Wright, Jackson T.

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.

AbstractBackgroundHypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease including stroke, small vessel disease, and dementia. The Systolic blood PRessure INTervention (SPRINT) randomized trial prospectively evaluated the effects of intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) control (target SBP<120mmHg) versus standard control (SBP<140mmHg) on cardiovascular outcomes in individuals without baseline diabetes or stroke, and included cerebral blood flow (CBF) measurements. Previous studies with much smaller sample sizes and shorter duration suggested stable CBF in response to intensive treatment (SBP<125mmHg) [1], but long term effects are unknown. We evaluated the long‐term effects of intensive blood pressure treatment on CBF.MethodWhole brain CBF was measured at 3T using pseudocontinuous arterial spin labeled (ASL) perfusion MRI at baseline and after 3.9±0.3 years. Total white matter lesion (WML) load was measured from Fluid Attenuated Inversion Recovery T2 MRI. Data from 324 subjects with adequate ASL scan quality acquired from 6 sites were included.ResultDemographics and scanner specific CBF values are provided in Table 1. The intensive treatment group was older (p=0.01), but was otherwise similar to the standard group at baseline. There was a significant effect on the longitudinal CBF change (p=0.006) of the intensive treatment (5.7% increase) compared to the standard treatment (4.0% decrease, Fig 1). Secondary analysis showed a significant increase in age‐adjusted fractional CBF for the intensive treatment group (p<0.001) with no change (p=0.24) in the standard treatment group. Change in CBF was not associated with change in WML.ConclusionSustained intensive antihypertensive treatment does not reduce whole brain CBF, in fact it showed an increase in whole brain CBF relative to standard therapy. While improved CBF might contribute to the reduced WML progression observed in the intensive‐therapy group versus standard therapy in SPRINT[2], we did not observe a direct correlation between CBF changes and WML changes. References: (1) Croall et al. JAMA‐Neurol,2018; (2) Nasrallah et al., JAMA‐Neurol, 2019.

Orthostatic hypotension (OH) is frequently observed with hypertension treatment, but its contribution to adverse outcomes is unknown. The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) was a randomized trial of adults, age ≥50 years at high risk for cardiovascular disease with a seated systolic blood pressure (BP) of 130 to 180 mm Hg and a standing systolic BP ≥110 mm Hg. Participants were randomized to a systolic BP treatment goal of either <120 or <140 mm Hg. OH was defined as a drop in systolic BP ≥20 or diastolic BP ≥10 mm Hg 1 minute after standing from a seated position. We used Cox models to examine the association of OH with cardiovascular disease or adverse study events by randomized BP goal. During the follow-up period (median 3years), there were 1170 (5.7%) instances of OH among those assigned a standard BP goal and 1057 (5.0%) among those assigned the intensive BP goal. OH was not associated with higher risk of cardiovascular disease events (primary outcome: hazard ratio 1.06 [95% CI, 0.78–1.44]). Moreover, OH was not associated with syncope, electrolyte abnormalities, injurious falls, or acute renal failure. OH was associated with hypotension-related hospitalizations or emergency department visits (hazard ratio, 1.77 [95% CI, 1.11–2.82]) and bradycardia (hazard ratio, 1.94 [95% CI, 1.19–3.15]), but these associations did not differ by BP treatment goal. OH was not associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease events, and BP treatment goal had no effect on OH’s association with hypotension and bradycardia. Symptomless OH during hypertension treatment should not be viewed as a reason to down-titrate therapy even in the setting of a lower BP goal. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

Background Blood pressure ( BP ) varies over time within individual patients and across different BP measurement techniques. The effect of different BP targets on concordance between BP measurements is unknown. The goals of this analysis are to evaluate concordance between (1) clinic and ambulatory BP , (2) clinic visit‐to‐visit variability and ambulatory BP variability, and (3) first and second ambulatory BP and to evaluate whether different clinic targets affect these relationships. Methods and Results The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) ambulatory BP monitoring ancillary study obtained ambulatory BP readings in 897 participants at the 27‐month follow‐up visit and obtained a second reading in 203 participants 293±84 days afterward. There was considerable lack of agreement between clinic and daytime ambulatory systolic BP with wide limits of agreement in Bland‐Altman plots of −21 to 34 mm Hg in the intensive‐treatment group and −26 to 32 mm Hg in the standard‐treatment group. Overall, there was poor agreement between clinic visit‐to‐visit variability and ambulatory BP variability with correlation coefficients for systolic and diastolic BP all <0.16. We observed a high correlation between first and second ambulatory BP ; however, the limits of agreement were wide in both the intensive group (−27 to 21 mm Hg) and the standard group (−23 to 20 mm Hg). Conclusions We found low concordance in BP and BP variability between clinic and ambulatory BP and second ambulatory BP . Results did not differ by treatment arm. These results reinforce the need for multiple BP measurements before clinical decision making.

Blood pressure (BP) varies over time within individual patients and across different BP measurement techniques. The effect of different BP targets on the concordance between BP measurements is unknown. The goal of this analysis was to evaluate concordance in: 1) clinic BP and ambulatory BP, 2) clinic visit-to-visit variability and ambulatory BP variability and 3) initial and repeat ambulatory BP. We also sought to evaluate whether treatment assignment of intensive vs standard BP target affected these relationships. The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) ambulatory blood pressure monitoring ancillary study obtained ambulatory BP readings in 897 SPRINT participants at the 27 month follow up visit and 203 consecutive repeat ambulatory BP readings taken an average of 9.8 months later. There was poor agreement between clinic systolic BP and daytime ambulatory systolic BP (limits of agreement in Bland-Altman plots of -21 to 34 mm Hg in the intensive treatment group and -26 to 32 mm Hg in the standard treatment group). There was poor agreement between clinic visit-to-visit variability (coefficient of variation) and ambulatory BP variability (coefficient of variation of a 24 hr ambulatory BP) with correlation coefficients for systolic BP <0.16. While there was a high correlation between ambulatory BP at 27 months and repeat ambulatory BP (r ~0.56), there was significant variability between repeat ambulatory BP assessments (limits of agreement of -27 to 21 mm Hg in the intensive group and -23 to 20 mm Hg in the standard group). In conclusion, irrespective of treatment target, we found low concordance in BP and BP variability between clinic BP and ambulatory BP, and additionally between repeat ambulatory BP assessments. These results reinforce the need for multiple guideline adherent BP measurements prior to clinical decision making.

Background: The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults provides recommendations for the definition of hypertension, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) thresholds for initiation of antihypertensive medication, and BP target goals. Objectives: This study sought to determine the prevalence of hypertension, implications of recommendations for antihypertensive medication, and prevalence of BP above the treatment goal among US adults using criteria from the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline and the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC7). Methods: The authors analyzed data from the 2011 to 2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (N = 9 623). BP was measured 3 times following a standardized protocol and averaged. Results were weighted to produce US population estimates. Results: According to the 2017 ACC/AHA and JNC7 guidelines, the crude prevalence of hypertension among US adults was 45.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 43.6% to 47.6%) and 31.9% (95% CI: 30.1% to 33.7%), respectively, and antihypertensive medication was recommended for 36.2% (95% CI: 34.2% to 38.2%) and 34.3% (95% CI: 32.5% to 36.2%) of US adults, respectively. Nonpharmacological intervention is advised for the 9.4% of US adults with hypertension who are not recommended for antihypertensive medication according to the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline. Among US adults taking antihypertensive medication, 53.4% (95% CI: 49.9% to 56.8%) and 39.0% (95% CI: 36.4% to 41.6%) had BP above the treatment goal according to the 2017 ACC/AHA and JNC7 guidelines, respectively. Conclusions: Compared with the JNC7 guideline, the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline results in a substantial increase in the prevalence of hypertension, a small increase in the percentage of US adults recommended for antihypertensive medication, and more intensive BP lowering for many adults taking antihypertensive medication.

Aims To determine whether baseline metabolic syndrome (MetS) modifies the effect of intensive blood pressure control on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, and whether the effects varied by race/ethnicity. Methods We performed post hoc analyses among non‐Hispanic black, non‐hispanic white and Hispanic participants, with and without MetS, in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), who were randomized to a systolic blood pressure (SBP) target of <120 mm Hg (intensive group, N = 4544) or an SBP target of <140 mm Hg (standard group, N = 4553). The median follow‐up was 3.26 years. The primary outcome was the composite of the first occurrence of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, non‐myocardial infarction acute coronary syndrome or CV death. Results Overall, 3521/9097 participants (38.7%) met the criteria for MetS at baseline. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two SBP target groups within each MetS subgroup, except body mass index was slightly higher in the standard arm of the MetS subgroup (33.3 ± 5.6 vs 33.0 ± 5.3 kg/m 2 ; P < .01), but were similar across treatment arms in the non‐MetS subgroup. The hazard ratio for the primary outcome was similarly reduced in participants with or without baseline MetS: 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57, 0.96) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.57, 0.87), respectively (adjusted P value for treatment by subgroup interaction = .98). Similarly, there was no evidence of treatment × MetS subgroup interaction for all‐cause mortality (adjusted interaction P value = .98). The findings were also similar across race/ethnic subgroups. Conclusions In this analysis the CV benefit of intensive SBP control did not differ among participants by baseline MetS status, regardless of race/ethnicity.