Estimated impact of guidelines-based initiation of dual antihypertensive therapy on long-term cardiovascular outcomes in 1.1 million individuals.

AIMS: Guidelines recommend initiation of dual combination antihypertensive therapy, preferably single-pill combination (SPC), in most patients with hypertension. Evidence on narrowing gaps in clinical practice relative to guidelines is limited. METHODS AND RESULTS: Monte Carlo simulation was applied to 1.1 million patients qualifying for dual combination therapy from a previously conducted retrospective analysis of clinical practice, hospital statistics, and national statistics in the UK. We provide 10-year Kaplan-Meier event rates for the primary endpoint representing a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic), nonfatal heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death. Cox model results from a previously conducted study were utilized to estimate baseline risk, together with evidence on risk reduction from the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (BPLTTC) meta-analysis and published evidence on BP-lowering efficacy of antihypertensive therapies. In the overall population, estimated 10-year event rates for the primary endpoint in patients with 100% persistence in monotherapy were 17.0% for irbesartan (I) and 17.6% for ramipril (R). These rates were only modestly better than that observed in clinical practice (17.8%). In patients with 100% persistence in dual therapy, estimated event rates were 13.6% for combinations of Irbesartan + Amlodipine (ARR = 8.7% compared to untreated) and 14.3% for Ramipril + Amlodipine (ARR = 8.0% compared to untreated). The absolute risk of the primary endpoint was reduced by 15.9% in patients with ASCVD and 6.6% in those without ASCVD. Similarly, the absolute risk was reduced by 11.7% in diabetics and 7.8% in those without diabetes. CONCLUSION: This study represents the first to investigate guidelines-based treatment in hypertensive patients and demonstrates the opportunity for considerable risk reduction by ensuring recommended dual therapy in clinical practice, particularly in the form of SPC with high persistence, relative to no treatment or monotherapy.

Validation of a novel professional automated auscultatory upper-arm cuff blood pressure monitor in a general population according to the AAMI/ESH/ISO Universal Standard: KOROT V2 Doctor (InBody BPBIO280KV).

OBJECTIVE: A novel automated auscultatory upper arm cuff blood pressure (BP) monitor KOROT V2 Doctor (InBody BPBIO280KV) was developed for professional use. An electronic stethoscope embedded in the device cuff records the Korotkoff sounds, which are graphically displayed during deflation allowing visual evaluation by the healthcare professional. The device provides automated measurements of BP and this study evaluated its accuracy. METHODS: The requirements of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation/European Society of Hypertension/International Organization for Standardization (AAMI/ESH/ISO) Universal Standard (ISO 81060-2:2018) and its Amendment 1.2020-01 were applied. Participants were recruited to fulfill the age, sex, BP, arm circumference, and cuff distribution criteria of the Universal Standard and its Amendment in a general population using the same arm sequential measurement method. Three cuffs of the test device were tested for arm circumference 23-28, 28-35, and 33-42 cm. RESULTS: Data from 85 individuals were analyzed [mean age: 56.4 ±â€…16.0 (SD) years, 50 men, arm circumference 23-42 cm]. For validation Criterion 1, the mean difference ±SD between the test device and reference BP readings (N = 255) was -1.3 ± 6.0/1.5 ± 5.0 mmHg (systolic/diastolic; threshold ≤5 ±â€…8 mmHg). For Criterion 2, the SD of the averaged BP differences per individual (N = 85) was 4.61/3.48 mmHg (systolic/diastolic; threshold ≤6.82/6.78 mmHg). CONCLUSION: The KOROT V2 Doctor (InBody BPBIO280KV) device for professional use, which provides automated auscultatory measurements with visual display of the Korotkoff sounds, comfortably fulfills all the requirements of the AAMI/ESH/ISO Universal Standard (ISO 81060-2:2018) in a general population and can be recommended for clinical use.

Prevalence, awareness, and control of hypertension in Greece before and after the COVID-19 pandemic: May Measurement Month survey 2019-2022.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic had an adverse impact on several cardiovascular risk factors. This study investigated the prevalence, awareness and treatment of hypertension in Greece before and after the pandemic. Data were collected in the context of the May Measurement Month (MMM) global survey initiated by the International Society of Hypertension. METHODS: Adult volunteers (age ≥ 18 years) were recruited through opportunistic screening in public areas across cities in Greece in 2019 and 2022. Medical history and triplicate sitting blood pressure (BP) measurements were taken using validated automated upper-arm cuff devices. The data were uploaded to the international MMM cloud platform. Hypertension was defined as systolic BP ≥ 140 mm Hg and/or diastolic ≥90 mm Hg and/or self-reported use of drugs for hypertension. The same threshold was used to define uncontrolled BP in treated individuals. RESULTS: Data from 12,080 adults were collected (5,727/6,353 in MMM 2019/2022; men 46/49%, p < 0.01; mean age 52.7 ± 16.6/54.8 ± 16.2, p < 0.001; smokers, 24.7/30.5, p < 0.001; diabetics 12/11.5%, p = NS; cardiovascular disease 5/5.8%, p = NS). The prevalence of hypertension was 41.6/42.6% (MMM 2019/2022, p = NS), with 21.3/27.5% of individuals with hypertension being unaware of their condition (p < 0.001), 5.6/2.4% aware untreated (p < 0.001), 24.8/22.1% treated uncontrolled (p < 0.05), and 48.3/47.8% treated controlled (p = NS). CONCLUSION: In Greece, the COVID-19 pandemic did not appear to affect the prevalence and control of hypertension; however, the rate of undiagnosed hypertension was higher after the pandemic. National strategies need to be implemented for the early detection and optimal management of hypertension in the general population in Greece.

Visual assessment of Korotkoff sounds improves the accuracy of a validated professional automated auscultatory blood pressure monitor KOROT P3 Accurate.

OBJECTIVE: A novel automated auscultatory upper-arm cuff blood pressure (BP) monitor for office use (KOROT P3 Accurate, previously InBody BPBIO480KV), which displays Korotkoff sound curves for each BP reading was recently developed. This study investigated whether the review of Korotkoff sound curves by healthcare professionals further improves the accuracy of the device by identifying unreliable BP readings. METHODS: Three observers assessed independently the morphology of Korotkoff sound curves of BP measurements obtained during an ISO 81060-2:2018 validation study, and classified them as of good, fair, or poor quality (low amplitude or sound intensity, aberrant morphology, background noise, signal artifact, auscultatory gap, irregular rhythm). The observers were blinded to the study BP measurements. RESULTS: Korotkoff sound curves of 255 BP readings obtained in 85 individuals were analyzed (mean age 57.3 ±â€Š15.0 years, 53 men). Of the SBP readings 80.4/12.2/7.4% were classified as good/fair/poor, and DBP 76.9/12.2/10.9%. Inter-observer agreement in detecting poor-quality curves was 84.7/83.1% (systolic/diastolic). Of poor-quality curves, 10.5/60.7% (systolic/diastolic) clustered in the same individuals. The validation criterion 1 [mean test-reference BP difference ≤5 ±â€Š8 (SD) mmHg] was satisfied for readings with good (0.1 ±â€Š4.9/0.3 ±â€Š3.8 mmHg, systolic/diastolic) and fair-quality curves (-0.4 ±â€Š6.4/0.2 ±â€Š5.0), but not for poor-quality ones (2.7 ±â€Š8.8/3.6 ±â€Š8.1). By excluding poor-quality readings (40 of 255), criterion 1 of the validation study was improved (0.2 ±â€Š4.9/0.2 ±â€Š3.9 versus 0.3 ±â€Š5.5/0.6 ±â€Š4.7 mmHg). CONCLUSION: The visual assessment of Korotkoff sounds generated during automated auscultatory BP measurement by the KOROT P3 Accurate professional monitor identifies unreliable readings and further improves the device accuracy.

Blood pressure variability assessed by office, home, and ambulatory measurements before and during antihypertensive drug treatment: a sub-analysis of the REVERENT randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: Blood pressure (BP) variability (BPV) can be assessed using office (OBP), home (HBP), or ambulatory BP (ABP) measurements. This analysis investigated the association and agreement between OBP, HBP, and ABP measurements for BPV assessment at baseline and 10 weeks after initiating antihypertensive drug therapy. METHODS: Untreated hypertensive patients with elevated BPV were randomized to receive an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ramipril) or a calcium channel blocker (nifedipine GITS) in a 10-week, open-label, blinded-end point study. BPV was assessed using standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variation (CV) (reading-to-reading analyses). RESULTS: Data from 146 participants from three research centers (Athens/Greece; Milan/Italy; Shanghai/China) were analyzed [mean age 53 ±â€Š10 (SD) years, male individuals 60%, baseline systolic OBP, HBP, and 24 h ABP 144 ±â€Š9, 138 ±â€Š10, and 143 ±â€Š10 mmHg, respectively]. Post-treatment minus pre-treatment systolic CV difference was: OBP: 0.3%, P  = 0.28; HBP: -0.2%, P  = 0.20; 24 h ABP: 1.1%, P  < 0.001. Home and ambulatory (not office) BPV indices presented weak-to-moderate correlation, both before and during treatment (range of coefficients 0.04-0.33). The correlation coefficient between systolic HBP and awake ABP CV was 0.21 and 0.28 before and during treatment, respectively ( P  < 0.05/< 0.001, respectively). Home and ambulatory (not office) BPV indices presented slight-to-fair agreement (range 64-73%) in detecting participants with high systolic BPV (top quartile of respective distributions) both before and during treatment (kappa range 0.04-0.27). CONCLUSION: These data showed a weak-to-moderate association between out-of-office (but not office) BPV indices both before and during BP-lowering treatment, with reasonable agreement in detecting individuals with high BPV. Out-of-office BP measurements provide more similar and consistent BPV information than office measurements.

Atrial Fibrillation Screening During Routine Automated Office, Home, and Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurement: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is often asymptomatic and undiagnosed. As AF and hypertension often coexist, opportunistic AF detection during routine automated blood pressure (BP) measurement appears to be an attractive screening method. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies assessing the diagnostic test accuracy of office, home, or 24-hour ambulatory BP measuring devices with AF detection algorithms versus reference electrocardiography. Analyses were performed per participant (AF status based on several BP readings; most office/home devices) or per reading (AF status based on individual readings; all ambulatory devices). A meta-analysis stratified by device type (office/home/ambulatory) was conducted to calculate pooled measures of diagnostic accuracy. Sensitivity/meta-regression analyses were also performed. RESULTS: Among 3096 records initially retrieved, 23 diagnostic test accuracy studies were included. Data derived from 11 093 individuals (weighted age 69 years, males 56%, hypertensives 79%, diabetics 24%, and AF prevalence 17%) indicated a pooled sensitivity 0.97 (95% CI, 0.92-0.99), specificity 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.95), and accuracy 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.95), with generally consistent results using office, home, or ambulatory BP devices (slightly lower specificity with the latter). The positive and negative predictive values were 0.70 (95% CI, 0.60-0.80) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-1.00), respectively. Sensitivity analyses indicated lower specificity in studies implementing reading versus participant analyses. Most studies presented a low risk of bias and minor applicability concerns. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable and consistent evidence suggesting high diagnostic accuracy of AF detection algorithms implemented in automated BP monitors during routine BP measurements in and out of the office. AF diagnosis requires verification (electrocardiography) before treatment is administered.

Assessment and management of exaggerated blood pressure response to standing and orthostatic hypertension: consensus statement by the European Society of Hypertension Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability.

Recent evidence suggests that an exaggerated blood pressure (BP) response to standing (ERTS) is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes, both in young and old individuals. In addition, ERTS has been shown to be an independent predictor of masked hypertension. In the vast majority of studies reporting on the prognostic value of orthostatic hypertension (OHT), the definition was based only on systolic office BP measurements. This consensus statement provides recommendations on the assessment and management of individuals with ERTS and/or OHT. ERTS is defined as an orthostatic increase in SBP at least 20 mmHg and OHT as an ERTS with standing SBP at least 140 mmHg. This statement recommends a standardized methodology to assess ERTS, by considering body and arm position, and the number and timing of BP measurements. ERTS/OHT should be confirmed in a second visit, to account for its limited reproducibility. The second assessment should evaluate BP changes from the supine to the standing posture. Ambulatory BP monitoring is recommended in most individuals with ERTS/OHT, especially if they have high-normal seated office BP. Implementation of lifestyle changes and close follow-up are recommended in individuals with ERTS/OHT and normotensive seated office BP. Whether antihypertensive treatment should be administered in the latter is unknown. Hypertensive patients with ERTS/OHT should be managed as any other hypertensive patient. Standardized standing BP measurement should be implemented in future epidemiological and interventional studies.

Prognostic Relevance of Short-Term Blood Pressure Variability. The Spanish ABPM Registry.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic relevance of short-term blood pressure (BP) variability in hypertension is not clearly established. We aimed to evaluate the association of short-term BP variability, with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in a large cohort of patients with hypertension. METHODS: We selected 59 124 patients from the Spanish Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring Registry from 2004 to 2014 (median follow-up: 9.7 years). Systolic and diastolic BP SD and coefficient of variation from daytime and nighttime, weighted SD, weighted coefficient of variation, average real variability (mean of differences between consecutive readings), and BP variability ratio (ratio between systolic and diastolic 24-hour SD) were calculated through baseline 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring. Association with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality were assessed by Cox regression models adjusted for clinical confounders and BP. RESULTS: Patients who died during follow-up had higher values of BP variability compared with those remaining alive. In adjusted models systolic and diastolic daytime and weighted SD and coefficient of variation, average real variability, as well as systolic nighttime SD and BP variability ratio were all significantly associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Hazard ratios for 1-SD increase in the systolic components ranged from 1.05 to 1.12 for all-cause mortality and from 1.07 to 1.17 for cardiovascular mortality. A daytime SD≥13 mm Hg, a nighttime and a weighted SD≥12 mm Hg, and an average real variability ≥10 mm Hg, all systolic, were independently associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term blood pressure variability shows a relatively weak but significant association with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with hypertension.

Prognostic value of home versus ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcome studies.

OBJECTIVES: Ambulatory (ABP) and self-home blood pressure (HBP) measurements are known to be superior to office blood pressure (OBP) measurements in predicting cardiovascular events. Whether ABP has superior prognostic ability than HBP, or the reverse, has not been adequately investigated. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify outcome studies investigating HBP and ABP in the same population. A meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the pooled measure of risk regarding the primary endpoint of each study for each method. Primary analysis included the comparison of pooled estimates of HBP versus 24 h ABP. RESULTS: Among 2587 articles retrieved, 6 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of five studies ( n  = 4439, weighted age 57 years, men 52%, hypertension 68%, diabetes 15%, cardiovascular disease 11%) indicated pooled hazard ratio per 10 mmHg increase in systolic HBP 1.36 (95% CI 1.23-1.50) and in 24 h ABP 1.38 (1.22-1.57) for the primary endpoint of each study ( z -test P  = NS). Meta-analysis of five studies ( n  = 4497, weighted age 58 years, men 51%, hypertension 65%, diabetes 15%, cardiovascular disease 9%) indicated pooled hazard ratio per 10 mmHg increase in systolic HBP 1.29 (1.14-1.47), daytime ABP 1.30 (1.15-1.46) and nighttime ABP 1.31 (1.14-1.50) ( z -test, P  = NS). Data for DBP were similar. All studies were deemed to have low risk of bias. In studies comparing all the three methods, OBP provided the lowest hazard ratio. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis of the available prospective outcome studies suggested that HBP and ABP have similar ability in predicting outcome and superior to OBP.

Validation of the automated oscillometric upper-arm cuff home blood pressure monitor AVITA BPM82 in a general population according to the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation/European Society of Hypertension/International Organization for Standardization (AAMI/ESH/ISO) Universal Standard.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the accuracy of the automated oscillometric upper-arm cuff device AVITA BPM82 intended for home use in a general population according to the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation/European Society of Hypertension/International Organization for Standardization (AAMI/ESH/ISO) Universal Standard (ISO 81060-2:2018) and its Amendment 1.2020-01. METHODS: Participants were recruited to fulfill the age, sex, blood pressure (BP), and limb distribution criteria of the AAMI/ESH/ISO Universal Standard and its Amendment 1.2020-01 in a general population using the same arm sequential BP measurement method. Two cuffs of the test device were used for arm circumference 22-33 (medium) and 33-42 cm (large). RESULTS: One-hundred-one individuals were recruited and 85 were analyzed [mean age 57.3 ±â€…15.1 (SD) years, 46 men, arm circumference 32 ±â€…5.1 cm, range 22.3-42 cm]. For validation Criterion 1, the mean difference ±SD between the test device and reference BP readings (N = 255) was 1.3 ±â€…6.5/3.6 ±â€…5.9 mmHg (systolic/diastolic; threshold ≤5 ±â€…8 mmHg). For Criterion 2, the SD of the averaged BP differences between the test device and reference BP per individual (N = 85) was 5.70/5.25 mmHg (systolic/diastolic; threshold ≤6.82/5.89 mmHg). CONCLUSIONS: The automated oscillometric home BP monitor AVITA BPM82 comfortably fulfilled all the requirements of the AAMI/ESH/ISO Universal Standard (ISO 81060-2:2018) and its Amendment 1.2020-01 in a general population and can be recommended for clinical use.

Validation of the oscillometric home blood pressure monitor Braun BUA4000 with wide-range cuff in a general population according to the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation/European Society of Hypertension/International Organization for Standardization (AAMI/ESH/ISO) Universal Standard.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the blood pressure (BP) measurement accuracy of the Braun BUA4000 automated oscillometric upper-arm cuff device for self-home use in a general population according to the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation/European Society of Hypertension/International Organization for Standardization (AAMI/ESH/ISO) Universal Standard (ISO 81060-2:2018) and its Amendment 1.2020-01. METHODS: Participants were recruited to fulfill the age, sex, BP and limb circumference distribution criteria of the AAMI/ESH/ISO Universal Standard in a general population using the same arm sequential BP measurement method. A single wide-range cuff of the test device was used for arm circumference range 22-42 cm. RESULTS: A total of 98 individuals were recruited and 85 were analyzed [mean age 60.3 ±â€…16.1 (SD) years, 44 men, arm circumference 31.5 ±â€…5.1 cm, range 22-41.5 cm]. For validation criterion 1, the mean difference ± SD between the test device and reference BP readings ( N  = 255) was 0.9 ±â€…6.4/-0.3 ±â€…6.4 mmHg (systolic/diastolic; threshold ≤5 ±â€…8 mmHg). For criterion 2, the SD of the averaged BP differences between the test device and reference BP per individual ( N  = 85) was 5.15/5.81 mmHg (systolic/diastolic; threshold ≤6.88/6.95 mmHg). CONCLUSION: The Braun BUA4000 automated oscillometric BP monitor fulfilled all the requirements of the AAMI/ESH/ISO Universal Standard in a general population and can be recommended for self-monitoring of BP by patients at home.

Seasonal effects on blood pressure variability in treated hypertensive patients assessed by office, home, and ambulatory measurements.

This study investigated the seasonal effect on blood pressure (BP) variability. Patients on stable antihypertensive drug treatment were assessed with office (OBP), home (HBP), and ambulatory BP (ABP) measurements in winter, next summer, and in next winter. Fifty-eight participants with full data for winter and summer were analyzed (mean age 65.2 ± 7.9 [SD], 64% males). OBP, HBP and ABP (24-h; daytime) were lower in summer than in winter (P < 0.01), whereas nighttime ABP was unchanged (p = NS). Standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV) and average real variability (ARV) for systolic OBP were higher in winter than summer (p < 0.01/ < 0.05/ < 0.01, respectively). These indices for HBP and ABP measurements did not differ in winter and summer (p = NS). Forty participants had complete data for winter-summer-next winter and HBP/ABP variability indices did not differ for both winters versus summer. These preliminary data suggest that BP variability is unaffected by seasonal changes in contrast to average BP levels.

Establishing international optimal cut-offs of waist-to-height ratio for predicting cardiometabolic risk in children and adolescents aged 6-18 years.

BACKGROUND: Waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) has been proposed as a simple and effective screening tool for assessing central obesity and cardiometabolic risk in both adult and pediatric populations. However, evidence suggests that the use of a uniform WHtR cut-off of 0.50 may not be universally optimal for pediatric populations globally. We aimed to determine the optimal cut-offs of WHtR in children and adolescents with increased cardiometabolic risk across different countries worldwide. METHODS: We used ten population-based cross-sectional data on 24,605 children and adolescents aged 6-18 years from Brazil, China, Greece, Iran, Italy, Korea, South Africa, Spain, the UK, and the USA for establishing optimal WHtR cut-offs. We performed an external independent test (9,619 children and adolescents aged 6-18 years who came from other six countries) to validate the optimal WHtR cut-offs based on the predicting performance for at least two or three cardiometabolic risk factors. RESULTS: Based on receiver operator characteristic curve analyses of various WHtR cut-offs to discriminate those with ≥ 2 cardiometabolic risk factors, the relatively optimal percentile cut-offs of WHtR in the normal weight subsample population in each country did not always coincide with a single fixed percentile, but varied from the 75th to 95th percentiles across the ten countries. However, these relatively optimal percentile values tended to cluster irrespective of sex, metabolic syndrome (MetS) criteria used, and WC measurement position. In general, using ≥ 2 cardiometabolic risk factors as the predictive outcome, the relatively optimal WHtR cut-off was around 0.50 in European and the US youths but was lower, around 0.46, in Asian, African, and South American youths. Secondary analyses that directly tested WHtR values ranging from 0.42 to 0.56 at 0.01 increments largely confirmed the results of the main analyses. In addition, the proposed cut-offs of 0.50 and 0.46 for two specific pediatric populations, respectively, showed a good performance in predicting ≥ 2 or ≥ 3 cardiometabolic risk factors in external independent test populations from six countries (Brazil, China, Germany, Italy, Korea, and the USA). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed international WHtR cut-offs are easy and useful to identify central obesity and cardiometabolic risk in children and adolescents globally, thus allowing international comparison across populations.

Transforming blood pressure control in primary care through a novel remote decision support strategy based on wearable blood pressure monitoring: The NEXTGEN-BP randomized trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Despite high blood pressure being the leading preventable risk factor for death, only 1 in 3 patients achieve target blood pressure control. Key contributors to this problem are clinical inertia and uncertainties in relying on clinic blood pressure measurements to make treatment decisions. METHODS: The NEXTGEN-BP open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial will investigate the efficacy, safety, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of a wearable blood pressure monitor-based care strategy for the treatment of hypertension, compared to usual care, in lowering clinic blood pressure over 12 months. NEXTGEN-BP will enroll 600 adults with high blood pressure, treated with 0 to 2 antihypertensive medications. Participants attending primary care practices in Australia will be randomized 1:1 to the intervention of a wearable-based remote care strategy or to usual care. Participants in the intervention arm will undergo continuous blood pressure monitoring using a wrist-wearable cuffless device (Aktiia, Switzerland) and participate in 2 telehealth consultations with their primary care practitioner (general practitioner [GP]) at months 1 and 2. Antihypertensive medication will be up-titrated by the primary care practitioner at the time of telehealth consults should the percentage of daytime blood pressure at target over the past week be <90%, if clinically tolerated. Participants in the usual care arm will have primary care consultations according to usual practice. The primary outcome is the difference between intervention and control in change in clinic systolic blood pressure from baseline to 12 months. Secondary outcomes will be assessed at month 3 and month 12, and include acceptability to patients and practitioners, cost-effectiveness, safety, medication adherence and patient engagement. CONCLUSIONS: NEXTGEN-BP will provide evidence for the effectiveness and safety of a new paradigm of wearable cuffless monitoring in the management of high blood pressure in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12622001583730.

Chlorthalidone versus hydrochlorothiazide for preventing cardiovascular disease in hypertension: Is the case closed?

The optimal diuretic choice [hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) or chlorthalidone (CTD)] for the management of hypertension has been an ongoing debate for several years. HCTZ is widely used in the form of single-pill combinations, whereas CTD is a more potent drug vs. HCTZ, especially in reducing nighttime blood pressure (BP), with some indirect evidence suggesting a superiority in terms of cardiovascular (CV) risk reduction. In addition, recent data showed that CTD was safe and effective in terms of BP lowering in predialysis patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease. The Diuretic Comparison Project was the first head-to-head pragmatic, open-label trial that randomly assigned elderly patients with hypertension under HCTZ therapy to continue with HCTZ or to switch to CTD (equivalent doses). Office BP was similar for both groups throughout the study. The trial showed no difference in major CV events or non-cancer-related deaths during a median follow-up of 2.4 years; yet, CTD was associated with a benefit in participants with a previous myocardial infarction or stroke, which might be a chance finding but could also indicate that a high-risk population is more suitable for revealing the impact of slight differences in the 24-hour BP profile in a relatively short-term follow-up. Interestingly CTD vs. HCTZ was associated with higher hypokalemia rates apart from the latter group of patients where there was no difference. Overall, the available data do not confirm the superiority of CTD over HCTZ in general, but this could be questionable in selected patients.

Global blood pressure screening during the COVID-19 pandemic: results from the May Measurement Month 2021 campaign.

BACKGROUND: Raised blood pressure (BP) remains the biggest risk factor contributing to the global burden of disease and mortality, despite the COVID-19 pandemic. May Measurement Month (MMM), an annual global screening campaign aims to highlight the importance of BP measurement by evaluating global awareness, treatment and control rates among adults with hypertension. In 2021, we assessed the global burden of these rates during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Screening sites were set up in 54 countries between May and November 2021 and screenees were recruited by convenience sampling. Three sitting BPs were measured, and a questionnaire completed including demographic, lifestyle and clinical data. Hypertension was defined as a systolic BP at least 140 mmHg and/or a diastolic BP at least 90 mmHg (using the mean of the second and third readings) or taking antihypertensive medication. Multiple imputation was used to impute the average BP when readings were missing. RESULTS: Of the 642 057 screenees, 225 882 (35.2%) were classified as hypertensive, of whom 56.8% were aware, and 50.3% were on antihypertensive medication. Of those on treatment, 53.9% had controlled BP (<140/90 mmHg). Awareness, treatment and control rates were lower than those reported in MMM campaigns before the COVID-19 pandemic. Minimal changes were apparent among those testing positive for, or being vaccinated against COVID-19. Of those on antihypertensive medication, 94.7% reported no change in their treatment because of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: The high yield of untreated or inadequately treated hypertension in MMM 2021 confirms the need for systematic BP screening where it does not currently exist.

European Society of Hypertension recommendations for the validation of cuffless blood pressure measuring devices: European Society of Hypertension Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability.

BACKGROUND: There is intense effort to develop cuffless blood pressure (BP) measuring devices, and several are already on the market claiming that they provide accurate measurements. These devices are heterogeneous in measurement principle, intended use, functions, and calibration, and have special accuracy issues requiring different validation than classic cuff BP monitors. To date, there are no generally accepted protocols for their validation to ensure adequate accuracy for clinical use. OBJECTIVE: This statement by the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) Working Group on BP Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability recommends procedures for validating intermittent cuffless BP devices (providing measurements every >30 sec and usually 30-60 min, or upon user initiation), which are most common. VALIDATION PROCEDURES: Six validation tests are defined for evaluating different aspects of intermittent cuffless devices: static test (absolute BP accuracy); device position test (hydrostatic pressure effect robustness); treatment test (BP decrease accuracy); awake/asleep test (BP change accuracy); exercise test (BP increase accuracy); and recalibration test (cuff calibration stability over time). Not all these tests are required for a given device. The necessary tests depend on whether the device requires individual user calibration, measures automatically or manually, and takes measurements in more than one position. CONCLUSION: The validation of cuffless BP devices is complex and needs to be tailored according to their functions and calibration. These ESH recommendations present specific, clinically meaningful, and pragmatic validation procedures for different types of intermittent cuffless devices to ensure that only accurate devices will be used in the evaluation and management of hypertension.