; 51% were male and 93% black, and 127 (36.4%) were considered inappropriately treated. Overall, labetalol (61%) was the most commonly used medication, followed by enalaprilat (18%), hydralazine (18%), and metoprolol (3%). There were no significant differences between appropriate and inappropriate BP treatment groups in terms of clinical characteristics or adverse events. Hypotension or bradycardia occurred in three (2%) patients in the inappropriate treatment cohort and in two (1%) patients in the appropriately treated cohort. Survival to discharge and 30-day ED revisit rates were equivalent.

CONCLUSION

More than one in three patients who were given IV bolus antihypertensive treatment in the ED received such therapy inappropriately by our definition, suggesting that significant resources could perhaps be saved through education of providers and development of clearly defined BP treatment protocols.

An Update on Inpatient Hypertension Management

Hypertension is highly prevalent affecting nearly one third of the US adult population. Though generally approached as an outpatient disorder, elevated blood pressure is observed in a majority of hospitalized patients. The spectrum of hypertensive disease ranges from patients with hypertensive emergency including markedly elevated blood pressure and associated end-organ damage to asymptomatic patients with minimally elevated pressures of unclear significance. It is important to note that current evidence-based hypertension guidelines do not specifically address inpatient hypertension. This narrative review focuses primarily on best practices for diagnosing and managing nonemergent hypertension in the inpatient setting. We describe examples of common hypertensive syndromes, provide suggestions for optimal post-acute management, and point to evidence-based or consensus guidelines where available. In addition, we describe a practical approach to managing asymptomatic elevated blood pressure observed in the inpatient setting. Finally, arranging effective care transitions to ensure optimal ongoing hypertension management is appropriate in all cases.

Hypertensive Urgencies and Emergencies in the Hospital Setting

The prevalence of hypertension in the general population has steadily climbed over the past several decades and hypertension is a primary or secondary diagnosis in nearly a fourth of hospitalized adults. Hospitalization is often a time of pertubation in a patient's usual blood pressure control, with pain, anxiety and missed medications all risk factors for severe hypertension. Hospitalists are often faced with severe hypertension in a patient not previously known to them and this presents a challenge of how best to assess the clinical importance of blood pressure elevation. An additional challenge is the lack of literature to guide the optimal management of hypertension in inpatients. This review aims to describe the scope of the problem, to describe the near and long-term risks of overzealous blood pressure management, and to identify areas for future study.

Management of hypertension in hospitalized patients

Elevated blood pressure (BP) is a common problem in patients hospitalized for reasons other than hypertension. Unexpected elevations commonly result in calls to physicians who too often prescribe medication to reduce the numbers without evaluating the patient or determining the cause of the elevation. This may result in unnecessary and sometimes harmful treatment. Such BP elevation has many potential causes. These include anxiety, post-operative salt and volume overload, failure to administer the patient's known antihypertensive medication, inability to give oral antihypertensive medication to patients who cannot take pills by mouth, incipient heart failure, previously unrecognized renal failure, obstructive uropathy and other causes. These must be identified and treated prior to addressing only the elevated BP numbers. We present an algorithm for evaluating hospitalized patients with elevated BP in order to assist physicians in identifying the true cause of the elevation, treating the identified cause, and giving appropriate drug treatment. We also note that this is a golden opportunity for communication with the outpatient providers who will follow the patient.

Quality of care among patients undergoing lower extremity revascularization

BACKGROUND

Compliance with guidelines for treating patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) lags compliance for treating patients with coronary artery disease. We assessed the gap between guidelines and practice for patients with PAD who underwent lower extremity revascularization (LER) at our institution from 2007 to 2010.

METHODS

Quality of care (QoC) was calculated by measuring provider performance on four indicators (antiplatelet therapy, dyslipidemia management, control of hypertension, and diabetes) derived from the ACCF/AHA PAD guidelines. The QoC score was calculated at the time of admission and at time of discharge for each patient, and reflects the proportion of indicated treatments received.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 734, mean age 70±11, female 51%) were followed for a mean of 2.0±1.4 years (range 0-5.7) following LER. The indication for LER was claudication (24.8%), rest pain (16.7%), and tissue loss (58.4%). The percentage of patients with a perfect QoC score increased significantly during hospital admission (11% to 21%, p < 0.001). Significant multivariate predictors of perfect QoC score included race/ethnicity, Charlson score, severity of LE ischemia, and observation period (admission, discharge). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that age>75 years, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, rest pain, and tissue loss-but not compliance with four guideline-based therapies-were associated with decreased freedom from the composite endpoint of major amputation, repeat revascularization, and death.

CONCLUSIONS

Although adherence to guidelines improved over time, we found a significant gap between guidelines and practice for this cohort of patients at increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events.

Topical nitroglycerin ointment for treatment of acute hypertension in hospitalized inpatients

BACKGROUND

Hypertension in the hospital setting is common; however, guidelines provide limited guidance specific to the inpatient setting. Acute antihypertensive treatment options can be limited in this setting by monitoring requirements of intravenous medications and patients' inability to take oral medications. A possible treatment choice used to treat acute hypertension is nitroglycerin ointment. Nitroglycerin is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for this condition, and limited evidence exists to support this indication.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the statistical and clinical effectiveness of nitroglycerin ointment as a treatment option for acute hypertension based on a 20 mm Hg or greater reduction in systolic blood pressure.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review at a large tertiary community teaching hospital was performed on all adult noncardiac inpatients with an episode of acute hypertension that resulted in the administration of nitroglycerin ointment.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients met inclusion criteria with a total of 112 applications of nitroglycerin ointment. Of the 112 applications, systolic blood pressure decreased 20 mm Hg or more in 42% of occurrences with a median decrease of 16 mm Hg.

CONCLUSION

Study results suggest possible efficacy of nitroglycerin ointment for the treatment of acute hypertension in noncardiac hospitalized patients.