European Society Of Hypertension/European Society Of Cardiology Research Articles

ASSESSMENT OF CARDIOVASCULAR RISK IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS ACCORDING TO CURRENT HYPERTENSION GUIDELINES

Objective: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) by as much as 50% compared to the general population. Considering that disease-specific calculators have failed to provide more accurate CVD risk stratification in RA, CVD risk calculation in RA patients is challenging, especially for those who are not by definition at high risk based on concomitant established CVD or its equivalents. The presence of an immune-mediated inflammatory disease (e.g., RA) has been considered as a CVD risk modifier by the previous 2018 European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology (ESH/ESC) guidelines. Nevertheless, current 2023 ESH/ESC guidelines recommend assessment in RA using general CVD risk calculators. Design and method: We aimed to calculate CVD risk in RA patients using the most frequently applied CVD risk calculators in the general population. We only stratified patients free from established CVD (heart disease, stroke) or its equivalents (diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease) aged 40-74 years. The following algorithms were applied: (i) SCORE2 (Systemic Coronary Risk Estimation-2), (ii) Framingham Risk Score-Adult Treatment Panel (FRS-ATP) CVD risk calculator, and (iii) the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Pooled Cohort Equation. We further correlated the estimated CVD risk by each algorithm with surrogate CVD markers, i.e. arterial stiffness and carotid atherosclerosis. For this purpose, carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) was measured using applanation tonometry (Sphygmocor ®), and carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) was estimated using carotid ultrasound. Results: A total of 91 patients aged 60.3±8.1 years were included (78% females). Using the FRS-ATP algorithm, more patients were classified as high risk and fewer as low risk compared to the other calculators (Table 1). Moreover, CVD risk calculated with FRS-ATP correlated stronger with both cfPWV and cIMT, compared to CVD risk calculated with the other algorithms (Table 2). Conclusions: In RA patients without established CVD, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease, the FRS-ATP algorithm may be applied as a useful tool for CVD risk stratification. Prospective, large-scale studies are warranted to determine the most reliable CVD risk prediction model for patients with RA.

BLOOD PRESSURE AND OTHER CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PATIENTS WITH MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION UNDER 50 YEARS OF AGE

Objective: Arterial hypertension is the main risk factor for the development of cardiovascular diseases throughout the world. The prevalence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is increasing in young adults, especially men. Previous studies have identified that risk factors for AMI included tobacco use, obesity, arterial hypertension, and diabetes may be crucial to young individuals. Compared to the elderly, the risk factors are not well studied among the young patients with AMI. Design and method: We enrolled to our study 41 patients younger than 50 years (thirty-six men) admitted to the Department of Internal I - Cardiology, University Hospital Olomouc, with first episode AMI. We collected detailed information regarding family history of premature CVD (MI/ischaemic stroke in men aged < 55 and in women aged < 65 years, body mass index (BMI), smoking, hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus (DM). Hypertension was defined, according to ESH/ESC (European Society of Hypertension, European Society of Cardiology) guidelines, based on repeated blood pressure measurements, medical history and ongoing blood-pressure-lowering treatment. Results: Among 41 young patients with AMI (average 46 ± 3,4 years old), 15 patients (36,6%) had a known diagnosis of arterial hypertension prior to admisison. Mean level of systolic blood at admission were 128,6 ± 18,22 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure 81,35 ± 12,49 mmHg, mean heart rate was 76,32 ± 13,11 bpm. Uncontrolled arterial hypertension was diagnosed at admision in 6 patients, newly diagnosed hypertension in 4 patients. In our group, we diagnosed ST-elevation MI (STEMI) in 54 % of patients, NSTEMI in 46%. Mean level of TRPI was 24051,43 ± 32860,98 ng/l, NTproBNP was 731,1 ± 1019,92 pg/ml. Mean LDL-cholesterol was 3,26 ± 0,83 mmol/l. We newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus in 2 patients, mean HbA1c was 38,42 ± 9,43 (mmol/mol). Conclusions: In our group of young patients with myocardial infarction was prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension 17%. Compared to a group of healthy patients (data from literature), we found out a higher prevalence of arterial hypertension in our group.

P3409Comparison of the European Society of Hypertension stratification and European Society of Cardiology HeartScore for prediction of coronary artery disease and stroke in essential hypertension

Abstract Background/Introduction For estimation of overall cardiovascular risk the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) proposes stratification according to blood pressure (BP), prevalence of risk factors, asymptomatic target organ damage, diabetes, kidney and symptomatic cardiovascular disease, while the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) HeartScore constitutes another potent predictive tool of adverse outcome. Purpose The aim of the present study was to compare the predictive role of ESH stratification and ESC HeartScore for the incidence of the composite end-point of coronary artery disease (CAD) and stroke in a cohort of essential hypertensive patients. Methods We followed up 2150 essential hypertensives (mean age 55.7 years, 1085 males, office BP=145/91 mmHg) for a mean period of 8 years. All subjects had at least one annual visit. Patients were divided based on the ESH risk categories as well as according to the ESC HeartScore. CAD was defined as the history of myocardial infarction or significant coronary artery stenosis revealed by angiography or coronary revascularization procedure. Stroke was defined as rapid onset of a new neurological deficit persisting at least 24 hours unless death supervened confirmed by imaging findings. Results The incidence of CAD, stroke and their composite over the follow-up period were 2.8% (n=60), 1.11% (n=24) and 3.9% (n=84), respectively. By using the ESH stratification, regarding the total population 15.3% (n=329) was of low and moderate risk, 54.4% (n=1170) was of moderate to high and high risk and 30.3% (n=651) was high to very high and very high risk. According to the ESC HeartScore 89.2% (n=1918) was of low to moderate risk, 10% (n=215) of high risk and 0.8% (n=17) of very high risk. Cox-regression analyses revealed that high to very high and very high ESH risk category was related to increased risk for the composite end-point of CAD and stroke (hazard ratio=4.5, p<0.0001), while focusing on the ESC Heart Score the composite end-point was predicted by the high risk category (hazard ratio=3.43, p<0.0001). Using the Akaike's information criterion the ESH risk model had better fit than the ESC HeartScore due to the lowest Akaike's values (1442.66 vs 1498.31, respectively). Conclusions In essential hypertensive patients categorization of patients by means of the ESH stratification and the ESC HeartScore are both predictive of future cardiovascular events. Based on our results, the ESH risk stratification constitutes a better prediction model for CAD and stroke than the ESC HeartScore in essential hypertension and its estimation is essential in order to improve overall risk assessment in this setting.

Current perspective on the use of calcium channel blockers to treat hypertensive patients: the role of lercanidipine.

The symposium 'Current perspective on the use of calcium channel blockers in the treatment of hypertensive patients', held in Stresa (Italy) on 28th and 29th June 2018 with the participation of the main experts in the field of hypertension from all over the world, reviewed the role of calcium channel blockers in the management of hypertension. Considering the new European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology (ESH/ESC) guidelines presented at the last European Society of Hypertension meeting in Barcelona in June 2018, a special attention was focused on lercanidipine. In this article, the main highlights of the symposium were summarized.

Effectiveness of a Fixed-Dose, Single-Pill Combination of Perindopril and Amlodipine in Patients with Hypertension: A Non-Interventional Study.

IntroductionWe conducted a prospective, non-interventional, multicenter study to examine the effect of a fixed-dose combination of perindopril/amlodipine in patients with arterial hypertension.MethodsPatients who were previously untreated or required a change in medication were treated with a fixed combination of perindopril/amlodipine (3.5/2.5 or 7.0/5.0 mg) for 12 weeks. Changes in office, home and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) were recorded. Adherence was assessed by the Hill-Bone medication adherence scale.ResultsOverall, 1814 patients (mean age 60.0 ± 13.4 years) were included in 614 German practices, and data of 1770 patients were analyzed. At study entry, 97.7% of patients received perindopril/amlodipine at a daily dose of 3.5 mg/2.5 mg, and 47.9% of patients remained on this dose during the study period. Treatment with perindopril/amlodipine decreased mean office BP from 163.7/95.4 to 133.6/80.3 mmHg (p < 0.0001), resulting in a hypertension control rate of 69.1%. Blood pressure control was comparable in previously untreated and treated patients (70.3 vs. 68.1%), and in younger and older patients (70.6 < 65 vs. 66.3% ≥ 65 years). Ambulatory BP measurements were available in a subgroup of patients (n = 167), and mean 24 h ambulatory BP decreased from 150.6 ± 12.6/88.9 ± 8.8 to 132.4 ± 11.9/79.4 ± 8.5 mmHg (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, the proportion of patients with severe hypertension European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology (ESH/ESC) grade II or III decreased from 64.4 to 3.9%, and patients with pre-existing isolated systolic hypertension (n = 284) converted to normal BP in 67.6% of cases. Nearly half of the patients (47.2%) were perfectly adherent during the study. In previously treated patients, the percentage of patients with perfect adherence increased from 20.6% prior to study to 43.5% at final visit (p < 0.0001). Adverse drug reactions were documented for 4.9% of patients.ConclusionA fixed-dose combination of perindopril/amlodipine shows significant blood pressure reduction and improvement in medication adherence in a primary care setting.Trial RegistrationISRCTN26323538.FundingServier Deutschland GmbH.

The impact of an individualized risk‐adjusted approach on hypertension treatment in primary care

Previous studies suggest that up to 60% of all patients with hypertension receive inappropriate treatment. Current 2013 European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology (ESH/ESC) guidelines recommend taking cardiovascular risk factors into account when assessing treatment for patients with hypertension. The authors hypothesize that this approach will reduce the proportion of patients receiving inappropriate treatment. In this cross-sectional study using electronic medical records of Swiss primary care patients, the authors estimate the proportion of patients receiving inappropriate treatment using two approaches: (1) based on a blood pressure threshold of 140/90mmHg; and (2) based on cardiovascular risk factors. A total of 22434 patients with hypertension were identified. Based on these approaches, 72.7% and 44.6% of patients, respectively, qualified for drug treatment. In addition, 23.0% and 10.8% of patients, respectively, received inappropriate treatment. Application of the 2013 ESH/ESC guidelines reduced the proportion of patients receiving inappropriate treatment by 50%. This shows the major impact of risk adjustment and highlights the need for a patient-centered approach in hypertension treatment.

Assessment of Risk of Aneurysmal Rupture in Patients with Normotensives, Controlled Hypertension, and Uncontrolled Hypertension

The prevalence of hypertension in patients with intracranial aneurysms has been an increased concern, but it is not well understood if uncontrolled hypertension has impact on aneurysmal rupture. The aim of this study was to determine whether the risk of aneurysmal rupture is higher in uncontrolled hypertensive cohorts than in controlled hypertensive cohorts and normotensive cohorts. We retrospectively analyzed the records and angiographies of 456 patients with aneurysms who were treated at our center between June 2013 and June 2014. Three groups of patients were included in the study following the ESH-ESC (European Society of Hypertension-European Society of Cardiology) 2013 guidelines: normotensive group (n = 229), controlled hypertension group (n = 127), and uncontrolled hypertension group (n = 100). Paired comparisons of these 3 groups were analyzed with the Nemenyi test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to exclude the impact of possible confounding factors. The results of the univariate analysis showed that hypertension, smoking, and size of the aneurysms were significantly associated with intracranial aneurysmal rupture (P < .05). The multivariate logistic regression analysis containing clinical and aneurysmal characteristics showed that uncontrolled hypertension, smoking, and aneurysm size were statistically significant predictors of intracranial aneurysmal rupture (P < .05). The paired comparisons of 3 groups showed that the risk of rupture of intracranial aneurysms in the uncontrolled hypertension group was significantly greater than that in the normotensive group (P < .05) and in the controlled hypertension group (P < .05). Uncontrolled hypertension is associated with increased risk of rupture of intracranial aneurysms. Given that aneurysmal rupture is a potentially fatal-but preventable-complication, these findings are of clinical relevance.

Prevalence and determinants of resistant hypertension in a sample of patients followed in Italian hypertension centers: results from the MINISAL-SIIA study program.

The aim of this study was to detect the prevalence of resistant hypertension (RH), allowing for adherence to appropriate lifestyle measures according to European Society of Hypertension-European Society of Cardiology (ESH-ESC) 2013 guidelines, in a sample of 1284 hypertensive subjects participating at the MINISAL-SIIA study. Hypertensive patients were recruited in 47 Italian centres, recognised by the Italian Society of Hypertension. Anthropometric indexes, blood pressure and 24-h urinary sodium (Na24h) and potassium (K24h) excretion were measured. Data on antihypertensive therapy were available for 1177 (92%) subjects. The population was divided into three groups (North, Central and South), according to their geographical location. Accounting only at the treatment criteria, the prevalence of RH was 8.2% (96/1177). RH prevalence in the southern, central and northern regions was respectively: 1, 3.8 and 3.3% (P<0.001). Participants with RH were older and showed a higher body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference compared with other subjects (P<0.005). RH risk was statistically significant (P<0.01) increased of 1.52-fold (95% confidence interval (CI):1.20-1.92) for one unit increase in s.d. score of age (11 years), and 1.50-fold (95% CI:1.22-1.83) for one unit increase in s.d. score of BMI (4.5 kg m-2). Including in RH diagnosis also the adherence to appropriate lifestyle measures, such as dietary salt restriction (Na24h <100 mmol) and normal BMI (18-25 kg m-2), RH prevalence felt respectively to 2.2% (26/1177) and 0.8% (9/1177). In conclusion in this national sample of Italian hypertensive population, among participants following both drug treatment and lifestyle modifications advises, the 'true' RH prevalence appears to be particularly low.

2013 Practice guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)

1. INTRODUCTION1.1 PrinciplesThe 2013 European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology (ESH/ESC) guidelines continue to adhere to some fundamental principles that inspired the 2003 and 2007 guidelines, namely to base recommendations on properly conducted studies identified from an ext

Shooting beyond score

ypertension is a complex disease, in whichelevated blood pressure reflects the impairmentof several regulatory and contraregulatory mech-anisms and systems. This, in turn, may lead to developmentandprogressionofasymptomaticsubclinicalorgandamage,hence promoting cardiovascular and renal diseases.During the long natural history of hypertensive disease,the presence of hypertension-related organ damage atcardiac, vascular and renal level has been demonstratedto largely and substantially impact prognosis in terms ofincreased incidence of cardiovascular and renal outcomesin large clinical trials. In turn, evidence derived from rela-tively smaller clinical studies or predefined analyses fromrandomized clinical trials have demonstrated that preven-tion, delayed progression or even regression of organdamageduringchronicantihypertensivetherapymaytrans-late into significant cardiovascular benefits.A paradigmatic example, is provided by the LosartanInterventionForEndpointreductioninhypertensiontrialinwhichthepresenceofleftventricularhypertrophy(LVH)ormicroalbuminuria(MAU)orbothatbaselinewasassociatedwith a significant increased risk of developing the primarycomposite endpoint (myocardial infarction, stroke andcardiovascular mortality) and mostly stroke during thefollow-up [1,2]. This increased risk was also largely inde-pendentofhoworgandamagewasassessed(electrocardio-graphic-LVH criteria with or without ST-segment strain orechocardiographic criteria for LVH) and it was not strictlyrelated to the concomitant treatments or blood pressurechanges during the study. In the same study, regression ofLVH [3,4] or MAU [5] was paralleled by a progressive,persistent and significant reduction of the risk ofcardiovascular outcomes. Other studies have linkedregression of LVH to cardiovascular benefits in hyperten-sion [6–9].Giventheimportanceofthepresenceand,mostly,ofthedevelopment of hypertension-related organ damage in theclinicalmanagementofhypertension, itisquitedisappoint-ing that no major attempt has yet been made to considermarkers of hypertension-related organ damage in moderntools and charts for cardiovascular risk assessment andevaluation developed and adopted in the US (FraminghamScore) or European [10] countries. The only risk algorithmthat has systematically taken into consideration the pres-ence/absence of organ damage in the definition of esti-mated added cardiovascular risk is represented by theEuropean Society of Hypertension/European Society ofCardiology (ESH/ESC) guidelines [11,12].Inclusion of markers of organ damage to risk charts orcalculators is feasible and can be done at low cost, especi-ally when the least expensive parameters (electrocardio-graphic-LVH, MAU, estimatedglomerular filtrationrate)areused. This may translate in improved cardiovascular riskstratification and more precise prognosis especially inintermediate-to-high risk patients. So, it is probably timeto take advantage from this and focus more on theseintermediate disease markers in risk charts applied tohypertensives.In this latter regard, Sehestedt et al. [13] in a previousstudy were able to demonstrate that in an apparentlyhealthy population, subclinical organ damages, as well asthe number of abnormal parameters indicating subclinicalorgan damage, were associated with increased cardiovas-cular risk, independently of Systematic COronary RiskEvaluation (SCORE). Combining the risk models of SCOREand subclinical organ damage yielded greater performanceon risk stratification and derived recommendations forprimary prevention. This approach allows reclassificationof the cardiovascular risk as defined by SCORE by simplyadding LVH and MAU. For example, in patients with aSCORE of 5% or more, the cardiovascular risk would bedoubled when taking into account the presence of any ofthese two markers of organ damage. At the same time, inpatients with a SCORE less than 5%, the presence of LVHalmost doubles the cardiovascular risk, whereas thepresence of MAU increases cardiovascular risk by morethan three-fold compared with those without MAU. Thiswas consistent with former Italian studies showing thatidentification of subclinical organ damage reclassify therisk profile of hypertensive patients [14].Anewanalysisperformedbythesamegroup[15],whichis published in this issue of the Journal, assessed the

Thresholds for pulse wave velocity, urine albumin creatinine ratio and left ventricular mass index using SCORE, Framingham and ESH/ESC risk charts

Markers of subclinical target organ damage (TOD) increase cardiovascular (CV) risk prediction beyond traditional risk factors. We wanted to establish thresholds for three markers of TOD based on absolute CV risk in different risk chart categories. In a cohort of 1968 healthy patients, we measured urine albumin creatine ratio (UACR), pulse wave velocity (PWV), left ventricular mass index (LVMI) and traditional risk factors. Patients were categorized according to Systemic Coronary Evaluation (SCORE), European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology (ESH/ESC) risk chart and Framingham risk score (FRS) and three corresponding endpoints were recorded: CV death (SCORE-endpoint), a composite of CV death and nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke (ESH/ESC-endpoint), and a composite that also included hospital admissions for ischemic heart disease, heart failure, peripheral arterial disease and transient cerebral ischemic attack (FRS-endpoint). During a median follow of 12.8 years events totaled 81 SCORE-, 153 ESH/ESC-endpoints and 280 FRS-endpoints. Thresholds for UACR, PWV and LVMI are presented using 10-year risk threshold of more than 5% (SCORE-endpoint), more than 10%(ESH/ESC-endpoint) and more than 20%(FRS-endpoint), which indicated high risk and eligibility for primary prevention. As an example, the threshold was 0.83 mg/mmol, 13.7 m/s and 119 g/m for UACR, PWV and LVMI, respectively, for patients at moderate added risk according to ESH/ESC risk chart. Thresholds for UACR, PVW and LVMI based on absolute risk have primarily impact on risk stratification in patients with intermediate risk. The thresholds for PWV and LVMI in patients with moderate risk according to the ESH/ESC risk chart were similar to currently applied thresholds whereas the threshold for UACR was considerable lower than the threshold for microalbuminuria.

Blood pressure target attainment in the background of guidelines: the very elderly in Swiss primary care

There are only a few trials for the very elderly population (>79 years). No consensus, which blood pressure (BP) goals and substances should be applied, has been found yet. This survey was undertaken to investigate how octogenarians are treated and attain BP targets in the Swiss primary care. Data from 4594 hypertensive patients were collected within 7 days. Eight hundred and seventy-seven patients met the requirement to be >79 years. We assessed substances/combinations and investigated pulse pressure and target blood pressure attainment (TBPA) using three different recommendations [Canadian Hypertension Education Program (CHEP), Swiss Society of Hypertension (SSH), European Society of Hypertension-European Society of Cardiology (ESH-ESC)]. Secondarily, we compared TBPA attained by angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)/diuretic (D), angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB)/D and calcium channel blocker (CCB)/D with any other dual therapy and investigated whether Ds/beta-blockers (BBs) or Ds/renin angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (RAAS-Is) lead to higher TBPA. Finally, we assessed the impact of drug administration, practical work experience, location and specialization of GPs on TBPA. Octogenarians attained target blood pressure (TBP) between 44% (ESH-ESC) and 74% (SSH). Optimal/normal BP was reached in 22.8% of patients. Pulse pressure <65 mmHg was shown in 66.4% of patients. Monotherapy was most commonly applied followed by dual single-pill combination with ARB/D (46.5%) or ACEI/D (36.0%). No benefit in TBPA was found comparing a RAASI/D and CCB/D treatment with any other dual combination. There was also no difference between BB/D and RAAS-I/D combination therapy and between single-pill combination and dual free combinations. GPs adhere to the use of substances proven in outcome trials and attain high TBP. No difference in meeting BP goals could be found using different drug classes. There is an unmet need to harmonize recommendations and to add additional information for the treatment of octogenarians.

Antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil and candesartan cilexetil in achieving 24-hour blood pressure reductions and ambulatory blood pressure goals

Background. For patients with hypertension, effective 24-hour blood pressure (BP) control is vital to ensure protection against the early morning surge in BP and the associated increased risk of cardiovascular events. The aim of this analysis was to assess the 24-hour antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil (20 mg once daily) compared with candesartan cilexetil (8 mg once daily), with particular emphasis on BP control during the early morning period.Methods. This is an additional analysis of a previously reported randomised, double-blind study in which 635 patients with mainly mild to moderate hypertension were randomised to 8 weeks of treatment with either olmesartan medoxomil 20 mg/day or candesartan cilexetil 8 mg/day. Changes from baseline during the last 4 and 2 hours of ambulatory BP measurement (ABPM) after 1, 2 and 8 weeks of treatment were compared between the two groups. In addition, the proportions of patients who achieved various ABPM goals, including those suggested by the European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology (ESH/ESC) [&lt;125/80 mm Hg] and the Japanese Society of Hypertension (JSH) [&lt;135/80 mm Hg], over 24 hours, during the daytime and at the last 4 and 2 hours of ABPM measurement were also compared.Results.After 8 weeks, significantly greater proportions of patients treated with olmesartan medoxomil 20 mg achieved 24-hour and daytime ABPM goals recommended by the guidelines of the ESH/ESC (25,6 % and 18,3 %, respectively) and JSH (37,5 % and 26,6 %, respectively) compared with candesartan cilexetil 8 mg (24-hour ESH/ESC goal 14,9 %,p&lt;0,001; 24-hour JSH goal 26,6 %,p=0,003; daytime ESH/ESC goal 9,6 %,p=0,002; daytime JSH goal 16,4 %,p=0,002). During the last 4 hours of 24-hour ABPM, the proportions of patients who achieved the ESH/ESC and JSH ABPM goals were significantly greater with olmesartan medoxomil (33,3 % and 39,1 %, respectively) than with candesartan cilexetil (22,9 %,p&lt;0,001 and 31,6 %,p=0,047, respectively). Similarly, during the last 2 hours of 24-hour ABPM, the proportions of patients who achieved these BP goals were either significantly greater (JSH) or approached statistical significance (ESH/ESC) with olmesartan medoxomil (26,9 % and 19,9 %, respectively), compared with candesartan cilexetil (19,6 %,p=0,028 and 14,3 %,p=0,061, respectively).Conclusion. Compared with candesartan cilexetil 8 mg, greater proportions of olmesartan medoxomil-treated patients (20 mg) achieved ESH/ESC and JSH ABPM goals over 24 hours. The superior BP control of olmesartan medoxomil was also reflected in the larger proportions of olmesartan medoxomil-treated patients who achieved the ESH/ESC and JSH ABPM goals during the early morning surge period. This not only demonstrates that olmesartan medoxomil 20 mg provides superior 24-hour BP reduction, but also suggests that olmesartan medoxomil may provide greater protection against the increased risk of cardiovascular events associated with the early morning BP surge period.

SCORE model underestimates cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients: Results of the Polish Hypertension Registry

Objective. The aim of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of Systemic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) charts and European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology (ESH/ESC) hypertension guidelines for identifying high-risk hypertensive patients. Methods. The data on hypertensive patients was collected using the Polish Hypertension Registry. We enrolled 636 patients (357 females and 279 males, mean age 54.4 ± 7.9 years) from hypertension centres in Poland. Results. Only 3.5% of the subjects had no additional risk factors. Thirty-six per cent of the patients had three or more risk factors. Metabolic syndrome was found in 40.1% of the patients. According to the SCORE charts, 9.0% of females and 27.2% of males had high to very high cardiovascular risk (p < 0.001). Taking into account risk factors and the metabolic syndrome, 55.7% of females and 56.3% of males (p = NS) had high or very high additional cardiovascular risk according to the 2007 ESH/ESC guidelines. For both females and males, the prevalence of high to very high risk was greater (p < 0.001) from the calculation based on the 2007 ESH/ESC guidelines than from the SCORE charts. Fifty-two per cent of patients classified as low to moderate risk according to the SCORE system, had high or very high risk according to the 2007 ESH/ESC guidelines. Conclusions. The SCORE charts seem to underestimate the burden of the cardiovascular risk among hypertensive patients. The cardiovascular risk, especially in the hypertensive female population, seems to be much higher when estimated according to the 2007 ESH/ESC guidelines.

Oximeter-Based Autonomic State Indicator Algorithm for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment

Cardiovascular (CV) risk assessment is important in clinical practice. An autonomic state indicator (ASI) algorithm based on pulse oximetry was developed and validated for CV risk assessment. One hundred forty-eight sleep clinic patients (98 men, mean age 50 ± 13 years) underwent an overnight study using a novel photoplethysmographic sensor. CV risk was classified according to the European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology (ESH/ESC) risk factor matrix. Five signal components reflecting cardiac and vascular activity (pulse wave attenuation, pulse rate acceleration, pulse propagation time, respiration-related pulse oscillation, and oxygen desaturation) extracted from 99 randomly selected subjects were used to train the classification algorithm. The capacity of the algorithm for CV risk prediction was validated in 49 additional patients. Each signal component contributed independently to CV risk prediction. The sensitivity and specificity of the algorithm to distinguish high/low CV risk in the validation group were 80% and 77%, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for high CV risk classification was 0.84. β-Blocker treatment was identified as an important factor for classification that was not in line with the ESH/ESC reference matrix. Signals derived from overnight oximetry recording provide a novel potential tool for CV risk classification. Prospective studies are warranted to establish the value of the ASI algorithm for prediction of outcome in CV disease.

Prevention of risk factors: beta-blockade and hypertension

Some national guidelines on hypertension have demoted beta-blockers from a first-choice to a fourth-choice treatment. In contrast, the 2007 guidelines of the European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology (ESH/ESC) retain them among the drug classes used to initiate and maintain antihypertensive treatment, together with diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors, calcium antagonists, and angiotensin receptor antagonists. The reasons are as follows. First, in most trials beta-blockers were used with thiazide diuretics, making it illogical to drop one and save the other. Secondly, individual trials and meta-analyses conflict regarding whether beta-blockers are less effective in preventing cardiovascular events than other drugs. Thirdly, a reduced protective effect of beta-blockers against stroke has been reported in some but not all trials; blood pressure reduction per se is probably the most important factor in protecting patients against stroke. Rationally, therefore, it seems appropriate for the ESH/ESC guidelines to recommend that no available drug class should be generically prescribed or proscribed. Beta-blockers should be avoided in patients with a high risk of incident diabetes, and in those with contraindications. However, they remain drugs of crucial importance in other common clinical situations, e.g. in hypertensive patients with angina pectoris, post-myocardial infarction, and heart failure.

Management der arteriellen Hypertonie (ESC-Leitlinie 2007/DHL-Leitlinie 2008)

The 2007 ESH/ESC (European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology) guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension focus on the individual patient with his specific cardiovascular risk profile. The existing hypertension classification remains the same as in previous editions. However, specific patient characteristics and risk profiles require a more individualized approach. Recommended diagnostic procedures have been extended in order to detect existing subclinical organ damage and/or established cardiovascular or renal diseases at an early stage. Urgency and mode of therapeutic approach can directly be derived from the relevant risk stratification matrix which continues to be an integral component of the current guidelines. The primary goal of treatment of the hypertensive patient is to achieve a maximum reduction in the long-term total risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Since blood pressure lowering per se is thought to be of major importance to achieve these goals, a number of well-established pharmaceutical substances remain at hand of the practitioner. In addition, lifestyle changes are increasingly regarded to be of high importance. In patients with established comorbidities and in young subjects the choice of a specific pharmaceutical substance class is fundamental. The gap between guideline recommendations and poor blood pressure control in medical practice remains and needs to be closed. Therefore, a collective striving of all parties involved for early detection and effective treatment is needed to overcome the current and future burden of arterial hypertension.

Current possibilities of ACE inhibitor and ARB combination in arterial hypertension and its complications

The renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) plays a crucial role in blood pressure regulation and hypertension-related complications. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) were the first to be used to block the RAAS and now have many compelling indications in the treatment of hypertension and its cardiovascular and renal complications. Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), introduced 20 years later, have been shown to be equally as effective as antihypertensive treatment and are also associated with a lower number of side effects. Furthermore, in clinical trials ARBs and ACEIs were associated with comparable benefits for their most typical indications. This was confirmed in the 2007 New European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology (ESH/ESC) guidelines for the management of hypertension by comparable specific recommendations for ARB and ACEI treatment. There is sufficient theoretical background and, in some cases, also clinical evidence that combination therapy with ACEIs and ARBs may be more beneficial than monotherapy with either of the groups alone, both in uncomplicated hypertension and with concomitant heart failure or renal dysfunction. However, the combination of ACEI and ARB was not recommended in the ESH/ESC 2007 Guidelines. This may change after the publication of the Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global End point Trial (ONTARGET) study, the preliminary results of which have just been presented. In heart failure, recent studies have shown that the combination of ACEI and ARB decreases cardiovascular mortality and the number of hospitalizations due to aggravation of heart failure. These results have been reflected in the newest ESC guidelines of the heart failure treatment. Nephroprotective properties of the combination of ACEs and ARBs have been proved both in studies on nondiabetic and diabetic nephropathy. The potential benefits, indications in prespecified groups of patients, the most recent data from clinical trials and latest research regarding dual blockade of RAAS will be reviewed in this article.

Medium-term effects of bisoprolol administration on renal hemodynamics and function in mild to moderate essential hypertension

Arterial hypertension is a significant cause of end-stage renal failure; effective treatment of hypertensive patients reduces the rate of progression of this disorder. ss-Blockers, particularly nonselective agents, are associated with deterioration of renal function in patients with chronic renal failure. Previous studies on the interaction of the beta1-selective adrenergic antagonist bisoprolol with kidney function have been performed only acutely and over the short term. This study was designed to evaluate the antihypertensive efficacy and effects on renal hemodynamics and function of bisoprolol during medium-term (6 mo) treatment of patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. After a 2-wk run-in period on placebo, 87 consecutive hypertensive patients (46 men, 41 women) according to ESH-ESC (European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology) guidelines, aged from 27 to 64 y (mean age, 50+/-11 y), without renal or cardiovascular disease, were enrolled and assigned to treatment with bisoprolol 5 mg once daily for 6 mo. At recruitment and at 6 mo after treatment, renal function was assessed and renal hemodynamics evaluated in all patients through radioisotope studies. The medium-term effects of bisoprolol included a significant reduction in blood pressure and heart rate (P<.001) without significant adverse drug reactions. Moreover, bisoprolol produced no alteration in renal function or hemodynamics, or in cardiac output. Data presented here indicate that bisoprolol 5 mg given once daily to treat patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension is effective and safe for treatment and for preservation of renal performance when given on a medium-term basis.

Estratificación y grado de control del riesgo cardiovascular en la población hipertensa española. Resultados del estudio DICOPRESS

Hypertension, together with other contributing risk factors, is a major risk for cardiovascular disease. The aim of this study was to assess the cardiovascular risk in the Spanish hypertensive population according to the 2003 European Society of Hypertension-European Society of Cardiology (ESH/ESC) guidelines criteria and to determine the control rate of the main cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF). Observational and transversal study including 22,639 patients with essential hypertension, who have been admitted to primary care units and hypertension units in Spain. Dyslipemia (52.1%), diabetes (36.6%) and smoking (22.3%) were the most prevalent CVRF. Cardiovascular risk stratification according to the ESH/ESC guidelines showed that more than 70% patients were considered at high added risk (36.9%) or at very high added risk (35.8%), whereas only 7.6% were classified in the low-risk stratum. Blood pressure was the worst controlled risk factor among hypertensive patients (80.6%). Total cholesterol was also poorly controlled in a high percentage of the analyzed population (66.4%). Diabetes was the best predictor of uncontrolled blood pressure with an odds ratio of 5.25 (99% confidence interval, 4.57-6.06). Coexistence of several cardiovascular risk factors, as well as the presence of target organ damage and associated cardiovascular conditions in the Spanish hypertensive population, increase the vascular risk, complicate the control in the hypertensive population and show the convenience of using ESH/ESC 2003 guidelines to estimate the cardiovascular risk.