SPRINT Blood Pressure

Intelligent Assist Office Blood Pressures (IOBP) versus awake ambulatory monitoring and conventional auscultatory office readings in Chinese primary medical institutions

To practice standardized office blood pressure (OBP) measurement guidelines pragmatically, we developed an intelligent assisted OBP (IOBP) measurement system in the Chinese community, which can automatically obtain two or three BP values after a 5-min rest before the patients visit the doctor and transfer values to the community medical network in real time. We conducted a comparative study to investigate the agreement among IOBP, awake ambulatory BP (ABP), and conventional auscultatory OBP at different BP levels. Participants were divided into three groups according to BP, with 120/80 mmHg and 160/100 mmHg as the cut-off points. Attended IOBP, unattended IOBP, and auscultatory OBP were randomly measured before ABP monitoring. In total, 245 participants were included in the analysis. The mean systolic attended/unattended IOBP, auscultatory OBP, and awake ABP were 135.0, 136.7, 135.6, and 136.2 mmHg, respectively. Bland-Altman analysis revealed a bias of -1.1 and 0.5 mmHg for systolic attended/unattended IOBP compared with awake ABP in the overall sample. For auscultatory OBP, the bias was -0.4 (attended) and 1.2 mmHg (unattended). The discrepancy between the systolic attended/unattended IOBP and awake ABP was inconsistent at different BP levels. In Group 1 the values were -8.4 and -6.9 mmHg, whereas in Group 3, the values were 9.4 and 10.0 mmHg. BP measured using the IOBP measurement system was in accordance with awake ABP and conventional OBP, and can be a good choice in the Chinese community.

[Comprehensive Therapeutic Approach to Hypertension. Recommendations for Central America and the Caribbean]

Latin American hypertension guidelines, tailored to the needs of countries of Central and South America, should be applied and known by most Latin American physicians. The knowledge and implementation of the Guidelines is one of the greatest challenges of hypertension societies in Latin America such as the Central American and Caribbean Society of Arterial Hypertension (SCCH), the Latin American Society of Hypertension (LASH) and the Inter-American Society of Cardiology (SIAC). In 2020, the Inter-American Society of Cardiology (SIAC) published its position on the current Guidelines for Arterial Hypertension due to the need to standardize the evaluation, diagnosis, treatment and control of hypertension, establishing recommendations that should be adopted in all Latin American countries, aimed at optimizing the management of cardiovascular risk and achieving a substantial improvement in the reduction of cardiovascular events and mortality. This document intends to reinforce all proposals by the LASH guidelines and the position of the SIAC in relation to the therapeutic approach and pharmacological recommendations for patients with hypertension (HT), in order to achieve better HT control in the Central American and Caribbean area, and the consequently prognosis improvement of cardiovascular disease in the area.

Target Blood Pressure Values in Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring

INTRODUCTION

2018 ESC/ESH guidelines have recommended 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring to assess hypotensive therapy in many circumstances. Recommended target blood pressure in office blood pressure measurements is between 120/70 and 130/80 mmHg. Such targets for 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring lacks.

AIM

We aimed to define target values of blood pressure in 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in hypertensive patients.

METHODS

Office blood pressure measurements and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring data were collected from 1313 hypertensive patients and sorted following increasing systolic (SBP)/diastolic (DBP) blood pressure in office blood pressure measurements. The corresponding 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring to office blood pressure measurements values were calculated.

RESULTS

Values 130/80 mmHg in office blood pressure measurements correspond in 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: night-time SBP/DBP mean: 113.74/66.95 mmHg; daytime SBP/DBP mean: 135.02/81.78 mmHg and 24-h SBP/DBP mean: 130.24/78.73 mmHg. Values 120/70 mmHg in office blood pressure measurements correspond in 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: night-time SBP/DBP mean: 109.50/63.43 mmHg; daytime SBP/DBP mean: 131.01/78.47 mmHg and 24-h SBP/DBP mean: 126.36/75.31 mmHg.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed blood pressure target values in 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring complement the therapeutic target indicated in the ESC/ESH recommendations and improves 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring usefulness in clinical practice.

Blood pressure response to close or loose contact between physician and patient during attended office blood pressure measurement

PURPOSE

Compared to unattended office blood pressure (uOBP), attended office blood pressure (aOBP) is higher. It is not known, however, to what extent distance between physician and patient influences blood pressure (BP) values.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants were stable hypertensive patients, followed in the university hospital-based out-patient center. During a session, automated office BP was measured three times after a pre-set five-minute pause, using the Omron 907 device; both aOBP and uOBP were done, in a random order. Simultaneously, beat-to-beat BP measurement was performed using the Finapress device. During aOBP, some participants were in close contact with the physician while others were in loose contact where the doctor was sitting in the room about 2.5 m apart. One year later, the second session with the same protocol was organized, but the close and loose contact were interchanged. The data were analyzed using a paired t-test.

RESULTS

Complete data were collected in 32 patients, baseline uOBP was 122.8 ± 14.8/69.5 ± 11.7 mmHg. Systolic and diastolic aOBP with close contact was higher by 4.6 ± 6.9 and 1.9 ± 3.4 mmHg (p < 0.0007 and 0.0039, respectively), while aOBP with loose contact was not different from uOBP. Beat-to-beat BP increased during aOBP by 6.5 ± 8.5/3.3 ± 4.8 mmHg. The increase persisted during all the three aOBP measurements (p < 0.0001 for all systolic and diastolic BP values); the results were similar for close and loose contact. The peak increase during uOBP was of similar magnitude as during aOBP but it lasted shorter: it reached the significance level of p < 0.0001 only during the first uOBP measurement.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to uOBP, aOBP values were higher with close, but not with loose contact between physician and patient. These differences were, however, not detected by beat-to-beat BP measurement.

Unattended versus Attended Blood Pressure Measurement: Relationship with Retinal Microcirculation

Though the relationship between both “attended” and “unattended” BP and several forms of target organ damage have been evaluated, data on retinal arteriolar alterations are lacking. The aim of our study was to evaluate the relationship between “attended” or “unattended” BP values and retinal arteriolar changes in consecutive individuals undergoing a clinical evaluation and assessment of retinal fundus at an ESH Excellence Centre. An oscillometric device programmed to perform 3 BP measurements, at 1 min intervals and after 5 min of rest was used on all individuals to measure BP with the patient alone in the room (“unattended”) or in the presence of the physician (“attended”) in the same day in a random order. The retinal arteriole’s wall thickness (WT) was measured automatically by a localization algorithm as the difference between external (ED) and internal diameter (ID) by adaptive optics (RTX-1, Imagine Eyes, Orsay, Francia). Media-to-lumen ratio (WLR) of the retinal arterioles and cross-sectional area (WCSA) of the vascular wall were calculated. Results: One-hundred-forty-two patients were examined (mean age 57 ± 12 yrs, 48% female, mean BMI 26 ± 4). Among them, 60% had hypertension (84% treated) and 11% had type 2 diabetes mellitus. Unattended systolic BP (SBP) was lower as compared to attended SBP (129 ± 14.8. vs. 122.1 ± 13.6 mmHg, p < 0.0001). WLR was similarly correlated with unattended and attended SBP (r = 0.281, p < 0.0001 and r = 0.382, p < 0.0001) and with unattended and attended diastolic BP (r = 0.34, p < 0.001 and r = 0.29, p < 0.0001). The differences between correlations were not statistically significant (Steiger’s Z test). Conclusion: The measurement of “unattended” or “attended” BP provides different values, and unattended BP is lower as compared to attended BP. In this study a similar correlation was observed between attended and unattended BP values and structural changes of retinal arterioles.

Early morning hemodynamic changes and left ventricular hypertrophy and mortality in hemodialysis patients

INTRODUCTION

An exaggeration of the early morning increase in BP, a phenomenon accompanied by a parallel rise in heart rate (HR), is a marker of high cardiovascular risk. The early morning changes in these parameters have not been investigated in the hemodialysis population.

METHODS

In a pilot, single center study including a series of 58 patients we measured the pre-awakening BP and HR surges and the nocturnal dipping of the same parameters as well as other established indicators of autonomic function (weighted 24 h systolic BP and HR variability) and tested their relationship with the left ventricular mass index (LVMI) and with the risk of death over a median follow up of 40 months.

RESULTS

The pre-awakening HR surge (r = - 0.46, P = 0.001) but not the corresponding BP surge (r = - 0.1, P = 0.98) was associated with LVMI and the risk of death [HR (1 unit): 0.89, 95% CI 0.83-0.96, P = 0.001]. The link between the pre-awakening HR surge with these outcome measures was robust and largely independent of established risk factors in the hemodialysis population, including the nocturnal dipping of BP. Weighted 24 h systolic BP and HR variability did not correlate with LVMI (all P > 0.11) nor with the risk of death (P > 0.11) and were also independent of the nocturnal dipping of systolic BP and HR.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study suggests that the low early morning changes in HR, likely reflecting enhanced sympathetic activity, entail a high risk for left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and mortality in the hemodialysis population.

Comparison of automated office blood pressure measurement with 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurement

PURPOSE

Although 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurement (24-h ABPM) is the most important method to establish true hypertension, in clinical practice often repeated automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurements are used because of convenience and lower costs. We aimed to assess the agreement rate between a 30 and 60 min AOBP and 24-h ABPM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with known hypertension (cohort 1) and patients visiting the neurology outpatient clinic after minor stroke or transient ischaemic attack (cohort 2) were selected. We performed AOBP for 30-60 min at 5-min intervals followed by 24-h ABPM and calculated average values of both measurements. Agreement between the two methods was studied with McNemar and Bland-Altman plots with a clinically relevant limit of agreement of ≤10 mm Hg difference in systolic BP.

RESULTS

Our final cohort consisted of 135 patients from cohort 1 and 72 patients from cohort 2. We found relatively low agreement based on the clinical relevant cut-off value; 64.7% of the measurements were within the limits of agreement for 24-h systolic and 50.2% for 24-h diastolic. This was 61.4% for daytime systolic and 56.6% for daytime diastolic. In 73.5% of the patients, both methods led to the same diagnosis of either being hypertensive or non-hypertensive. This resulted in a significant difference between the methods to determine the diagnosis of hypertension (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that 30-60 min AOBP measurements cannot replace a 24-h ABPM and propose to perform 24-h ABPM at least on a yearly basis to confirm AOBP measurements.

Diagnosis and treatment of arterial hypertension 2021

In the last 4 years, several evidence-based, national, and international guidelines on the management of arterial hypertension have been published, mostly with concordant recommendations, but in some aspects with discordant opinions. This in-depth review takes these guidelines into account but also addresses several new data of interest. Although being somewhat obvious and simple, accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement with validated devices is the cornerstone of the diagnosis of hypertension, but out-of-office BP measurements are of crucial importance as well. Simplified antihypertensive drug treatment such as single-pill combinations enhances the adherence to medication and speeds up the process of getting into the BP target range, a goal not so far adequately respected. Recommended (single-pill) combination therapy includes diuretics as part of the first step of antihypertensive therapy, and updated analysis does not provide evidence to exclude diuretics from this first step because of the recently discussed potential risk of increasing cancer incidence. Target BP goals need to be individualized, according to comorbidities, hypertension-mediated organ damage, coexistence of cardiovascular risk factors (including age), frailty in the elderly, and individual tolerability. There are also concordant recommendations in the guidelines that an office BP between 120 and 140 mm Hg systolic and between 70 and 80 mm Hg diastolic should be achieved. The BP target of Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes for hypertensive patients with chronic kidney disease are not applicable for clinical practice because they heavily rely on 1 study that used a study-specific, nontransferable BP measurement technique and excluded the most common cause of chronic kidney disease, namely, diabetic nephropathy. Actual data even from a prospective trial on chronotherapy have to be disregarded, and antihypertensive medication should not be routinely dosed at bedtime. Rigorously conducted trials justify the revival of renal denervation for treatment of (at least, but not only) uncontrolled and treatment-resistant hypertension.

Relationship between arterial stiffness and unattended or attended blood pressure values

BACKGROUND AND METHOD

Measurement of 'unattended' blood pressure (BP) may reduce or eliminate the 'white-coat effect'. Despite the possible advantages of this approach for BP measurement, only few studies analysed the relationship between unattended BP and cardiovascular events or with hypertension-mediated organ damage (HMOD). The aim of our study was to evaluate the relationship between 'attended' or 'unattended' BP values and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) in 285 individuals undergoing a visit and assessment of arterial stiffness at an ESH Excellence Centre. Unattended BP (measured with the patient alone in the room, with an oscillometric device programmed to perform three BP measurements, at 1-min intervals, after 5 min) and attended BP were measured with the same device, on the same day of the measurement of PWV, in a random order.

RESULTS

Mean age was 63 ± 13 years, mean BMI 26 ± 4, 47% were women, 76% had hypertension (55% treated). Systolic unattended BP was lower than attended SBP (124.4 ± 14.3 vs. 130.9 ± 16.1 mmHg). PWV was similarly correlated with attended and unattended SBP values (r = 0.428 and r = 0.404, P < 0.0001, respectively). No difference for the prediction of increased arterial stiffness was observed at receiver operator curves (ROCs) analysis [attended SBP area under the curve (AUC) 0.665, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.607-0.720 vs. unattended SBP: AUC 0.651, 95% CI 0.593-0.706, P for the comparison = ns].

CONCLUSION

Attended and unattended BP values are similarly correlated with PWV, the gold standard measure of arterial stiffness. These findings may provide further information on the clinical value of unattended BP.

Multiple Modern Methods of Blood Pressure Measurement and the 2018 European Society of Hypertesion Guidelines

The new international guidelines on hypertension management have been issued in the past few years. The AHA (2017) and ESH (2018) Guidelines are similar in many key aspects. However, they differ substantially in the area of blood pressure (BP) measurement methodology. In this article, we aim to explain the ESC Guidelines position, specifically the conservative BP thresholds and a wider use of ambulatory BP measurement methods. In our opinion, the main reason behind this position is the introduction and a relatively widespread use of automatic office BP measurement (AOBP). On one hand, this method has questioned the results of the SPRINT trial – the key evidence source for the AHA Guidelines. On the other hand, AOBP has challenged the concept of “traditional office BP measurement”. Therefore, it is important to be aware of the current multiplicity of BP measurement methods and respective threshold values recommended for each method. It is essential to perform the office BP measurement correctly and thoroughly. Throughout all stages of the hypertensive patient management (diagnosis, antihypertensive treatment choice, and long-term observation), the use of out-of-clinic BP measurement is strongly advisable.

Large discrepancy between unobserved automated office blood pressure and ambulatory blood pressure in a high cardiovascular risk cohort

OBJECTIVES

Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement has been shown to eliminate the white-coat effect and to be more concordant with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and home blood pressure (BP) measurements. This study aimed to compare AOBP with ABPM in patients with a high cardiovascular risk.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Participants were recruited from a prospective cohort study (Cardiovascular and Metabolic Disease Etiology Research Center-High Risk Cohort, clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02003781). A total of 1208 persons who had undergone both AOBP and ABPM within 7 days of each other were analyzed. The 95% limits of agreement between systolic AOBP and daytime ABPM SBP were -34.8 and 20.2 mmHg (mean difference = -7.3 ± 14.0). The mean differences in blood pressure across quintiles of AOBP distributions increased with decreasing systolic AOBP [-17.8 ± 11.2 (Q1, systolic AOBP <113 mmHg), -10.9 ± 11.1 (Q2, systolic AOBP 113-121 mmHg), -8.5 ± 10.7 (Q3, systolic AOBP 121-128 mmHg), -4.2 ± 11.8 (Q4, systolic AOBP 128-137 mmHg), 4.9 ± 14.2 (Q5, systolic AOBP >137 mmHg), P < 0.001]. The prevalence of masked hypertension phenomena was 310 (25.7%) and that of white-coat hypertension phenomena was 102 (8.4%). Large discrepancies were significantly associated with lower systolic AOBP, higher atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk score, and history of asymptomatic cardiovascular disease.

CONCLUSION

The lower range of systolic AOBP exhibited a large discrepancy with daytime ABPM SBP. Moreover, higher cardiovascular risk was independently associated with larger discrepancy between AOBP and ABPM. The status of blood pressure control should be confirmed using out-of-office blood pressure measurements, even when using AOBP as a clinical BP reference in high-risk patients.

Effects of blood pressure-lowering treatment on cardiovascular outcomes and mortality: 13 - benefits and adverse events in older and younger patients with hypertension: overview, meta-analyses and meta-regression analyses of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

There is overwhelming evidence that blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment can reduce cardiovascular outcomes also in the elderly, but some important aspects influencing medical practice are controversial as sufficient evidence has not been provided by single randomized controlled trials (RCTs), whereas evidence may result from a systematic search and meta-analysis of all available data.

OBJECTIVES

The following clinically relevant issues concerning the effects of BP lowering in older and younger individuals have been investigated: differences in benefits; the oldest and the youngest age range for which evidence of BP-lowering effects is available; the SBP level at which BP-lowering treatment should be initiated; the SBP and DBP levels treatment should be aimed at; differences in treatment burdens and harms.

METHODS

A database we previously identified of 72 BP-lowering RCTs in 260 210 patients was searched for separately reported data on older and younger individuals [cutoffs of 65 (primary analyses), 70, 75, 80, 60 and 55 years). The data were further stratified according to the levels of baseline (untreated) BP, and of on-treatment achieved SBP or DBP. Seven fatal and nonfatal outcomes were considered for benefits. Burdens and harms were investigated as permanent treatment discontinuations for adverse events, and hypotension/syncope. Risk ratios and absolute risk changes were calculated by a random effects model. Effects at older and younger ages were compared by heterogeneity test.

RESULTS

Thirty-two RCTs provided data on 96 549 patients older than 65 years, and 31 RCTs on 114 009 patients younger than 65 years. All cardiovascular outcomes were significantly reduced by treatment both in older and younger individuals, without significant age-dependent differences in relative risk reduction but with significantly higher absolute risk reductions in older individuals. The extreme age ranges for which evidence of significant benefits of treatment were available was greater than 80 and less than 55 years. Only one RCT provided data on benefits of BP-lowering at age greater than 65 when treatment was initiated at SBP values in the grade 1 range, but more consistent evidence was provided when age was greater than 60 years. Both in patients older and younger than 65 years, significant reductions of cardiovascular outcomes were found at on-treatment SBP less than 140 mmHg and DBP less than 80 mmHg. There was no evidence that treatment discontinuations for adverse events or hypotension/syncope were more frequent at age greater than 65.

CONCLUSION

Antihypertensive treatment should be recommended to all individuals with elevated BP, independent of age. The prudent recommendation to initiate treatment at SBP values 140-159 mmHg is supported at older age defined as greater than 60 years. SBP and DBP values lower than 140 mmHg and, respectively, 80 mmHg can be aimed at with incremental benefits without disproportionate burdens until age 80 years, above which available evidence is for benefits at on-treatment SBP 140-149 mmHg.

[New Targets in Blood Pressure Control: Arguments Pro and Contra]

The review contains results of analysis of clinical studies on the problem of defining the target level of the blood pressure (BP). The rationale for selection the target systolic BP level below120 mmHg was obtained in the SPRINT study comparing the target levels &lt;120 mmHg and &lt;140 mmHg. A considerably lower number of cardiovascular complications and deaths was seen in the group of a stricter BP control. Nevertheless, this study had some limitations related to certain patient populations, and methods of BP measurement. More ambitious target of BP lowering was associated with elevated risk of iatrogenic hypotension and fainting. Moreover, the ACCORD study, exploring the same target levels failed to demonstrate similar risk reduction. Taking into account various literature data, the authors find it reasonable to use personalized approach to determining BP targets, and utilize assessment of central aortic pressure and state of vessels for more accurate risk stratification and selection of treatment.

Long-term relationship between unattended automated blood pressure and auscultatory BP measurements in hypertensive patients

AIMS

Unattended automated office blood pressure (uAutoOBP) has attracted more attention since SPRINT trial had been published. However, its long-term relationship to attended office blood pressure (AuscOBP) is not known.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Stable treated hypertensive subjects were examined in four Czech academic hypertension centers. All subjects attended four clinical visits three months apart. uAutoOBP was measured with the BP Tru device; AuscOBP was measured three times with auscultatory method by the physician. 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was performed within one week from the second clinical visit.

RESULTS

Data on 112 subjects aged 65.6 ± 10.8 years with mean AuscOBP 128.2 ± 12.2/78.5 ± 10.3 mm Hg are reported. Across the four clinical visits, the uAutoOBP was by 10.1/3.7 mm Hg lower than AuscOBP and the mean difference was similar during all four visits (P≥.061). Both uAutoOBP and AuscOBP had similar intra-individual variability during study follow-up as demonstrated by similar intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC, for systolic ICC = 0.50, for diastolic ICC = 0.72). However, the intra-individual variability of the systolic AuscOBP and uAutoOBP difference was high as demonstrated by low ICCs for absolute (ICC = 0.17 [95%CI, 0.09 - 0.25]) and low κ coefficients for categorized differences (κ ≤ 0.16). The main determinant of AuscOBP-uAutoOBP difference was AuscOBP level. The AuscOBP-uAutoOBP difference was poor tool to identify hypertension control categories defined on the basis of AuscOBP and ABPM.

CONCLUSIONS

Although mean AuscOBP-uAutoOBP differences were relatively similar across the four clinical visits, intra-individual variability of this difference was high. The AuscOBP-uAutoOBP difference was poor tool to identify hypertension control categories defined on the basis of AuscOBP and ABPM. Therefore, uAutoOBP cannot be used as a replacement for ABPM.

2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: The Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension: The Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension

: Document reviewers: Guy De Backer (ESC Review Co-ordinator) (Belgium), Anthony M. Heagerty (ESH Review Co-ordinator) (UK), Stefan Agewall (Norway), Murielle Bochud (Switzerland), Claudio Borghi (Italy), Pierre Boutouyrie (France), Jana Brguljan (Slovenia), Héctor Bueno (Spain), Enrico G. Caiani (Italy), Bo Carlberg (Sweden), Neil Chapman (UK), Renata Cifkova (Czech Republic), John G. F. Cleland (UK), Jean-Philippe Collet (France), Ioan Mircea Coman (Romania), Peter W. de Leeuw (The Netherlands), Victoria Delgado (The Netherlands), Paul Dendale (Belgium), Hans-Christoph Diener (Germany), Maria Dorobantu (Romania), Robert Fagard (Belgium), Csaba Farsang (Hungary), Marc Ferrini (France), Ian M. Graham (Ireland), Guido Grassi (Italy), Hermann Haller (Germany), F. D. Richard Hobbs (UK), Bojan Jelakovic (Croatia), Catriona Jennings (UK), Hugo A. Katus (Germany), Abraham A. Kroon (The Netherlands), Christophe Leclercq (France), Dragan Lovic (Serbia), Empar Lurbe (Spain), Athanasios J. Manolis (Greece), Theresa A. McDonagh (UK), Franz Messerli (Switzerland), Maria Lorenza Muiesan (Italy), Uwe Nixdorff (Germany), Michael Hecht Olsen (Denmark), Gianfranco Parati (Italy), Joep Perk (Sweden), Massimo Francesco Piepoli (Italy), Jorge Polonia (Portugal), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Stefano F. Rimoldi (Switzerland), Marco Roffi (Switzerland), Naveed Sattar (UK), Petar M. Seferovic (Serbia), Iain A. Simpson (UK), Miguel Sousa-Uva (Portugal), Alice V. Stanton (Ireland), Philippe van de Borne (Belgium), Panos Vardas (Greece), Massimo Volpe (Italy), Sven Wassmann (Germany), Stephan Windecker (Switzerland), Jose Luis Zamorano (Spain).The disclosure forms of all experts involved in the development of these Guidelines are available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines.

Blood pressure and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes and high cardiovascular risk

Aims

Optimal blood pressure for prevention of cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remains uncertain and there is concern for increased risk with low diastolic blood pressure (DBP). This study analysed the association between blood pressure and CV outcomes in high-risk patients with T2DM.

Methods and results

Patients with T2DM and elevated CV risk were enrolled in the Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in patients with diabetes mellitus-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 53 trial. Cardiovascular outcomes were compared in the biomarker subgroup (n = 12 175) after stratification by baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) and DBP. Adjusted risk was calculated by blood pressure stratum using clinical covariates plus N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and high-sensitivity troponin-T (hsTnT). Trends were tested using linear and quadratic models. Adjusted risk of the composite endpoint of CV death, myocardial infarction (MI), or ischaemic stroke showed U-shaped relationships with baseline SBP and DBP (Pquadratic ≤ 0.01) with nadirs at SBP 130-140 or DBP 80-90 mmHg. Diastolic blood pressure <60 mmHg was associated with increased risk of MI (adjusted hazard ratio 2.30; 95% confidence interval 1.50-3.53) relative to DBP 80-90 mmHg. Adjusted odds of hsTnT concentration ≥14 ng/L showed U-shaped relationships with SBP and DBP (Pquadratic ≤ 0.01). The relationships between low DBP, elevated hsTnT, and increased MI remained after exclusion of patients with prior heart failure or NT-proBNP >median, suggesting that the relationship was not due to confounding from diagnosed or undiagnosed heart failure.

Conclusions

In patients with diabetes and elevated CV risk, even after extensive adjustment for underlying disease burden, there was a persistent association for low DBP with subclinical myocardial injury and risk of MI.

Office, standardized and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure and renal function loss in renal transplant patients

OBJECTIVES

Hypertension is a risk factor for renal function loss in kidney transplant patients but there are still no longitudinal studies focusing on the relationship between ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring (ABPM) and the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) evolution over time in these patients.

METHODS

In a cohort of 260 renal transplant patients, we investigated the longitudinal relationship between repeated office BP measurements and simultaneous GFR measurements (on average 35 paired measurements per patient) and the relationship between baseline ABPM with the same outcome measure (by linear mixed models). Furthermore, we tested the prediction power of baseline ABPM and standardized BP measurements for a combined renal end point (GFR loss >30%, end-stage kidney disease or death) over a 3.7 years follow-up.

RESULTS

Longitudinal office BP measurements were inversely related with simultaneous GFR measurements and the same was true both for baseline daytime and night-time BP. (all P < 0.001). Baseline 24-h ABPM [hazard ratio (5 mmHg):1.11; 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.19] and night-time SBP [hazard ratio (5 mmHg):1.10; 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.17] predicted the combined renal end point and the predictive model based on night-time SBP provided a data-fit superior than that by daytime SBP.

CONCLUSION

In renal transplant patients, daytime and night-time SBP predict the risk of GFR loss overtime, and among the various BP metrics, night-time BP is the strongest indicator of the risk of renal function loss. Optimization of BP control and interventions targeting night-time BP may afford renal benefits in transplant patients, a hypothesis that remains to be tested in a clinical trial.

Diastolic blood pressure and risk profile in renal and cardiovascular diseases. Results from the SPRINT trial

The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of targeting a systolic blood pressure of <120 mmHg compared to <140 mmHg in selected hypertensive patients. Some evidence, however, suggests a J-curve for; diastolic blood pressure (DBP) particularly in subjects with cardiovascular (CV) and chronic kidney disease. We evaluated the risk of events in SPRINT with focus on these subgroups according to DBP. Mean DBP (±standard deviation) throughout follow-up time was calculated for each patient. Patients were then categorized into five groups according to mean DBP (<60 mmHg, 60-69 mmHg, 70-79 mmHg [reference], 80-89 mmHg, ≥90 mmHg); hazard ratio for outcomes was assessed overall and in the predefined subgroups. A higher risk for CV events was observed in the lower DBP range overall (hazard ratio 1.46, confidential interval 95% 1.1-1.95, P < .001), but not in the absence of pre-existing CV or renal disease. Indeed, such risk significantly increased above 80 mmHg in patients with CV disease and below 70 mmHg in those with chronic kidney disease for selected outcomes. DBP<70 mmHg particularly affected renal outcomes irrespective of renal status. Different risk profiles according to DBP appear to be related to specific clinical characteristics in SPRINT. These findings require further testing in dedicated trials with appropriate follow-up.

In the aftermath of SPRINT: further comparison of unattended automated office blood pressure measurement and 24-hour blood pressure monitoring

AIMS

Several papers reported that unattended automated office blood pressure (uAutoOBP) is closely related to daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). In the present study, we aim to study uAutoOBP and its relation to 24-hour ABPM and ABPM variability.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Stable treated hypertensive subjects were examined in two Czech academic hypertension centres. uAutoOBP was measured with the BP Tru device; attended BP three times with auscultatory method (AuscOBP) by the physician. ABPM was performed within one week from the clinical visit.

RESULTS

Data on 98 subjects aged 67.7 ± 9.3 years with 24-hour ABPM 120.3 ± 10.6/72.7 ± 7.9 mm Hg are reported. uAutoOBP was lower than 24-hour (by -5.2 ± 11.3/-0.5 ± 6.9 mm Hg) and daytime (by -6.7 ± 12.82.4 ± 8.0 mm Hg) ABPM and the individual variability of the difference was very large (up to 30 mm Hg). The correlation coefficients between ABPM and uAutoOBP were similar compared to AuscOBP (p ≥ .17). Variability of uAutoOBP, but not AuscOBP, readings during one clinical visit was related to short-term blood pressure variability of ABPM. The difference between AuscOBP and uAutoOBP was larger in patients with white-coat effect compared to other blood pressure control groups (25.1 ± 7.0 vs. 2.2 ± 10.3 mm Hg; p = .0036).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that uAutoOBP is not good predictor of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, not even of the daytime values. It might, however, indicate short-term blood pressure variability and, when compared with AuscOBP, also detect patients with white-coat effect.

SPRINT in context: meta-analysis of trials with baseline normotension and low levels of previous cardiovascular disease

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the effect of antihypertensive treatment in trials with baseline normotension and low levels of previous cardiovascular disease. To test if the results from SPRINT are compatible with those from other trials, and test the impact of SPRINT results on overall effect estimates.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with at least 1000 patient-years of follow-up, comparing antihypertensive treatment versus placebo, or different blood pressure goals against each other. Trials with at least 50% previous cardiovascular disease were excluded.

RESULTS

Sixteen trials, including 66 816 participants, were included in the meta-analyses. Mean baseline SBP was 138 mmHg, and mean difference between treatment arms was 5.5 mmHg. Antihypertensive treatment was associated with a neutral effect on all-cause mortality [relative risk 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92-1.05] and major cardiovascular events (0.97, 0.91-1.03). Results from SPRINT differed significantly from those of other trials (P = 0.012 for all-cause mortality; P = 0.016 for major cardiovascular events), but overall effect estimates were similar when SPRINT was excluded (1.01, 0.95-1.06 for all-cause mortality; 0.98, 0.93-1.03 for major cardiovascular events). Treatment was associated with reduced risk of secondary outcomes stroke (0.84, 0.71-1.00) and heart failure (0.88, 0.78-0.98), although heterogeneity was high in the stroke analysis (I = 54%).

CONCLUSION

SPRINT results are not representative for trials with baseline normotension and low levels of previous cardiovascular disease. Antihypertensive treatment does not protect against death or major cardiovascular events in this setting.

BP Measurement in Clinical Practice: Time to SPRINT to Guideline-Recommended Protocols

Hypertension is the leading chronic disease risk factor in the world and is especially important in patients with CKD, nearly 90% of whom have hypertension. Recently, in the Systolic BP Intervention Trial (SPRINT), intensive lowering of clinic systolic BP to a target <120 mm Hg, compared with a standard BP target of <140 mm Hg, reduced risk for cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality. However, because BP was measured unobserved using an automated device, some investigators have questioned the ability to translate SPRINT results into routine clinical practice, in which measurement of BP is typically less standardized. In this review, we discuss the BP measurement techniques used in major observational studies and clinical trials that form the evidence base for our current approach to treating hypertension, evaluate the effect of measurement technique on BP readings, and explore how ambulatory BP data from the SPRINT trial may inform this discussion. We conclude by arguing for implementation of guideline-recommended BP measurement techniques in routine clinical practice.

Has the SPRINT trial introduced a new blood-pressure goal in hypertension?

SPRINT is the first randomized, controlled trial showing that a systolic blood-pressure goal of <120 mmHg can be attained with cardiovascular benefits in a select group of patients with hypertension and an elevated cardiovascular risk with different origins. Although the patient population with characteristics like those in SPRINT makes up only 20-30% of the total hypertensive population, SPRINT is a landmark study that highlights the need to consider lower blood- pressure goals in the treatment of hypertension. Extending this study to include other patient populations and geographical areas is the next step for evaluating the benefits of strict blood-pressure targets and the generalizability of the SPRINT results. Importantly, the blood-pressure measurement method used in SPRINT differs from previous clinical trials, and raises the issue of whether a more accurate method should be used in clinical trials and if such method is feasible in clinical practice. This Perspectives article provides an analysis of the SPRINT data, focusing on patient characteristics, blood-pressure measurement method, and applicability of the SPRINT findings for future management guidelines.

Management of Hypertension in the Elderly and Frail Elderly

An elevated systolic but not diastolic blood pressure level represents a common finding in elderly patients and is associated with an increased risk for developing coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral artery disease, progressive cognitive decline and renal failure. Although less frequently, elderly patients manifest not only with systolic but also diastolic hypertension. Also in this case, the elderly patient will present an increased risk for developing hypertension-related abnormalities. Based on several trials conducted in patients ≥65 years and one single trial in patients ≥80 years the most recent European guidelines recommend antihypertensive treatment in elderly hypertensive patients with a systolic blood pressure ≥60 mmHg, with a systolic target between 140 and 150 mmHg. In fit elderly patients <80 years treatment may be considered at a systolic level ≥140 mmHg with a target SBP <140 mmHg if treatment is well tolerated. Despite of the above, at least three issues related to antihypertensive drug treatment in aged individuals are still debated, particularly after the publication of a recent large scale clinical trial that included also 2.636 patients ≥75 years and a study in nursing home residents ≥80 years, i.e. the frailest oldest patients: (1) the blood pressure threshold at which antihypertensive drug should be initiated, (2) the blood pressure targets of the therapeutic intervention, and (3) the approach to frail elderly hypertensive patients. This review will critically review the evidence available so far on these important issues as well as the position of current guidelines and consensus statements.