Search

Resistant hypertension, defined as blood pressure levels above goal while taking ≥3 classes of antihypertensive medication or ≥4 classes regardless of blood pressure level, is associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk. The 2018 American Heart Association Scientific Statement on Resistant Hypertension recommends healthy lifestyle habits and thiazide-like diuretics and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists for adults with resistant hypertension. The term apparent treatment-resistant hypertension (aTRH) is used when pseudoresistance cannot be excluded. We estimated the use of healthy lifestyle factors and recommended antihypertensive medication classes among US Black adults with aTRH. Data were pooled for Black participants in the JHS (Jackson Heart Study) in 2009 to 2013 (n=2496) and the REGARDS study (Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke) in 2013 to 2016 (n=3786). Outcomes included lifestyle factors (not smoking, not consuming alcohol, ≥75 minutes of vigorous-intensity or ≥150 minutes of moderate or vigorous physical activity per week, and body mass index <25 kg/m 2 ) and recommended antihypertensive medications (thiazide-like diuretics and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists). Overall, 28.3% of participants who reported taking antihypertensive medication had aTRH. Among participants with aTRH, 14.5% and 1.2% had ideal levels of 3 and 4 of the lifestyle factors, respectively. Also, 5.9% of participants with aTRH reported taking a thiazide-like diuretic, and 9.8% reported taking a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. In conclusion, evidence-based lifestyle factors and recommended pharmacological treatment are underutilized in Black adults with aTRH. Increased use of lifestyle recommendations and antihypertensive medication classes specifically recommended for aTRH may improve blood pressure control and reduce cardiovascular disease-related morbidity and mortality among US Black adults. Graphic Abstract A graphic abstract is available for this article.

High blood pressure is the leading modifiable risk factor for mortality, accounting for nearly 1 in 5 deaths worldwide and 1 in 11 in low-income countries. Hypertension control remains a challenge, especially in low-resource settings. One approach to improvement is the prioritization of patient-centered care. However, consensus on the outcomes that matter most to patients is lacking. We aimed to define a standard set of patient-centered outcomes for evaluating hypertension management in low- and middle-income countries. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement convened a Working Group of 18 experts and patients representing 15 countries. We used a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on a set of outcomes, case-mix variables, and a timeline to guide data collection. Literature reviews, patient interviews, a patient validation survey, and an open review by hypertension experts informed the set. The set contains 18 clinical and patient-reported outcomes that reflect patient priorities and evidence-based hypertension management and case-mix variables to allow comparisons between providers. The domains included are hypertension control, cardiovascular complications, health-related quality of life, financial burden of care, medication burden, satisfaction with care, health literacy, and health behaviors. We present a core list of outcomes for evaluating hypertension care. They account for the unique challenges healthcare providers and patients face in low- and middle-income countries, yet are relevant to all settings. We believe that it is a vital step toward international benchmarking in hypertension care and, ultimately, value-based hypertension management.

The accurate measurement of blood pressure (BP) is essential for the diagnosis and management of hypertension. This article provides an updated American Heart Association scientific statement on BP measurement in humans. In the office setting, many oscillometric devices have been validated that allow accurate BP measurement while reducing human errors associated with the auscultatory approach. Fully automated oscillometric devices capable of taking multiple readings even without an observer being present may provide a more accurate measurement of BP than auscultation. Studies have shown substantial differences in BP when measured outside versus in the office setting. Ambulatory BP monitoring is considered the reference standard for out-of-office BP assessment, with home BP monitoring being an alternative when ambulatory BP monitoring is not available or tolerated. Compared with their counterparts with sustained normotension (ie, nonhypertensive BP levels in and outside the office setting), it is unclear whether adults with white-coat hypertension (ie, hypertensive BP levels in the office but not outside the office) have increased cardiovascular disease risk, whereas those with masked hypertension (ie, hypertensive BP levels outside the office but not in the office) are at substantially increased risk. In addition, high nighttime BP on ambulatory BP monitoring is associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk. Both oscillometric and auscultatory methods are considered acceptable for measuring BP in children and adolescents. Regardless of the method used to measure BP, initial and ongoing training of technicians and healthcare providers and the use of validated and calibrated devices are critical for obtaining accurate BP measurements.

In 2017, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and the American College of Physicians/American Academy of Family Physicians (ACP/AAFP) published blood pressure guidelines. Adults recommended antihypertensive medication initiation or intensification by the ACP/AAFP guideline receive the same recommendation from the ACC/AHA guideline. However, many adults ≥60 years old are recommended to initiate or intensify antihypertensive medication by the ACC/AHA but not the ACP/AAFP guideline. We compared atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event rates according to antihypertensive treatment recommendations in the ACC/AHA and ACP/AAFP guidelines among adults ≥60 years old with systolic blood pressure ≥130 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥80 mm Hg in the REGARDS study (Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke) and the JHS (Jackson Heart Study). Among 4311 participants not taking antihypertensive medication at baseline, 11.4%, 61.2%, and 27.4% were recommended antihypertensive medication initiation by neither guideline, the ACC/AHA but not the ACP/AAFP guideline, and both guidelines, respectively. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event rates (95% CI) for these groups were 3.4 (1.6-5.2), 18.0 (16.1-19.8), and 25.3 (21.9-28.6) per 1000 person-years, respectively. Among 7281 participants taking antihypertensive medication at baseline, 57.9% and 42.1% were recommended antihypertensive medication intensification by the ACC/AHA but not the ACP/AAFP guideline and both guidelines, respectively. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event rates (95% CI) for these groups were 18.2 (16.7-19.7) and 33.0 (30.5-35.4) per 1000 person-years, respectively. In conclusion, adults recommended initiation or intensification of antihypertensive medication by the ACC/AHA but not the ACP/AAFP guideline have high atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk that may be reduced through treatment initiation or intensification.

Although there is an increasing agreement that hypertension is associated with cerebrovascular compromise, relationships between blood pressure (BP) and cerebral blood flow are not fully understood. It is not known what BP level, and consequently what therapeutic goal, is optimal for brain perfusion. Moreover, there is limited data on how BP affects hippocampal perfusion, a structure critically involved in memory. We conducted a cross-sectional (n=445) and longitudinal (n=185) study of adults and elderly without dementia or clinically apparent stroke, who underwent clinical examination and brain perfusion assessment (age 69.2±7.5 years, 62% women, 45% hypertensive). Linear models were used to test baseline BP-blood flow relationship and to examine how changes in BP influence changes in perfusion. In the entire group, systolic BP (SBP) was negatively related to cortical (β=-0.13, P=0.005) and hippocampal blood flow (β=-0.12, P=0.01). Notably, this negative relationship was apparent already in subjects without hypertension. Hypertensive subjects showed a quadratic relationship between SBP and hippocampal blood flow (β=-1.55, P=0.03): Perfusion was the highest in subjects with mid-range SBP around 125 mm Hg. Longitudinally, in hypertensive subjects perfusion increased with increased SBP at low baseline SBP but increased with decreased SBP at high baseline SBP. Cortical and hippocampal perfusion decrease with increasing SBP across the entire BP spectrum. However, in hypertension, there seems to be a window of mid-range SBP which maximizes perfusion.

Several modifiable health behaviors and health factors that comprise the Life's Simple 7-a cardiovascular health metric-have been associated with hypertension risk. We determined the association between cardiovascular health and incident hypertension in JHS (the Jackson Heart Study)-a cohort of blacks. We analyzed participants without hypertension or cardiovascular disease at baseline (2000-2004) who attended ≥1 follow-up visit in 2005 to 2008 or 2009 to 2012 (n=1878). Body mass index, physical activity, diet, cigarette smoking, blood pressure (BP), total cholesterol, and fasting glucose were assessed at baseline and categorized as ideal, intermediate, or poor using the American Heart Association's Life's Simple 7 definitions. Incident hypertension was defined at the first visit wherein a participant had systolic BP ≥140 mm Hg, diastolic BP ≥90 mm Hg, or self-reported taking antihypertensive medication. The percentage of participants with ≤1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 ideal Life's Simple 7 components was 6.5%, 22.4%, 34.4%, 25.2%, 10.0%, and 1.4%, respectively. No participants had 7 ideal components. During follow-up (median, 8.0 years), 944 (50.3%) participants developed hypertension, including 81.3% with ≤1 and 11.1% with 6 ideal components. The multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for incident hypertension comparing participants with 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 versus ≤1 ideal component were 0.80 (0.61-1.03), 0.58 (0.45-0.74), 0.30 (0.23-0.40), 0.26 (0.18-0.37), and 0.10 (0.03-0.31), respectively ( P trend <0.001). This association was present among participants with baseline systolic BP <120 mm Hg and diastolic BP <80 mm Hg and separately systolic BP 120 to 139 mm Hg or diastolic BP 80 to 89 mm Hg. Blacks with better cardiovascular health have lower hypertension risk., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Masked hypertension is associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease. Identifying modifiable risk factors for masked hypertension could provide approaches to reduce its prevalence. Life's Simple 7 is a measure of cardiovascular health developed by the American Heart Association that includes body mass index, physical activity, diet, cigarette smoking, blood pressure (BP), cholesterol, and glucose. We examined the association between cardiovascular health and masked daytime hypertension in the Jackson Heart Study, an exclusively African American cohort. Life's Simple 7 factors were assessed during a study visit and categorized as poor, intermediate, or ideal. Ambulatory BP monitoring was performed after the study visit. Using BP measured between 10:00 am and 8:00 pm on ambulatory BP monitoring, masked daytime hypertension was defined as mean clinic systolic BP/diastolic BP <140/90 mm Hg and mean daytime systolic BP/diastolic BP ≥135/85 mm Hg. Among the 758 participants with systolic BP/diastolic BP <140/90 mm Hg, 30.5% had masked daytime hypertension. The multivariable-adjusted prevalence ratios for masked daytime hypertension comparing participants with 2, 3, and ≥4 versus ≤1 ideal Life's Simple 7 factors were 0.99 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-1.33), 0.77 (95% CI, 0.57-1.03), and 0.51 (95% CI, 0.33-0.79), respectively. Masked daytime hypertension was less common among participants with ideal versus poor levels of physical activity (ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56-1.00), ideal or intermediate levels pooled together versus poor diet (prevalence ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.91), ideal versus poor levels of cigarette smoking (prevalence ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46-0.82), and ideal versus intermediate levels of clinic BP (prevalence ratio, 0.28, 95% CI, 0.16-0.48). Better cardiovascular health is associated with a lower preva lence of masked hypertension., (© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest/Disclosures: None for Drs. Ard, Arnett, Carter, Cooper, Cutler, Davis, Desvigne-Nickens, Diez Roux, Einhorn, Gavini, Go, Kimmel, Mensah, Miller, Mills, Ogedegbe, Rahman, Thomas, Tobin, Whelton, Wright, and Yoon. Dr. Appel has an institutional conflict of interest with Healthways, Inc. Dr. Cushman is an investigator for institutional grants from Eli Lilly and Boerhinger-Ingelheim, and has provided unpaid services for Takeda. Dr. Freedman and Wake Forest University Health Sciences have filed for a patent related to APOL1 genetic testing. Dr. Freedman receives grant support from Novartis Pharmaceuticals and is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Ferdinand is a consultant for Amgen, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingleheim. Dr. Margolis served on an advisory board for Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Muntner receives research support from Amgen, Inc. Dr. Navar is an investigator for institutional grants from Sanofi and Regeneron pharmaceuticals. Dr. Taylor is on an advisory board for Amgen, Inc and for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the American Medical Association; National Institutes of Health; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; or US Department of Health and Human Services.

Many antihypertensive medications and lifestyle changes are proven to reduce blood pressure. Over the past few decades, numerous additional modalities have been evaluated in regard to their potential blood pressure-lowering abilities. However, these nondietary, nondrug treatments, collectively called alternative approaches, have generally undergone fewer and less rigorous trials. This American Heart Association scientific statement aims to summarize the blood pressure-lowering efficacy of several alternative approaches and to provide a class of recommendation for their implementation in clinical practice based on the available level of evidence from the published literature. Among behavioral therapies, Transcendental Meditation (Class IIB, Level of Evidence B), other meditation techniques (Class III, Level of Evidence C), yoga (Class III, Level of Evidence C), other relaxation therapies (Class III, Level of Evidence B), and biofeedback approaches (Class IIB, Level of Evidence B) generally had modest, mixed, or no consistent evidence demonstrating their efficacy. Between the noninvasive procedures and devices evaluated, device-guided breathing (Class IIA, Level of Evidence B) had greater support than acupuncture (Class III, Level of Evidence B). Exercise-based regimens, including aerobic (Class I, Level of Evidence A), dynamic resistance (Class IIA, Level of Evidence B), and isometric handgrip (Class IIB, Level of Evidence C) modalities, had relatively stronger supporting evidence. It is the consensus of the writing group that it is reasonable for all individuals with blood pressure levels >120/80 mm Hg to consider trials of alternative approaches as adjuvant methods to help lower blood pressure when clinically appropriate. A suggested management algorithm is provided, along with recommendations for prioritizing the use of the individual approaches in clinical practice based on their level of evidence for blood pressure lowering, risk-to-benefit ratio, potential ancillary health benefits, and practicality in a real-world setting. Finally, recommendations for future research priorities are outlined.

Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) overcomes many of the limitations of traditional office blood pressure (BP) measurement and is both cheaper and easier to perform than ambulatory BP monitoring. Monitors that use the oscillometric method are currently available that are accurate, reliable, easy to use, and relatively inexpensive. An increasing number of patients are using them regularly to check their BP at home, but although this has been endorsed by national and international guidelines, detailed recommendations for their use have been lacking. There is a rapidly growing literature showing that measurements taken by patients at home are often lower than readings taken in the office and closer to the average BP recorded by 24-hour ambulatory monitors, which is the BP that best predicts cardiovascular risk. Because of the larger numbers of readings that can be taken by HBPM than in the office and the elimination of the white-coat effect (the increase of BP during an office visit), home readings are more reproducible than office readings and show better correlations with measures of target organ damage. In addition, prospective studies that have used multiple home readings to express the true BP have found that home BP predicts risk better than office BP (class IIa; level of evidence A). This call-to-action article makes the following recommendations: (1) It is recommended that HBPM should become a routine component of BP measurement in the majority of patients with known or suspected hypertension; (2) Patients should be advised to purchase oscillometric monitors that measure BP on the upper arm with an appropriate cuff size and that have been shown to be accurate according to standard international protocols. They should be shown how to use them by their healthcare providers; (3) Two to 3 readings should be taken while the subject is resting in the seated position, both in the morning and at night, over a period of 1 week. A total of >or=12 readings are recommended for making clinical decisions; (4) HBPM is indicated in patients with newly diagnosed or suspected hypertension, in whom it may distinguish between white-coat and sustained hypertension. If the results are equivocal, ambulatory BP monitoring may help to establish the diagnosis; (5) In patients with prehypertension, HBPM may be useful for detecting masked hypertension; (6) HBPM is recommended for evaluating the response to any type of antihypertensive treatment and may improve adherence; (7) The target HBPM goal for treatment is <135/85 mm Hg or <130/80 mm Hg in high-risk patients; (8) HBPM is useful in the elderly, in whom both BP variability and the white-coat effect are increased; (9) HBPM is of value in patients with diabetes, in whom tight BP control is of paramount importance; (10) Other populations in whom HBPM may be beneficial include pregnant women, children, and patients with kidney disease; and (11) HBPM has the potential to improve the quality of care while reducing costs and should be reimbursed.

Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) overcomes many of the limitations of traditional office blood pressure (BP) measurement and is both cheaper and easier to perform than ambulatory BP monitoring. Monitors that use the oscillometric method are currently available that are accurate, reliable, easy to use, and relatively inexpensive. An increasing number of patients are using them regularly to check their BP at home, but although this has been endorsed by national and international guidelines, detailed recommendations for their use have been lacking. There is a rapidly growing literature showing that measurements taken by patients at home are often lower than readings taken in the office and closer to the average BP recorded by 24-hour ambulatory monitors, which is the BP that best predicts cardiovascular risk. Because of the larger numbers of readings that can be taken by HBPM than in the office and the elimination of the white-coat effect (the increase of BP during an office visit), home readings are more reproducible than office readings and show better correlations with measures of target organ damage. In addition, prospective studies that have used multiple home readings to express the true BP have found that home BP predicts risk better than office BP (Class IIa; Level of Evidence A). This call-to-action article makes the following recommendations: (1) It is recommended that HBPM should become a routine component of BP measurement in the majority of patients with known or suspected hypertension; (2) Patients should be advised to purchase oscillometric monitors that measure BP on the upper arm with an appropriate cuff size and that have been shown to be accurate according to standard international protocols. They should be shown how to use them by their healthcare providers; (3) Two to 3 readings should be taken while the subject is resting in the seated position, both in the morning and at night, over a period of 1 week. A total of >or=12 readings are recommended for making clinical decisions; (4) HBPM is indicated in patients with newly diagnosed or suspected hypertension, in whom it may distinguish between white-coat and sustained hypertension. If the results are equivocal, ambulatory BP monitoring may help to establish the diagnosis; (5) In patients with prehypertension, HBPM may be useful for detecting masked hypertension; (6) HBPM is recommended for evaluating the response to any type of antihypertensive treatment and may improve adherence; (7) The target HBPM goal for treatment is <135/85 mm Hg or <130/80 mm Hg in high-risk patients; (8) HBPM is useful in the elderly, in whom both BP variability and the white-coat effect are increased; (9) HBPM is of value in patients with diabetes, in whom tight BP control is of paramount importance; (10) Other populations in whom HBPM may be beneficial include pregnant women, children, and patients with kidney disease; and (11) HBPM has the potential to improve the quality of care while reducing costs and should be reimbursed.