One-year outcomes following a hypertensive urgency or emergency.

There are scarce data on the comparative prognosis between patients with hypertensive emergencies (HE), urgencies (HU), and those without HU or HE (HP). Our study aimed to compare cardiovascular (CV) outcomes of HE, HU, and HP during a 12-month follow-up period. The population consisted of 353 consecutive patients presenting with HE or HU in a third-care emergency department and subsequently referred to our hypertension center for follow-up. After both groups completed scheduled follow-up visits, patients with HU were matched one-to-one by age, sex, and hypertension history with HP who attended our hypertension center during the same period. Primary outcomes were 1) a recurrent hypertensive HU or HE event and 2) non-fatal CV events (coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, or CV interventions), while secondary outcomes were 1) all-cause death, 2) CV death, 3) non-CV death, and 4) any-cause hospitalization. Events were prospectively registered for all three groups. During the study period, 81 patients were excluded for not completing follow-up. Among eligible patients(HE = 94; HU = 178), a total of 90 hospitalizations and 14 deaths were recorded; HE registered greater CV morbidity when compared with HU (29 vs. 9, HR 3.43, 95 % CI 1.7-6.9, p = 0.001), and increased CV mortality (8 vs. 1, HR 13.2, 95 % CI 1.57-110.8, p = 0.017). When opposing HU to HP, events did not differ substantially. Cox regression models were adjusted for age, sex, CV and chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, and smoking. During 1-year follow-up, the prognosis of HU was better than HE but not different compared to HP. These results highlight the need for improved care of HU and HE.

Blood pressure control measures and cardiovascular outcomes: a prospective hypertensive cohort.

PURPOSE: We investigated whether blood pressure (BP) control measures, visit-to-visit BP variability, and time in therapeutic range (TTR) are associated with future cardiovascular outcomes in hypertensive patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 1,408 hypertensive patients without cardiovascular disease, we prospectively evaluated the incident major cardiovascular events over 6 years. In newly diagnosed patients, antihypertensive drug treatment was initiated. We estimated two markers of on-treatment BP control, (1) visit-to-visit BPV as the coefficient of variation of office systolic BP (BP-CV), and (2) TTR calculated as the percentage of office systolic BP measurements within 120-140mmHg across visits. RESULTS: The hypertensive cohort (672 males, mean age 60 years, 31% newly diagnosed) had a mean systolic/diastolic BP of 142/87 mmHg. The mean number of visits was 4.9 ± 2.6, while the mean attained systolic/diastolic BP during follow-up was 137/79 mmHg using 2.7 ± 1.1 antihypertensive drugs. The BP-CV and TTR were 9.1 ± 4.1% and 45 ± 29%, respectively, and the incidence of the composite outcome was 8.3% (n = 117). After adjustment for relevant confounders and standardization to z-scores, BP-CV and TTR were associated with a 43% (95% CI, 27-62%) increase and a 33% (95% CI, 15-47%) reduction in the outcome. However, the joint evaluation of TTR and BP-CV in a common multivariable model indicated that a standardized change of TTR was associated with the outcome to a greater extent than BP-CV (mean hazard ratios of 30% vs. 24%, respectively). When combined with the higher BP standardized-CV quartile, the lower TTR quartile predicted the outcome by 2.3 times (95% CI, 1.1-5.4) compared to the inverse TTR and BP-CV quartile pattern. CONCLUSION: High BP-CV or low TTR was associated with future cardiovascular events in a cohort of treated hypertensive patients. As a determinant, the extent of TTR value appears greater than BP-CV when these measures are considered in the same multivariable model.

Hypertensive urgencies during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in a tertiary hospital setting: a U-shaped alarming curve.

Introduction: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic provoked unprecedented disturbance in hypertension care, while alarming concerns arose about its long-term consequences. We investigated the trends of emergency visits and admissions regarding uncontrolled hypertension in order to assess the impact of COVID-19 spread on population behavior towards hypertension urgencies during its first wave. Material and methods: Data from daily unscheduled visits and admission counts in the Cardiology sector were collected from the Emergency Department database of a tertiary General Hospital in Athens, Greece for the period January 15th to July 15th 2020. These data were compared with those from the previous year. Cases of patients who presented with hypertensive urgency or who were admitted due to uncontrolled hypertension were separately analyzed. Results: A total of 7,373 patient records were analyzed. Hypertension urgency cases demonstrated a U-shaped distribution in 2020, showing a declining trend during the rapid virus spread, an image that was reversed after the transmission rate's decline. COVID-19 incidence in Greece was inversely associated with uncontrolled hypertension admissions during its declining phase (r = -0.64, p = 0.009), whereas total attendance exhibited a similar correlation during the first and the following months of the pandemic (r = 0.677, p = 0.031, r = -0.789, p = 0.001). Uncontrolled hypertension rate on admission was positively related to the national incidence of COVID-19 cases during the first months of 2020 (r = 0.82, p = 0.045). Conclusions: Hypertensive urgency-related visits followed a U-shape distribution during the pandemic's first wave with the attendance nadir coinciding with the virus spread peak. This is a complex phenomenon, closely related to increased levels of public stress, disruptions in health care services and to a lesser extent to the imposed restrictions in transportation. The initial relative increase in uncontrolled hypertension-related admissions rate, combined with the later increase of hypertensive urgencies may be indicative of blood pressure deregulation among the studied population, which is multifactorial and potentially detrimental.

Profile and management of hypertensive urgencies and emergencies in the emergency cardiology department of a tertiary hospital: a 12-month registry.

AIMS: Currently there are scarce epidemiological data regarding prevalence, clinical phenotype, and therapy of hypertensive urgencies (HU) and emergencies (HE). The aim of this article was to record the prevalence, clinical characteristics, and management of patients with HU and HE assessed in an emergency department (ED) of a tertiary hospital. METHODS AND RESULTS: The population consisted of patients presenting with HE and HU in the ED (acute increase in systolic blood pressure (BP) ≥ 180 mmHg and/or diastolic BP ≥120 mmHg with and without acute target organ damage, respectively). Of the 38 589 patients assessed in the ED during a 12-month period, 353 (0.91%) had HU and HE. There were 256 (72.5%) cases presented as HU and 97 (27.5%) as HE. Primary causes for both HU and HE were stress/anxiety (44.9%), increased salt intake (33.9%), and non-adherence to medication (16.2%). Patients with HU reported mainly dizziness/headache (46.8%) and chest pain (27.4%), whereas those with HE presented dyspnoea (67%), chest pain (30.2%), dizziness/headache (10.3%), and neurological disorders (8.2%). In HE, the underlying associated conditions were pulmonary oedema (58%), acute coronary syndrome (22.6%), and neurological disorders/stroke (7.2%). All HE cases were hospitalized and received intensive healthcare, including dialysis. CONCLUSION: This 1-year single-centre registry demonstrates a reasonable prevalence of HU and HE contributing to the high volume of visits to the ED. Stress, increased salt intake and non-adherence were main triggers of HE and HU. Dizziness and headache were the prevalent symptoms of HU patients while heart failure was the most common underlying disease in patients with HE.

Net clinical benefit of direct oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation patients with or without diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis of outcome trials.

AIM: To evaluate the net clinical benefit following direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs warfarin by diabetes status in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. METHODS: We searched 3 electronic databases through end-February 2021 to identify relevant outcome trials in patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM). All-cause death, non-fatal stroke/systemic embolism and major bleedings defined net clinical benefit. Outcome risk ratios and 95% confidence interval (CI), and absolute risk outcome reduction per 1000 treated patients were assessed. RESULTS: Four trials of DOACs vs warfarin compared 22,087 patients with DM to 49,592 patients without DM. CHADS2 and 10-year fatal cardiovascular risk were higher in patients with vs those without DM (3.7 vs 2.5 and 28.4% vs 23.4%, respectively). DOACs were associated with more favorable net clinical benefit compared to warfarin in patients with and without DM (relative risk reduction, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.81-0.89] and 0.87 [95% CI, 0.79-0.96]; absolute risk reduction per 1000 patients treated, -33 [95% CI, -45, -21]) and -24 [95% CI, -43, -5]), but interaction test was not significant by relative and absolute numbers (P = 0.68 and P = 0.44, respectively). CONCLUSION: Net clinical benefit following DOACs was not different between patients with and without DM over a period of 2.2 years.

A case series of acute pericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination in the context of recent reports from Europe and the United States.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines were efficacious and safe in clinical trials. We report nine events of acute pericarditis (AP) in eight patients following COVID-19 vaccination with BNT162b2 (6/9), AZD1222 (2/9) and mRNA-1273 (1/9). METHODS: All patients were referred for AP temporally linked with COVID-19 vaccination. Chest pain was the most common clinical manifestation. Alternative etiologies were excluded upon thorough diagnostic work up. AP diagnosis was established according to ESC guidelines. FINDINGS: Five events occurred after the first vaccine dose and four after the second. The mean age in this cohort was 65.8 ± 10.2 years and the men/women ratio 3/5. All events resolved without sequelae; two events were complicated by cardiac tamponade requiring emergent pericardial decompression. Hospitalization was required in four cases. INTERPRETATION: Although causality cannot be firmly established, AP has emerged as a possible complication following COVID-19 vaccination. Further investigation is indispensable to fully characterize this new entity.

Isolated diastolic vs. systolic hypertension phenotypes and outcomes: prospective cohort of newly diagnosed individuals with hypertension.

AIMS: To evaluate whether different hypertension phenotypes, namely, isolated systolic hypertension (ISH), isolated diastolic hypertension (IDH) and systolic/diastolic hypertension (SDH) have a differential outcome effect by clinic and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) measurements. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated in 569 never-treated patients with sustained hypertension (age 52.6 ±â€Š11.6 years; men 55%; clinic BP 150 ±â€Š15/95.5 ±â€Š10 mmHg, systolic/diastolic; 24-h ambulatory BP 128.9 ±â€Š12.6/80.6 ±â€Š9.7) the incidence of major cardiovascular (CV) events within 5 years, after adjustment for confounders, including the rate of BP control and the weighted follow-up BP. RESULTS: All participants received antihypertensive drug treatment (mean number of drugs 1.9 ±â€Š1.1; follow-up visits 4.6/patient). Average clinic BP achieved during follow-up was 136 ±â€Š12.6/83.9 ±â€Š9.4 mmHg, with 39% of participants having clinic BP less than 140/90 mmHg in at least 75% of their visits, and 24% in 25-75% of visits. Prevalence of hypertension phenotypes defined using BP differed from that using ambulatory BP, whereas integration of both BP measurements reclassified the initial phenotype to another in 18% of participants. Although, no differential outcome effect was observed between clinic IDH and SDH assessed using clinic or ambulatory BP measurements, clinic BP-based ISH was associated with a higher outcome incidence than the IDH and SDH phenotypes (hazard ratio 4.8, 95% confidence interval 1.4-17.0, P = 0.015). ISH diagnosed by integration of clinic and ambulatory BP, also increased the outcome (hazard ratio 4.0, 95% confidence interval 1.0-15.6, P = 0.046). CONCLUSION: In hypertensive patients at low/moderate CV risk, IDH and SDH phenotypes defined by clinic BP measurements, equally determined CV events but to a lower extent compared with ISH.

Biomarkers of Atrial Fibrillation in Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most frequently encountered cardiac arrhythmia globally and substantially increases the risk for thromboembolic disease. Albeit, 20% of all cases of AF remain undiagnosed. On the other hand, hypertension amplifies the risk for both AF occurrences through hemodynamic and non-hemodynamic mechanisms and cerebrovascular ischemia. Under this prism, prompt diagnosis of undetected AF in hypertensive patients is of pivotal importance. METHOD: We conducted a review of the literature for studies with biomarkers that could be used in AF diagnosis as well as in predicting the transition of paroxysmal AF to sustained AF, especially in hypertensive patients. RESULTS: Potential biomarkers for AF can be broadly categorized into electrophysiological, morphological and molecular markers that reflect the underlying mechanisms of adverse atrial remodeling. We focused on P-wave duration and dispersion as electrophysiological markers, and left atrial (LA) and LA appendage size, atrial fibrosis, left ventricular hypertrophy and aortic stiffness as structural biomarkers, respectively. The heterogeneous group of molecular biomarkers of AF encompasses products of the neurohormonal cascade, including NT-pro BNP, BNP, MR-pro ANP, polymorphisms of the ACE and convertases such as corin and furin. In addition, soluble biomarkers of inflammation (i.e. CRP, IL-6) and fibrosis (i.e. TGF-1 and matrix metalloproteinases) were assessed for predicting AF. CONCLUSION: The reviewed individual biomarkers might be a valuable addition to current diagnostic tools but the ideal candidate is expected to combine multiple indices of atrial remodeling in order to effectively detect both AF and adverse characteristics of high risk patients with hypertension.

Effects of oral paricalcitol therapy on arterial stiffness and osteopontin in hypertensive patients with chronic kidney disease and secondary hyperparathyroidism.

BACKGROUND: Arterial stiffness is linked to the progression of atherosclerosis, while activation of vitamin D receptor exerts favorable cardiovascular effects in patients with renal insufficiency. In this study, we investigated the effects of oral treatment with paricalcitol, a potent vitamin D receptor activator, on arterial stiffness and osteopontin, a marker of atherosclerosis, in hypertensive patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and secondary hyperparathyroidism. METHODS: We followed up 29 treated hypertensive patients (mean age: 74.1 years, 19 men, office blood pressure = 132/85 mmHg) with CKD stages 3-5 (mean glomerular filtration rate [GFR] = 19.4 ml/min/1.73 m2) who were on therapy with oral paricalcitol for 1 year. The control group consisted of 10 age-, sex-, and GFR-matched hypertensive patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism. RESULTS: After 1 year of treatment with paricalcitol compared to baseline, there was no statistical difference in levels of GFR, office blood pressure, and osteopontin (p = NS for all), while carotid-femoral PWV was reduced from 11.8 ± 2.6 m/s to 11.2 ± 2.4 m/s (p < 0.05). The control group exhibited no significant changes in carotid-femoral PWV (p = NS). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with oral paricalcitol in hypertensive subjects suffering from CKD stages 3-5 and secondary hyperparathyroidism is accompanied by amelioration of arterial stiffness as reflected by the reduction of carotid-femoral PWV.

Serum Uric Acid is Independently Associated with Diastolic Dysfunction in Apparently Healthy Subjects with Essential Hypertension.

OBJECTIVES: Accumulating evidence suggests a direct role of Uric Acid (UA) on Left Ventricular (LV) diastolic function in chronic kidney disease and Heart Failure (HF) patients. Recently, UA has been linked to LV Hypertrophy (LVH) and Diastolic Dysfunction (DD) in women with preserved Ejection Fraction (pEF) but not in corresponding men. We sought to assess if UA could predict indices of DD in hypertensive subjects with pEF independently of gender. METHOD: We consecutively recruited 382 apparently healthy hypertensive subjects (age: 61.7±10.7, women: 61.3%, median EF: 64%). In 318 patients in sinus rhythm, LV mass-indexed to body surface area-was calculated (LVMI). LVH was set as an LVMI >116g/m2 or 96 g/m2 in men and women, respectively. The ratio of early transmitral peak velocity (E) to the mitral annular early diastolic velocity (Em) was used as an approximation of mean left atrial pressure (E/Em). RESULTS: UA [median (interquartile range): 5.4(2) mg/dl] independently predicted E/Em (adjusted coefficient: 1.01, p =0.026) while an interaction term between gender and UA was no significant (p=0.684). An ordinal score of DD was calculated taking into account increased E/Em, left atrium dilatation and LVH. Women with increased UA had 254% increased odds (adjusted OR=2.54, p=0.005) to be classified in the upper range of the DD score. CONCLUSION: In hypertensive subjects without HF, UA is independently associated with the presence of DD in both genders and correlates with its severity in women. Further prospective studies are warranted to evaluate the association of UA with adverse cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk populations such as HF with pEF.

Uric acid as an independent predictor of coronary artery disease in essential hypertension: Data from an 8-year-follow-up study.

The role of serum uric acid (SUA) in cardiovascular risk prediction remains to be further determined. We assessed the predictive value of SUA for the incidence of coronary artery disease (CAD) in 2287 essential hypertensive patients who were followed up for a mean period of 8 years. The distribution of SUA levels at baseline was split by the median (5.2 mg/dL) and subjects were classified into those with high and low values. Hypertensives who developed CAD (n = 57) compared to those without CAD at follow-up (n = 2230) had at baseline higher SUA. In multivariate Cox regression model, among established confounders, high SUA (hazard ratio = 1.216, P = .016) turned out to be independent predictor of CAD. In essential hypertensive patients SUA independently predicts CAD.

Renal Denervation Therapy: Can it Contribute to Better Blood Pressure Control in Hypertension?

INTRODUCTION: Although the first results from studies suggested important benefits regarding blood pressure (BP) control in resistant hypertension by the use of diverse systems of renal denervation (RDN) in the setting of resistant hypertension, the Symplicity HTN-3, randomized sham-controlled trial reduced the enthusiasm and led to a more critical approach towards this neuromodulation innovative therapy. Nowadays there is an ongoing research attempt to justify the pathophysiological background of RDN since overdrive of the sympathetic nervous system is one of the key mechanisms leading to the development and progression of the hypertensive and cardiovascular diseases. CONCLUSION: Future RDN trials based on the clinical findings and gaps from previous works will try to identify those parameters to help identify better BP response, target the most suitable population and conclude whether this interventional approach can contribute to the clinical problem of uncontrolled hypertension.

Hypertension and Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: Connecting the Dots.

INTRODUCTION: Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (EF) (HFpEF) accounts for approximately 50% of HF cases and its prevalence relative to HF with reduced EF is rising. Hypertension (HT) is the most common co-morbidity in HFpEF patients and it is implicated in both the pathogenesis and the prognosis of the disease. Therefore, HT is a modifiable risk factor of high yield in HFpEF. We reviewed the literature for epidemiologic data supporting the co-aggregation of the two entities as well as patho-physiologic mechanisms linking HT to HFpEF. Most importantly, we focused on treatment options targeting HT as a preventive strategy for delaying the progression of diastolic dysfunction or decreasing the odds for developing HFpEF. CONCLUSION: Along this line, we summarized the evidence and efficacy associated with different classes of antihypertensive medications in HFpEF patients. Finally, non-pharmacological approaches, including renal denervation and lifestyle modifications, to achieve optimal blood pressure (BP) control in HFpEF patients are reported. Unfortunately, no specific antihypertensive treatment has established a major survival benefit in this high risk subjects. Until the results of the efficacy of the novel drug LCZ696 (valsartan/ sacubitril) are available, the continuous monitoring and lowering of the BP by pharmacological and non-pharmacological means should be considered the major preventive and treatment strategy in HFpEF patients.