Hypertension in Thoracic Aortic Dissection: A Meta-Analysis-Based Considerations in the Choice of Antihypertensive Agents.

What Is the Optimal Medical Therapy for Marfan Syndrome?

All Thiazide‐Like Diuretics Are Not Chlorthalidone: Putting the ACCOMPLISH Study Into Perspective

A 65-year-old man presented for evaluation of high blood pressure found on screening at a local health fair. History and physical examination did not show any signs or symptoms suggestive of a secondary cause, nor was there evidence of target end-organ damage except for grade 1 Keith-Wagener-Barker retinopathy. The patient denied taking any prescription or over-the-counter medications. Hypertension is the most common disease-specific reason Americans visit a physician. Despite the risks associated with an elevated blood pressure (BP), there is still woefully low achievement of recommended BP goals. From 1991 to 1994, only 27.4% of hypertensive Americans aged 18 to 74 years had a BP <140/90 mm Hg, the current stated goal for most people with hypertension, and in those with diabetes, less than half that number (11%) were controlled to the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure VI (JNC VI) recommended goal of <130/85 mm Hg.1 The present update will provide an overview of the evaluation and management of essential hypertension and help to guide clinicians in developing a management plan for a patient like the one described above. Taking a proper BP is an important first step in the diagnosis of hypertension.2 Using the proper cuff size with patients resting quietly and comfortably (with back support if seated) for at least 5 minutes before measurement, 2 or more readings separated by 2 minutes should be taken and averaged. Initial elevated BP readings should be confirmed on at least 2 subsequent visits over a period of 1 week or more. A value that is consistently ≥140/90 mm Hg is diagnostic in healthy patients; a value >130/80 mm Hg should be used for those with diabetes or kidney disease and proteinuria. Initial evaluation of the hypertensive patient focuses on the presence …

Analysis of Recent Papers in Hypertension Jan Basile, MD, Senior Editor

Background: The blood pressure (BP) control rates in elderly patients remain low and hypertension in them is a management dilemma to the treating physician. Objective: The primary objective of this study was to characterize the prescribing pattern of antihypertensive agents among elderly patients in a tertiary care teaching hospital. Materials and Methods: This study was part of a larger cross-sectional retrospective study to assess the pattern of prescribing for inpatient hypertensive cases in the Inpatient Department of General Medicine at Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Medical College and Hospital (DSMCH), Perambalur (Tamil Nadu). The data were collected for a period of 10 months. Only elderly patients who are 65 and above and those who were suffering from essential hypertension and had been prescribed at least one antihypertensive drug with or without other co-morbid conditions were included. Results: Among 106 patients studied, approximately 51% and 49% were on monotherapy and combination therapy, respectively. The antihypertensive drugs were prescribed alone or in combination in the following order: Calcium channel blockers (CCBs), diuretic, beta blockers (BBs), ACE inhibitors (ACEIs), and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). The commonest monotherapy agents prescribed were CCBs (29.2%), followed by diuretic (11.3%), ACEI (4.7%), BB (4.7%), and ARBs (0.9%). The most prevalent two-drug therapy was with a CCB and diuretic (19.8%), followed by a CCB and BB (7.5%), CCB and ACEI (1.9%), ACEI and diuretic (2.8%), CCB and ARB (1.9%), BB and diuretic (1.9%), BB and ACEI (0.9%), and BB and ARB (0.9%). The commonest three-drug therapy was with a CCB, BB, and diuretic (2.8%). Other three-drug therapies were an ACEI + CCB + BB (0.9%), an ARB + diuretic + CCB (0.9%), a BB + CCB + ARB (0.9%), a BB + ACEI + diuretic (0.9%), a BB + ARB + diuretic (0.9%), and a CCB + diuretic + ACEI (0.9%). The commonest four-drug therapy was with a CCB, BB, ARB, and diuretic (1.9%) followed by a CCB + BB + ACEI + diuretic (0.9%). Conclusion: The most commonly prescribed antihypertensive drug was CCBs followed by diuretics, BBs, ACEIs, and ARBs. Overall, there was less utilization of diuretics and ACEIs or ARBs.

Aggressive blood pressure reduction and renin–angiotensin system blockade in chronic kidney disease: time for re-evaluation?

Backgrounds: Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), calcium channel blocker (CCB) and thiazide diuretics (TD) are common antihypertensive drugs for diabetes patients with hypertension. The purpose of this study was to compare the cardiovascular risks of these drugs in patients with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods: We used Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes trial data to explore the relationship between antihypertensive drugs and cardiovascular risks in ISH with T2DM patients by performing propensity score matching, Kaplan–Meier survival analyses and Cox proportional regression. Results: The cumulative incidence rates of primary outcomes (PO, including cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke) in the ARB use group were significantly lower than those without (hazard ratio (HR) 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34–0.83; p = 0.006). However, for ACEI, CCB and TD, they were negligible (ACEI: p = 0.209; CCB: p = 0.245; TD: p = 0.438). ARB decreased cardiovascular mortality (CM) in PO rather than non-fatal myocardial infarction (NMI) and non-fatal stroke (NST) (CM: HR 0.32; 95%CI 0.18–0.90; p = 0.004; NMI: p = 0.692; NST: p = 0.933). Conclusion: ARB may alleviate the cardiovascular risks in ISH with T2DM patients, but ACEI, CCB, and TD did not.

Marc Fisher MD Kennedy Lees MD Section Editors: Hypertension is the most important modifiable risk factor for stroke.1,2 It is estimated that 25% or more of strokes may be attributable to hypertension. Because many patients with stroke have mild hypertension or prehypertension, we have shifted our focus and now think of stroke on a continuum of risk based on blood pressure (BP) level rather than on a threshold effect.3 Because high BP may not exist in isolation, a wider definition of hypertension has been proposed that also takes into account the absolute risk of cardiovascular events and associated metabolic factors or early disease markers.3 Lowering BP reduces the risk of stroke. Epidemiological studies have shown that for each 10 mm Hg lower systolic blood pressure (SBP), there is a decrease in risk of stroke of approximately one third in persons aged 60 to 79 years. This association is continuous down to levels of at least 115/75 mm Hg and is consistent across sexes, regions, stroke subtypes, and for fatal and nonfatal events.4 Lowering diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was once the main target to achieve stroke and other cardiovascular event reduction, but SBP has now become the target.3 As recently shown, even the elderly with sustained SBP elevation may gain from BP reduction in relation to less fatal or nonfatal stroke, death, and heart failure.5 Although the role of longer-term BP control to improve outcomes in patients with stroke is undisputed, BP management immediately after a stroke remains controversial. In an effort to resolve this controversy, several pilot clinical trials have been initiated. In this review, we discuss the results of some of these trials and available evidence-based guidelines for BP control in the settings of acute ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke (excluding subarachnoid hemorrhage) and …

This is the first update of a review published in 2010. While calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are often recommended as a first-line drug to treat hypertension, the effect of CCBs on the prevention of cardiovascular events, as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes, is still debated. To determine whether CCBs used as first-line therapy for hypertension are different from other classes of antihypertensive drugs in reducing the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events. For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up to 1 September 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted the authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work and checked the references of published studies to identify additional trials. The searches had no language restrictions. Randomised controlled trials comparing first-line CCBs with other antihypertensive classes, with at least 100 randomised hypertensive participants and a follow-up of at least two years. Three review authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risk of bias, and entered the data for analysis. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. We contacted study authors for additional information. This update contains five new trials. We included a total of 23 RCTs (18 dihydropyridines, 4 non-dihydropyridines, 1 not specified) with 153,849 participants with hypertension. All-cause mortality was not different between first-line CCBs and any other antihypertensive classes. As compared to diuretics, CCBs probably increased major cardiovascular events (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.09, P = 0.03) and increased congestive heart failure events (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.51, moderate-certainty evidence). As compared to beta-blockers, CCBs reduced the following outcomes: major cardiovascular events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92), stroke (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88, moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, CCBs reduced stroke (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), CCBs reduced myocardial infarction (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94, moderate-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.36, low-certainty evidence). For the treatment of hypertension, there is moderate certainty evidence that diuretics reduce major cardiovascular events and congestive heart failure more than CCBs. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs probably reduce major cardiovascular events more than beta-blockers. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs reduced stroke when compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and reduced myocardial infarction when compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), but increased congestive heart failure when compared to ACE inhibitors and ARBs. Many of the differences found in the current review are not robust, and further trials might change the conclusions. More well-designed RCTs studying the mortality and morbidity of individuals taking CCBs as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes are needed for patients with different stages of hypertension, different ages, and with different comorbidities such as diabetes.

2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Thoracic Aortic Disease

How do the anti-hypertensive drugs influence the relationship between blood pressure and physical activity

AimsThis study aimed to compare the efficacy of angiotensin receptor‐neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) therapy with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEI/ARB) therapy for cardiovascular outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).Methods and resultsData were collected from the Biobank of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University between January 2016 and December 2020. A total of 7556 AMI patients were screened for eligibility. Propensity score matching based on age, sex, blood pressure, kidney function, baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and cardiovascular medication were conducted, resulting in 291 patients with AMI being assigned to ARNI, ACEI, and ARB group, respectively. Patients receiving ARNI had significantly lower rates of the composite cardiovascular outcome than ACEI {hazard ratio [HR] 0.51, [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.27–0.95], P = 0.02}, and ARB users [HR 0.47, (95%CI, 0.24–0.90), P = 0.02]. Patients receiving ARNI showed lower rates of cardiovascular death than ACEI [HR 0.37, (95%CI, 0.18–0.79), P = 0.01] and ARB users [HR 0.41, (95%CI, 0.18–0.95), P = 0.04]. Subgroup analysis indicated that patients with LVEF no more than 40% tend to benefit more from ARNI as compared with ACEI [HR 0.30, (95%CI, 0.11–0.86), P = 0.01] or ARB [HR 0.21, (95%CI, 0.04–1.1), P = 0.05]. Patients aged no more than 60 years exhibited reduced composite endpoints [HR for ARNI vs. ARB: 0.11, (95%CI, 0.03–0.46), P = 0.002].ConclusionsIn patients with AMI, ARNI was superior to ACEI/ARB in reducing the long‐term adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Subgroup analysis further indicates that ARNI is more likely to benefit patients with LVEF less than 40% and aged less than 60 years.

We sought to assess the association between common antihypertensive drugs and the risk of incident cancer in treated hypertensive patients. Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, the risk of cancer incidence was analyzed in patients with hypertension who were initially free of cancer and used the following antihypertensive drug classes: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs); angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs); beta blockers (BBs); calcium channel blockers (CCBs); and diuretics. During a median follow-up of 8.6 years, there were 4513 (6.4%) overall cancer incidences from an initial 70,549 individuals taking antihypertensive drugs. ARB use was associated with a decreased risk for overall cancer in a crude model (hazard ratio (HR): 0.744, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.696–0.794) and a fully adjusted model (HR: 0.833, 95% CI: 0.775–0.896) compared with individuals not taking ARBs. Other antihypertensive drugs, including ACEIs, CCBs, BBs, and diuretics, did not show significant associations with incident cancer overall. The long-term use of ARBs was significantly associated with a reduced risk of incident cancer over time. The users of common antihypertensive medications were not associated with an increased risk of cancer overall compared to users of other classes of antihypertensive drugs. ARB use was independently associated with a decreased risk of cancer overall compared to other antihypertensive drugs.

The associations between long-term treatment of aortic dissection with various medications and late patient outcomes are poorly understood. To compare late outcomes after long-term use of β-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), or other antihypertensive medications (controls) among patients treated for aortic dissection. This population-based retrospective cohort study using the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan included 6978 adult patients with a first-ever aortic dissection who survived to hospital discharge during the period between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2013, and who received during the first 90 days after discharge a prescription for an ACEI, ARB, β-blocker, or at least 1 other antihypertensive medication. Data analysis was conducted from July 2019 to June 2020. Long-term use of β-blockers, ACEIs, or ARBs, with use of other antihypertensive medications as a control. The primary outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, death due to aortic aneurism or dissection, later aortic operation, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, hospital readmission, and new-onset dialysis. Of 6978 total participants, 3492 received a β-blocker, 1729 received an ACEI or ARB, and 1757 received another antihypertension drug. Compared with patients in the other 2 groups, those in the β-blocker group were younger (mean [SD] age, 62.1 [13.9] years vs 68.7 [13.5] years for ACEIs or ARBs and 69.9 [13.8] years for controls) and comprised more male patients (2520 [72.2%] vs 1161 [67.1%] for ACEIs or ARBs and 1224 [69.7%] for controls). The prevalence of medicated hypertension was highest in the ACEI or ARB group (1039 patients [60.1%]), followed by the control group (896 patients [51.0%]), and was lowest in the β-blocker group (1577 patients [45.2%]). Patients who underwent surgery for type A aortic dissection were more likely to be prescribed β-blockers (1134 patients [32.5%]) than an ACEI or ARB (309 patients [17.9%]) or another antihypertension medication (376 patients [21.4%]). After adjusting for multiple propensity scores, there were no significant differences in any of the clinical characteristics among the 3 groups. No differences in the risks for all outcomes were observed between the ACEI or ARB and β-blocker groups. The risk of all-cause hospital readmission was significantly lower in the ACEI or ARB group (subdistribution hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84-0.997) and β-blocker group (subdistribution HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.94) than in the control group. Moreover, the risk of all-cause mortality was lower in the ACEI or ARB group (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.89) and the β-blocker group (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.91) than in the control group. In addition, the risk of all-cause mortality was lower in the ARB group than in the ACEI group (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.95). The use of β-blockers, ACEIs, or ARBs was associated with benefits in the long-term treatment of aortic dissection.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are commonly used antihypertensive drugs. However, the impact that the use of ACEI and ARB drugs will have on the survival of patients with hypertension and cancer is still unclear. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the effects of ACEI and ARB use on the survival of patients with cancer. The Embase, PubMed and Web of Science databases were used to systematically analyze the survival of hypertensive patients with cancer treated with ACEIs or ARBs. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to evaluate the association between ACEI and ARB use and patient survival. The relationship between the survival of patients with certain types of cancer and ACEI and ARB use was evaluated using the calculated HRs. Patients with ovarian, pancreatic, prostate, hepatocellular, lung, esophageal, gastric, colon, nasopharyngeal, head and neck tumors, gallbladder and rectal cancers that used ACEI and ARB analogs had significantly increased survival times, except for patients with breast cancer (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.90-1.19; P<0.01) and uroepithelial carcinoma (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.69-1.94; P<0.01), who had significantly decreased survival times, when compared with patients who did not use these drugs. Analysis of the relationship between the use of ACEIs or ARBs alone or in combination on the overall survival of hypertensive patients with cancer demonstrated that the use of ACEIs alone (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.93-1.08; P<0.01) did not have a significant effect on the survival of these patients. By contrast, the survival time was increased in hypertensive patients with cancer who used either ARBs alone (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.94; P<0.01) or a combination of ACEIs and ARBs (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.78-0.91; P<0.01). The present meta-analysis demonstrated the potential effects of ACEI and ARB use on the overall survival of patients with cancer. Therefore, investigation of the underlying mechanisms of action of ACEIs and ARBs, as well as the identification of specific groups of patients who may benefit from these interventions, could potentially lead to novel therapeutic options and improve the prognosis of patients with cancer in the future.