Time spent at blood pressure target and the risk of death and cardiovascular diseases

Blood Pressure Time in Target Range and its Impact on Clinical Outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To examine the concept of time in target range for blood pressure (BP) management, exploring its calculation methods, implications for patient outcomes, and potential use in patient care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent post-hoc analyses of clinical trials and observational studies highlight the importance of BP time in target range in predicting cardiovascular outcomes. Higher time in target range correlates with reduced risks of major adverse cardiovascular events including heart failure, stroke, myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality. Additionally, longer time in target range decreases the risk of incident atrial fibrillation and risk of developing dementia. BP time in target range is a novel metric offering valuable insights into BP control and its impact on clinical outcomes. Higher time in target range is consistently associated with better cardiovascular outcomes across various patient populations. However, the clinical application of BP time in target range requires further investigation through prospective clinical trials and real-world studies. Integrating wearable devices for continuous BP monitoring could enhance the practical utility of BP time in target range in hypertension management.

Blood pressure time at target and its prognostic value for cardiovascular outcomes: a scoping review

The proportion of time that blood pressure (BP) readings are at treatment target levels, commonly referred to as time at target or time in therapeutic range (BP-TTR), is emerging as a useful measure for evaluating hypertension management effectiveness and assessing longitudinal BP control. However, method of determination for BP-TTR differs across studies. This review identifies variations in BP-TTR determination methodologies and its potential prognostic value for cardiovascular outcomes. Following PRISMA extension for scoping reviews guidelines, literature was systematically searched in Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL. Relevant clinical trials, observational studies, cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, and systematic reviews published in English were screened. Of 369 articles identified, 17 articles were included. Studies differed in the BP targets used (e.g., BP < 140/90 mmHg or 130/80 mmHg; systolic BP within 110-130 mmHg or 120-140 mmHg), BP-TTR measurement duration (range 24 h to 15 years), and calculation method (linear interpolation method, n = 12 [71%]; proportion of BP readings at target, n = 5 [29%]). Regardless of method, studies consistently demonstrated that higher BP-TTR was associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular outcomes. Six of eight studies found the association was independent of mean achieved BP or last measured BP. Despite variation in methods of BP-TTR determination, these studies demonstrated the potential prognostic value of BP-TTR for cardiovascular outcomes beyond current BP control measures. We recommend standardization of BP-TTR methodology, with preference for linear interpolation method when BP measurements are few or less frequent, and proportion of BP readings method when large number of BP readings are available.

Optimizing time-in-target-range assessment for blood pressure: insights from a large-scale study with continual cuffless monitoring

Introduction

Blood pressure (BP) time-in-target-range (TTR) is an emerging predictor of cardiovascular risk. Conventional BP methods are fundamentally unable to provide an optimal assessment of TTR, using irregular measurements separated by lengthy intervals. We investigated the optimal duration and frequency for reliable, practical TTR assessment in clinical settings using continual monitoring.

Methods

This retrospective study analyzed 2.3 million BP readings from 5,189 European home users (55 ± 11 years, 82% male, BMI 28.0 ± 5.8) using a cuffless BP monitor (Aktiia SA). Systolic BP (SBP) data over 15 consecutive days were assessed (29 ± 11 readings/subject/24-h; 434 + 132 readings/subject/15-day). Subjects were classified into risk-related TTR groups based on 15-day SBP data (24-h, target 90-125 mmHg; ≥6 daytime readings). Various measurement frequencies and durations (1-14 days; 24-h/daytime; 2, 4 or ≥ 6 readings/day) were compared to this reference. Two specific configurations paralleling ambulatory ("One-Day-24 h") and home ("One-Week-Daytime") BP monitoring were selected for detailed analysis.

Results

The reference TTR classified 63.0% of the subjects as high risk, 19.0% intermediate, and 18.0% low. "One-Day-24 h" schedule inaccurately classified 26% of subjects compared to the reference TTR, and "One-Week-Daytime" schedule inaccurately classified 45%. Classification accuracy with both schedules was high for subjects with very low or very high reference TTR, but poor otherwise. Accuracy of ≥90% in TTR classification only occurred with 7 days of continual 24-h monitoring.

Discussion

For the first time, with the benefit of a cuffless device that measures BP with sufficient frequency and duration, practical use of TTR is enabled as a potentially enhanced metric to manage hypertension.

Combined effect of time in target range and variability of systolic blood pressure on cardiovascular outcomes and mortality in patients with hypertension: A prospective cohort study

Time in target range (TTR) and blood pressure variability (BPV) of systolic blood pressure (SBP) are independent risk factors for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all-cause mortality in hypertensive patients. However, the association of the combination of low TTR and high BPV of SBP with the risk of MACE and all-cause mortality is unclear. This study sought to investigate the combined effect of the TTR and BPV on the risk of MACE and all-cause mortality in patients with hypertension. A total of 11 496 hypertensive patients from the Kailuan cohort study were included in our study. All participants were divided into four groups according to their TTR and BPV levels. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to calculate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for incident MACE and all-cause mortality. During a median follow-up of 5.64 years, 839 MACEs (included 99 cases of myocardial infarction, 591 cases of stroke, and 191 cases of heart failure) and 621 deaths occurred. Compared with the high-TTR and low-BPV group, the HRs (95% CI) of MACE and all-cause mortality were 1.309 (1.025-1.671) and 1.842 (1.373-2.473) for the high-TTR and high-BPV group, 1.692 (1.347-2.125) and 1.731 (1.298-2.309) for the low-TTR & low-BPV group, 2.132 (1.728-2.629) and 2.247 (1.722-2.932) for the low-TTR & high-BPV group. Our study suggests that the combination of low TTR and high BPV of SBP was associated with a higher risk of MACE and all-cause mortality in patients with hypertension.

Systolic Blood Pressure and Survival to Very Old Age: Results From the Women's Health Initiative

BACKGROUND

The relationship between systolic blood pressure (SBP) and longevity is not fully understood. We aimed to determine which SBP levels in women ≥65 years of age with or without blood pressure medication were associated with the highest probability of surviving to 90 years of age.

METHODS

The study population consisted of 16 570 participants enrolled in the Women's Health Initiative who were eligible to survive to 90 years of age by February 28, 2020, without a history of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or cancer. Blood pressure was measured at baseline (1993 through 1998) and then annually through 2005. The outcome was defined as survival to 90 years of age with follow-up. Absolute probabilities of surviving to 90 years of age were estimated for all combinations of SBP and age using generalized additive logistic regression modeling. The SBP that maximized survival was estimated for each age, and a 95% CI was generated.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 19.8 years, 9723 of 16 570 women (59%) survived to 90 years of age. Women with an SBP between 110 and 130 mm Hg at attained ages of 65, 70, 75, and 80 years had a 38% (95% CI, 34%-48%), 54% (52%-56%), 66% (64%-67%), or 75% (73%-78%) absolute probability to survive to 90 years of age, respectively. The probability of surviving to 90 years of age was lower for greater SBP levels. Women at the attained age of 80 years with 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, or 100% time in therapeutic range (defined as an SBP between 110 and 130 mm Hg) had a 66% (64%-69%), 68% (67%-70%), 71% (69%-72%), 73% (71%-74%), 75% (72%-77%), or 77% (74%-79%) absolute survival probability to 90 years of age.

CONCLUSIONS

For women >65 years of age with low cardiovascular disease and other chronic disease risk, an SBP level <130 mm Hg was found to be associated with longevity. These findings reinforce current guidelines targeting an SBP target <130 mm Hg in older women.

Does renal denervation require cardiovascular outcome-driven data?

Hypertension is a major driver of cardiovascular disease with a prevalence of 32-34% in adults worldwide. This poses a formidable unmet challenge for healthcare systems, highlighting the need for enhanced treatment strategies. Since 2017, eight major sham-controlled randomised controlled trials have examined the effectiveness and safety of renal denervation (RDN) as therapy for BP control. Although most trials demonstrated a reduction in systolic 24-hour/daytime ambulatory BP compared to control groups, open to discussion is whether major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)-driven RDN trials are necessary or whether the proof of BP reduction as a surrogate for better cardiovascular outcomes is sufficient. We conducted an analysis of the statistical methods used in various trials to assess endpoint definitions and determine the necessity for MACE-driven outcome data. Such comprehensive analysis provides further evidence to confidently conclude that RDN significantly reduces blood pressure compared to sham controls. Importantly, this enables the interpolation of RDN trial endpoints with other studies that report on outcome data, such as pharmacological trials which demonstrate a significant reduction in MACE risk with a decrease in BP. Moreover, limitations associated with directly evaluating outcome data further support the use of BP as a surrogate endpoint. For example, conducting lengthier trials with larger numbers of participants to ensure robust statistical power presents a substantial challenge to evaluating outcome data. Thus, in light of the crucial need to tackle hypertension, there are notable advantages of considering BP as a surrogate for outcome data.

Late outcomes of renal denervation are more favourable than early ones: facts or fancies?

Following second-generation randomized trials, there is evidence that renal denervation (RDN) decreases blood pressure (BP), although to a lesser extent than suggested in the initial controlled and observational studies. The recent publication of the 36-month follow-up of the Symplicity HTN-3 trial has raised expectations, suggesting increasing, late benefits of the procedure, despite initially negative results. These findings come after those obtained at 36 months in the sham-controlled trial SPYRAL HTN-ON MED and in the Global Symplicity Registry. However, they are susceptible to biases inherent in observational studies (after unblinding for sham-control) and non-random, substantial attrition of treatment groups at 36 months, and used interpolation of missing BPs. More importantly, in SPYRAL HTN-ON MED and Symplicity HTN-3, long-term BP changes in patients from the initial RDN group were compared with those in a heterogeneous control group, including both control patients who did not benefit from RDN and patients who eventually crossed over to RDN. In crossover patients, the last BP before RDN was imputed to subsequent follow-up. In Symplicity HTN-3, this particular approach led to the claim of increasing long-term benefits of RDN. However, comparison of BP changes in patients from the RDN group and control patients who did not undergo RDN, without imputation of BPs from crossover patients, does not support this view. The good news is that despite the suggestion of sympathetic nerve regrowth after RDN in some animal models, there is no strong signal in favour of a decreasing effect of RDN over time, up to 24 or even 36 months. Still, current data do not support a long-term increase in the effect of RDN and the durability of RDN-related BP reduction remains to be formally demonstrated.

Update on advanced interventional neuromodulatory approaches to lower blood pressure

Herein, we review interventional peripheral neuromodulatory approaches to reduce blood pressure (BP), specifically focusing on catheter-based renal denervation (RDN), as well as the latest data from recent clinical trials underpinning its clinical use. Given the apparent failure of established lifestyle measures and pharmacologic BP-lowering approaches to improve hypertension (HTN) control rates, the past decade has seen remarkable scientific efforts to explore the utility of interventional strategies for BP management. Experimental studies and human clinical trials have demonstrated the crucial role of the sympathetic nervous system in the development and mainenance of HTN - consequently, most recent interventional technologies aimed primarily at modulating neural pathways. Advanced approaches that were rigorously tested in human studies include RDN, endovascular baroreflex amplification, baroreflex activation therapy and cardiac neuromodulation stimulation.Amongst these, RDN is by far the most established technology. With recent robust evidence from clinical trials and real-world data showing the safety and efficacy of both ultrasound and radiofrequency-based approaches, a recent clinical consensus statement of the European Society of Cardiology Council on Hypertension and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions concludes that RDN represents an ancillary therapeutic option in patients with uncontrolled resistant HTN confirmed by ambulatory blood pressure measurement and in spite of attention to lifestyle changes and optimised pharmacological treatment. Furthermore, RDN could alos be considered for patienst unlikley to adhere to or tolerate long-term antihypertensive drug treatment. Very recent data indicate long-term safety and efficacy up to 10 years. Appropriate implementation of RDN into clinical practice is now warranted.For all other interventions additional data from adequately designed human studies are required to establish their safety and clinical utility for potential future use in routine practice.

Transforming blood pressure control in primary care through a novel remote decision support strategy based on wearable blood pressure monitoring: The NEXTGEN-BP randomized trial protocol

BACKGROUND

Despite high blood pressure being the leading preventable risk factor for death, only 1 in 3 patients achieve target blood pressure control. Key contributors to this problem are clinical inertia and uncertainties in relying on clinic blood pressure measurements to make treatment decisions.

METHODS

The NEXTGEN-BP open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial will investigate the efficacy, safety, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of a wearable blood pressure monitor-based care strategy for the treatment of hypertension, compared to usual care, in lowering clinic blood pressure over 12 months. NEXTGEN-BP will enroll 600 adults with high blood pressure, treated with 0 to 2 antihypertensive medications. Participants attending primary care practices in Australia will be randomized 1:1 to the intervention of a wearable-based remote care strategy or to usual care. Participants in the intervention arm will undergo continuous blood pressure monitoring using a wrist-wearable cuffless device (Aktiia, Switzerland) and participate in 2 telehealth consultations with their primary care practitioner (general practitioner [GP]) at months 1 and 2. Antihypertensive medication will be up-titrated by the primary care practitioner at the time of telehealth consults should the percentage of daytime blood pressure at target over the past week be <90%, if clinically tolerated. Participants in the usual care arm will have primary care consultations according to usual practice. The primary outcome is the difference between intervention and control in change in clinic systolic blood pressure from baseline to 12 months. Secondary outcomes will be assessed at month 3 and month 12, and include acceptability to patients and practitioners, cost-effectiveness, safety, medication adherence and patient engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

NEXTGEN-BP will provide evidence for the effectiveness and safety of a new paradigm of wearable cuffless monitoring in the management of high blood pressure in primary care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12622001583730.

Uncontrolled blood pressure and therapeutic inertia in treated hypertensive patients: A retrospective cohort study using a UK general practice database

Uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) and therapeutic inertia pose significant challenges in effectively managing hypertension. This study objective was to quantify levels of uncontrolled BP and therapeutic inertia among patients treated for hypertension in primary care. This retrospective cohort study used data recorded by general practitioners from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink database. Adults with primary hypertension who received a recorded prescription for any antihypertensive drug between January 2015 and June 2017 (index date) were included, with a follow-up of 18 months. Primary outcomes included the percentage of patients with uncontrolled BP (defined as systolic BP ≥140 mmHg or diastolic BP ≥90 mmHg) and of apparent therapeutic inertia (defined as two consecutive uncontrolled BP records without treatment change) during follow-up. Finally, of 581 260 patients receiving antihypertensive drug(s), 37.2% (n = 216 014) had uncontrolled BP at the index date and 30.3% (n = 175 955) had no record of BP at this date. During follow-up, 59.2% had ≥1 record of uncontrolled BP, in 22% all records showed uncontrolled BP, and 12.8% had no record of BP. Among those with uncontrolled BP at the index date, 72.9% had ≥1 record of uncontrolled BP during follow-up, and in 28.3% all records showed uncontrolled BP. Therapeutic inertia was observed in 33.1% of patients overall, and in 55.7% of those with uncontrolled BP at the index date. In conclusion, BP recording was infrequent, possibly reflecting both a low frequency of measurement and potential under-recording. Uncontrolled BP and therapeutic inertia appear to be widespread in UK general practice.

Systolic Blood Pressure and Survival to Very Old Age. Results from the Women's Health Initiative

Background

The association between systolic blood pressure (SBP) and longevity is not fully understood. We aimed to determine survival probabilities to age 90 for various SBP levels among women aged ≥ 65 years with or without BP medication.

Methods

We analyzed blood pressure data from participants in the Women's Health Initiative (n=16,570) who were aged 65 or older and without history of cardiovascular disease, diabetes or cancer. Blood pressure was measured at baseline (1993-1998) and then annually through 2005. The outcome was defined as survival to age 90 with follow-up until February 28, 2020.

Results

During a follow-up of 18 years, 9,723 (59%) of 16,570 women survived to age 90. The SBP associated with the highest probability of survival was about 120mmHg regardless of age. Compared to an SBP between 110 and 130 mmHg, women with uncontrolled SBP had a lower survival probability across all age groups and with or without BP medication. A 65-year-old women on BP medication with an interpolated SBP between 110 and 130 mmHg in 80% of the first 5 years of follow-up had a 31% (95% confidence interval, 24%, 38%) absolute survival probability. For those with 20% time in range, the probability was 21% (95% confidence interval, 16%, 26%).

Conclusions

An SBP level below 130 mmHg was found to be associated with longevity among older women. The longer SBP was controlled at a level between 110 and 130 mmHg, the higher the survival probability to age 90. Preventing age-related rises in SBP and increasing the time with controlled BP levels constitute important measures for achieving longevity.

Longer time in blood pressure target range improves cardiovascular outcomes among patients with Type 2 diabetes: A secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial

AIMS

To examine the prognostic value of time in target range (TIR) with adverse outcomes and validate it with common blood pressure (BP) metrics among patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

We performed a post hoc analysis of the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) trial. TIR for each subject was calculated using linear interpolation and an SBP target range of 110 to 130 mmHg. Cox models were used to assess the association of TIR and other BP metrics with the rate of clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A higher TIR (61.9-100.0 %) was associated with a 46 % reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (hazard ratio [HR]:0.54; 95 % CI: 0.43, 0.67) compared with TIR 0-22.9 %. Results were similar for stroke (0.19; 0.10, 0.36), myocardial infarction (0.67; 0.51, 0.89), heart failure (0.47; 0.33, 0.66), cardiovascular death (0.63; 0.42, 0.93) and all-cause mortality (0.70; 0.54, 0.91). Further analyses suggested a curvilinear association of TIR with MACE, and this association was independent with baseline, final SBP, mean SBP, or visit-to-visit SBP variability.

CONCLUSIONS

Longer TIR is associated with lower cardiovascular risk and may add value as an outcome measure for hypertension control studies among patients with diabetes.

Systolic Blood Pressure Time in Target Range and Major Adverse Kidney and Cardiovascular Events

BACKGROUND

Whether time-in-target range (TTR) for systolic blood pressure (SBP) associates with adverse kidney and cardiovascular events remains incompletely understood.

METHODS

This study included participants in 2 clinical trials that compared intensive (<120 mm Hg) and standard (<140 mm Hg) SBP lowering. SBP-TTR for months 0 to 3 was calculated using therapeutic ranges of 110 to 130 mm Hg and 120 to 140 mm Hg for the intensive and standard arms, respectively. Adverse kidney events included the composite of dialysis, kidney transplant, serum creatinine >3.3 mg/dL, sustained eGFR <15 mL/(min·1.73 m2), or sustained eGFR decline >40%. Adverse cardiovascular events included myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and cardiovascular death. Adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate the association between SBP-TTR and kidney and cardiovascular events.

RESULTS

Participants with higher TTR were younger and less likely to have preexisting cardiovascular disease. Compared with participants with TTR of 0%, the risk of adverse kidney events was lower for participants with TTR of >0% to 43% (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.57 [0.42-0.76]; P<0.001), 43% to <70% (0.57 [0.42-0.78]; P=0.001), 70% to <100% (0.53 [0.38-0.74]; P<0.001), and 100% (0.33 [0.20-0.57]; P<0.001) in fully adjusted models. The risk of major adverse cardiovascular events was lower for participants with TTR of >0% to 43% (0.66 [0.52-0.83]; P=0.001), 43% to <70% (0.70 [0.55-0.90]; P=0.005), 70% to <100% (0.65 [0.50-0.84]; P=0.001), or 100% (0.56 [0.39-0.80]; P=0.001) compared with those with TTR of 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher SBP-TTR associates with lower risks of adverse kidney and cardiovascular events in adults with hypertension. SBP-TTR may be a potential therapeutic target and quality metric.

Factors Associated With Achievement of Blood Pressure, Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C), and Glycemic Targets for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases Among High Cardiovascular Risk Malaysians in Primary Care

INTRODUCTION

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) remain the world's leading cause of death. About half of Malaysian adults have at least 2 risk factors; thus, rigorous primary preventions are crucial to prevent the first cardiovascular (CV) event. This study aimed to determine the achievement of treatment targets and factors associated with it among high CV risk individuals.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included 390 participants from a primary care clinic in Selangor, Malaysia, between February and June 2022. The inclusion criteria were high-CV risk individuals, that is, Framingham risk score >20%, diabetes without target organ damage, stage 3 kidney disease, and very high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >4.9 mmol/L or blood pressure (BP) >180/110 mmHg. Individuals with existing CVD were excluded. The treatment targets were BP <140/90 mmHg (≤135/75 for diabetics), LDL-C <2.6 mmol/L, and HbA1c ≤6.5%. Multiple logistic regressions determined the association between sociodemographic, clinical characteristics, health literacy, and medication adherence with the achievements of each target.

RESULTS

About 7.2% achieved all treatment targets. Of these, 35.1% reached systolic and diastolic (46.7%) BP targets. About 60.2% and 28.2% achieved optimal LDL-C and HbA1c, respectively. Working participants had lower odds of having optimal systolic (aOR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.13-0.90) and diastolic (aOR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.17-0.96) BP. Those who adhered to treatments were more likely to achieve LDL-C and HbA1c targets; (aOR = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.10-2.69) and (aOR = 2.46, 95% CI: 1.25-4.83), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The control of risk factors among high CV risk patients in this study was suboptimal. Urgent measures such as improving medication adherence are warranted.

Prediabetes and incident heart failure in hypertensive patients: Results from the Swedish Primary Care Cardiovascular Database

BACKGROUNDS AND AIMS

The cardiovascular risk conferred by concomitant prediabetes in hypertension is unclear. We aimed to examine the impact of prediabetes on incident heart failure (HF) and all-cause mortality, and to describe time in therapeutic blood pressure range (TTR) in a hypertensive real-world primary care population.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this retrospective cohort study, 9628 hypertensive individuals with a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) in 2006-2010 but no diabetes, cardiovascular or renal disease were followed to 2016; median follow-up was 9 years. Prediabetes was defined as FPG 5.6-6.9 mmol/L, and in a secondary analysis as 6.1-6.9 mmol/L. Study outcomes were HF and all-cause mortality. Hazard ratios (HR) were compared for prediabetes with normoglycemia using Cox regression. All blood pressure values from 2001 to the index date (first FPG in 2006-2010) were used to calculate TTR. At baseline, 51.4% had prediabetes. The multivariable-adjusted HR (95% confidence intervals) was 0.86 (0.67-1.09) for HF and 1.06 (0.90-1.26) for all-cause mortality. For FPG defined as 6.1-6.9 mmol/L, the multivariable-adjusted HR were 1.05 (0.80-1.39) and 1.42 (1.19-1.70), respectively. The prediabetic group had a lower TTR (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Prediabetes was not independently associated with incident HF in hypertensive patients without diabetes, cardiovascular or renal disease. However, prediabetes was associated with all-cause mortality when defined as FPG 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (but not as 5.6-6.9 mmol/L). TTR was lower in the prediabetic group, suggesting room for improved blood pressure to reduce incident heart failure in prediabetes.

Long-term outcomes after catheter-based renal artery denervation for resistant hypertension: final follow-up of the randomised SYMPLICITY HTN-3 Trial

BACKGROUND

The SYMPLICITY HTN-3 (Renal Denervation in Patients With Uncontrolled Hypertension) trial showed the safety but not efficacy of the Symplicity system (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA, USA) at 6 months follow-up in patients with treatment-resistant hypertension. This final report presents the 36-month follow-up results.

METHODS

SYMPLICITY HTN-3 was a single-blind, multicentre, sham-controlled, randomised clinical trial, done in 88 centres in the USA. Adults aged 18-80 years, with treatment-resistant hypertension on stable, maximally tolerated doses of three or more drugs including a diuretic, who had a seated office systolic blood pressure of 160 mm Hg or more and 24 h ambulatory systolic blood pressure of 135 mm Hg or more were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive renal artery denervation using the single electrode (Flex) catheter or a sham control. The original primary endpoint was the change in office systolic blood pressure from baseline to 6 months for the renal artery denervation group compared with the sham control group. Patients were unmasked after the primary endpoint assessment at 6 months, at which point eligible patients in the sham control group who met the inclusion criteria (office blood pressure ≥160 mm Hg, 24 h ambulatory systolic blood pressure ≥135 mm Hg, and still prescribed three or more antihypertensive medications) could cross over to receive renal artery denervation. Changes in blood pressure up to 36 months were analysed in patients in the original renal artery denervation group and sham control group, including those who underwent renal artery denervation after 6 months (crossover group) and those who did not (non-crossover group). For comparisons between the renal artery denervation and sham control groups, follow-up blood pressure values were imputed for patients in the crossover group using their most recent pre-crossover masked blood pressure value. We report long-term blood pressure changes in renal artery denervation and sham control groups, and investigate blood pressure control in both groups using time in therapeutic blood pressure range analysis. The primary safety endpoint was the incidence of all-cause mortality, end stage renal disease, significant embolic event, renal artery perforation or dissection requiring intervention, vascular complications, hospitalisation for hypertensive crisis unrelated to non-adherence to medications, or new renal artery stenosis of more than 70% within 6 months. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01418261.

FINDINGS

From Sep 29, 2011, to May 6, 2013, 1442 patients were screened, of whom 535 (37%; 210 [39%] women and 325 [61%] men; mean age 57·9 years [SD 10·7]) were randomly assigned: 364 (68%) patients received renal artery denervation (mean age 57·9 years [10·4]) and 171 (32%) received the sham control (mean age 56·2 years [11·2]). 36-month follow-up data were available for 219 patients (original renal artery denervation group), 63 patients (crossover group), and 33 patients (non-crossover group). At 36 months, the change in office systolic blood pressure was -26·4 mm Hg (SD 25·9) in the renal artery denervation group and -5·7 mm Hg (24·4) in the sham control group (adjusted treatment difference -22·1 mm Hg [95% CI -27·2 to -17·0]; p≤0·0001). The change in 24 h ambulatory systolic blood pressure at 36 months was -15·6 mm Hg (SD 20·8) in the renal artery denervation group and -0·3 mm Hg (15·1) in the sham control group (adjusted treatment difference -16·5 mm Hg [95% CI -20·5 to -12·5]; p≤0·0001). Without imputation, the renal artery denervation group spent a significantly longer time in therapeutic blood pressure range (ie, better blood pressure control) than patients in the sham control group (18% [SD 25·0] for the renal artery denervation group vs 9% [SD 18·8] for the sham control group; p≤0·0001) despite a similar medication burden, with consistent and significant results with imputation. Rates of adverse events were similar across treatment groups, with no evidence of late-emerging complications from renal artery denervation. The rate of the composite safety endpoint to 48 months, including all-cause death, new-onset end-stage renal disease, significant embolic event resulting in end-organ damage, vascular complication, renal artery re-intervention, and hypertensive emergency was 15% (54 of 352 patients) for the renal artery denervation group, 14% (13 of 96 patients) for the crossover group, and 14% (10 of 69 patients) for the non-crossover group.

INTERPRETATION

This final report of the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial adds to the totality of evidence supporting the safety of renal artery denervation to 36 months after the procedure. From 12 months to 36 months after the procedure, patients who were originally randomly assigned to receive renal artery denervation had larger reductions in blood pressure and better blood pressure control compared with patients who received sham control.

FUNDING

Medtronic.

Cumulative Systolic Blood Pressure Load and Cardiovascular Risk in Patients With Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Standard measures of blood pressure (BP) do not account for both the magnitude and duration of exposure to elevated BP over time.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess the association between cumulative systolic blood pressure (SBP) load and risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis of patients with type 2 diabetes followed by the ADVANCE-ON (Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation - Observational Study). Cumulative SBP load was defined as the area under curve for SBP values ≥130 mm Hg divided by the area under curve for all measured SBP values over a 24-month exposure period. HRs for the association between cumulative SBP load with major cardiovascular events and death were estimated using Cox models.

RESULTS

Over a median 7.6 years of follow-up, 1,469 major cardiovascular events, 1,615 deaths, and 660 cardiovascular deaths were observed in 9,338 participants. Each 1-SD increase in cumulative SBP load was associated with a 14% increase in major cardiovascular events (HR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.09-1.20), 13% increase in all-cause mortality (HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.13-1.18), and 21% increase in cardiovascular death (HR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.13-1.29). For the prediction of cardiovascular events and death, cumulative SBP load outperformed mean SBP, time-below-target SBP, and visit-to-visit SBP variability in terms of Akaike information criterion and net reclassification indexes.

CONCLUSIONS

Cumulative SBP load may provide better prediction of major cardiovascular events compared with traditional BP measures among patients with type 2 diabetes. These findings reinforce the importance of both the magnitude and duration of exposure to elevated SBP in assessing cardiovascular risk. (Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease Preterax and Diamicron MR Controlled Evaluation Post Trial Observational Study [ADVANCE-ON]; NCT00949286).

Longitudinal evidence on treatment discontinuation, adherence, and loss of hypertension control in four middle-income countries

Managing hypertension is a highly dynamic process, yet current evidence on hypertension control in middle-income countries (MICs) is largely based on cross-sectional data. Using multiple waves of population-based cohort data from four MICs (China, Indonesia, Mexico, and South Africa), we undertook a longitudinal investigation into how individuals with hypertension move through care over time. We classified adults aged 40 years and over (N = 8527) into care stages at both baseline and follow-up waves and estimated the probability of transitioning between stages using Poisson regression models. Over a 5- to 9-year follow-up period, only around 30% of undiagnosed individuals became diagnosed [Mexico, 27% (95% confidence interval: 23%, 31%); China, 30% (26%, 33%); Indonesia, 30% (28%, 32%); and South Africa, 36% (31%, 41%)], and one in four untreated individuals became treated [Indonesia, 11% (10%, 12%); Mexico, 24% (20%, 28%); China, 26% (23%, 29%); and South Africa, 33% (29%, 38%)]. The probability of reaching blood pressure (BP) control was lower [Indonesia, 2% (1%, 2%); China, 9% (7%, 11%); Mexico, 12% (9%, 14%); and South Africa, 24% (20%, 28%)] regardless of treatment status. A substantial proportion of individuals discontinued treatment [Indonesia, 70% (67%, 73%); China, 36% (32%, 40%); Mexico, 34% (29%, 39%); and South Africa, 20% (15%, 25%)], and most individuals lost BP control by follow-up [Indonesia, 92% (89%, 96%); Mexico, 77% (71%, 83%); China, 76% (69%, 83%); and South Africa 45% (36%, 54%)]. Our results highlight that policies solely aimed at improving diagnosis or initiating treatment may not lead to long-term hypertension control improvements in MICs.

Prognostic Value of Time in Blood Pressure Target Range Among Patients With Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Blood pressure (BP) is a continuous and dynamic measure. However, standard BP control metrics may not reflect the variability in BP over time.

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed the prognostic value of time in BP target range among hypertensive patients with heart failure (HF).

METHODS

The authors performed a post hoc analysis of data from the TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function HF with an Aldosterone Antagonist) trial and the BEST (Beta-Blocker Evaluation of Survival Trial). Time in target range (TTR) for each patient was calculated using linear interpolation across the study period with the target range of systolic BP between 120 and 130 mm Hg.

RESULTS

A total of 4,789 hypertensive patients (n = 1,654 from BEST and n = 3,135 from TOPCAT) were included. The cumulative incidences of primary endpoint (ie, cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization) were highest among the top quartile of TTR with a dose-dependent manner across quartiles (P_trend <0.005). The top quartile of TTR was significantly associated with a lower risk of primary outcome using adjusted Cox regression model (HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.60-0.82), cardiovascular mortality (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.55-0.84), HF hospitalization (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.58-0.85), all-cause mortality (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.58-0.83), and any hospitalization (HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.67-0.85). Further analyses using restricted cubic spline indicated a linear relationship between TTR and primary outcome. Similar patterns were observed in the individual trial. Sensitivity analyses generated consistent results while redefining target range as 110 to 130 mm Hg for systolic BP or 70 to 80 mm Hg for diastolic BP.

CONCLUSIONS

TTR could independently predict major adverse cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients with HF.

Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques

Current hypertension guidelines recommend using the average values of several blood pressure (BP) readings obtained both in and out of the office for the diagnosis and management of hypertension. In-office BP measurement using an upper-arm cuff constitutes the evidence-based reference method for current BP classification and treatment targets. However, out-of-office BP evaluation using 24 h ambulatory or home BP monitoring is recommended by all major medical associations for obtaining further insights into the BP profile of an individual and how it relates to their daily activities. Importantly, the highly variable nature of office and out-of-office BP readings has been widely acknowledged, including the association of BP variability with cardiovascular outcomes. However, to date, the implications of BP variability on cardiovascular outcomes have largely been ignored, with limited application in clinical practice. Novel cuffless wearable technologies might provide a detailed assessment of the 24 h BP profile and behaviour over weeks or months. These devices offer many advantages for researchers and patients compared with traditional BP monitors, but their accuracy and utility remain uncertain. In this Review, we outline and compare conventional and novel methods and techniques for assessing average BP levels and BP variability, and reflect on the utility and potential of these methods for improving the treatment and management of patients with hypertension.

The most commonly available blood pressure (BP) monitoring devices are useful for capturing a snapshot BP value, but most have limited utility in measuring BP variability. In this Review, Schutte and colleagues outline the advantages and disadvantages of conventional and novel techniques to measure average BP levels and BP variability.

Although the dynamic nature of blood pressure (BP) is well-known, hypertension guidelines recommend using the average values of static BP readings (office or out-of-office), specifically aiming to level the fluctuations and peaks in BP readings.

All current BP measurement methods have imperfect reproducibility owing to the continuous fluctuation in BP readings, making it difficult to accurately diagnose hypertension.

Accumulating evidence from clinical trials, large registries and meta-analyses shows that increased BP variability predicts cardiovascular outcome, independently of the average BP values.

To date, BP variability is overlooked, with limited application in clinical practice, probably owing to a variety of complex non-standardized BP variability assessment methods and indices, and uncertain thresholds and clinical usefulness.

Novel cuffless wearable BP technologies can provide very large numbers of readings for days and months without the discomfort of traditional BP monitoring devices, and have the potential to replace current BP methods, once accuracy issues are resolved and their clinical usefulness is proved.

Association of Low-Dose Triple Combination Therapy vs Usual Care With Time at Target Blood Pressure: A Secondary Analysis of the TRIUMPH Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Cumulative exposure to high blood pressure (BP) is an adverse prognostic marker. Assessments of BP control over time, such as time at target, have been developed but assessments of the effects of BP-lowering interventions on such measures are lacking.

Objective

To evaluate whether low-dose triple combination antihypertensive therapy was associated with greater rates of time at target compared with usual care.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Triple Pill vs Usual Care Management for Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Hypertension (TRIUMPH) trial was a open-label randomized clinical trial of low-dose triple BP therapy vs usual care conducted in urban hospital clinics in Sri Lanka from February 2016 to May 2017. Adults with hypertension (systolic BP >140 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP >90 mm Hg or in patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease, systolic BP >130 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP >80 mm Hg) requiring initiation (untreated patients) or escalation (patients receiving monotherapy) of antihypertensive therapy were included. Patients were excluded if they were currently taking 2 or more blood pressure-lowering drugs or had severe or uncontrolled blood pressure, accelerated hypertension or physician-determined need for slower titration of treatment, a contraindication to the triple combination pill therapy, an unstable medical condition, or clinically significant laboratory values deemed by researchers to be unsuitable for the study. All 700 individuals in the original trial were included in the secondary analysis. This post hoc analysis was conducted from December 2020 to December 2021.

Intervention

Once-daily fixed-dose triple combination pill (telmisartan 20 mg, amlodipine 2.5 mg, and chlorthalidone 12.5 mg) therapy vs usual care.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Between-group differences in time at target were compared over 24 weeks of follow-up, with time at target defined as percentage of time at target BP.

Results

There were a total of 700 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 56 [11] years; 403 [57.6%] women). Patients allocated to the triple pill group (n = 349) had higher time at target compared with those in the usual care group (n = 351) over 24 weeks' follow-up (64% vs 43%; risk difference, 21%; 95% CI, 16-26; P < .001). Almost twice as many patients receiving triple pill therapy achieved more than 50% time at target during follow-up (64% vs 37%; P < .001). The association of the triple pill with an increase in time at target was seen early, with most patients achieving more than 50% time at target by 12 weeks. Those receiving the triple pill achieved a consistently higher time at target at all follow-up periods compared with those receiving usual care (mean [SD]: 0-6 weeks, 36.3% [30.9%] vs 21.7% [28.9%]; P < .001; 6-12 weeks, 5.2% [31.9%] vs 33.7% [33.0%]; P < .001; 12-24 weeks, 66.0% [31.1%] vs 43.5% [34.3%]; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

To our knowledge, this analysis provides the first estimate of time at target as an outcome assessing longitudinal BP control in a randomized clinical trial. Among patients with mild to moderate hypertension, treatment with a low-dose triple combination pill was associated with substantially higher time at target compared with usual care.

Initial combination therapy for hypertension in patients of African ancestry: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that consider the effect of initial dual antihypertensive combination treatment on blood pressure (BP), morbidity, or mortality in hypertensive African ancestry adults, using the methodology of the Cochrane Collaboration. Main outcomes were difference in means (continuous data) and risk ratio (dichotomous data).We retrieved 1728 reports yielding 13 RCTs of 4 weeks to 3 years duration (median 8 weeks) in 3843 patients. Systolic BP was significantly higher on β-adrenergic blocker vs. other combinations, 3.80 [0.82;6.78] mmHg, but comparable for other combinations. Hypokalemia and hyperglycemia occurred with calcium channel blocker (CCB) + diuretics > diuretics + angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin-II-type-1-receptor antagonist (ARB) > CCB + ACEI/ARB. An RCT including high-risk patients reported combined morbidity/mortality for hydrochlorothiazide (mg) 25 + benazepril 40 vs. amlodipine 10 + benazepril 40 of respectively 8.9% vs. 6.6% (n = 1414, risk ratio 1.35 [0.94;1.94]; all patients, N = 11 506, 1.23 [1.11;1.37]).We conclude that limited evidence supports CCB + ACEI rather than HCT + ACEI as first-line initial combination therapy in African ancestry patients with hypertension.

PROSPERO

CRD42021238529.

[The profile of drug treatment in subjects aged over 50 years with hypertension in an urban russian population]

Objective To analyze a profile of hypotensive drug therapy in patients with arterial hypertension (АH) aged 55-84 in a sample of urban population at a current period of time (2015-2017).Materials and Methods AH is a leader among risk factors of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) due to its high prevalence and serious prognosis. Despite the availability of effective hypotensive drugs and guidelines on AH treatment, 50% of patients do not achieve blood pressure (BP) goals. Knowledge about drug correction of AH in the Russian population is limited to clinical studies. Taking into account changing approaches in management of patients with AH, the population-based evaluation of hypotensive treatment if relevant. A random population sample of males and females aged 55-84 (n=3.898) was evaluated in Novosibirsk in 2015-2017 (international project, Health, Alcohol and Psychosocial Factors in Eastern Europe (HAPIEE)). AH was diagnosed in presence of systolic BP ≥140 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥90 mm Hg and/or treatment with hypotensive drugs within the recent two weeks. Regular intake of medication for 12 months was evaluated with coding according to the Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical Classification System (АТХ / АТС).Results In the population sample aged 55-84, AH prevalence was 80.9 %, and 21.1 % of persons with AH did not receive drug therapy. Hypotensive medicines included (total/as a part of combination therapy) angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (42.3 % / 25.3 %), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) (30.3 % / 18.9 %), diuretics (22.6 % / 20.4 %), calcium channel blockers (20.2 % / 16.1 %), and beta-blockers (34.7 % / 27.6 %). 45.7 % of people with AH received a combination therapy. Effective BP control was achieved in 23.4 % of AH patients and in 29.6 % of patients receiving a hypotensive therapy. In the group of ineffective BP control, the proportion of females was lower, AH duration was longer, and blood glucose was higher than in the group of effective control.Conclusion In the sample of urban population aged 55-84 in 2015-2017, each fourth participant with AH and each third participant using hypotensive drugs achieved effective BP control. The therapy profile in AH patients included recommended drug classes. However, combination therapy was used insufficiently (50% of AH patients). By frequency of use, ACE inhibitors were on the first place, beta-blockers were on the second place, ARBs were on the third place, diuretics were on the fourth place, and calcium channel blockers were on the fifth place, which differed from the guidelines (the difference from the recommended priority ranking is that the drugs taking the first places in the guidelines were in fact on the 3rd and 4th places in their actual frequency of use). 20% of persons with AH did not receive hypotensive therapy, which significantly contributed to the insufficient BP control in the population.