Search

The level to which systolic blood pressure should be controlled in hypertensive patients without diabetes remains unknown. We tested the hypothesis that tight control compared with usual control of systolic blood pressure would be beneficial in such patients.In this randomised open-label trial undertaken in 44 centres in Italy, 1111 non-diabetic patients with systolic blood pressure 150 mm Hg or greater were randomly assigned to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg (usual control; n=553) or less than 130 mm Hg (tight control; n=558). After stratification by centre, we used a computerised random function to allocate patients to either group. Observers who were unaware of randomisation read electrocardiograms and adjudicated events. Open-label agents were used to reach the randomised targets. The primary endpoint was the rate of electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy 2 years after randomisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00421863.Over a median follow-up of 2.0 years (IQR 1.93-2.03), systolic and diastolic blood pressure were reduced by a mean of 23.5/8.9 mm Hg (SD 10.6/7.0) in the usual-control group and by 27.3/10.4 mm Hg (11.0/7.5) in the tight-control group (between-group difference 3.8 mm Hg systolic [95% CI 2.4-5.2], p0.0001; and 1.5 mm Hg diastolic [0.6-2.4]; p=0.041). The primary endpoint occurred in 82 of 483 patients (17.0%) in the usual-control group and in 55 of 484 patients (11.4%) of the tight-control group (odds ratio 0.63; 95% CI 0.43-0.91; p=0.013). A composite cardiovascular endpoint occurred in 52 (9.4%) patients in the usual-control group and in 27 (4.8%) in the tight-control group (hazard ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.31-0.79; p=0.003). Side-effects were rare and did not differ significantly between the two groups.Our findings lend support to a lower blood pressure goal than is recommended at present in non-diabetic patients with hypertension.Boehringer-Ingelheim, Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer.

Traditionally, diagnosis and management of arterial hypertension are based on blood pressure (BP) measurements taken in the physician's office. However, 24-h noninvasive ambulatory BP monitoring is increasingly used in patients with essential hypertension. Several prospective studies provided unequivocal evidence of an independent association between ambulatory BP and risk of cardiovascular disease in the general population and hypertensive patients. Ambulatory BP is a better predictor of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality than office BP after adjustment for traditional cardiovascular risk factors such as age, sex, smoking status, baseline office BP, and use of antihypertensive drugs. The more accurate prognostic value of ambulatory BP may be related to the closer association with hypertension-related organ damage such as left ventricular mass, intima-media thickness, and microalbuminuria. The superiority of ambulatory over clinic BP in predicting clinical outcome and the most appropriate way of interpreting results of ambulatory BP monitoring will be discussed in this review.

For more than 30 years, beta-blockers have widely been used in the treatment of patients with myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, heart failure, certain cardiac arrhythmias and hypertension. Quite recently, however, beta-blockers have been put under trial by results of some controlled studies and meta-analyses conducted in patients with essential hypertension. In summary, beta-blockers proved not better, or even worse, than alternative treatments and only marginally better than placebo. However, some arguments of caveat must be remarked. First, most of these studies have been conducted in hypertensive subjects of old age or complicated by several concomitant risk factors. A considerable portion of hypertensive patients most frequently examined in the usual practice would have not meet inclusion criteria for the above trials. In addition, several methodological issues of meta-analyses raised concern. Results were mainly driven from two major trials (LIFE and ASCOT). Unexpectedly, recent hypertension guidelines issued by the British Hypertension Society fully endorsed these results and recommended beta-blockers as fourth-line drugs in hypertensive patients with blood pressure not adequately controlled by angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, calcium channel blockers and diuretics in combination. Because most of the above trials used atenolol, several lines of evidence warn against extending limitations to beta-blockers to the entire class of these drugs. Some new-generation beta-blockers, although not yet widely tested in outcome-based studies, induce peripheral vasodilatation and do not exert the detrimental effect of atenolol on central blood pressure and arterial distensibility. The present review addresses facts and theories related to the actual concern on the role of beta-blockers in the modern management of hypertensive patients.

The hypothesis that a therapeutic strategy aimed at lowering systolic blood pressure (SBP) below 130 mm Hg is superior to a conventional strategy targeted at below 140 mm Hg in hypertensive subjects has never been tested in randomized intervention studies. The Studio Italiano Sugli Effetti Cardiovascolari del Controllo della Pressione Arteriosa Sistolica (Cardio-Sis) is a multi-centre study in non-diabetic, treated hypertensive subjects aged >55 years with uncontrolled SBP (>or=150 mm Hg) and at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00421863). Subjects are randomized to an SBP goal