Prognostic Importance of On-Treatment Clinic and Ambulatory Blood Pressures in Resistant Hypertension: A Cohort Study

Risk of heart failure in ambulatory resistant hypertension: a meta-analysis of observational studies

The impact of ambulatory resistant hypertension (ARH) on the occurrence of heart failure (HF) is not yet completely known. We performed for the first time a meta-analysis, by using published data or available data from published databases, on the risk of HF in ARH. Patients with ARH (24-h BP ≥ 130/80 mmHg during treatment with ≥3 drugs) were compared with those with controlled hypertension (CH, clinic BP < 140/90 mmHg and 24-h BP < 130/80 mmHg regardless of the number of drugs used), white coat uncontrolled resistant hypertension (WCURH, clinic BP ≥ 140/90 mmHg and 24-h BP < 130/80 mmHg in treated patients) and ambulatory nonresistant hypertension (ANRH, 24-h BP ≥ 130/80 mmHg during therapy with ≤2 drugs). We identified six studies/databases including 21,365 patients who experienced 692 HF events. When ARH was compared with CH, WCURH, or ANRH, the overall adjusted hazard ratio for HF was 2.32 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.45-3.72), 1.72 (95% CI 1.36-2.17), and 2.11 (95% CI 1.40-3.17), respectively, (all P < 0.001). For some comparisons a moderate heterogeneity was found. Though we did not find variables that could explain the heterogeneity, sensitivity analyses demonstrated that none of the studies had a significant influential effect on the overall estimate. When we evaluated the potential presence of publication bias and small-study effect and adjusted for missing studies identified by Duval and Tweedie's method the estimates were slightly lower but remained significant. This meta-analysis shows that treated hypertensive patients with ARH are at approximately twice the risk of developing HF than other ambulatory BP phenotypes.

Resistant hypertension: consensus document from the Korean society of hypertension

Although reports vary, the prevalence of true resistant hypertension and apparent treatment-resistant hypertension (aTRH) has been reported to be 10.3% and 14.7%, respectively. As there is a rapid increase in the prevalence of obesity, chronic kidney disease, and diabetes mellitus, factors that are associated with resistant hypertension, the prevalence of resistant hypertension is expected to rise as well. Frequently, patients with aTRH have pseudoresistant hypertension [aTRH due to white-coat uncontrolled hypertension (WUCH), drug underdosing, poor adherence, and inaccurate office blood pressure (BP) measurements]. As the prevalence of WUCH is high among patients with aTRH, the use of out-of-office BP measurements, both ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM), is essential to exclude WUCH. Non-adherence is especially problematic, and methods to assess adherence remain limited and often not clinically feasible. Therefore, the use of HBPM and higher utilization of single-pill fixed-dose combination treatments should be emphasized to improve drug adherence. In addition, primary aldosteronism and symptomatic obstructive sleep apnea are quite common in patients with hypertension and more so in patients with resistant hypertension. Screening for these diseases is essential, as the treatment of these secondary causes may help control BP in patients who are otherwise difficult to treat. Finally, a proper drug regimen combined with lifestyle modifications is essential to control BP in these patients.

Dual Endothelin Antagonism with Aprocitentan as a Novel Therapeutic Approach for Resistant Hypertension

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Resistant hypertension (RH) defined as uncontrolled blood pressure despite the use of a combination of a renin-angiotensin system blocker, a calcium channel blocker, and a diuretic at maximally tolerated doses is associated with a substantially increased risk of cardiovascular and renal events. Despite targeting relevant pathophysiological pathways contributing to elevated blood pressure, approximately 10-15% of hypertensive patients remain above recommended blood pressure targets. Further optimization of blood pressure control is particularly challenging in patient populations who frequently present with RH such as elderly and patients with chronic kidney disease, due to the unfavorable safety profile of the recommended fourth-line therapy with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. This review explores the potential role of endothelin antagonists as an alternative fourth-line therapy. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite the well-described role of the endothelin pathway in the pathogenesis of hypertension, it is currently not targeted therapeutically. Recently however, main outcome data from the PRECISION study, a randomized placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, in patients with RH on guideline-recommended standardized single-pill background therapy convincingly demonstrated the safety and blood pressure-lowering efficacy of the dual endothelin antagonist Aprocitentan. Findings from the phase 3 PRECISION study could signify a turning point in the utilization of endothelin receptor antagonists as a standard treatment for patients with RH.

Prognostic Impact of On-Treatment Cumulative Ambulatory Blood Pressures for Adverse Macro- and Microvascular Outcomes in Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes: The Rio de Janeiro Type 2 Diabetes Cohort

BACKGROUND

The prognostic value of on-treatment mean cumulative ambulatory blood pressures (BPs) in type 2 diabetes has never been investigated. We aimed to assess it in a prospective cohort of 647 individuals with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Clinic-office and ambulatory BPs were measured at baseline and serially during follow-up. Multivariable Cox analyses assessed the associations between baseline and mean cumulative BPs with the occurrence of cardiovascular events, major adverse cardiovascular events, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and microvascular outcomes (microalbuminuria, renal failure, retinopathy, and peripheral neuropathy). C statistics and the integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) index evaluated the improvement in risk discrimination by using cumulative ambulatory BPs instead of baseline BPs.

RESULTS

Over a median follow-up of 10.6 years, there were 202 cardiovascular events (163 major adverse cardiovascular events), 254 all-cause deaths (118 cardiovascular); 125 individuals had microalbuminuria development/progression, 104 developed advanced renal failure, 159 had retinopathy, and 174 individuals had peripheral neuropathy development/progression. The risks associated with mean cumulative ambulatory BPs were in general higher than those associated with baseline BPs, particularly for cardiovascular (HR, 1.42 versus 1.25 for increments of 1 SD in 24-hour systolic blood pressure) and mortality outcomes (1.56 versus 1.26). Compared with cumulative clinic BPs, mean cumulative ambulatory BPs improved risk discrimination for most outcomes, with IDIs from 11% to 14% for major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality up to 24% to 26% for microalbuminuria and neuropathy.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with clinic-office BPs, mean cumulative ambulatory BPs during follow-up improve risk discrimination for most complications and mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Serial ambulatory BP monitoring shall be more widely used in clinical management.

Systolic Blood Pressure and Pulse Pressure Are Predictors of Future Cardiovascular Events in Patients with True Resistant Hypertension

Given the increased risk of cardiovascular events associated with resistant hypertension, predictive cardiovascular prognosis is extremely important. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is mandatory for resistant hypertension diagnosis, but its use for prognosis is scarce. This observational longitudinal study included 258 patients (mean age of 60.4 ± 11.2 years; 61.2% male), who underwent 24 h ABPM in a hypertension unit from 1999 to 2019. The outcomes were global cardiovascular events (cerebrovascular, coronary, and other cardiovascular events). The mean follow-up period was 6.0 ± 5.0 years. Sixty-eight cardiovascular events (61 nonfatal) were recorded. Patients who experienced cardiovascular events were generally older, with higher rates of chronic kidney disease and prior cardiovascular events. The 24 h systolic blood pressure (hazard ratio 1.44; 95% CI 1.10-1.88), night systolic blood pressure (1.35; 95% CI 1.01-1.80), and 24 h pulse pressure (2.07; 95% CI 1.17-3.67) were independent predictors of global cardiovascular events. Multivariate Cox analysis revealed a higher risk of future cardiovascular events, particularly in patients with a 24 h daytime and nighttime pulse pressure > 60 mm Hg with respective hazard ratios of 1.95; 95% CI 1.01-3.45; 2.15; 95% CI 1.21-3.83 and 2.07; 95% CI 1.17-3.67. In conclusion, APBM is a fundamental tool not only for the diagnosis of resistant hypertension, but also for predicting future cardiovascular events.

Relative prognostic importance of aortic and brachial blood pressures for cardiovascular and mortality outcomes in patients with resistant hypertension and diabetes: a two cohorts prospective study

OBJECTIVE

The prognostic importance of derived central/aortic blood pressures (BPs) in relation to brachial office and ambulatory BPs has never been investigated in patients with resistant hypertension (RHT) or type 2 diabetes (T2D). We aimed to evaluate it in two cohorts with 532 individuals with RHT and 467 with T2D (median follow-ups 4.4 and 7.3 years, respectively).

METHODS

Central/aortic pressure waveforms were estimated by radial tonometry by a type 1 device (SphygmoCor device/software), and other parameters of central hemodynamics (augmentation index and Buckberg indices) were calculated. Multivariate Cox regressions examined the associations between central and peripheral BPs with cardiovascular events incidence and mortality, and C -statistics and the integrated discrimination improvement index evaluated the improvement in risk discrimination.

RESULTS

During follow-up, there were 52 cardiovascular events and 51 all-cause deaths in the RHT and 104 and 137 in the T2D cohort. No aortic BP was better than its brachial counterpart in predicting risk or improving discrimination for any outcome in either cohort. In the RHT cohort, ambulatory BPs were superior to central and office-brachial BPs. Otherwise, the augmentation index in RHT (hazard ratios: 1.5, for 1-SD increment) and the Buckberg index in T2D (hazard ratios: 0.7-0.8) were independent predictors of cardiovascular/mortality outcomes, and improved risk discrimination (integrated discrimination improvement up to 25% in RHT and 15% in T2D).

CONCLUSION

Derived aortic BPs by a type 1 device did not improve cardiovascular/mortality risk prediction over brachial BPs in our cohorts of patients with RHT and T2D, but additional parameters of central hemodynamics may be useful.

Dual endothelin antagonist aprocitentan for resistant hypertension (PRECISION): a multicentre, blinded, randomised, parallel-group, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Resistant hypertension is associated with increased cardiovascular risk. The endothelin pathway has been implicated in the pathogenesis of hypertension, but it is currently not targeted therapeutically, thereby leaving this relevant pathophysiological pathway unopposed with currently available drugs. The aim of the study was to assess the blood pressure lowering efficacy of the dual endothelin antagonist aprocitentan in patients with resistant hypertension.

METHODS

PRECISION was a multicentre, blinded, randomised, parallel-group, phase 3 study, which was done in hospitals or research centres in Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia. Patients were eligible for randomisation if their sitting systolic blood pressure was 140 mm Hg or higher despite taking standardised background therapy consisting of three antihypertensive drugs, including a diuretic. The study consisted of three sequential parts: part 1 was the 4-week double-blind, randomised, and placebo-controlled part, in which patients received aprocitentan 12·5 mg, aprocitentan 25 mg, or placebo in a 1:1:1 ratio; part 2 was a 32-week single (patient)-blind part, in which all patients received aprocitentan 25 mg; and part 3 was a 12-week double-blind, randomised, and placebo-controlled withdrawal part, in which patients were re-randomised to aprocitentan 25 mg or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. The primary and key secondary endpoints were changes in unattended office systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 4 and from withdrawal baseline to week 40, respectively. Secondary endpoints included 24-h ambulatory blood pressure changes. The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03541174.

FINDINGS

The PRECISION study was done from June 18, 2018, to April 25, 2022. 1965 individuals were screened and 730 were randomly assigned. Of these 730 patients, 704 (96%) completed part 1 of the study; of these, 613 (87%) completed part 2 and, of these, 577 (94%) completed part 3 of the study. The least square mean (SE) change in office systolic blood pressure at 4 weeks was -15·3 (SE 0·9) mm Hg for aprocitentan 12·5 mg, -15·2 (0·9) mm Hg for aprocitentan 25 mg, and -11·5 (0·9) mm Hg for placebo, for a difference versus placebo of -3·8 (1·3) mm Hg (97·5% CI -6·8 to -0·8, p=0·0042) and -3·7 (1·3) mm Hg (-6·7 to -0·8; p=0·0046), respectively. The respective difference for 24 h ambulatory systolic blood pressure was -4·2 mm Hg (95% CI -6·2 to -2·1) and -5·9 mm Hg (-7·9 to -3·8). After 4 weeks of withdrawal, office systolic blood pressure significantly increased with placebo versus aprocitentan (5·8 mm Hg, 95% CI 3·7 to 7·9, p<0·0001). The most frequent adverse event was mild-to-moderate oedema or fluid retention, occurring in 9%, 18%, and 2% for patients receiving aprocitentan 12·5 mg, 25 mg, and placebo, during the 4-week double-blind part, respectively. This event led to discontinuation in seven patients treated with aprocitentan. During the trial, a total of 11 treatment-emergent deaths occurred, none of which were regarded by the investigators to be related to study treatment.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with resistant hypertension, aprocitentan was well tolerated and superior to placebo in lowering blood pressure at week 4 with a sustained effect at week 40.

FUNDING

Idorsia Pharmaceuticals and Janssen Biotech.

Prognostic Value of Changes in Aortic Stiffness for Cardiovascular Outcomes and Mortality in Resistant Hypertension: a Cohort Study

The prognostic importance of changes in aortic stiffness for the occurrence of adverse cardiovascular outcomes and mortality has never been investigated in patients with resistant hypertension. We aimed to evaluate it in a prospective cohort of 442 resistant hypertension individuals. Changes in aortic stiffness were assessed by 2 carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (CF-PWV) measurements performed over a median time interval of 4.7 years. Multivariate Cox analysis examined the associations between changes in CF-PWV (evaluated as continuous variables and categorized into quartiles and as increased/persistently high or reduced/persistently low) and the occurrence of total cardiovascular events (CVEs), major adverse CVEs, and cardiovascular/all-cause mortalities. During a median follow-up of 4.1 years after the second CF-PWV measurement, there were 49 total CVEs (42 major adverse CVEs) and 53 all-cause deaths (32 cardiovascular). As continuous variables, increments in absolute and relative changes in CF-PWV were associated with higher risks of CVEs and major adverse CVEs occurrence, but not of mortality. Divided into quartiles of CF-PWV changes, risks increased in the third and fourth quartile subgroups in relation to the reference first quartile subgroup (those with greatest CF-PWV reductions) for all outcomes. Patients who either increased or persisted with high CF-PWV had excess risks of cardiovascular morbidity/mortality, with hazard ratios ranging from 2.7 to 3.0, in relation to those who reduced or persisted with low CF-PWV values. In conclusion, reducing or preventing progression of aortic stiffness was associated with significant cardiovascular protection in patients with resistant hypertension, suggesting that it may be an additional clinical target of antihypertensive treatment.

Medication Adherence and Treatment-Resistant Hypertension in Newly Treated Hypertensive Patients in the United Arab Emirates

(1) Background: The present study aimed to analyze medication adherence and its effect on blood pressure (BP) control and assess the prevalence of treatment-resistant hypertension (TRH) among newly treated hypertensive patients in the United Arab Emirates (UAE); (2) Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted to evaluate 5308 naïve hypertensive adults registered for the treatment across Abu Dhabi Health Services (SEHA) clinics in Abu Dhabi in 2017. After collecting data regarding basic details and BP measurements, patients were followed up for six months. Patients who did not reach BP targets despite taking three or more antihypertensive medications were defined as TRH; (3) Results: The overall adherence to antihypertensive treatment was 42%. At 6-month, a significant reduction in BP was observed in patients adherent to medications (systolic: -4.5 mm Hg and diastolic: -5.9 mm Hg) than those who were nonadherent to antihypertensive therapy (1.15 mm Hg and 3.59 mm Hg). Among 189 patients using three or more antihypertensive medications for six months, only 34% (n = 64) were adherent to the treatment, and only 13.7% (n = 26) reached the BP target. The prevalence of TRH was 20.1%; (4) Conclusions: Medication adherence and BP control among the participants were suboptimal. The study shows a high prevalence of TRH among newly treated hypertensives in the UAE. More extraordinary efforts toward improving adherence to antihypertensive therapy and more focus toward BP control and TRH are urgently needed.

Prognostic Impact of Home Blood Pressures for Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes and Mortality in Patients With Resistant Hypertension: A Prospective Cohort Study

[Figure: see text].

Associations Between Achieved Ambulatory Blood Pressures and Its Changes With Adverse Outcomes in Resistant Hypertension: Was There a J-Curve for Ambulatory Blood Pressures?

[Figure: see text].

Guideline-Driven Management of Hypertension: An Evidence-Based Update

Several important findings bearing on the prevention, detection, and management of hypertension have been reported since publication of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Blood Pressure Guideline. This review summarizes and places in context the results of relevant observational studies, randomized clinical trials, and meta-analyses published between January 2018 and March 2021. Topics covered include blood pressure measurement, patient evaluation for secondary hypertension, cardiovascular disease risk assessment and blood pressure threshold for drug therapy, lifestyle and pharmacological management, treatment target blood pressure goal, management of hypertension in older adults, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, resistant hypertension, and optimization of care using patient, provider, and health system approaches. Presenting new information in each of these areas has the potential to increase hypertension awareness, treatment, and control which remain essential for the prevention of cardiovascular disease and mortality in the future.

Associations of the nocturnal blood pressure fall and morning surge with cardiovascular events and mortality in individuals with resistant hypertension

OBJECTIVE

The prognostic importance of the nocturnal blood pressure (BP) fall and early-morning surge were scarcely investigated in patients with resistant hypertension (RHT). We investigated them in a prospective cohort of 1726 RHT individuals.

METHODS

The nocturnal fall and morning surge were calculated from the baseline ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and also as mean cumulative values using all ABPMs performed during follow-up. Dipping patterns (normal, extreme, reduced, and reverse) were defined by classic cut-off values of the night-to-day ratio, while MS (difference between early-morning and night-time BP) was categorized into quartiles and at the extremes of its distribution (5th, 10th, 90th, and 95th percentiles). The primary outcomes were total cardiovascular events (CVEs), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), all-cause and cardiovascular mortalities. Multivariate Cox analyses examined the associations between nocturnal BP fall and morning surge and outcomes.

RESULTS

Over a median follow-up of 8.3 years, 417 CVEs occurred (358 MACEs), and 391 individuals died (233 cardiovascular deaths). Reduced and reverse dipping patterns were significant predictors of CVEs and MACEs, with hazard ratios between 1.6 and 2.5, whereas extreme dipping was a protective factor in younger individuals (hazard ratios 0.3--0.4) but a hazardous factor in elderly (hazard ratios 3.7--5.0) and in individuals with previous cardiovascular diseases (hazard ratios 2.6--4.4). No morning surge parameter was predictive of any outcome in fully adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSION

Abnormal dipping patterns but not the early-morning BP surge, were important prognostic markers for future cardiovascular morbidity in RHT patients. The prognosis of extreme dippers depended on age and the presence of cardiovascular diseases.

Office blood pressure threshold of 130/80 mmHg better predicts uncontrolled out-of-office blood pressure in apparent treatment-resistant hypertension

The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of office blood pressure (BP) threshold of 140/90 and 130/80 mmHg for correctly identifying uncontrolled out‐of‐office BP in apparent treatment‐resistant hypertension (aTRH). We analyzed 468 subjects from a prospectively enrolled cohort of patients with resistant hypertension in South Korea (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03540992). Resistant hypertension was defined as office BP ≥ 130/80 mmHg with three different classes of antihypertensive medications including thiazide‐type/like diuretics, or treated hypertension with four or more different classes of antihypertensive medications. We conducted different types of BP measurements including office BP, automated office BP (AOBP), home BP, and ambulatory BP. We defined uncontrolled out‐of‐office BP as daytime BP ≥ 135/85 mmHg and/or home BP ≥ 135/85 mmHg. Among subjects with office BP < 140/90 mmHg and subjects with office BP < 130/80 mmHg, 66% and 55% had uncontrolled out‐of‐office BP, respectively. The prevalence of controlled and masked uncontrolled hypertension was lower, and the prevalence of white‐coat and sustained uncontrolled hypertension was higher, with a threshold of 130/80 mmHg than of 140/90 mmHg, for both office BP and AOBP. The office BP threshold of 130/80 mmHg was better able to diagnose uncontrolled out‐of‐office BP than 140/90 mmHg, and the net reclassification improvement (NRI) was 0.255. The AOBP threshold of 130/80 mmHg also revealed better diagnostic accuracy than 140/90 mmHg, with NRI of 0.543. The office BP threshold of 130/80 mmHg showed better than 140/90 mmHg in terms of the correspondence to out‐of‐office BP in subjects with aTRH.

Prevalence and prognosis of the 2018 vs 2008 AHA definitions of apparent treatment-resistant hypertension in high-risk hypertension patients

Resistant hypertension was defined according to the 2008 scientific statement as office blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mm Hg and the 2018 scientific statement as office blood pressure ≥ 130/80 mm Hg. We investigated the prognostic significance of lowered blood pressure threshold for defining resistant hypertension in the 2018 American Heart Association scientific statement compared with that in the 2008 scientific statement. The participants of this prospective cohort were enrolled from December 2013 to November 2018. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) were defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, and heart failure hospitalization. Renal event was defined as a ≥ 50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate or progression to end-stage renal disease. A total of 206 patients among 2018 (10.2%) were diagnosed with resistant hypertension by the previous definition (≥140/90 mm Hg), and 276 patients among 2011 (13.7%) were diagnosed with resistant hypertension by the updated definition (≥130/80 mm Hg). During a median follow-up of 4.5 years, 33 MACEs (3.7 per 1000 patient-years) and 164 renal events (19.9 per 1000 patient-years) occurred in the study population. Treatment-resistant hypertension groups had a higher incidence rate of MACEs and renal events than the control groups. In multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, resistant hypertension by both definitions was significantly associated with increased risk of MACE and renal event. Both the previous and updated definitions of resistant hypertension were significant predictors of MACEs and renal events. This finding supports the adoption of the updated criteria for resistant hypertension in clinical practice.

Refractory Hypertension and Risks of Adverse Cardiovascular Events and Mortality in Patients With Resistant Hypertension: A Prospective Cohort Study

Background

The long‐term prognosis of refractory hypertension (RfHT), defined as failure to control blood pressure (BP) levels despite an antihypertensive treatment with ≥5 medications including a diuretic and mineraloreceptor antagonist, has never been evaluated.

Methods and Results

In a prospective cohort study with 1576 patients with resistant hypertension, patients were classified as refractory or nonrefractory based on uncontrolled clinic (or office) and ambulatory BPs during the first 2 years of follow‐up. Multivariate Cox analyses examined the associations between the diagnosis of RfHT and the occurrence of total cardiovascular events (CVEs), major adverse CVEs, and cardiovascular and all‐cause mortality, after adjustments for other risk factors. In total, 135 patients (8.6%) had RfHT by uncontrolled ambulatory BPs and 167 (10.6%) by uncontrolled clinic BPs. Over a median Follow‐Up of 8.9 years, 338 total CVEs occurred (288 major adverse CVEs, including 124 myocardial infarctions, and 96 strokes), and 331 patients died, 196 from cardiovascular causes. The diagnosis of RfHT, using either classification by clinic or ambulatory BPs, was associated with significantly higher risks of major adverse CVEs, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke incidence, with hazard ratios varying from 1.54 to 2.14 in relation to patients with resistant nonrefractory hypertension; however, the classification based on ambulatory BPs was better in identifying higher risk patients than the classification based on clinic BP levels.

Conclusions

Patients with RfHT, particularly when defined by uncontrolled ambulatory BP levels, had higher risks of major adverse CVEs and mortality in relation to patients with resistant but nonrefractory hypertension, supporting the concept of refractory hypertension as a true extreme phenotype of antihypertensive treatment failure.

Special Article - The management of resistant hypertension: A 2020 update

Resistant hypertension (RH) induces higher morbidity and mortality due to cardiovascular disease and stroke than hypertension without treatment resistance. New guidelines define RH as blood pressure (BP) ≥130/80 mmHg in a patient taking ≥3 antihypertensive agents of different classes or BP <130/80 mmHg in a patient taking ≥4 antihypertensive drugs. According to the new definition, pseudo-resistance due to error in BP measurement, white coat effect and medication nonadherence must be excluded to make the diagnosis of RH. This 2020 update focuses on the lifestyle and antihypertensive drug management of RH and includes recent proof-of-principle trials of renal nerve ablation in hypertension. Stepwise evidence-based pharmacologic treatment of RH includes optimization of the 3-drug regimen, substitution of a thiazide-like for a thiazide diuretic and addition of a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist as the fourth drug. Non-evidence-based recommendations include addition of a β-blocker as the fifth drug and switching to a minoxidil-based regimen as the final step in achieving BP control.