Search

Objective:To develop scientific consensus recommendations for the optimal design and functions of different types of blood pressure (BP) measuring devices used in clinical practice for the detection, management, and long-term follow-up of hypertension.Methods:A scientific consensus meeting was performed by the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) Working Group on BP Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability and STRIDE BP (Science and Technology for Regional Innovation and Development in Europe) during the 2022 Scientific Meeting of the ESH in Athens, Greece. Manufacturers were also invited to provide their feedback on BP device design and development. Thirty-one international experts in clinical hypertension and BP monitoring contributed to the development of consensus recommendations on the optimal design of BP devices.Statement:International consensus was reached on the requirements for the design and features of five types of BP monitors, including office (or clinic) BP monitors, ambulatory BP monitors, home BP monitors, home BP telemonitors, and kiosk BP monitors for public spaces. For each device type "essential" requirements (must have), and "optional" ones (may have) are presented, as well as additional comments on the optimal device design and features.Conclusions:These consensus recommendations aim at providing manufacturers of BP devices with the requirements that are considered mandatory, or optional, by clinical experts involved in the detection and management of hypertension. They are also directed to administrative healthcare personnel involved in the provision and purchase of BP devices so that they can recommend the most appropriate ones.

Blood pressure is not a static parameter, but rather undergoes continuous fluctuations over time, as a result of the interaction between environmental and behavioural factors on one side and intrinsic cardiovascular regulatory mechanisms on the other side. Increased blood pressure variability (BPV) may indicate an impaired cardiovascular regulation and may represent a cardiovascular risk factor itself, having been associated with increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, stroke, coronary artery disease, heart failure, end-stage renal disease, and dementia incidence. Nonetheless, BPV was considered only a research issue in previous hypertension management guidelines, because the available evidence on its clinical relevance presents several gaps and is based on heterogeneous studies with limited standardization of methods for BPV assessment.The aim of this position paper, with contributions from members of the European Society of Hypertension Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability and from a number of international experts, is to summarize the available evidence in the field of BPV assessment methodology and clinical applications and to provide practical indications on how to measure and interpret BPV in research and clinical settings based on currently available data. Pending issues and clinical and methodological recommendations supported by available evidence are also reported. The information provided by this paper should contribute to a better standardization of future studies on BPV, but should also provide clinicians with some indications on how BPV can be managed based on currently available data.

BACKGROUND: The analysis of ambulatory blood pressure monitorings (ABPMs) performed in 639 Italian pharmacies in the context of a telehealth-based service allowed to evaluate the level of blood pressure (BP) control in the community. METHODS: Twenty-four-hour ABPMs were performed by a clinically validated, automated, upper-arm BP monitor. Recordings were uploaded on a certified web-based telemedicine platform (www.tholomeus.net) and remote medical reporting provided. In each subject, an automatic BP measurement was obtained in the pharmacy and clinical information collected before starting the ABPM. RESULTS: A total of 20,773 subjects (mean age 57 ± 15 years; 54% females; 28% receiving antihypertensive medications, 31% with any cardiovascular [CV] risk factor) provided valid ABPMs. BP control was poor, but better in ambulatory conditions (24-hour BP <130/80 mm Hg 54% vs. pharmacy BP < 140/90 mm Hg 43%; P < 0.0001) and in drug-treated subjects. Sustained normotension was reported in only 28% subjects. Isolated nocturnal hypertension (16%; nighttime BP ≥120/70 mm Hg with normal daytime BP) was more common (P < 0.0001) than isolated daytime hypertension (9%; daytime BP ≥ 135/85 mm Hg with normal nighttime BP). Sustained hypertension (43%) was more common in younger males at the lowest CV risk, with daytime hypertension. White-coat hypertension (14%) was more common in females. Masked hypertension was not uncommon (15%) and more often observed in older males with an elevated nocturnal BP. CONCLUSIONS: A telemedicine-based service provided to community pharmacies may facilitate access to ABPM, thus favoring a more accurate hypertension screening and detection. It may also help describe the occurrence of different 24-hour BP phenotypes and personalize the physician's intervention.

The VASOTENS Registry is an international telehealth-based repository of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitorings (ABPM) obtained through an oscillometric upper-arm BP monitor allowing combined estimation of some vascular biomarkers. The present paper reports the results obtained in 1200 participants according to different categories of CV risk. Individual readings were averaged for each recording and 24-hour mean of brachial and aortic systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), pulse wave velocity (PWV), and augmentation index (AIx) obtained. Peripheral and central BP, PWV and AIx values were increased in older participants (SBP only) and in case of hypertension (SBP and DBP). BP was lower and PWV and AIx higher in females. PWV was increased and BP unchanged in case of metabolic syndrome. Our results suggest that ambulatory pulse wave analysis in a daily life setting may help evaluate vascular health of individuals at risk for CV disease.

The present paper provides an update of previous recommendations on Home Blood Pressure Monitoring from the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability sequentially published in years 2000, 2008 and 2010. This update has taken into account new evidence in this field, including a recent statement by the American Heart association, as well as technological developments, which have occurred over the past 20 years. The present document has been developed by the same ESH Working Group with inputs from an international team of experts, and has been endorsed by the ESH.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of olmesartan alone or combined with one to three antihypertensive drugs on 24-h blood pressure variability (BPV) and on distribution of BP reduction in a pooled individual data analysis of 10 doubleblind, randomized, ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) studies. Methods: ABPMs were performed before and after 6-12 weeks of treatment with placebo (n=119), active control monotherapy [n=1195, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (DCCBs)] olmesartan monotherapy (n=1410), active control dual combination [n=79, DCCBRthiazide diuretic (TD)], olmesartan dual combination (n=637, DCCB or TD), and triple combination therapy (n=102, DCCBRTD). 24-h BPV was calculated as unweighted or weighted SD of the mean BP, and average real variability. BP control was assessed by smoothness index and treatment-on-variability index. Results: The greatest effect on 24-h systolic BPV/diastolic BPV was observed under olmesartan triple [-2.6/-1.9;-1.9/-1.3;-1.4/-1.3mmHg] and active control dual combination [-1.8/-1.4;-1.9/-1.5; 1.2/1.1 mmHg]. Smoothness indexes and treatment-on-variability indexes were significantly (P=0.0001) higher under olmesartan dual (1.53/1.22, 1.67/1.29, 2.05/1.59), olmesartan triple (2.47/1.85, 2.80/2.06, 3.64/2.67), or active control dual combination (1.70/1.26, 1.85/1.33, 2.29/1.65) than under monotherapies (control: 0.86/0.73, 0.80/0.65, 1.01/0.82; olmesartan: 1.02/0.86, 0.95/0.78, 1.23/1.00). They were also greater in patients receiving high-dose olmesartan monotherapy or high-dose olmesartan dual combination than in the corresponding low-dose group. Conclusion: Olmesartan plus a DCCB and/or a TD produces a larger, more sustained, and smoother BP reduction than placebo and monotherapies, a desirable feature for a more effective prevention of the cardiovascular consequences of uncontrolled hypertension. Keywords: Ambulatory blood pressure monitori

Author wants to correct the text under the heading of Introduction. The sentence is written as: â In the ZENITH study, both treatments had a similar positive effect on regression of cardiac and renal damage, whereas a larger proportion of patients showing carotid plaque regression was observed under zofenopril (31.6% vs. 16.1%; p = 0.047), particularly in the subgroup of patients taking the low dose of zofenopril (30 mg) plus HCTZ 12.5 mg (4.7% vs 10.0% irbesartan 150 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg; p = 0.043)â . The correct sentence should read: â In the ZENITH study, both treatments had a similar positive effect on regression of cardiac.

Introduction Masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) carries an increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) complications and can be identified through combined use of office (O) and ambulatory (A) blood pressure (BP) monitoring (M) in treated patients. However, it is still debated whether the information carried by ABPM should be considered for MUCH management. Aim of the MASked-unconTrolled hypERtension management based on OBP or on ambulatory blood pressure measurement (MASTER) Study is to assess the impact on outcome of MUCH management based on OBPM or ABPM. Methods and analysis MASTER is a 4-year prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint investigation. A total of 1240 treated hypertensive patients from about 40 secondary care clinical centres worldwide will be included -upon confirming presence of MUCH (repeated on treatment OBP <140/90 mm Hg, and at least one of the following: Daytime ABP ≥135/85 mm Hg; night-time ABP ≥120/70 mm Hg; 24 hour ABP ≥130/80 mm Hg), and will be randomised to a management strategy based on OBPM (group 1) or on ABPM (group 2). Patients in group 1 will have OBP measured at 0, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months and taken as a guide for treatment; ABPM will be performed at randomisation and at 12, 24, 36 and 48 months but will not be used to take treatment decisions. Patients randomised to group 2 will have ABPM performed at randomisation and all scheduled visits as a guide to antihypertensive treatment. The effects of MUCH management strategy based on ABPM or on OBPM on CV and renal intermediate outcomes (changing left ventricular mass and microalbuminuria, coprimary outcomes) at 1 year and on CV events at 4 years and on changes in BP-related variables will be assessed. Ethics and dissemination MASTER study protocol has received approval by the ethical review board of Istituto Auxologico Italiano. The procedures set out in this protocol are in accordance with principles of Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice

Cardiovascular events in hypertensives are associated with elevated average blood pressure (BP) and higher short-term BP variability (V), but little is known on treatment effects on BPV and on how to assess changes in short-term BPV. Aim of our study was to address the methodology of short-term BPV assessment and its reduction by Lercanidipine (L) or Enalapril (E) and their combination, through analysis of 24-hour ambulatory BP recordings from two studies including subjects of different age. Study-1: 64 middle-age hypertensives (52.9 ± 9.5 yrs) received L and E s.i.d. at 10 mg (L10, E10) or 20 mg doses (L20, E20) for 8 weeks. Study-2: 66 elderly hypertensives (65.5 ± 4.7 yrs) received placebo, L10, E20 and L10 + E20 s.i.d. for 4 weeks. In middle-age subjects, both L and E decreased mean BP and, at the highest dose, also short-term BPV. In elderly subjects, L10 alone or in combination with E20 reduced BPV. Treatment-induced reductions in BP levels and BPV were uncorrelated. Different methods for short-term BPV assessment did not always provide superimposable results in the elderly. Our study supports a better reduction of BPV by L in the elderly and by E + L combination at any age, suggesting BPV reduction to be independent from reduction in average BP., Cardiovascular events in hypertensives are associated with elevated average blood pressure (BP) and higher short-term BP variability (V), but little is known on treatment effects on BPV and on how to assess changes in short-term BPV. Aim of our study was to address the methodology of short-term BPV assessment and its reduction by Lercanidipine (L) or Enalapril (E) and their combination, through analysis of 24-hour ambulatory BP recordings from two studies including subjects of different age. Study-1: 64 middle-age hypertensives (52.9 ± 9.5 yrs) received L and E s.i.d. at 10 mg (L10, E10) or 20 mg doses (L20, E20) for 8 weeks. Study-2: 66 elderly hypertensives (65.5 ± 4.7 yrs) received placebo, L10, E20 and L10 + E20 s.i.d. for 4 weeks. In middle-age subjects, both L and E decreased mean BP and, at the highest dose, also short-term BPV. In elderly subjects, L10 alone or in combination with E20 reduced BPV. Treatment-induced reductions in BP levels and BPV were uncorrelated. Different methods for short-term BPV assessment did not always provide superimposable results in the elderly. Our study supports a better reduction of BPV by L in the elderly and by E + L combination at any age, suggesting BPV reduction to be independent from reduction in average BP.

Blood pressure telemonitoring (BPT) is a telehealth strategy that allows remote data transmission of blood pressure and additional information on patients’ health status from their dwellings or from a community setting to the doctor's office or the hospital. There is sufficiently strong evidence from several randomized controlled trials that the regular and prolonged use of BPT combined with telecounseling and case management under the supervision of a team of healthcare professionals is associated with a significant blood pressure reduction compared with usual care, particularly in cases of patients at high risk. However, most current evidence is based on studies of relatively short duration (<12 months), and in the few studies that have investigated longer-term outcomes, no evidence of better or sustained effect could be provided. In addition, no definition of the optimal BPT-based healthcare delivery model could be derived from the studies performed so far, because of the heterogeneity of interventions, technologies, and study designs. BPT can also be provided in the context of “mobile health” (m-health) wireless solutions, together with educational support, medication reminders, and teleconsultation. When BPT is integrated in an m-health solution, it has the potential to promote patient's self-management, as a complement to the doctor's intervention, and encourage greater participation in medical decision-making. In conclusion, BPT has a potential key role in the management of patients with hypertension, since it seems to improve the quality of delivered care and allow for more effective prevention of the cardiovascular consequences of hypertension.

Author wants to correct the text under the heading of Introduction. The sentence is written as: “In the ZENITH study, both treatments had a similar positive effect on regression of cardiac and renal damage, whereas a larger proportion of patients showing carotid plaque regression was observed under zofenopril (31.6% vs. 16.1%; p = 0.047), particularly in the subgroup of patients taking the low dose of zofenopril (30 mg) plus HCTZ 12.5 mg (4.7% vs 10.0% irbesartan 150 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg; p = 0.043)”. The correct sentence should read: “In the ZENITH study, both treatments had a similar positive effect on regression of cardiac.

Combinations between an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) are among the recommended treatments for hypertensive patients uncontrolled by monotherapy. Four randomized, double-blind, parallel group studies with a similar design, including 1469 hypertensive patients uncontrolled by a previous monotherapy and with ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor, compared the efficacy of a combination of a sulfhydryl ACE inhibitor (zofenopril at 30 or 60 mg) or an ARB (irbesartan at 150 or 300 mg) plus HCTZ 12.5 mg. The extent of blood pressure (BP)-lowering was assessed in the office and over 24 h. Pleiotropic features of the treatments were evaluated by studying their effect on systemic inflammation, organ damage, arterial stiffness, and metabolic biochemical parameters. Both treatments similarly reduced office and ambulatory BPs after 18–24 weeks. In the ZODIAC study a larger reduction in high sensitivity C reactive protein (hs-CRP) was observed under zofenopril (−0.52 vs. +0.97 mg/dL under irbesartan, p = 0.001), suggesting a potential protective effect against the development of atherosclerosis. In the ZENITH study the rate of carotid plaque regression was significantly larger under zofenopril (32% vs. 16%; p = 0.047). In the diabetic patients of the ZAMES study, no adverse effects of treatments on blood glucose and lipids as well as an improvement of renal function were observed. In patients with isolated systolic hypertension of the ZEUS study, a slight and similar improvement in renal function and small reductions in pulse wave velocity (PWV), augmentation index (AI), and central systolic BP were documented with both treatments. Thus, the fixed combination of zofenopril and HCTZ may have a relevant place in the treatment of high-risk or monotherapy-treated uncontrolled hypertensive patients requiring a more prompt, intensive, and sustained BP red

Purpose of the Review: This review article will summarize available data on mobile applications for the management of hypertension, by highlighting their potential for clinical use, the current limitations and the yet pending issues to be addressed in future studies. Recent Findings: The number of available applications related to arterial hypertension and their usage by smartphone owners is constantly increasing. However, most applications lack standardization and scientific validation, and security flaws could be an important, yet still underrated, issue. Small studies showed that treatment strategies based on telemonitoring of home blood pressure with mobile applications could improve blood pressure control, but there are no data on strong outcomes and the high heterogeneity of available studies severely limits the possibility of reaching a definitive conclusion on the impact of such strategies. Summary: Smartphone applications for arterial hypertension represent a great chance to improve management of this condition. Results from small studies are promising, but there is a strong need for large, long-term, well-designed clinical trials, before these potential solutions might be reliably applied in real-life patients’ care

BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) appears to reduce BP in hypertension but important questions remain regarding effective implementation and which groups may benefit most. This individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis was performed to better understand the effectiveness of BP self-monitoring to lower BP and control hypertension. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomised trials comparing self-monitoring to no self-monitoring in hypertensive patients (June 2016). Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibility and the authors of eligible trials were approached requesting IPD. Of 2,846 articles in the initial search, 36 were eligible. IPD were provided from 25 trials, including 1 unpublished study. Data for the primary outcomes-change in mean clinic or ambulatory BP and proportion controlled below target at 12 months-were available from 15/19 possible studies (7,138/8,292 [86%] of randomised participants). Overall, self-monitoring was associated with reduced clinic systolic blood pressure (sBP) compared to usual care at 12 months (-3.2 mmHg, [95% CI -4.9, -1.6 mmHg]). However, this effect was strongly influenced by the intensity of co-intervention ranging from no effect with self-monitoring alone (-1.0 mmHg [-3.3, 1.2]), to a 6.1 mmHg (-9.0, -3.2) reduction when monitoring was combined with intensive support. Self-monitoring was most effective in those with fewer antihypertensive medications and higher baseline sBP up to 170 mmHg. No differences in efficacy were seen by sex or by most comorbidities. Ambulatory BP data at 12 months were available from 4 trials (1,478 patients), which assessed self-monitoring with little or no co-intervention. There was no association between self-monitoring and either lower clinic or ambulatory sBP in this group (clinic -0.2 mmHg [-2.2, 1.8]; ambulatory 1.1 mmHg [-0.3, 2.5]). Results for diastolic blood pressure (dBP) were similar. The main limitation o