Ji-Guang Wang

Cardiovascular protection and blood pressure reduction: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Whether antihypertensive drugs offer cardiovascular protection beyond blood pressure lowering has not been established. We aimed to investigate whether pharmacological properties of antihypertensive drugs or reduction of systolic pressure accounted for cardiovascular outcome in hypertensive or high-risk patients. METHODS In a meta-analysis we extracted summary statistics from published reports, and calculated pooled odds ratios for experimental versus reference treatment. We correlated across-trials odd ratios for differences in systolic pressure between groups. FINDINGS We analysed nine randomised trials comparing treatments in 62605 hypertensive patients. Compared with old drugs (diuretics and b-blockers), calcium-channel blockers and angiotensin converting-enzyme inhibitors offered similar overall cardiovascular protection, but calcium-channel blockers provided more reduction in the risk of stroke (13.5%, 95% CI 1.3-24.2, p=0.03) and less reduction in the risk of myocardial infarction (19.2%, 3.5-37.3, p=0.01). Heterogeneity was significant between trials because of high risk of cardiovascular events on doxazosin in one trial, and high risk of stroke on captopril in another; but systolic pressure differed between groups in these two trials by 2-3 mm Hg. Similar systolic differences occurred in a trial of diltiazem versus old drugs, and in three trials of converting-enzyme inhibitor against placebo in high-risk patients. Meta-regression across 27 trials (136124 patients) showed that odds ratios could be explained by achieved differences in systolic pressure. INTERPRETATION Our findings emphasise that blood pressure control is important. All antihypertensive drugs have similar long-term efficacy and safety. Calcium-channel blockers might be especially effective in stroke prevention. We did not find that converting-enzyme inhibitors or a-blockers affect cardiovascular prognosis beyond their antihypertensive effects.

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.

Rapid Blood-Pressure Lowering in Patients with Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage

BACKGROUND Whether rapid lowering of elevated blood pressure would improve the outcome in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage is not known. METHODS We randomly assigned 2839 patients who had had a spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage within the previous 6 hours and who had elevated systolic blood pressure to receive intensive treatment to lower their blood pressure (with a target systolic level of <140 mm Hg within 1 hour) or guideline-recommended treatment (with a target systolic level of <180 mm Hg) with the use of agents of the physicians choosing. The primary outcome was death or major disability, which was defined as a score of 3 to 6 on the modified Rankin scale (in which a score of 0 indicates no symptoms, a score of 5 indicates severe disability, and a score of 6 indicates death) at 90 days. A prespecified ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin score was also performed. The rate of serious adverse events was compared between the two groups. RESULTS Among the 2794 participants for whom the primary outcome could be determined, 719 of 1382 participants (52.0%) receiving intensive treatment, as compared with 785 of 1412 (55.6%) receiving guideline-recommended treatment, had a primary outcome event (odds ratio with intensive treatment, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.01; P=0.06). The ordinal analysis showed significantly lower modified Rankin scores with intensive treatment (odds ratio for greater disability, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.00; P=0.04). Mortality was 11.9% in the group receiving intensive treatment and 12.0% in the group receiving guideline-recommended treatment. Nonfatal serious adverse events occurred in 23.3% and 23.6% of the patients in the two groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS In patients with intracerebral hemorrhage, intensive lowering of blood pressure did not result in a significant reduction in the rate of the primary outcome of death or severe disability. An ordinal analysis of modified Rankin scores indicated improved functional outcomes with intensive lowering of blood pressure. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; INTERACT2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00716079.).

Prognostic accuracy of day versus night ambulatory blood pressure: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND Few studies have formally compared the predictive value of the blood pressure at night over and beyond the daytime value. We investigated the prognostic significance of the ambulatory blood pressure during night and day and of the night-to-day blood pressure ratio. METHODS We did 24-h blood pressure monitoring in 7458 people (mean age 56.8 years [SD 13.9]) enrolled in prospective population studies in Denmark, Belgium, Japan, Sweden, Uruguay, and China. We calculated multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios for daytime and night-time blood pressure and the systolic night-to-day ratio, while adjusting for cohort and cardiovascular risk factors. FINDINGS Median follow-up was 9.6 years (5th to 95th percentile 2.5-13.7). Adjusted for daytime blood pressure, night-time blood pressure predicted total (n=983; p<0.0001), cardiovascular (n=387; p<0.01), and non-cardiovascular (n=560; p<0.001) mortality. Conversely, adjusted for night-time blood pressure, daytime blood pressure predicted only non-cardiovascular mortality (p<0.05), with lower blood pressure levels being associated with increased risk. Both daytime and night-time blood pressure consistently predicted all cardiovascular events (n=943; p<0.05) and stroke (n=420; p<0.01). Adjusted for night-time blood pressure, daytime blood pressure lost prognostic significance only for cardiac events (n=525; p> or =0.07). Adjusted for the 24-h blood pressure, night-to-day ratio predicted mortality, but not fatal combined with non-fatal events. Antihypertensive drug treatment removed the significant association between cardiovascular events and the daytime blood pressure. Participants with systolic night-to-day ratio value of 1 or more were older, at higher risk of death, and died at an older age than those whose night-to-day ratio was normal (> or =0.80 to <0.90). INTERPRETATION In contrast to commonly held views, daytime blood pressure adjusted for night-time blood pressure predicts fatal combined with non-fatal cardiovascular events, except in treated patients, in whom antihypertensive drugs might reduce blood pressure during the day, but not at night. The increased mortality in patients with higher night-time than daytime blood pressure probably indicates reverse causality. Our findings support recording the ambulatory blood pressure during the whole day.

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of hypertension in the community a statement by the American Society of Hypertension and the International Society of Hypertension.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension in the Community A Statement by the American Society of Hypertension and the International Society of Hypertension

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of hypertension in the community: a statement by the American Society of Hypertension and the International Society of Hypertension.

Michael A. Weber, MD; Ernesto L. Schiffrin, MD; William B. White, MD; Samuel Mann, MD; Lars H. Lindholm, MD; John G. Kenerson, MD; John M. Flack, MD; Barry L. Carter, Pharm D; Barry J. Materson, MD; C. Venkata S. Ram, MD; Debbie L. Cohen, MD; Jean-Claude Cadet, MD; Roger R. Jean-Charles, MD; Sandra Taler, MD; David Kountz, MD; Raymond R. Townsend, MD; John Chalmers, MD; Agustin J. Ramirez, MD; George L. Bakris, MD; Jiguang Wang, MD; Aletta E. Schutte, MD; John D. Bisognano, MD; Rhian M. Touyz, MD; Dominic Sica, MD; Stephen B. Harrap, MD

European Society of Hypertension International Protocol revision 2010 for the validation of blood pressure measuring devices in adults.

The Conway Institute of Biomolecular and Biomedical Research, University College Dublin, Ireland, dabl Ltd., Blackrock Co., Dublin, Ireland, Hypertension Center, Third University Department of Medicine, Sotiria Hospital, Athens, Greece, Istituto Scientifico Ospedale San Luca, IRCCS, Instituto Auxologico Italiano, Milan, Italy, Societe Francaise d’Hypertension Arterielle, Filiale de la Societe Francaise de Cardiolgie, Paris, France, The Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Tohoku University Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Science and Medicine, Sendai, Japan, Centre for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, University Clinic Bonn, Department of Internal Medicine, Bonn, Germany and Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospitals, London, UK

Ambulatory Arterial Stiffness Index Derived From 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring

We hypothesized that 1 minus the slope of diastolic on systolic pressure during 24-hour ambulatory monitoring (ambulatory arterial stiffness index [AASI]) might reflect arterial stiffness. We compared AASI with established measures of arterial stiffness and studied its distribution in Chinese and European populations. We used 90207 SpaceLabs monitors and the SphygmoCor device to measure AASI, central and peripheral pulse pressures, the central (CAIx) and peripheral (PAIx) systolic augmentation indexes, and aortic pulse wave velocity. In 166 volunteers, the correlation coefficient between AASI and pulse wave velocity was 0.51 (P<0.0001). In 348 randomly recruited Chinese subjects, AASI correlated (P<0.0001) with CAIx (r=0.48), PAIx (r=0.50), and central pulse pressure (r=0.50). AASI increased with age and mean arterial pressure but decreased with body height. Both before and after adjustment for arterial wave reflections by considering height and heart rate as covariates, AASI correlated more (P<0.0001) closely with CAIx and PAIx than 24-hour pulse pressure. Among normotensive subjects, the 95th percentile of AASI was 0.55 in Chinese and 0.57 in 1617 Europeans enrolled in the International Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring. The upper boundary of the 95% prediction interval of AASI in relation to age ranged from 0.53 at 20 years to 0.72 at 80 years. In conclusion, AASI is a new index of arterial stiffness that can be easily measured under ambulatory conditions. Pending additional validation in outcome studies, normal values of AASI are probably <0.50 and 0.70 in young and older subjects, respectively.

Prognostic Value of Reading-to-Reading Blood Pressure Variability Over 24 Hours in 8938 Subjects From 11 Populations

In previous studies, of which several were underpowered, the relation between cardiovascular outcome and blood pressure (BP) variability was inconsistent. We followed health outcomes in 8938 subjects (mean age: 53.0 years; 46.8% women) randomly recruited from 11 populations. At baseline, we assessed BP variability from the SD and average real variability in 24-hour ambulatory BP recordings. We computed standardized hazard ratios (HRs) while stratifying by cohort and adjusting for 24-hour BP and other risk factors. Over 11.3 years (median), 1242 deaths (487 cardiovascular) occurred, and 1049, 577, 421, and 457 participants experienced a fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular, cardiac, or coronary event or a stroke. Higher diastolic average real variability in 24-hour ambulatory BP recordings predicted (P≤0.03) total (HR: 1.14) and cardiovascular (HR: 1.21) mortality and all types of fatal combined with nonfatal end points (HR: ≥1.07) with the exception of cardiac and coronary events (HR: ≤1.02; P≥0.58). Higher systolic average real variability in 24-hour ambulatory BP recordings predicted (P<0.05) total (HR: 1.11) and cardiovascular (HR: 1.16) mortality and all fatal combined with nonfatal end points (HR: ≥1.07), with the exception of cardiac and coronary events (HR: ≤1.03; P≥0.54). SD predicted only total and cardiovascular mortality. While accounting for the 24-hour BP level, average real variability in 24-hour ambulatory BP recordings added <1% to the prediction of a cardiovascular event. Sensitivity analyses considering ethnicity, sex, age, previous cardiovascular disease, antihypertensive treatment, number of BP readings per recording, or the night:day BP ratio were confirmatory. In conclusion, in a large population cohort, which provided sufficient statistical power, BP variability assessed from 24-hour ambulatory recordings did not contribute much to risk stratification over and beyond 24-hour BP.

Blood Pressure Reduction and Cardiovascular Prevention: An Update Including the 2003–2004 Secondary Prevention Trials

In a meta-analysis published in June 2003, we reported that new and old classes of antihypertensive drugs had similar long-term efficacy and safety. Furthermore, we observed that in clinical trials in hypertensive or high-risk patients gradients in systolic blood pressure (SBP) accounted for most differences in outcome. To test whether our previous conclusions would hold, we updated our quantitative overview with new information from clinical trials published before 2005. To compare new and old antihypertensive drugs, we computed pooled odds ratios from stratified 2 × 2 contingency tables. In a meta-regression analysis, we correlated these odds ratios with corresponding between-group differences in SBP. We then contrasted observed odds ratios with those predicted from gradients in SBP. The main finding of our overview was that reduction in SBP largely explained cardiovascular outcomes in the recently published actively controlled trials in hypertensive patients and in placebo-controlled secondary prevention trials. The published results suggested that dihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers might offer a selective benefit in the prevention of stroke and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system in the prevention of heart failure. For prevention of myocardial infarction, the published results were more equivocal, because of the benefit of amlodipine over placebo or valsartan in 2 trials, whereas other placebo-controlled trials of calcium-channel blockers or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors did not substantiate the expected benefit with regard to cardiac outcomes. In conclusion, the hypothesis that new antihypertensive drugs might influence cardiovascular prognosis over and beyond their antihypertensive effect remains unproven. Our overview emphasizes the need of tight blood pressure control, but does not allow determining to what extent blood pressure must be lowered for optimal cardiovascular prevention.