Search

Resistant hypertension, defined as blood pressure (BP) remaining above goal despite the use of ⩾3 antihypertensive medications at maximally tolerated doses (one ideally being a diuretic) or BP that requires ⩾4 agents to achieve control, has received more attention with increased efforts to improve BP control rates and the emergence of device-based therapies for hypertension. This classically defined resistant group consists of patients with true resistant hypertension, controlled resistant hypertension and pseudo-resistant hypertension. In studies where pseudo-resistant hypertension cannot be excluded (for example, 24-h ambulatory BP not obtained), the term apparent resistant hypertension has been used to identify 'apparent' lack of control on ⩾3 medications. Large, well-designed studies have recently reported the prevalence of resistant hypertension. Pooling prevalence data from these studies and others within North America and Europe with a combined sample size of >600 000 hypertensive participants, the prevalence of resistant hypertension is 14.8% of treated hypertensive patients and 12.5% of all hypertensives. However, the prevalence of true resistant hypertension, defined as uncontrolled both by office and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring with confirmed medication adherence, may be more meaningful in terms of identifying risk and estimating benefit from newer therapies like renal denervation. Rates of cardiovascular events and mortality follow mean 24-h ambulatory BPs in patients with resistant hypertension, and true resistant hypertension represents the highest risk. The prevalence of true resistant hypertension has not been directly measured in large trials; however, combined data from smaller studies suggest that true resistant hypertension is present in half of the patients with resistant hypertension who are uncontrolled in the office. Our pooled analysis shows prevalence rates of 10.1% and 7.9% for uncontrolled resistant hypertension among individuals treated for hypertension and all hypertensive individuals, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Copeptin in combination with troponin has been shown to have incremental value for the early rule-out of myocardial infarction, but its performance in Black patients specifically has never been examined. In light of a potential for wider use, data on copeptin in different relevant cohorts are needed. This is the first study to determine whether copeptin is equally effective at ruling out myocardial infarction in Black and Caucasian races., Methods: This analysis of the CHOPIN trial included 792 Black and 1075 Caucasian patients who presented to the emergency department with chest pain and had troponin-I and copeptin levels drawn., Results: One hundred and forty-nine patients were diagnosed with myocardial infarction (54 Black and 95 Caucasian). The negative predictive value of copeptin at a cut-off of 14 pmol/l (as in the CHOPIN study) for myocardial infarction was higher in Blacks (98.0%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 96.2-99.1%) than Caucasians (94.1%, 95% CI 92.1-95.7%). The sensitivity at 14 pmol/l was higher in Blacks (83.3%, 95% CI 70.7-92.1%) than Caucasians (53.7%, 95% CI 43.2-64.0%). After controlling for age, hypertension, heart failure, chronic kidney disease and body mass index in a logistic regression model, the interaction term had a P value of 0.03. A cut-off of 6 pmol/l showed similar sensitivity in Caucasians as 14 pmol/l in Blacks., Conclusions: This is the first study to identify a difference in the performance of copeptin to rule out myocardial infarction between Blacks and Caucasians, with increased negative predictive value and sensitivity in the Black population at a cut-off of 14 pmol/l. This also holds true for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and, although numbers were small, similar trends exist in the normal troponin population. This may have significant implications for early rule-out strategies using copeptin.

Objectives: This study examines B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels in patients with systolic versus non-systolic dysfunction presenting with shortness of breath., Background: Preserved systolic function is increasingly common in patients presenting with symptoms of congestive heart failure (CHF) but is still difficult to diagnose., Methods: The Breathing Not Properly Multinational Study was a seven-center, prospective study of 1,586 patients who presented with acute dyspnea and had BNP measured upon arrival. A subset of 452 patients with a final adjudicated diagnosis of CHF who underwent echocardiography within 30 days of their visit to the emergency department (ED) were evaluated. An ejection fraction of greater than 45% was defined as non-systolic CHF., Results: Of the 452 patients with a final diagnosis of CHF, 165 (36.5%) had preserved left ventricular function on echocardiography, whereas 287 (63.5%) had systolic dysfunction. Patients with non-systolic heart failure (NS-CHF) had significantly lower BNP levels than those with systolic heart failure (S-CHF) (413 pg/ml vs. 821 pg/ml, p < 0.001). As the severity of heart failure worsened by New York Heart Association class, the percentage of S-CHF increased, whereas the percentage of NS-CHF decreased. When patients with NS-CHF were compared with patients without CHF (n = 770), a BNP value of 100 pg/ml had a sensitivity of 86%, a negative predictive value of 96%, and an accuracy of 75% for detecting abnormal diastolic dysfunction. Using Logistic regression to differentiate S-CHF from NS-CHF, BNP entered first as the strongest predictor followed by oxygen saturation, history of myocardial infarction, and heart rate., Conclusions: We conclude that NS-CHF is common in the setting of the ED and that differentiating NS-CHF from S-CHF is difficult in this setting using traditional parameters. Whereas BNP add modest discriminatory value in differentiating NS-CHF from S-CHF, its major role is still the separation of patients with CHF from those without CHF.