49
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Beyond the Evidence of the New Hypertension Guidelines. Blood pressure measurement – is it good enough for accurate diagnosis of hypertension? Time might be in, for a paradigm shift (I)

      review-article
      1 ,
      Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Despite widespread availability of a large body of evidence in the area of hypertension, the translation of that evidence into viable recommendations aimed at improving the quality of health care is very difficult, sometimes to the point of questionable acceptability and overall credibility of the guidelines advocating those recommendations.

          The scientific community world-wide and especially professionals interested in the topic of hypertension are witnessing currently an unprecedented debate over the issue of appropriateness of using different drugs/drug classes for the treatment of hypertension. An endless supply of recent and less recent "drug-news", some in support of, others against the current guidelines, justifying the use of selected types of drug treatment or criticising other, are coming out in the scientific literature on an almost weekly basis. The latest of such debate (at the time of writing this paper) pertains the safety profile of ARBs vs ACE inhibitors.

          To great extent, the factual situation has been fuelled by the new hypertension guidelines (different for USA, Europe, New Zeeland and UK) through, apparently small inconsistencies and conflicting messages, that might have generated substantial and perpetuating confusion among both prescribing physicians and their patients, regardless of their country of origin.

          The overwhelming message conveyed by most guidelines and opinion leaders is the widespread use of diuretics as first-line agents in all patients with blood pressure above a certain cut-off level and the increasingly aggressive approach towards diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. This, apparently well-justified, logical and easily comprehensible message is unfortunately miss-obeyed by most physicians, on both parts of the Atlantic.

          Amazingly, the message assumes a universal simplicity of both diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, while ignoring several hypertension-specific variables, commonly known to have high level of complexity, such as:

          - accuracy of recorded blood pressure and the great inter-observer variability,

          - diversity in the competency and training of diagnosing physician,

          - individual patient/disease profile with highly subjective preferences,

          - difficulty in reaching consensus among opinion leaders,

          - pharmaceutical industry's influence, and, nonetheless,

          - the large variability in the efficacy and safety of the antihypertensive drugs.

          The present 2-series article attempts to identify and review possible causes that might have, at least in part, generated the current healthcare anachronism (I); to highlight the current trend to account for the uncertainties related to the fixed blood pressure cut-off point and the possible solutions to improve accuracy of diagnosis and treatment of hypertension (II).

          Related collections

          Most cited references106

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          2003 World Health Organization (WHO)/International Society of Hypertension (ISH) statement on management of hypertension.

          Hypertension is estimated to cause 4.5% of current global disease burden and is as prevalent in many developing countries, as in the developed world. Blood pressure-induced cardiovascular risk rises continuously across the whole blood pressure range. Countries vary widely in capacity for management of hypertension, but worldwide the majority of diagnosed hypertensives are inadequately controlled. This statement addresses the ascertainment of overall cardiovascular risk to establish thresholds for initiation and goals of treatment, appropriate treatment strategies for non-drug and drug therapies, and cost-effectiveness of treatment. Since publication of the WHO/ISH Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension in 1999, more evidence has become available to support a systolic blood pressure threshold of 140 mmHg for even 'low-risk' patients. In high-risk patients there is evidence for lower thresholds. Lifestyle modification is recommended for all individuals. There is evidence that specific agents have benefits for patients with particular compelling indications, and that monotherapy is inadequate for the majority of patients. For patients without a compelling indication for a particular drug class, on the basis of comparative trial data, availability, and cost, a low dose of diuretic should be considered for initiation of therapy. In most places a thiazide diuretic is the cheapest option and thus most cost effective, but for compelling indications where other classes provide additional benefits, even if more expensive, they may be more cost effective. In high-risk patients who attain large benefits from treatment, expensive drugs may be cost effective, but in low-risk patients treatment may not be cost-effective unless the drugs are cheap.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Hypertension prevalence and blood pressure levels in 6 European countries, Canada, and the United States.

            Geographic variations in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and associated risk factors have been recognized worldwide. However, little attention has been directed to potential differences in hypertension between Europe and North America. To determine whether higher blood pressure (BP) levels and hypertension are more prevalent in Europe than in the United States and Canada. Sample surveys that were national in scope and conducted in the 1990s were identified in Germany, Finland, Sweden, England, Spain, Italy, Canada, and the United States. Collaborating investigators provided tabular data in a consistent format by age and sex for persons at least 35 years of age. Population registries were the main basis for sampling. Survey sizes ranged from 1800 to 23 100, with response rates of 61% to 87.5%. The data were analyzed to provide age-specific and age-adjusted estimates of BP and hypertension prevalence by country and region (eg, European vs North American). Blood pressure levels and prevalence of hypertension in Europe, the United States, and Canada. Average BP was 136/83 mm Hg in the European countries and 127/77 mm Hg in Canada and the United States among men and women combined who were 35 to 74 years of age. This difference already existed among younger persons (35-39 years) in whom treatment was uncommon (ie, 124/78 mm Hg and 115/75 mm Hg, respectively), and the slope with age was steeper in the European countries. For all age groups, BP measurements were lowest in the United States and highest in Germany. The age- and sex-adjusted prevalence of hypertension was 28% in the North American countries and 44% in the European countries at the 140/90 mm Hg threshold. The findings for men and women by region were similar. Hypertension prevalence was strongly correlated with stroke mortality (r = 0.78) and more modestly with total CVD (r = 0.44). Despite extensive research on geographic patterns of CVD, the 60% higher prevalence of hypertension in Europe compared with the United States and Canada has not been generally appreciated. The implication of this finding for national prevention strategies should be vigorously explored.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Trends in prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in the United States, 1988-2000.

              Prior analyses of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data through 1991 have suggested that hypertension prevalence is declining, but more recent self-reported rates of hypertension suggest that the rate is increasing. To describe trends in the prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in the United States using NHANES data. Survey using a stratified multistage probability sample of the civilian noninstitutionalized population. The most recent NHANES survey, conducted in 1999-2000 (n = 5448), was compared with the 2 phases of NHANES III conducted in 1988-1991 (n = 9901) and 1991-1994 (n = 9717). Individuals aged 18 years or older were included in this analysis. Hypertension, defined as a measured blood pressure of 140/90 mm Hg or greater or reported use of antihypertensive medications. Hypertension awareness and treatment were assessed with standardized questions. Hypertension control was defined as treatment with antihypertensive medication and a measured blood pressure of less than 140/90 mm Hg. In 1999-2000, 28.7% of NHANES participants had hypertension, an increase of 3.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0%-8.3%) from 1988-1991. Hypertension prevalence was highest in non-Hispanic blacks (33.5%), increased with age (65.4% among those aged > or =60 years), and tended to be higher in women (30.1%). In a multiple regression analysis, increasing age, increasing body mass index, and non-Hispanic black race/ethnicity were independently associated with increased rates of hypertension. Overall, in 1999-2000, 68.9% were aware of their hypertension (nonsignificant decline of -0.3%; 95% CI, -4.2% to 3.6%), 58.4% were treated (increase of 6.0%; 95% CI, 1.2%-10.8%), and hypertension was controlled in 31.0% (increase of 6.4%; 95% CI, 1.6%-11.2%). Women, Mexican Americans, and those aged 60 years or older had significantly lower rates of control compared with men, younger individuals, and non-Hispanic whites. Contrary to earlier reports, hypertension prevalence is increasing in the United States. Hypertension control rates, although improving, continue to be low. Programs targeting hypertension prevention and treatment are of utmost importance.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med
                Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine
                BioMed Central
                1468-6708
                1468-6694
                2005
                6 April 2005
                : 6
                : 1
                : 6
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Chippenham, UK
                Article
                1468-6708-6-6
                10.1186/1468-6708-6-6
                1087862
                15813975
                c8055136-27c4-426f-a6d6-ac2ba2c9273c
                Copyright © 2005 Pater; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 25 January 2005
                : 6 April 2005
                Categories
                Review

                Cardiovascular Medicine
                Cardiovascular Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article