Search

Resistant hypertension (RH) is related to increased risk for cardiovascular events. We aimed to evaluate the risk of total and cardiovascular mortality associated with RH in comparison to controlled hypertension, as well as in true versus “white-coat” RH. From the mortality data of the Spanish ABPM Registry, including 35119 treated patients, we identified 9408 RH, defined as office BP ≥ 140/90 mmHg while treated with ≥ 3 drugs (8577 patients), or treated and controlled (office BP < 140/90 mmHg) with ≥ 4 drugs (831 patients). They were compared against 8144 patients treated with ≤ 3 drugs and having normal office BP. In addition, among 8577 patients with uncontrolled RH, 5288 (61.7%) had true RH (24-h BP ≥ 130/80 mmHg) and 3289 (38.3%) had “white coat” RH (24-h BP < 130/80 mmHg). Median follow-up was 5 years. Total and cardiovascular mortality were assessed through death certificates. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated through Cox-proportional models, adjusted for age and sex. Table shows the number of patients in each group, number of total and cardiovascular deaths and HR of the 2 comparisons performed. Compared to treated and controlled patients, those with RH had and increased risk of total (19%) and cardiovascular (32%) mortality. Likewise, true RH had an increased risk of total (42%) and cardiovascular (81%) mortality, in comparison with “white-coat” RH. We conclude that RH is associated with and increased total and cardiovascular mortality. In RH patients with elevated office BP, the concomitant elevation of 24-hBP (true RH) is also associated with an increased risk of mortality when compared with those with normal 24-h BP (“white-coat” RH).

Background and aim Blood pressure variability (BPV) is recognized as a prognostic contributor in hypertension. We aimed to assess differences in short-term BPV in treated hypertensive patients depending on the number, classes, combinations and individual compounds of the antihypertensive treatment. Methods We selected 38 188 treated patients from the Spanish Ambulatory BP Monitoring (ABPM) Registry. SBP and DBP standard deviations (SD) from 24-h, daytime and night-time, weighted SD (WSD), and average real variability (ARV) were calculated through ABPM. They were compared (after adjustment for clinical confounders and BP) depending on the number of antihypertensive drugs, antihypertensive drug classes and compounds (in 13 765 patients on monotherapy), or combinations (in 12 716 patients treated with two drugs and 7888 treated with three drugs). Results Systolic and diastolic BPV significantly increased in patients treated with multiple drugs with respect to monotherapy. Among drug classes, calcium channel blockers, especially amlodipine, and diuretics were associated with lower systolic BPV, including daytime and night-time SD, WSD and ARV, compared with beta blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers. Likewise, in patients treated with two-drug and three-drug combinations, those which included a calcium channel blocker showed lower BPV in comparison to those without such drug class. Conclusion Treatment with calcium channel blockers, especially amlodipine, and with diuretics is associated with slight, but significant lower values of short-term BPV in comparison to other major drug classes, both in monotherapy and in combination. These results could be helpful when considering BPV reduction as an additional treatment target.

Introduction: Night BP is the most powerful estimate of cardiovascular prognosis. It has been suggested that bedtime administration of antihypertensive therapy may favour night BP reduction and prognosis. Hypothesis: We aimed to evaluate the mortality risk in treated hypertensives, depending on the schedule of treatment administration (entirely in the morning, entirely at bedtime, or combined morning and evening) at the time ABPM was performed. Methods: Vital status and cardiovascular death were obtained from death certificates in 26751 treated hypertensives (mean age 62, 60% males), enrolled in the Spanish ABPM Registry, and having a valid 24-h ABPM at entry. Cox-models adjusted for clinical confounders and 24-hour systolic BP were used for HR calculation in groups depending on treatment administration. Results: Among the 26751 evaluable patients, most (76.7%) received their medication exclusively in the morning; 13% exclusively in the evening, and 10.3% in a multiple schedule both in the morning and in the evening. Mortality incidence in these 3 groups were 13.7, 17.8 and 21.8 per 1000 patients/year, respectively. Compared to patients receiving their antihypertensive medication entirely in the morning (reference group), those receiving their medication entirely in the evening did not show a significant increase in the HR for total mortality (1.06; 95%CI: 0.93-1.21) or in cardiovascular mortality (1.15; 0.93-1.41) after adjustment for clinical confounders and 24-hour systolic BP. Patients receiving their antihypertensive medication both in the morning and at bedtime had an increased risk for mortality (1.29; 1.14-1.48) and for cardiovascular mortality (1.46; 1.18-1.80). Additional analyses using double-robust propensity score yielded similar results. Conclusions: Morning or bedtime dosing of the antihypertensive medication has no effect on prognosis. We have found that patients receiving their medication in a multiple schedule, including morning and evening dosing have an increased risk of mortality and cardiovascular mortality, even after adjustment for confounders. However, we cannot exclude other aspects, such as a poorer treatment adherence, being the responsible of this worse prognosis.

United States and European guidelines have recommended new treatment goals for office blood pressure (BP). We examined 9784 hypertensives of the Spanish Ambulatory BP Monitoring (ABPM) registry with office BP treated to the prior goal (

Background and aim Treatment-resistant hypertension (TRH) is associated with particular clinical features, nonadherence, and suboptimal treatment. We assessed possible associations of antihypertensive drug classes, specific agents inside each class, and types of combinations, with the presence of non-TRH vs. TRH, and with controlled vs. uncontrolled TRH. Methods Comparisons were done in 14 264 patients treated with three drugs (non-TRH: 2988; TRH: 11 276) and in 6974 treated with at least four drugs (controlled TRH: 1383; uncontrolled TRH: 5591). Associations were adjusted for age, sex, and previous cardiovascular event. Results In both groups of patients treated with three or with at least four drugs, aldosterone antagonists among drug classes [adjusted odds ratio (OR): 1.82 and 1.41, respectively], and ramipril (OR: 1.28 and 1.30), olmesartan (OR: 1.31 and 1.37), and amlodipine (OR: 1.11 and 1.41) inside each class were significantly associated with blood pressure control (non-TRH or controlled TRH). In patients treated with three drugs, non-TRH was also associated with the use of chlorthalidone (OR: 1.50) and bisoprolol (OR: 1.19), whereas in patients treated with at least four drugs, controlled TRH was significantly associated with the triple combination of a renin-angiotensin system blocker, a calcium channel blocker, and a diuretic (OR: 1.17). Conclusion The use of aldosterone antagonists is associated with blood pressure control in patients treated with three or more drugs. Similar results are observed with specific agents inside each class, being ramipril, olmesartan, chlorthalidone, amlodipine, and bisoprolol those exhibiting significant results. An increased use of these drugs might probably reduce the burden of TRH.

Objective: Increased BP-variability predicts cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensives. This study aimed to examine short-term BP-variability according to renal function stage. Methods: We included 16 546 patients [10 270 (62.1%) without/6276 (38.9%) with CKD Stage 1–5] from the Spanish Ambulatory-Blood-Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) Registry. Stages of CKD were defined according to K/DIGO criteria, based on estimated glomerular filtration rate calculated with the CKD-EPI equation and albumin-to-creatine ratio. BP-variability was assessed with standard deviation (SD), weighted SD (wSD), coefficient of variation (CV), and average real variability (ARV). Results: Compared with those without CKD, a lower proportion of CKD patients were dippers (51.9 versus 39.6%; P

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The prevalence and associated risks of white-coat hypertension (WCH) are still a matter of debate. We aimed to assess differences in prevalence and associated conditions of WCH defined on the basis of the normality of all daytime, night-time, and 24-h blood pressure (BP), only daytime, or only 24-h BP. METHODS: We selected 115 708 patients (45 020 untreated and 70 688 treated) from the Spanish Ambulatory BP Monitoring Registry. WCH was estimated in patients with elevated office BP (≥140 and/or 90 mmHg) by using normal daytime (

Clinic blood pressure (BP) is usually higher than daytime ambulatory BP in hypertensive patients, but some recent studies have challenged this view, suggesting that this relationship is strongly influenced by age. We used the Spanish ambulatory BP monitoring cohort to examine differences between clinic and daytime BP by age among 104 639 adult hypertensive patients (office systolic/diastolic BP ≥140/90 mm Hg or treated) in usual primary-care practice, across the wide age spectrum. To assess the impact of age, cardiovascular variables, and clinic BP on the clinic–daytime BP differences, we built multivariable regression models of the average BP differences, white-coat hypertension (high clinic BP and normal daytime BP), and masked hypertension (normal clinic BP and high daytime BP). In most patients, mean clinic BP values were higher than daytime BP at all ages. Some 36.7% of patients had white-coat hypertension (amounting to 50% at clinic systolic BP of 140–159 mm Hg) and 3.9% had masked hypertension (amounting to 18% at clinic systolic BP of 130–139 mm Hg). Age explained 0.1% to 1.7% of the variance of quantitative or categorical BP differences ( P P P 40% of patients. This misclassification was not importantly influenced by age but was more evident in patients with borderline/grade 1 hypertension. These findings reinforce the importance of ambulatory BP monitoring for defining BP status in routine clinical practice.

Blood pressure variability (BPV) is recognized as an important prognostic contributor in hypertension. We asseseds differences in short-term BPV in treated patients depending on the number of drugs, drug-classes and combinations, and individual compounds. From the Spanish ABPM Registry, we selected 38188 treated patiens. BPV estimates were obtained from ABPM records, and included weighted, daytime and nighttime SD and average real variability (ARV). Comparisons (general linear models adjusted for age, gender, diabetes, dyslipidemia and CV disease) were carried out depending on the number of drugs (1, 2, 3, and more). In patients treated with monotherapy (13765), BPV estimates were compared depending on the drug classes, as well as on individual compounds inside each class. Additional comparisons were performed depending on the type of combination in patients treated with 2 (12716) and 3 drugs (7888). Systolic BPV increased from monotherapy to treatment with 4 or more drugs (p

Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) is a clinical condition derived from increased arterial stiffness and associated with a worse cardiovascular prognosis. Increased blood pressure variability (BPV) is also associated to cardiovascular risk. We aimed to estimate short-term BPV in patients with ISH compared to those with systolic and diastolic hypertension (SDH). From the Spanish ABPM Registry database containing 63910 identified patients, we selected 20497 with ISH and 23269 with SDH. BPV estimates were obtained from ABPM records, and included standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), weighted SD and average real variability (ARV). Comparisons were carried out by Student’s t test, and by general linear models adjusted for age, gender and office BP. Due to important differences in age between groups, a case-control matching was performed obtaining 14707 pairs matched by gender and with an age difference < 2 years. Comparisons were repeated in this dataset. Patients with ISH were older, more frequently women, with diabetes and with a previous history of CV disease. Office BP was lower (155±13/81±7 vs. 159±16/98±7 mmHg; p

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There is currently much interest in the usefulness of out-of-office blood pressure (BP) for the diagnosis and the management of hypertension in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). This is not to suggest that office BP should be disregarded and we will take the opportunity to stress how it could be improved. RECENT FINDINGS: Arterial hypertension constitutes a very relevant cardiovascular and renal risk factor in patients with CKD. To assess this risk, the best tool is ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), as it allows the detection of masked hypertension, masked untreated hypertension (MUCH) and nondipping pattern, conditions known to be associated with target organ damage that further contributes to increased risk to the patient. Home BP monitoring (HBPM) cannot fully substitute for ABPM because of the absence of BP data during the night. Despite this, there are good reasons to use HBPM systematically in patients with CKD during long-term follow-up. SUMMARY: In the individual patient office, BP may significantly differ from out-of-office measurements. This shortcoming can be attenuated by repeated measurement at every visit, but even if office BP is considered normal, it is still highly desirable to obtain out-of-office data.

We aimed to evaluate the use of specific antihypertensive drugs and drug classes, as well as combinations in patients treated with 3 or more drugs classified as having or not resistant hypertension (RH), controlled or uncontrolled RH and true versus white-coat RH. From the Spanish ABPM Registry, we identified 21238 patients treated with 3 (14264) or more (6974) antihypertensive drugs of different classes. Among patients treated with 3 drugs we compared those with controlled (

Objective Epidemiological studies have shown that an elevated resting heart rate (HR) is a risk factor for both total and cardiovascular mortality. Our aim was to estimate the night-time HR cut-off point that best predicts cardiovascular risk office tachycardia in hypertensive patients. Design and method Untreated hypertensive patients without concomitant cardiovascular diseases were included. Office and ambulatory HRs were measured. Cardiovascular risk office tachycardia was defined by office HR at least 85 beats per minute (bpm). Different night-time HR cut-offs were estimated by receiver operating characteristic curve analyses to predict cardiovascular risk office tachycardia. The best cut-off was selected on the basis of its combined sensitivity and specificity. Results A total of 32 569 hypertensive patients were included: 46.5% women, mean age (SD) 52 (14) years, office blood pressure 146 (16)/89 (11) mmHg, diabetes 10.3%, smoking 19.2%, BMI 29 (6.8) kg/m, office HR 77 (11.2) bpm, and night-time HR 64.9 (9.3) bpm. A total of 7070 (21.7%) patients were found to have cardiovascular risk office tachycardia. The night-time HR value that better predicted cardiovascular risk office tachycardia was more than 66 bpm. In comparison with patients with night HR below this value, those with night-time tachycardia were predominantly women, younger, with higher ambulatory blood pressure, greater BMI, and higher prevalence of diabetes and smoking. All comparisons were statistically significant (P less than 0.001). Conclusion A mean night-time HR more than 66 bpm is a good predictor of cardiovascular risk office tachycardia in untreated hypertensive patients and could be considered a variable associated with an increased cardiovascular risk.

Objective:Hypertension continues to be one of the main medical complications in pregnancy. Our aim was to update prevalence and correlates of this condition.Design and method:Data from 3,648 consecutive deliveries, from January 2016 to December 2017, were analyzed in a tertiary teaching hospital fro

The SPRINT trial has demonstrated the benefit of intensive BP reduction in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk. Values of ABPM are of potential interest in such patients to better select those who will benefit of a lower BP target. We aimed to evaluate ABPM values in a large cohort of patients potentially candidates (meeting inclusion criteria) for the SPRINT trial. Moreover, in patients on antihypertensive therapy who also fulfill SPRINT criteria, except for clinic SBP ≥ 130 mmHg, we evaluated 24-hour SBP values among those who had clinic SBP < 120; between 120 and 139, or ≥ 140. From the database of the Spanish ABPM Registry containing 115708 patients, we identified 39132 (34%, 51% women, mean age 65 years) who fulfill both inclusion and exclusion criteria of the SPRINT trial. Mean values of clinic SBP were 151±11 mmHg, whereas corresponding values for 24-h SBP were 130±13 mmHg. Overall, 52% of patients had 24-h SBP below 130 mmHg. The proportion varied from 69% in those with clinic BP 130-139 to 34% in those with clinic BP ≥ 170 mmHg. Among 34328 treated patients who fulfilled SPRINT inclusion criteria (except for clinic BP ≥ 130), 1014 (3%) had clinic SBP < 120 mmHg, and 5330 (16%) values between 120 and 139 mmHg. The remaining 27984 patients were not controlled and had clinic SBP ≥ 140 mmHg. Values of 24 h SBP below 130 mmHg were seen in 88% of those with clinic BP < 120, in 74% of those with clinic BP 120-139, and in 47% of those with clinic BP ≥ 140 mmHg. The corresponding proportion of patients having 24-h SBP < 100 mmHg were 7.7%, 1.1%, and 0.6%. We conclude that ABPM assessment could be necessary in the evaluation of hypertensive patients at high CV risk before targeting the BP goal, as roughly half of them may have normal values of 24-h SBP (< 130 mmHg). In addition, targeting clinic BP below 120 mmHg is accompanied by 8% of patients with 24-h SBP below 100 mmHg.

We aimed to estimate the prevalence of resistant hypertension through both office and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in a large cohort of treated hypertensive patients from the Spanish Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring Registry. In addition, we also compared clinical features of patients with true or white-coat–resistant hypertension. In December 2009, we identified 68 045 treated patients with complete information for this analysis. Among them, 8295 (12.2% of the database) had resistant hypertension (office blood pressure ≥140 and/or 90 mm Hg while being treated with ≥3 antihypertensive drugs, 1 of them being a diuretic). After ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, 62.5% of patients were classified as true resistant hypertensives, the remaining 37.5% having white-coat resistance. The former group was younger, more frequently men, with a longer duration of hypertension and a worse cardiovascular risk profile. The group included larger proportions of smokers, diabetics, target organ damage (including left ventricular hypertrophy, impaired renal function, and microalbuminuria), and documented cardiovascular disease. Moreover, true resistant hypertensives exhibited in a greater proportion a riser pattern (22% versus 18%; P

To compare the long-term efficacy, safety and tolerability of the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren against the diuretic hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in obese patients with hypertension.A post hoc analysis of 396 obese patients (body mass indexor = 30 kg/m2) in a 52-week study in 1124 patients with hypertension was performed. Patients were randomized to receive aliskiren 150 mg or HCTZ 12.5 mg for 3 weeks, or placebo for 6 weeks. At week 3, active treatment doses were doubled. Patients receiving placebo were randomized to aliskiren 300 mg or HCTZ 25 mg at week 6. Add-on amlodipine 5-10 mg was permitted from week 12 to achieve blood pressure (BP) control (140/90 mmHg).In the subgroup of obese patients, aliskiren monotherapy provided significantly greater BP reductions than HCTZ at week 12 endpoint (-16.7/-12.3 vs. -12.2/-9.1 mmHg, Por = 0.001). Reductions were also greater with aliskiren-based therapy than HCTZ-based therapy at week 52 endpoint (-19.9/-15.5 vs. -17.5/-13.3 mmHg; P = 0.138 for systolic BP and P = 0.007 for diastolic BP). Mean BP reductions from baseline with aliskiren-based therapy were similar in obese and nonobese patients. By contrast, HCTZ-based therapy provided significantly smaller mean reductions in BP from baseline in obese patients vs. nonobese patients (P0.05). Aliskiren-based therapy was generally well tolerated in obese patients, and was associated with a significantly lower incidence of hypokalemia (1.0 vs. 14.0%, P0.0001) than HCTZ-based therapy.Aliskiren-based therapy provided superior BP reductions to HCTZ-based therapy with good tolerability in obese patients with hypertension.

To evaluate ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) parameters in a broad sample of high-risk hypertensive patients.The Spanish Society of Hypertension is developing a nationwide project in which more than 900 physicians send ABPM registries and corresponding clinical records to a central database via www.cardiorisc.com. Between June 2004 and July 2005 a 20 000-patient database was obtained; 17 219 were valid for analysis.We identified 6534 patients with high cardiovascular risk according to the 2003 European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology guidelines stratification score. Office blood pressure (BP) was 158.8/89.9 mmHg and 24-h BP was 135.8/77.0 mmHg. Patients with grade 3 BP in the office showed ambulatory systolic BP values less than 160 mmHg in more than 80%. A non-dipping pattern was observed in 3836 cases (58.7%), whereas this abnormality was present in 47.9% of patients with low-to-moderate risk [odds ratio (OR) 1.54; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.45-1.64]. The prevalence of non-dippers was higher as ambulatory BP increased ( approximately 70% when 24-h systolic BP155 mmHg) and was similar in both groups. At the lowest levels of BP (24-h systolic BP135 mmHg) a non-dipping pattern was more prevalent in high-risk cases (56.6 versus 45.7%; OR 1.51; 95% CI 1.40-1.64).There was a remarkable discrepancy between office and ambulatory BP in high-risk hypertensive patients. The prevalence of a non-dipper BP pattern was almost 60%. In the lowest levels of ambulatory BP, high-risk patients showed a higher prevalence of non-dipping BP than lower-risk cases. These observations support the recommendation of a wider use of ABPM in high-risk hypertensive patients.

We studied the effectiveness of blood pressure (BP) control outside the clinic by using ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) among a large number of hypertensive subjects treated in primary care centers across Spain. The sample consisted of 12 897 treated hypertensive subjects who had indications for ABPM. Office-based BP was calculated as the average of 2 readings. Twenty-four–hour ABPM was then performed using a SpaceLabs 90207 monitor under standardized conditions. A total of 3047 patients (23.6%) had their office BP controlled, and 6657 (51.6%) were controlled according to daytime ABPM. The proportion of office resistance or underestimation of patients’ BP control by physicians in the office (office BP ≥140/90 mm Hg and average daytime ambulatory BP

An elevated proportion of patients require 2-drug and 3-drug combinations to achieve BP control. There is scarce evidence regarding if there are differences in such BP control among different types of combinations in daily practice. We aimed to assess office and ambulatory BP values achieved, as well as the proportion of controlled patients, depending on the type of drug combination used. From the Spanish ABPM Registry we selected 17187 patients treated with the 6 most common types of 2-drug combinations and 9724 treated with the 6 most common types of 3-drug combination. We looked for differences in achieved office and ambulatory BP, as well as nocturnal dip, and the proportion of controlled patients among types of combinations, after adjusting for confounders (age, gender, BMI, smoking, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and previous CV disease). With respect to the combination of renin angiotensin system (RAS) blockers and diuretics (reference), none of the other combinations achieved lower BP values or better BP control. Ambulatory BP control (including 24-hour, daytime and nighttime) was worse with combinations of RAS blockers/beta blockers (OR: 1.06; 95%CI: 1.01-1.11), with combinations of calcium channel blockers (CCB)/beta blockers (1.1; 1.04-1.16) and with combinations of RAS blockers and CCB (1.38; 1.23-1.55). Nondipping was also more frequent in combinations other than RAS blockers/diuretics. In patients receiving 3-drug combinations, and with respect to RAS blockers/CCB/diuretic combinations (reference), ambulatory BP were higher and non dipping more frequent in other types of combinations. Ambulatory BP control was worse in RAS blockers/CCB/alpha blockers, RAS blockers/diuretics/alpha blockers, and CCB/beta blockers/diuretics combinations. No differences in office BP control were observed among types of 2-drug or 3-drug combinations. We conclude that RAS/diuretic combinations and RAS/diuretic/CCB combinations are associated with better ambulatory BP control and more pronounced dipping in comparison with other types of 2-drug or 3-drug combinations, even with same rates of office BP control. These results can be helpful in deciding the way to combine antihypertensive agents in patients who require combination therapy.