Cardiovascular risk assessment in hypertensive patients: major discrepancy according to ESH and SCORE strategies

BACKGROUND: The European Society of Hypertension (ESH) guidelines recommend two possible strategies for the assessment of cardiovascular risk (CVR) in essential hypertensive (HT) patients: categorical tables and SCORE risk charts. However, the outcome of these methods has not been compared. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: We assessed CVR according to ESH and SCORE risk charts adapted to use in Belgium in 106 HT patients (mean age: 52.4 +/- 12.9 years, male/female ratio: 46/60) without diabetes or other associated clinical conditions. RESULTS: The distribution of low, moderate, high and very high added risk was strikingly different (kappa coefficient = 0.08) according to ESH categorical tables (n = 1, 24, 24, 57) and SCORE risk charts (n = 60, 12, 10, 24). Furthermore, compared with ESH, CVR class according to SCORE was lower in the majority of patients (n = 72, 68%) while it was similar in 23 (22%) and higher in 11 patients (10%). Patients for whom risk was lower by SCORE compared to ESH differed from the others by age (46.7 +/- 10.0 versus 64.6 +/- 9.2, P < 10) and proportion of females (71 versus 26%, P < 10). CONCLUSIONS: In this series of patients with mainly moderate or severe hypertension, the distribution of cardiovascular risk was strikingly different according to ESH categorical tables and SCORE risk charts. This might be explained in part by the lower weight attributed to blood pressure in risk assessment, especially in young female subjects. If confirmed, these results should prompt the performance of a prospective study to assess which strategy most accurately predicts CVR in hypertensive patients.     

The impact of plasma high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels on cardiovascular risk stratification of hypertensive patients: results of the ICEBERG study

The Intensive/Initial Cardiovascular Examination Regarding Blood Pressure Levels: Evaluation of Risk Groups (ICEBERG) study focused on the impact of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) measurement on cardiovascular risk evaluation. The ICEBERG study comprised 2 subprotocols. Each subprotocol had 2 patient profiles: patients previously diagnosed with essential hypertension and under medical treatment and patients with systolic blood pressure 130 mm Hg or higher, or diastolic blood pressure 85 mm Hg or higher, with no treatment for at least 3 months before inclusion. Measurement of hs-CRP and cardiovascular risk stratification were performed according to European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology (ESH/ESC) guidelines. A total of 1817 patients were analyzed. In 1 group, the percentage of patients in "high" plus "very high" added-risk groups increased from 59.2% to 72.7% when hs-CRP data were added to routine serum biochemistries. In another, the increase was from 66.9% to 77.9%, whereas in a third group, it changed from 65.1% to 77.2%. The use of plasma hs-CRP levels might help in stratifying hypertensive patients into specific risk groups and modifying preventive approaches.     

Thresholds for pulse wave velocity, urine albumin creatinine ratio and left ventricular mass index using SCORE, Framingham and ESH/ESC risk charts

AIMS:: Markers of subclinical target organ damage (TOD) increase cardiovascular (CV) risk prediction beyond traditional risk factors. We wanted to establish thresholds for three markers of TOD based on absolute CV risk in different risk chart categories. METHODS AND RESULTS:: In a cohort of 1968 healthy patients, we measured urine albumin creatine ratio (UACR), pulse wave velocity (PWV), left ventricular mass index (LVMI) and traditional risk factors. Patients were categorized according to Systemic Coronary Evaluation (SCORE), European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology (ESH/ESC) risk chart and Framingham risk score (FRS) and three corresponding endpoints were recorded: CV death (SCORE-endpoint), a composite of CV death and nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke (ESH/ESC-endpoint), and a composite that also included hospital admissions for ischemic heart disease, heart failure, peripheral arterial disease and transient cerebral ischemic attack (FRS-endpoint). During a median follow of 12.8 years events totaled 81 SCORE-, 153 ESH/ESC-endpoints and 280 FRS-endpoints. Thresholds for UACR, PWV and LVMI are presented using 10-year risk threshold of more than 5% (SCORE-endpoint), more than 10%(ESH/ESC-endpoint) and more than 20%(FRS-endpoint), which indicated high risk and eligibility for primary prevention. As an example, the threshold was 0.83?mg/mmol, 13.7?m/s and 119?g/m for UACR, PWV and LVMI, respectively, for patients at moderate added risk according to ESH/ESC risk chart. CONCLUSION:: Thresholds for UACR, PVW and LVMI based on absolute risk have primarily impact on risk stratification in patients with intermediate risk. The thresholds for PWV and LVMI in patients with moderate risk according to the ESH/ESC risk chart were similar to currently applied thresholds whereas the threshold for UACR was considerable lower than the threshold for microalbuminuria.     

Real-life appraisal on blood pressure targets achievement in adult outpatients at high cardiovascular risk

Background and aimAlthough hypertension guidelines highlight the benefits of achieving the recommended blood pressure (BP) targets, hypertension control rate is still insufficient, mostly in high or very high cardiovascular (CV) risk patients. Thus, we aimed to estimate BP control in a cohort of patients at high CV risk in both primary and secondary prevention.Methods and resultsA single-center, cross-sectional study was conducted by extracting data from a medical database of adult outpatients aged 40–75 years, who were referred to our Hypertension Unit, Rome (IT), for hypertension assessment. Office BP treatment targets were defined according to 2018 ESC/ESH guidelines as: a)<130/80 mmHg in individuals aged 40–65 years; b)<140/80 mmHg in subjects aged >65 years. Primary prevention patients with SCORE <5% were considered to be at low-intermediate risk, whilst individuals with SCORE ≥5% or patients with comorbidities were defined to be at very high risk. Among 6354 patients (47.2% female, age 58.4 ± 9.6 years), 4164 (65.5%) were in primary prevention with low-intermediate CV risk, 1831 (28.8%) in primary prevention with high-very high CV risk and 359 (5.6%) in secondary prevention. In treated hypertensive outpatients, uncontrolled hypertension rate was significantly higher in high risk primary prevention than in low risk primary prevention and secondary prevention patients (18.4% vs 24.4% vs. 12.5%, respectively; P < 0.001). In high risk primary prevention diabetic patients only 10% achieved the recommended BP targets.ConclusionsOur data confirmed unsatisfactory BP control among high-risk patients, both in primary and secondary prevention, and suggest the need for a more stringent BP control policies in these patients.     

Risk factor identification and assessment in hypertension and diabetes (RIAHD) study

The RIAHD (Risk factor Identification and Assessment in Hypertension and Diabetes) study was conducted as a non-interventional study in 699 patients with hypertension without additional risk factors (low-risk) or with additional risk factors (high-risk), primarily diabetes and/or micro/macroalbuminuria (MA/A). The RIAHD study aimed to assess novel cardiovascular risk factors (RFs) such as blood viscosity, inflammatory markers and selected genetic polymorphisms. In addition, the RIAHD study also aimed to examine home versus office blood pressures (BPs), objective cardiovascular risk according to ESH/ESC Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation systems (SCORE) and subjectively expressed risk (clinical judgment) by physicians and patients. The health economic impact of other RFs, associated clinical conditions and target organ damage was also studied by evaluating healthcare utilization and sick leave in high-risk patients. In terms of circulating RFs, measured and calculated whole blood viscosity did not differ between the high and low-risk patient groups. Fibrinogen was significantly increased in the high-risk group, while hsCRP did not differ between the two groups. Self-measured BPs at home differed from BPs measured in the office. The average systolic home BPs was 11.8 mmHg lower in the low-risk group and 6.7 mmHg lower in the high-risk group. The diastolic home BPs averages differed 7.1mm Hg and 4.1mmHg from office BPs in the low-risk and high-risk groups, respectively. A higher home BP compared with the office BP, i.e. masked high BP values, was found in 21% of patients in the low-risk group and 32% of patients in the high-risk group. Global CV risk assessment (high-risk or low-risk) by the physicians corresponded well to objective risk evaluation (ESH/ESC) in the high-risk hypertensive patients, while physicians tended to underestimate the patients CV risk in the low-risk group (without diabetes and/or MA/A). Proper global risk assessment by judgement is often difficult in cardiovascular patients. The RIAHD study emphasizes the importance of performing a more extended RF assessment in hypertensive patients with as well as without diabetes and/or micro/macroalbuminuria in order to expose the full RF profile.     

背向散射积分技术在评价伴靶器官损害高血压患者心肌纤维化中的应用

目的研究背向散射积分(IBS)作为高血压患者心肌纤维化早期指标的可行性。方法根据2007年欧洲高血压学会(ESH)/欧洲心脏学会(ESC)指南中亚临床靶器官损害标准将原发性高血压患者分成两组:非靶器官损害组(1组,42例),靶器官损害组(2组,51例),健康对照组36例。用IBS技术测量对照组、1组和2组室间隔心肌、左心室后壁心肌、左心房后壁心肌及心腔的IBS指标,计算并比较各组标化背向散射积分(IBS%)值是否存在差异。结果各部位的IBS值在对照组、1组、2组呈逐渐增高趋势,2组最高。其中左心房后壁IBS%值2组[(181±48)dB]与1组[(164±27)dB]、对照组[(164±27)dB]比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),左心室后壁IBS%值2组[(190±43)dB]与1组[(169±36)dB]、对照组[(166±28)dB]间差异有统计学意义(分别为P<0.05,P<0.01),室间隔左心室侧1/2处心肌IBS%值在2组和对照组间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论超声IBS技术可以评价伴有靶器官损害的高血压患者左心室心肌纤维化程度,但尚不能作为高血压患者心肌纤维化的早期指标。     

The recalibrated HellenicSCORE based on newly derived risk factors from the Hellenic National Nutrition and Health Survey (HNNHS); the HellenicSCORE II

BackgroundBecause of the increased burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD), country specific risk prediction models to forecast future CVD events and mortality are recommended, for primary prevention. The aim of this study was to recalibrate the HellenicSCORE, to accurately estimate the 10-year risk CVD mortality of Greek adults.MethodsData from the Hellenic National Nutrition and Health Survey (HNNHS) were used (N = 1012; 37.9% males). Information on age, smoking, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and total blood cholesterol from adults >40 years of age were derived following validated health survey protocols. Individual scores were calculated using these data and beta-coefficients derived from ESC SCORE.ResultsBoth updated HellenicSCORE II charts had lower risk estimates compared to the older version and were closer to the ESC SCORE charts, particularly at the extremes. No significant age difference by sex was observed (mean 59.5 (SD 13.1) years in total) in the population. Women had a significant higher mean total cholesterol compared to men [212.9 (39.5) vs 204.6 (41.2) mg/dl, respectively; p = 0.0343], but smoking prevalence and mean SBP was significantly higher in men [p for all, <0.001]. The mean population HellenicSCORE II score level was between 5.6% (0.2) and 7.9% (3.2) depending on the chart used, with no significant sex differences.ConclusionAlthough the HellenicSCORE II charts were lower, the mean population score was moderately high. This is of great importance because according to ESC guidelines, lifestyle intervention, and drug treatment should be based on an individuals’ total cardiovascular risk.     

The impact of an individualized risk‐adjusted approach on hypertension treatment in primary care

Previous studies suggest that up to 60% of all patients with hypertension receive inappropriate treatment. Current 2013 European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology (ESH/ESC) guidelines recommend taking cardiovascular risk factors into account when assessing treatment for patients with hypertension. The authors hypothesize that this approach will reduce the proportion of patients receiving inappropriate treatment. In this cross‐sectional study using electronic medical records of Swiss primary care patients, the authors estimate the proportion of patients receiving inappropriate treatment using two approaches: (1) based on a blood pressure threshold of 140/90 mm Hg; and (2) based on cardiovascular risk factors. A total of 22 434 patients with hypertension were identified. Based on these approaches, 72.7% and 44.6% of patients, respectively, qualified for drug treatment. In addition, 23.0% and 10.8% of patients, respectively, received inappropriate treatment. Application of the 2013 ESH/ESC guidelines reduced the proportion of patients receiving inappropriate treatment by 50%. This shows the major impact of risk adjustment and highlights the need for a patient‐centered approach in hypertension treatment.     

Évaluation du risque cardiovasculaire chez les patients hypertendus selon le SCORE2 et le SCORE OP dans une population d'Afrique subsaharienne

BackgroundHypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular events. The cardiovascular risk assessment is performed using specific algorithms, particularly SCORE2 and SCORE2-OP developed by the European Society of Cardiology.Patients and methodsProspective cohort study from February 1, 2022, to July 31, 2022, enrolling 410 hypertensive patients. Epidemiological, paraclinical, therapeutic, and follow-up data were analyzed. Cardiovascular risk stratification of patients was performed using SCORE2 and SCORE2-OP algorithms. We compared the initial and 6-month cardiovascular risks.ResultsThe mean age of the patients was 60.88 ± 12.35 years with a female predominance (sex ratio = 0.66). In addition to hypertension, dyslipidemia (45.4%) was the most frequently associated risk factor. A high proportion of patients were classified as high (48.6%) and very high (46.3%) cardiovascular risk, with a significant difference between men and women. Reassessment of cardiovascular risk after 6 months of treatment found significant differences compared with the initial cardiovascular risk (p < 0.001). The rate of patients at low to moderate cardiovascular risk (49.5%) increased substantially, whereas the proportion of patients at very high risk decreased (6.8%).ConclusionOur study conducted at Abidjan Heart Institute in a young population of patients with hypertension revealed a severe cardiovascular risk profile. Almost half of the patients are classified at very high cardiovascular risk, based on the SCORE2 and SCORE2-OP. The widespread use of these new algorithms for risk stratification should lead to more aggressive management and prevention strategies for hypertension and associated risk factors.     

Kommentar zur 2013-ESH/ESC-Leitlinie zum Management der arteriellen Hypertonie

In June 2013 the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension were published. For the first time the German Hypertension League (DHL®), German Society of Hypertension and Prevention, and the German Society of Cardiology (DGK) decided to translate these guidelines as clinical practice pocket guidelines in a collaborative manner. The DHL/DGK pocket guidelines represent an exact translation of the ESH/ESC pocket guidelines. With the present comments we want to inform clinicians about important changes in the new guidelines. In consideration of the national regulatory environment, and after evaluation by DHL/DGK expert panels, selected controversial ESH/ESC recommendations will be discussed. In particular, the importance of out-of-office blood pressure measurements, new blood pressure targets, changes in antihypertensive drug therapy, and new approaches in resistant hypertension will be reviewed. Finally, the limitations of the current guidelines will be discussed.     

门诊高血压病患者心血管危险分层与血压控制的研究

目的　了解门诊高血压病患者的心血管危险分层与血压控制的关系。方法 :随机入选门诊原发性高血压患者10 6例 ,使用统一的表格询问和记录相关病史和检测、检查结果 ,按中国高血压防治指南的心血管危险分层方法进行分层。据危险分层的差异进行相应的治疗 ,2个月后复诊。结果　 (1) 76 9%的男性患者有 2个和 2个以上的危险因素 ,而女性只有 5 7 4% (P <0 0 5 ) ;(2 )约 6 0 %高血压病患者心血管危险分层为高危和很高危 ,34 0 %为中危 ,7 5 %为低危。 (3)经过规则治疗后 ,高血压病患者血压下降至正常 ,收缩压从 16 3 77± 16 82mmHg下降到 134 5 6± 14 45mmHg ,舒张压从 94 5 5± 11 79mmHg下降为 81 2 0± 8 37mmHg(P <0 0 5 )。心血管危险分层很高危百分比下降 ,从 31 1%下降为 14 2 % (P <0 0 1)。低危百分比上升 ,从 7 5 %上升为 14 2 % (P <0 0 5 )。结论　对高血压病患者进行心血管危险分层有助于高血压及其并发症的防治     

Aktuelle Leitlinien zur Diagnostik und Therapie der arteriellen Hypertonie der DHL

Various new large-scale studies have been published in the field of hypertension in recent years. These studies have already led to changes in the recommendations for treating hypertension in Britain. The European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) have therefore also issued new revised guidelines on diagnosing and treating hypertension this year. These new European guidelines will influence the German guidelines on diagnosing and treating high blood pressure and are to be incorporated into the existing German guidelines in 2007/2008 following a critical discussion.     

Kommentar zu den neuen Leitlinien (2011) der Europ?ischen Gesellschaft für Kardiologie zum Management von Dyslipid?mien

The present European Society of Cardiology and European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias are more detailed compared to earlier recommendations by the ESC as well as by the German Cardiac Society (DGK). The core issues of the guidelines consist of stringent risk-oriented indications for therapy based on the global risk of the patient which has to be estimated using the ESC SCORE (Systemic Coronary Risk Estimation) system. Furthermore, a stronger reduction of the target parameter low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) is now recommended for patients with very high risk as well as those with high and moderate risk. For patients with very high risk, which includes all patients with atherosclerotic manifestations, an LDL-C goal of <70?mg/dl is recommended. This recommendation, however, represents a compromise from observational studies, several clinical intervention trials and an extrapolation based on these data. The new guidelines also clearly recommend a specific LDL-C goal of 115?mg/dl in subjects with moderately elevated risk, the group which includes the vast majority of cardiovascular events in the general population. Finally, in its present stringent form risk-guided therapy of dyslipidaemias presents a first step in the direction of personalized medicine.     

Tachycardia in Hypertension: A Saga of Progress Despite Prejudice, Confusion, and Inertia

Tachycardia is a strong predictor of both hypertension and excessive cardiovascular risk. This association is robust and prevails after multivariate adjustments for other cardiovascular risk factors. Despite the strong evidence, various guidelines do not list tachycardia as a risk factor because of unwarranted assumption that tachycardia is only a marker of patient's emotional state. Already in 1945, Levy et al showed that individuals with “transient tachycardia” at baseline developed 2-fold higher rates of “true” hypertension than the control group. In the general population of Tecumseh, Mich, tachycardia proved to be a permanently reproducible feature of prehypertension. In hypertension, fast heart rate is associated with high cardiac output, and this “hyperkinetic” hemodynamic picture is different from established hypertension. However, Lund Johansen has shown that after 20 years of observation, the cardiac output and stroke volume significantly decreased and a typical picture of high vascular resistance, treatment-requiring, established hypertension emerged. So far, only the 2007 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension (ESC/ESH) guidelines acknowledged the validity of heart rate in evaluation of cardiovascular patients. The best way to convince the public is to demonstrate that lowering the heart rate with a drug without influence on blood pressure reduces cardiovascular events.     

ACC/AHA Versus ESC/ESH on Hypertension Guidelines: JACC Guideline Comparison

This study compares the recommendations of the most recent American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Society of Hypertension (ESH) blood pressure guidelines. Both guidelines represent updates of previous guidelines and reinforce previous concepts of prevention regarding elevated blood pressure. Specifically, a low-sodium diet, exercise, body weight reduction, low to moderate alcohol intake, and adequate potassium intake are emphasized. Overall, both guidelines agree on the proper method of blood pressure measurement, the use of home blood pressure and ambulatory monitoring, and restricted use of beta-blockers as first-line therapy. The major disagreements are with the level of blood pressure defining hypertension, flexibility in identifying blood pressure targets for treatment, and the use of initial combination therapy. Although initial single-pill combination therapy is strongly recommended in both guidelines, the ESC/ESH guideline recommends it as initial therapy in patients at ≥140/90 mm Hg. The ACC/AHA guideline recommends its use in patients >20/10 mm Hg above blood pressure goal. Thus, the only real disagreement is that the ACC/AHA guidelines maintain that all people with blood pressure >130/80 mm Hg have hypertension, and blood pressure should be lowered to <130/80 mm Hg in all. In contrast, the ESC/ESH guidelines state that hypertension is defined as >140/90 mm Hg, with the goal being a level <140/90 mm Hg for all targeting to <130/80 mm Hg only in those at high cardiovascular risk, but always considering individual tolerability of the proposed goal.     

Comentario del CEIPV a las nuevas Guías Europeas de Prevención Cardiovascular 2021

We present the Spanish adaptation of the 2021 European Guidelines on Cardiovascular Disease prevention in clinical practice. The current guidelines besides the individual approach greatly emphasize on the importance of population level approaches to the prevention of cardiovascular diseases. Systematic global cardiovascular diseases risk assessment is recommended in individuals with any major vascular risk factor. Regarding LDL-cholesterol, blood pressure, and glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus, goals and targets remain as recommended in previous guidelines. However, it is proposed a new, stepwise approach (step 1 and 2) to treatment intensification as a tool to help physicians and patients pursue these targets in a way that fits patient profile. After step 1, considering proceeding to the intensified goals of step 2 is mandatory, and this intensification will be based on 10-year cardiovascular diseases risk, lifetime cardiovascular diseases risk and treatment benefit, comorbidities and patient preferences. The updated SCORE algorithm ?SCORE2, SCORE2-OP? is recommended in these guidelines, which estimates an individual's 10-year risk of fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular diseases events (myocardial infarction, stroke and vascular mortality) in healthy men and women aged 40-89 years. Another new and important recommendation is the use of different categories of risk according different age groups (< 50, 50-69, ≥ 70 years).Different flow charts of cardiovascular diseases risk and risk factor treatment in apparently healthy persons, in diabetic patients, and in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases are recommended. Patients with chronic kidney disease are considered high risk or very high-risk patients according to the levels of glomerular filtration rate and albumin-to-creatinine ratio. New lifestyle recommendations adapted to the ones published by the Spanish Ministry of Health as well as recommendations focused on the management of lipids, blood pressure, diabetes and chronic renal failure are included.     

Factors Related to Elevated 24-h Blood Pressure in Young Adults

Variation in 24-h blood pressure (BP) is associated with multiple factors, but the association has not been thoroughly examined in young adults. To elucidate the potential factors associated with variation in 24-h BP, 331 healthy medical students were investigated. Awake mean BP negatively correlated with sleep duration in males. Sixty-seven subjects (20.2%) had a high 24-h BP according to the ESH/ESC 2007 guidelines (systolic blood pressure (SBP) 125 and/or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 80 mmHg). After multivariate analysis for confounding factors, male gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking, the 24-h low/high frequency component (heart rate variability spectral analysis), and short sleep (5 h or less) were found to be associated with high BP. The present study is the first to demonstrate the multivariate risk factors for elevated 24-h BP in a large number of young adults. Further investigation is required to determine the causal relationship between modifiable BP-related factors and elevated 24-h BP in young adults.     

中国四省市阿司匹林预防心血管疾病用药现状调查

目的 调查阿司匹林在我国部分地区心血管疾病一级预防和二级预防中的应用现状.方法 入选来自2007年6月至2008年5月糖尿病和代谢综合征患病率变迁调查研究中湖南、广东、四川、辽宁四省的9000例受试者,进行问卷调查,内容包括是否服用阿司匹林、服用频率及剂量.总体人群心血管一级预防治疗标准依据美国心脏病协会心血管及脑卒中一级预防指南（2002）10年心血管风险＞10%的推荐,计算阿司匹林实际使用率;糖尿病和高血压亚组则分别将美国糖尿病协会（2010）指南和欧洲心脏病学会/欧洲高血压协会高血压指南（2007）的相关推荐作为治疗标准.结果 共收回7186份有效问卷,其中233例有明确的心血管疾病.总人群中符合一级预防人群实际阿司匹林使用率为14.09%,二级预防人群使用率为26.61%;糖尿病亚组无心血管疾病患者实际阿司匹林使用率为32.47%,糖尿病心血管疾病二级预防阿司匹林使用率为51.16%.高血压亚组心血管疾病一级预防阿司匹林使用率为19.93%,二级预防人群使用率为29.52%.所有服用阿司匹林的人群中,87.67%为每日1次,10.35%为不规律服用,1.98%为隔日1次,半数受试者（50.25%）服用剂量低于指南推荐的最小剂量.结论 我国心血管疾病一级预防和二级预防人群阿司匹林使用率过低,在使用阿司匹林预防的人群中,使用剂量也不规范,半数每日应用少于75 mg.应进一步提高心血管疾病中高危患者及已有心血管疾病患者阿司匹林的使用率并规范其应用.     

Usefulness of optic fundus examination with retinography in initial evaluation of hypertensive patients

BACKGROUND: Although international guidelines for management of hypertension recommend optic fundus examination in the initial evaluation of hypertensive patients, there have been no studies to evaluate the usefulness of retinography in this application. METHODS: Two hundred and fifty consecutive new patients with hypertension but without known cardiovascular disease were studied. The average age was 57.2 years (s.d. 12.9) and 56% were men. The study was conducted in 14 primary care centers. Measurements included target organ damage (TOD) evaluation (electrocardiography, retinography, microalbuminuria, and serum creatinine) and blood pressure (BP) measurements. Outcome measurements were made to risk stratification according to 2003 World Health Organization and International Society of Hypertension (WHO-ISH) and 2007 European Society of Hypertension and European Society of Cardiology (ESH-ESC) guidelines, analyzed first without incorporating the retinography results and then reclassified using the retinography data. RESULTS: Advanced retinopathy was detected in 10.8%. The risk stratification arrived at as per the WHO-ISH guidelines, and without the retinography data was: 11.4% low risk, 62.4% moderate risk, and 26.2% high risk. When retinography results were taken into account, 8% from the moderate-risk group were reclassified to the high-risk group (11.4, 54.4, and 34.2%, respectively; P < 0.001). Using ESH-ESC guidelines, the risk stratification without the retinography data was 0.9% reference, 11.3% low, 58.8% moderate, 21.7% high, and 7.3% very high risk. With retinography, 10% were reclassified from a lower to a higher risk group (0.9, 10.4, 51.1, 20.4, and 17.2%, respectively; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: As an alternative to optic fundus examination, retinography enables a more accurate cardiovascular risk stratification in the first evaluation after diagnosis of hypertension. When retinography is included in the assessment of cardiovascular risk, approximately 10% of patients are reclassified to a higher risk group.     

Overall cardiovascular risk still ignored in general practice care of hypertension

BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension have emphasized the importance of total cardiovascular risk for setting the blood pressure (BP) goal to be achieved and the intensity with which it should be pursued. DESIGN: To assess the degree of BP control in hypertensives receiving long-term antihypertensive treatment according to the presence of major cardiovascular risk factors or diseases and the level of individual total cardiovascular risk, a large sample of general practitioners throughout Italy had to evaluate a random sample of their hypertensive patients. METHODS: A clinical history was collected for each patient and BP was measured three times using a reliable automatic instrument. To stratify the cardiovascular risk we used the criteria suggested by the 1999 WHO-ISH guidelines. RESULTS: Among the 1204 patients recruited (mean age 64.2 +/- 11.4 years, 663 females), only 399 patients (33.1%) had a BP lower than 140/90 mmHg. Except for male sex and previous myocardial infarction, the concomitant presence of major cardiovascular risk factors or diseases was never associated to a better control of hypertension. BP control was unrelated to individual overall cardiovascular risk: BP was < 140/90 mmHg respectively in 44.0, 37.7, 33.5 and 42.1% (P for trend = 0.54) of people aged less than 65 years with low, medium, high and very high risk and in 27.7, 25.9 and 27.1% (P for trend = 0.91) of people aged more than 65 years at medium, high and very high risk. CONCLUSIONS: BP control in Italian hypertensives is still unsatisfactory, even in patients at high and very high cardiovascular risk.