Alberto Zanchetti

Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial

BACKGROUND Despite treatment, there is often a higher incidence of cardiovascular complications in patients with hypertension than in normotensive individuals. Inadequate reduction of their blood pressure is a likely cause, but the optimum target blood pressure is not known. The impact of acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) has never been investigated in patients with hypertension. We aimed to assess the optimum target diastolic blood pressure and the potential benefit of a low dose of acetylsalicylic acid in the treatment of hypertension. METHODS 18790 patients, from 26 countries, aged 50-80 years (mean 61.5 years) with hypertension and diastolic blood pressure between 100 mm Hg and 115 mm Hg (mean 105 mm Hg) were randomly assigned a target diastolic blood pressure. 6264 patients were allocated to the target pressure < or =90 mm Hg, 6264 to < or =85 mm Hg, and 6262 to < or =80 mm Hg. Felodipine was given as baseline therapy with the addition of other agents, according to a five-step regimen. In addition, 9399 patients were randomly assigned 75 mg/day acetylsalicylic acid (Bamycor, Astra) and 9391 patients were assigned placebo. FINDINGS Diastolic blood pressure was reduced by 20.3 mm Hg, 22.3 mm Hg, and 24.3 mm Hg, in the < or =90 mm Hg, < or =85 mm Hg, and < or =80 mm Hg target groups, respectively. The lowest incidence of major cardiovascular events occurred at a mean achieved diastolic blood pressure of 82.6 mm Hg; the lowest risk of cardiovascular mortality occurred at 86.5 mm Hg. Further reduction below these blood pressures was safe. In patients with diabetes mellitus there was a 51% reduction in major cardiovascular events in target group < or =80 mm Hg compared with target group < or =90 mm Hg (p for trend=0.005). Acetylsalicylic acid reduced major cardiovascular events by 15% (p=0.03) and all myocardial infarction by 36% (p=0.002), with no effect on stroke. There were seven fatal bleeds in the acetylsalicylic acid group and eight in the placebo group, and 129 versus 70 non-fatal major bleeds in the two groups, respectively (p<0.001). INTERPRETATION Intensive lowering of blood pressure in patients with hypertension was associated with a low rate of cardiovascular events. The HOT Study shows the benefits of lowering the diastolic blood pressure down to 82.6 mm Hg. Acetylsalicylic acid significantly reduced major cardiovascular events with the greatest benefit seen in all myocardial infarction. There was no effect on the incidence of stroke or fatal bleeds, but non-fatal major bleeds were twice as common.

2007 Guidelines for the Management of Arterial Hypertension: The Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)

2007 Guidelines for the Management of Arterial Hypertension : The Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

Outcomes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine: the VALUE randomised trial

BACKGROUND The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial was designed to test the hypothesis that for the same blood-pressure control, valsartan would reduce cardiac morbidity and mortality more than amlodipine in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk. METHODS 15?245 patients, aged 50 years or older with treated or untreated hypertension and high risk of cardiac events participated in a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group comparison of therapy based on valsartan or amlodipine. Duration of treatment was event-driven and the trial lasted until at least 1450 patients had reached a primary endpoint, defined as a composite of cardiac mortality and morbidity. Patients from 31 countries were followed up for a mean of 4.2 years. FINDINGS Blood pressure was reduced by both treatments, but the effects of the amlodipine-based regimen were more pronounced, especially in the early period (blood pressure 4.0/2.1 mm Hg lower in amlodipine than valsartan group after 1 month; 1.5/1.3 mm Hg after 1 year; p<0.001 between groups). The primary composite endpoint occurred in 810 patients in the valsartan group (10.6%, 25.5 per 1000 patient-years) and 789 in the amlodipine group (10.4%, 24.7 per 1000 patient-years; hazard ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.94-1.15, p=0.49). INTERPRETATION The main outcome of cardiac disease did not differ between the treatment groups. Unequal reductions in blood pressure might account for differences between the groups in cause-specific outcomes. The findings emphasise the importance of prompt blood-pressure control in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk.

Aspirin in the primary and secondary prevention of vascular disease: collaborative meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials.

Summary Background Low-dose aspirin is of definite and substantial net benefit for many people who already have occlusive vascular disease. We have assessed the benefits and risks in primary prevention. Methods We undertook meta-analyses of serious vascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or vascular death) and major bleeds in six primary prevention trials (95 000 individuals at low average risk, 660 000 person-years, 3554 serious vascular events) and 16 secondary prevention trials (17 000 individuals at high average risk, 43 000 person-years, 3306 serious vascular events) that compared long-term aspirin versus control. We report intention-to-treat analyses of first events during the scheduled treatment period. Findings In the primary prevention trials, aspirin allocation yielded a 12% proportional reduction in serious vascular events (0·51% aspirin vs 0·57% control per year, p=0·0001), due mainly to a reduction of about a fifth in non-fatal myocardial infarction (0·18% vs 0·23% per year, p<0·0001). The net effect on stroke was not significant (0·20% vs 0·21% per year, p=0·4: haemorrhagic stroke 0·04% vs 0·03%, p=0·05; other stroke 0·16% vs 0·18% per year, p=0·08). Vascular mortality did not differ significantly (0·19% vs 0·19% per year, p=0·7). Aspirin allocation increased major gastrointestinal and extracranial bleeds (0·10% vs 0·07% per year, p<0·0001), and the main risk factors for coronary disease were also risk factors for bleeding. In the secondary prevention trials, aspirin allocation yielded a greater absolute reduction in serious vascular events (6·7% vs 8·2% per year, p<0.0001), with a non-significant increase in haemorrhagic stroke but reductions of about a fifth in total stroke (2·08% vs 2·54% per year, p=0·002) and in coronary events (4·3% vs 5·3% per year, p<0·0001). In both primary and secondary prevention trials, the proportional reductions in the aggregate of all serious vascular events seemed similar for men and women. Interpretation In primary prevention without previous disease, aspirin is of uncertain net value as the reduction in occlusive events needs to be weighed against any increase in major bleeds. Further trials are in progress. Funding UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, and the European Community Biomed Programme.BACKGROUND Low-dose aspirin is of definite and substantial net benefit for many people who already have occlusive vascular disease. We have assessed the benefits and risks in primary prevention. METHODS We undertook meta-analyses of serious vascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or vascular death) and major bleeds in six primary prevention trials (95,000 individuals at low average risk, 660,000 person-years, 3554 serious vascular events) and 16 secondary prevention trials (17,000 individuals at high average risk, 43,000 person-years, 3306 serious vascular events) that compared long-term aspirin versus control. We report intention-to-treat analyses of first events during the scheduled treatment period. FINDINGS In the primary prevention trials, aspirin allocation yielded a 12% proportional reduction in serious vascular events (0.51% aspirin vs 0.57% control per year, p=0.0001), due mainly to a reduction of about a fifth in non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.18%vs 0.23% per year, p<0.0001). The net effect on stroke was not significant (0.20%vs 0.21% per year, p=0.4: haemorrhagic stroke 0.04%vs 0.03%, p=0.05; other stroke 0.16%vs 0.18% per year, p=0.08). Vascular mortality did not differ significantly (0.19%vs 0.19% per year, p=0.7). Aspirin allocation increased major gastrointestinal and extracranial bleeds (0.10%vs 0.07% per year, p<0.0001), and the main risk factors for coronary disease were also risk factors for bleeding. In the secondary prevention trials, aspirin allocation yielded a greater absolute reduction in serious vascular events (6.7%vs 8.2% per year, p<0.0001), with a non-significant increase in haemorrhagic stroke but reductions of about a fifth in total stroke (2.08%vs 2.54% per year, p=0.002) and in coronary events (4.3%vs 5.3% per year, p<0.0001). In both primary and secondary prevention trials, the proportional reductions in the aggregate of all serious vascular events seemed similar for men and women. INTERPRETATION In primary prevention without previous disease, aspirin is of uncertain net value as the reduction in occlusive events needs to be weighed against any increase in major bleeds. Further trials are in progress. FUNDING UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, and the European Community Biomed Programme.

Reappraisal of European guidelines on hypertension management: a European Society of Hypertension Task Force document.

Abbreviations ACE: angiotensin-converting enzyme; BP: blood pressure; DBP: diastolic blood pressure; eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate; ESC: European Society of Cardiology; ESH: European Society of Hypertension; ET: endothelin; IMT: carotid intima-media thickness; JNC: Joint National Commit

European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice

Guidelines aim to present all the relevant evidence on a particular issue in order to help physicians to weigh the benefits and risks of a particular diagnostic or therapeutic procedure. They should be helpful in everyday clinical decision-making. A great number of guidelines have been issued in recent years by different organisations--European Society of Cardiology (ESC), American Heart Association (AHA), American College of Cardiology (ACC), and other related societies. By means of links to web sites of National Societies several hundred guidelines are available. This profusion can put at stake the authority and validity of guidelines, which can only be guaranteed if they have been developed by an unquestionable decision-making process. This is one of the reasons why the ESC and others have issued recommendations for formulating and issuing guidelines. In spite of the fact that standards for issuing good quality guidelines are well defined, recent surveys of guidelines published in peer-reviewed journals between 1985 and 1998 have shown that methodological standards were not complied with in the vast majority of cases. It is therefore of great importance that guidelines and recommendations are presented in formats that are easily interpreted. Subsequently, their implementation programmes must also be well conducted. Attempts have been made to determine whether guidelines improve the quality of clinical practice and the utilisation of health resources. In addition, the legal implications of medical guidelines have been discussed and examined, resulting in position documents, which have been published by a specific task force. The ESC Committee for practice guidelines (CPG) supervises and coordinates the preparation of new guidelines and expert consensus documents produced by task forces, expert groups or consensus panels. The Committee is also responsible for the endorsement of these guidelines or statements.

Blood pressure and heart rate variabilities in normotensive and hypertensive human beings.

Blood pressure and heart rate variabilities were studied in 89 ambulant normotensive or essential hypertensive subjects in whom blood pressure was recorded intra-arterially for 24 hours (Oxford method) under standardized living conditions. Data were analyzed beat to beat by a computer to provide mean values of the 48 half hours of the 24-hour period. Variabilities were assessed by the standard deviation and variation coefficients separately obtained for each half hour, as well as by the standard deviations and variation coefficients obtained by averaging the 48 mean values. In each subject, blood pressure and heart rate varied markedly either among or within half hours, indicating the existence of relatively long- and short-term variabilities during the 24 hours. When averaged for all subjects, the long-term variabilities showed only one systematic component, i.e., the marked reduction occurring during sleep. Sleep was further responsible for a marked reduction in the short-term blood pressure and heart rate variabilities. These variabilities showed marked (though nonsystematic) modifications, even outside sleep, which were positively related to the blood pressure and heart rate means. Modifications in blood pressure and heart rate means and short-term variabilities were also positively related to each other. All these features were common to normotensives and hypertensives. In hypertensives, the absolute long and short-term blood pressure variabilities were greater than in normotensives, but the percent blood pressure variabilities were similar. Heart rate variabilities (both absolute and percent) were similar in normotensive and hypertensive subjects. Heart rate variabilities were also similar whether the subjects had impaired or preserved baroreflex control of heart rate (vasoactive drug technique). These findings uncover a number of factors that are associated with and responsible for blood pressure and heart rate variabilities in human beings. The nature of these factors suggest a primary role of central nervous mechanisms in the production of these phenomena and in the overall cardiovascular modulation, with no substantial difference between conditions of normal and chronically elevated blood pressure.

European Society of Hypertension Position Paper on Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is being used increasingly in both clinical practice and hypertension research. Although there are many guidelines that emphasize the indications for ABPM, there is no comprehensive guideline dealing with all aspects of the technique. It was agreed at a consensus meeting on ABPM in Milan in 2011 that the 34 attendees should prepare a comprehensive position paper on the scientific evidence for ABPM.This position paper considers the historical background, the advantages and limitations of ABPM, the threshold levels for practice, and the cost-effectiveness of the technique. It examines the need for selecting an appropriate device, the accuracy of devices, the additional information and indices that ABPM devices may provide, and the software requirements.At a practical level, the paper details the requirements for using ABPM in clinical practice, editing considerations, the number of measurements required, and the circumstances, such as obesity and arrhythmias, when particular care needs to be taken when using ABPM.The clinical indications for ABPM, among which white-coat phenomena, masked hypertension, and nocturnal hypertension appear to be prominent, are outlined in detail along with special considerations that apply in certain clinical circumstances, such as childhood, the elderly and pregnancy, and in cardiovascular illness, examples being stroke and chronic renal disease, and the place of home measurement of blood pressure in relation to ABPM is appraised.The role of ABPM in research circumstances, such as pharmacological trials and in the prediction of outcome in epidemiological studies is examined and finally the implementation of ABPM in practice is considered in relation to the issue of reimbursement in different countries, the provision of the technique by primary care practices, hospital clinics and pharmacies, and the growing role of registries of ABPM in many countries.

European Society of Hypertension guidelines for blood pressure monitoring at home: a summary report of the Second International Consensus Conference on Home Blood Pressure Monitoring.

This document summarizes the available evidence and provides recommendations on the use of home blood pressure monitoring in clinical practice and in research. It updates the previous recommendations on the same topic issued in year 2000. The main topics addressed include the methodology of home blood pressure monitoring, its diagnostic and therapeutic thresholds, its clinical applications in hypertension, with specific reference to special populations, and its applications in research. The final section deals with the problems related to the implementation of these recommendations in clinical practice.

EFFECTS OF BLOOD-PRESSURE MEASUREMENT BY THE DOCTOR ON PATIENT'S BLOOD PRESSURE AND HEART RATE

Changes in blood pressure in 10 or 15 min periods during which a doctor repeatedly measured blood pressure by the cuff method were monitored by a continuous intra-arterial recorder. In almost all the 48 normotensive and hypertensive subjects tested the doctors arrival at the bedside induced immediate rises in systolic and diastolic blood pressures peaking within 1 to 4 min (mean 26.7 +/- 2.3 mm Hg and 14.9 +/- 1.6 mm Hg above pre-visit values). There were large differences between individuals in the peak response (range, 4--75 mm Hg systolic and 1--36 mm Hg diastolic) unrelated to age, sex, baseline blood pressure, or blood-pressure variability. There was concomitant tachycardia (average peak response 15.9 +/- 1.5 beats/min, range 4--45 beats/min) which was only slightly correlated with the blood-pressure rise. After the peak response blood pressure declined and at the end of the visit was only slightly above the pre-visit level. A second visit by the same doctor did not change the average size of the early pressor response or the slope of its subsequent decline.