Search

Introduction A major issue confronting clinicians treating hypertension in pregnancy is the limited number of pharmacological options. Endovascular catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) is a new method to lower blood pressure (BP) in patients with hypertension by reducing the activity of the renal sympathetic nervous system. Drugs that affect this system are safe in pregnant women. So there is reasonable evidence that RDN performed before pregnancy should not have deleterious effects for the fetus. Because the efficacy of RDN may be greater in younger patients and in women, we may expect a larger proportion of BP normalisation in young hypertensive women, but this remains to be proven. Our primary objective is to quantify the proportion of BP normalisation with RDN in this population.Methods and analysis WHY-RDN is a multicentre randomised sham-controlled trial conducted in six French hypertension centres that will include 80 women with essential hypertension treated or untreated, who are planning a pregnancy in the next 2 years and will be randomly assigned to RDN or classic renal arteriography and sham RDN in a ratio of 1:1. The primary outcome is the normalisation of 24-hour BP (

Malignant hypertension is a hypertensive emergency, with rapid disease progression and poor prognosis. Although recognized as a separate entity more than a century ago, significant knowledge gaps remain about its pathogenesis and treatment. This narrative review summarizes current viewpoints, research gaps, and challenges with a view to pooling future efforts at improving treatment and prognosis.

Abstract Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID‐19) has infected more than 3.0 million people worldwide and killed more than 200,000 as of April 27, 2020. In this White Paper, we address the cardiovascular co‐morbidities of COVID‐19 infection; the diagnosis and treatment of standard cardiovascular conditions during the pandemic; and the diagnosis and treatment of the cardiovascular consequences of COVID‐19 infection. In addition, we will also address various issues related to the safety of healthcare workers and the ethical issues related to patient care in this pandemic.

BackgroundCentral blood pressure (BP) is a promising marker to identify subjects with higher cardiovascular risk than expected by traditional risk factors. Significant results have been obtained in populations with high cardiovascular risk, but little is known about low‐cardiovascular‐risk patients, although the differences between central and peripheral BP (amplification) are usually greater in this population. The study aim was to evaluate central BP over 24 hours for cardiovascular event prediction in hypertensive subjects with low cardiovascular risk. Methods and ResultsPeripheral and central BPs were recorded during clinical visits and over 24 hours in hypertensive patients with low cardiovascular risk (Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation ≤5%). Our primary end point is the occurrence of a cardiovascular event during follow‐up. To assess the potential interest in central pulse pressure over 24 hours, we performed Cox proportional hazard models analysis and comparison of area under the curves using the contrast test for peripheral and central BP. A cohort of 703 hypertensive subjects from Bordeaux were included. After the first 24 hours of BP measurement, the subjects were then followed up for an average of 112.5±70 months. We recorded 65 cardiovascular events during follow‐up. Amplification was found to be significantly associated with cardiovascular events when added to peripheral 24‐hour pulse pressure (P=0.0259). The area under the curve of 24‐hour central pulse pressure is significantly more important than area under the curve of office BP (P=0.0296), and there is a trend of superiority with the area under the curve of peripheral 24‐hour pulse pressure. ConclusionsCentral pulse pressure over 24 hours improves the prediction of cardiovascular events for hypertensive patients with low cardiovascular risk compared to peripheral pulse pressure.