Overview of mitral valve replacement versus mitral valve repair due to ischemic papillary muscle rupture: A meta-analysis inspired by a case report.

BACKGROUND: Papillary muscle rupture (PMR) is an infrequent but catastrophic complication after myocardial infarction (MI). Surgical procedure is considered the optimal treatment, despite high risk. However, the gold standard technique is still a major dilemma. Therefore, a meta-analysis was carried out to assess and provide an overview comparing mitral valve replacement (MVR) and mitral valve repair (MVr) for PMR post-MI. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed. Data were extracted and verified using a standardized data extraction form. Meta-analysis was realized mainly using RevMan 5.4 software. RESULTS: From four observational studies 1640 patients were identified; 81% underwent MVR and 19% MVr. Operative mortality results were significantly higher in MVR group than the MVr group. MVR was performed under emergency conditions and patients admitted in cardiogenic shock or who required the use of mechanical cardiac support underwent MVR. MVr had shorter time of hospitalization and similar incidence of postoperative complications than MVR. No significant differences existed between the two procedures regarding cardiopulmonary bypass time. CONCLUSIONS: Mitral valve repair appears to be a viable alternative to MVR for post-MI PMR, given that it has lower operative mortality, shorter time of hospitalization and similar incidence of short-term postoperative complications than MVR. However, it needs to be pointed out that MVR was associated with the most critical clinical condition following PMR. There is uncertainty regarding the overall survival and improvement of the quality of life between the procedures. Nevertheless, further completed investigation is required.

Current applications and limitations of European guidelines on blood pressure measurement: implications for clinical practice.

Hypertension is the most common cardiovascular (CV) risk factor, strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of major CV outcomes, including myocardial infarction, stroke, congestive heart failure, renal disease and death due to CV causes. Effective control of hypertension is of key importance for reducing the risk of hypertension-related CV complications, as well as for reducing the global burden of CV mortality. However, several studies reported relatively poor rates of control of high blood pressure (BP) in a setting of real-life practice. To improve hypertension management and control, national and international scientific societies proposed several educational and therapeutic interventions, among which the systematic implementation of out-of-office BP measurements represents a key element. Indeed, proper assessment of individual BP profile, including home, clinic and 24-h ambulatory BP levels, may improve awareness of the disease, ensure high level of adherence to prescribed medications in treated hypertensive patients, and thus contribute to ameliorate BP control in treated hypertensive outpatients. In line with these purposes, recent European guidelines have released practical recommendations and clear indications on how, when and how properly measuring BP levels in different clinical settings, with different techniques and different methods. This review aimed at discussing current applications and potential limitations of European guidelines on how to measure BP in office and out-of-office conditions, and their potential implications in the daily clinical management of hypertension.

Prevalence and clinical characteristics of isolated systolic hypertension in young: analysis of 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring database.

Isolated systolic hypertension (ISHT) is common in elderly patients, whilst its prevalence and clinical impact in young adults are still debated. We aimed to estimate prevalence and clinical characteristics of ISHT and to evaluate out-of-office BP levels and their correlations with office BP in young adults. A single-center, cross-sectional study was conducted at our Hypertension Unit, by including treated and untreated individuals aged 18-50 years, who consecutively underwent home, clinic and 24 h ambulatory BP assessment. All BP measurements were performed and BP thresholds were set according to European guidelines: normotension (NT), clinic BP <140/<90 mmHg; ISHT, BP ≥140/<90 mmHg; isolated diastolic hypertension (IDHT), BP <140/≥90 mmHg; systolic-diastolic hypertension (SDHT), BP ≥140/≥90 mmHg. European SCORE, vascular and cardiac HMOD were also assessed. From an overall sample of 13,053 records, we selected 2127 young outpatients (44.2% female, age 40.5 ± 7.4 years, BMI 26.7 ± 5.0 kg/m2, clinic BP 141.1 ± 16.1/94.1 ± 11.8 mmHg, 24 h BP 129.0 ± 12.8/82.4 ± 9.8 mmHg), among whom 587 (27.6%) had NT, 391 (18.4%) IDHT, 144 (6.8%) ISHT, and 1005 (47.2%) SDHT. Patients with ISHT were predominantly male (61.1%), younger and with higher BMI compared to other groups. They also showed higher home and 24 h ambulatory SBP levels than those with NT or IDHT (P < 0.001), though similar to those with SDHT. ISHT patients showed significantly higher pulse pressure (PP) levels than other groups, at all BP measurements (P < 0.001 for all comparisons), and significantly higher proportion (65.3%) of patients with ISHT had PP >60 mmHg. European SCORE resulted significantly higher in patients with ISHT (1.6 ± 2.9%) and SDHT (1.5 ± 2.7%) compared to those with IDHT (0.9 ± 1.5%) or NT (0.8 ± 1.9%) (P = 0.017). Though relatively rare, ISHT should be not viewed as a benign condition, being associated with sustained SBP elevation, high European SCORE risk, and vascular HMOD.

Ventriculo-arterial coupling in the intensive cardiac care unit: A non-invasive prognostic parameter.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between ventriculo-arterial coupling (VAC) and in-hospital outcomes and to assess the prognostic value of VAC in critically ill patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 329 consecutive patients (mean age 66,7 ± 15.5 years, 66.9% male) admitted to the intensive cardiac care unit of the Sandro Pertini Hospital, Rome (Italy) between January 2019 and December 2019, were included in the study. All patients underwent blood pressure measurement and non-invasive, echocardiography-derived estimates of left ventricular end-systolic elastance (Ees), arterial elastance (Ea) and VAC in a single-beat determination using the iElastance© application. In-hospital events related to acute heart failure and hypoperfusion were recorded and need for invasive ventilation, intra-aortic balloon pump, renal replacement therapy and death were considered as composite. Overall, 39 patients (11,8%) experienced in-hospital complications (group C), and 290 (88,2%) did not (group NoC). Ea and VAC were found to be significantly higher in group C than in group NoC, and a trend toward decreased Ees was observed in group C. VAC was a strong and independent predictor of in-hospital clinical outcome both at univariable and multivariable analysis adjusted for comorbidities [OR (95% CI): 1.868 (1.141-3.059); P = 0.013] and hemodynamic parameters [OR (95% CI): 1674 (1018-2755); P = 0.042]. CONCLUSION: VAC might be an additional non-invasive prognosticator of outcome in critically ill patients.

Home Blood Pressure and Telemedicine: A Modern Approach for Managing Hypertension During and After COVID-19 Pandemic.

Hypertension is the most common cardiovascular risk factor for acute cardiovascular outcomes, including acute coronary disease, stroke, chronic kidney disease and congestive heart failure. Despite the fact that it represents the most prevalent risk factor in the general population, mostly in elderly individuals, its awareness is still relatively low, being about one third of patients living with undiagnosed hypertension and high risk of experiencing acute cardiovascular events. In addition, though recent improvement in pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic options, hypertension is largely uncontrolled, with about 35-40% of treated hypertensive patients achieving the recommended therapeutic targets. Among different modern interventions proposed for improving blood pressure control in treated hypertensive patients, a systematic adoption of home BP monitoring has demonstrated to be one of the most effective. Indeed, it improves patients' awareness of the disease and adherence to prescribed medications and allows tailoring and personalizing BP lowering therapies. Home BP monitoring is particularly suitable for telemedicine and mobile-health solutions. Indeed, in specific conditions, when face-to-face interactions between patients and physicians are not allowed or even suspended, as in case of COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine may ensure effective management of hypertension, as well as other cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular comorbidities. This review will summarize strengths and limitations of telemedicine in the clinical management of hypertension with a particular focus on the lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ARB-Based Combination Therapy for the Clinical Management of Hypertension and Hypertension-Related Comorbidities: A Spotlight on Their Use in COVID-19 Patients.

Essential hypertension is the most common cardiovascular (CV) risk factor, being primarily involved in the pathogenesis of CV disease and mortality worldwide. Given the high prevalence and growing incidence of this clinical condition in the general population in both high and low-income countries, antihypertensive drug therapies are frequently prescribed in different hypertension-related CV diseases and comorbidities. Among these conditions, evidence are available demonstrating the clinical benefits of lowering blood pressure (BP) levels, particularly in those hypertensive patients at high or very high CV risk profile. Preliminary studies, performed during the Sars-COVID-19 epidemic, raised some concerns on the potential implication of hypertension and antihypertensive medications in the susceptibility of having severe pneumonia, particularly with regard to the use of drugs inhibiting the renin-angiotensin system (RAS), including angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). These hypotheses were not confirmed by subsequent studies, which independently and systematically demonstrated no clinical harm of these drugs also in patients with Sars-COVID-19 infection. The aim of this narrative review is to critically discuss the available evidence supporting the use of antihypertensive therapies based RAS blocking agents in hypertensive patients with different CV risk profile and with additional clinical conditions or comorbidities, including Sars-COVID-19 infection, with a particular focus on single-pill combination therapies based on olmesartan medoxomil.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Although 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 RESULTS: A 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. CONCLUSIONS: Our 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.

Blood Pressure Target Achievement Under Monotheraphy: A Real-Life Appraisal.

INTRODUCTION: Despite hypertension guidelines suggest that the most effective treatment strategy to improve blood pressure (BP) target achievement is to implement the use of combination treatment, monotherapy is still widely used in the clinical practice of hypertension. AIM: To investigate BP control under monotherapy in the setting of real-life. METHODS: We extracted data from a medical database of adult outpatients who were referred to the Hypertension Unit, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Rome (IT), including anthropometric data, CV risk factors and comorbidities, presence or absence of antihypertensive therapy and concomitant medications. Among treated hypertensive patients, we identified only those under single antihypertensive agent (monotherapy). Office BP treatment targets were defined according to 2018 ESC/ESH guidelines as: (a) < 130/80 mmHg in individuals aged 18-65 years; (b) < 140/80 mmHg in those aged > 65 years. RESULTS: From an overall sample of 7797 records we selected 1578 (20.2%) hypertensive outpatients (47.3% female, age 59.5 ± 13.6 years, BMI 26.6 ± 4.4 kg/m2) treated with monotherapies, among whom 30.5% received ACE inhibitors, 37.7% ARBs, 15.8% beta-blockers, 10.6% CCBs, 3.0% diuretics, and 2.0% alpha-blockers. 36.6% of these patients reached the conventional clinic BP goal of < 140/90 mmHg, whilst the 2018 European guidelines BP treatment targets were fulfilled only in 14.0%. In particular, 10.2% patients aged 18-65 years and 20.4% of those aged > 65 years achieved the recommended BP goals. All these proportions results significantly lower than those achieved with dual (18.2%) or triple (22.2%) combination therapy, though higher than those obtained with life-style changes (10.8%). Proportions of patients on monotherapies with normal home and 24-h BP levels were 22.0% and 30.2%, respectively, though only 5.2% and 7.3% of these patients achieved sustained BP control, respectively. Ageing and dyslipidaemia showed significant and independent positive predictive value for the achievement of the recommended BP treatment targets, whereas European SCORE resulted a negative and independent predictor in outpatients treated with monotherapies. CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed a persistent use of monotherapy in the clinical practice, though with unsatisfactory BP control, especially in light of the BP treatment targets suggested by the last hypertension guidelines.

Epidemiological Impact and Clinical Consequences of Masked Hypertension: A Narrative Review.

Masked hypertension (MHT) is a clinical condition characterized by normal blood pressure (BP) levels during clinical consultation and above normal out-of-office BP values. MHT is associated to an increased risk of developing hypertension-mediated organ damage (HMOD) and major cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, such as myocardial infarction, stroke, and hospitalizations due to CV causes, as well as to metabolic abnormalities and diabetes, thus further promoting the development and progression of atherosclerotic disease. Previous studies showed contrasting data on prevalence and clinical impact of MHT, due to not uniform diagnostic criteria (including either home or 24-h ambulatory BP measurements, or both) and background antihypertensive treatment. Whatever the case, over the last few years the widespread diffusion of validated devices for home BP monitoring has promoted a better diagnostic assessment and proper identification of individuals with MHT in a setting of clinical practice, thus resulting in increased prevalence of this clinical condition with potential clinical and socio-economic consequences. Several other items, in fact, remain unclear and debated, particularly regarding the therapeutic approach to MHT. The aim of this narrative review is to illustrate the clinical definition of MHT, to analyze the diagnostic algorithm, and to discuss the potential pharmacological approaches to be adopted in this clinical condition, in the light of the recommendations of the recent European hypertension guidelines.

Conventional and new electrocardiographic criteria for hypertension-mediated cardiac organ damage: A narrative review.

Hypertension-mediated organ damage (HMOD) is frequently observed in hypertensive patients at different cardiovascular (CV) risk profile. This may have both diagnostic and therapeutic implications for the choice of the most appropriate therapies. Among different markers of HMOD, the most frequent functional and structural adaptations can be observed at cardiac level, including left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), diastolic dysfunction, aortic root dilatation, and left atrial enlargement. In particular, LVH was shown to be a strong and independent risk factor for major CV events, namely myocardial infarction, stroke, congestive heart failure, CV death. Thus, early identification of LVH is a key element for preventing CV events in hypertension. Although echocardiographic assessment of LVH represents the gold standard technique, this is not cost-effective and cannot be adopted in routine clinical practice of hypertension. On the other hand, electrocardiographic (ECG) assessment of HMOD relative to the heart is a simple, reproducible, widely available and cost-effective method to assess the presence of LVH, and could be preferred in large scale screening tests. Several new indicators have been proposed and tested in observational studies and clinical trials of hypertension, in order to improve the relatively low sensitivity of the conventional ECG criteria for LVH, despite high specificity. This article reviews the differences in the use of the main conventional and the new 12 lead ECG criteria of LVH for early assessment of asymptomatic, subclinical cardiac HMOD in a setting of clinical practice of hypertension.

Achievement of low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol targets in primary and secondary prevention: Analysis of a large real practice database in Italy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Target and intensity of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering therapy should be tailored according to the individual global cardiovascular (CV) risk. We aimed at retrospectively evaluating real-life LDL-C goal attainment and predictive factors for predefined LDL-C therapeutic goals both in primary and secondary prevention. METHODS: We collected data from a large cohort of outpatients aged 40-65 years, followed by general practitioners, cardiologists and diabetologists in Italy. All data were centrally analysed for global CV risk assessment and rates of control of major CV risk factors, including LDL-C. Study population was stratified according to the presence or absence of previous CV events, including coronary artery disease (CAD), peripheral artery disease (PAD) or stroke/TIA. CV risk profile characterization was based on the European SCORE. Predefined therapeutic goals were set according to the European guidelines on dyslipidaemia: LDL-C levels <70 mg/dl for very high CV risk patients in primary prevention and for those in secondary prevention; <100 mg/dl LDL-C levels for high CV risk patients in primary prevention. Logistic regression analysis with clinical covariates was used to identify predictive factors for achieving these goals; lipid lowering therapy entered in the analysis as continuous (model 1) or categorical variable (model 2). RESULTS: We included 4,142 outpatients (43,7% female, age 58.0 ±â€¯5.2 years, BMI 28.5 ±â€¯5.0 kg/m2) among whom 2,964 (71.6%) in primary and 1,178 (28.4%) in secondary prevention. In primary prevention, none of the patients at very high CV risk had LDL-C <70 mg/dl and 8.9% of patients at high CV risk showed LDL-C <100 mg/dl. Only 5.8% of patients in secondary prevention had LDL-C levels <70 mg/dl, specifically 6.5% of patients with CAD, 2.6% of patients with PAD and 4.7% of patients with CVD (p < 0.001). Beyond diabetes and lipid lowering therapy, high risk SCORE estimation resulted a strong and independent predictor for the lack of achieving all predefined therapeutic targets, including LDL-C <100 mg/dl [OR: 0.806 (0.751-0.865)); p < 0.001], and LDL-C <70 mg/dl [OR: 0.712 (0-576-0.880); p = 0.002], in primary prevention. CONCLUSIONS: Despite high or very high SCORE risk and use of lipid lowering therapies, we observed poor achievement of LDL-C targets in this large cohort of outpatients followed in a setting of real practice in Italy.

Reclassification of Hypertensive Outpatients According to New US Guidelines on High Blood Pressure.

BACKGROUND: US guidelines on high blood pressure (BP) have recently proposed a new BP stratification. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the redistribution of adult outpatients according to 2003 and 2017 US hypertension guidelines. METHODS: We extracted data referred to individuals aged between 40 and 70 years with valid BP assessment from a national, cross-sectional database. The following systolic/diastolic BP strata were considered: (i) 2003 guidelines: 0 = normal (<120/180 mm Hg), 1 = prehypertension (≥120 and ≤139/≥80 and ≤89 mm Hg), 2 = stage 1 (≥140 and ≤159/≥90 and ≤99 mm Hg), 3 = stage 2 (≥160/≥100 mm Hg) and (ii) 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines: 0 = normal (<120/80 mm Hg), 1 = elevated (≥120 and ≤129/<80 mm Hg); 2 = stage 1 (≥130 and ≤139/≥80 and ≤89 mm Hg), 3 = stage 2 (≥140/≥90 mm Hg). Cardiovascular (CV) risk profile characterization was based on Framingham, 10-year risk of a first atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and European score equations. RESULTS: From an overall population sample of 10,012 individuals, we selected 8,911 (89.0%) with valid clinic BP data (44.4% female, age = 60.7 ± 6.6 years, body mass index = 28.2 ± 4.9 kg/m2, clinic BP = 136.8 ± 14.5/82.1 ± 8.3 mm Hg), among whom 339 (3.8%) were in the normal BP range. According to 2003 guidelines, 3,919 (44.0%) patients had prehypertension, 3,698 (41.5%) had stage-1 and 955 (10.7%) had stage-2 hypertension. According to 2017 guidelines, 635 (3.8%) patients had elevated BP, 3,284 (36.9%) had stage-1 and 4,653 (52.2%) had stage-2 hypertension. New BP classification moved 37% individuals from "pre-hypertension" to "stage 1" and 41% from "stage 1" to "stage 2" hypertension, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Redistribution of hypertensive patients according to 2017 US hypertension guidelines compared with previous ones may help to better identify uncontrolled hypertensive patients with high CV risk profile.

24-Hour ambulatory blood pressure levels and control in a large cohort of adult outpatients with different classes of obesity.

Effective and sustained blood pressure (BP) control in hypertensive patients with moderate-to-severe obesity is often difficult to achieve. We evaluated clinic, 24h, day-time and night-time systolic/diastolic BP levels and control in a large cohort of adult outpatients with different classes of obesity. A single center, prospective, cohort study was conducted at Hypertension Unit, Division of Cardiology, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Rome Italy. All BP measurements were performed and BP thresholds were set according to guidelines. Study population was stratified according to BMI. We included 4,766 individuals (women 48.6%, age 60.3 ± 11.6 years, clinic BP 143.8 ± 18.2/90.9 ± 12.3 mmHg, 24h BP 130.2 ± 13.3/79.1 ± 9.5 mmHg), among whom 36.0% had normal weight, 43.5% were overweight, 15.7% had class I, and 4.8% class II/III obesity. Obese outpatients had higher prevalence of risk factors, and were treated more frequently and with more antihypertensive drugs than those with normal body weight. Obese outpatients showed higher systolic BP levels at all BP measurements, mostly 24h and night-time periods, than those observed in normal weight outpatients. BMI resulted significantly related with clinic (r = 0.053; P < 0.001), 24h (r = 0.098; P < 0.001) and night-time systolic BP (r = 0.126; P < 0.001), and left ventricular mass indexed by height^2.7 (r = 0.311; P < 0.001). BMI was also negatively and independently associated with predefined BP goals at all types of BP measurements. Obesity was associated with higher systolic BP levels during the entire 24h period and increased left ventricular mass. These effects were independently observed, even after correction for major cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities, as well as the number and type of antihypertensive drug classes.

Therapeutic Approach to Hypertension Urgencies and Emergencies During Acute Coronary Syndrome.

Uncontrolled hypertension is one of the most common determinant for the persistently high burden of cardiovascular (CV) disease, mostly including coronary artery disease (CAD) and hospital admissions due to acute coronary events. Markedly high blood pressure (BP) levels are also frequently observed during the acute phase of coronary syndromes (both ST-segment and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and unstable angina). In particular, a sustained raise of BP levels above 180/110 mmHg associated with acute cardiac organ damage, i.e. myocardial ischemia, represents a condition of hypertension emergency and requires rapid hospital admission, prompt pharmacological therapies and non-pharmacological interventions, aimed at restoring coronary flow and preserve vital myocardium. Diagnosis of CAD in hypertensive patients may often be complicated by the concomitant presence of electrocardiographic abnormalities, such as ST-segment depression (at rest or during exercise), which may occur even in the absence of coronary atherosclerosis. Thus, proper identification of CAD may result difficult to perform in the setting of clinical practice, mostly in the presence of left ventricular hypertrophy. In this review, we will briefly discuss diagnostic protocols and pharmacological strategies that can be applied in a setting of hypertension emergency with acute cardiac organ damage in the light of the currently available evidence and recommendations from recent guidelines on hypertension management and control.

Nocturnal blood pressure patterns and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with masked hypertension.

Masked hypertension (MHT) is characterized by normal clinic and above normal 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (BP) levels. We evaluated clinical characteristics and CV outcomes of different nocturnal patterns of MHT. We analyzed data derived from a large cohort of adult individuals, who consecutively underwent home, clinic, and ambulatory BP monitoring at our Hypertension Unit between January 2007 and December 2016. MHT was defined as clinic BP <140/90 mm Hg and 24-hour BP ≥ 130/80 mm Hg, and stratified into three groups according to dipping status: (a) dippers, (b) nondippers, and (c) reverse dippers. From an overall sample of 6695 individuals, we selected 2628 (46.2%) adult untreated individuals, among whom 153 (5.0%) had MHT. In this group, 67 (43.8%) were nondippers, 65 (42.5%) dippers, and 21 (13.7%) reverse dippers. No significant differences were found among groups regarding demographics, clinical characteristics, and prevalence of risk factors, excluding older age in reverse dippers compared to other groups (P < 0.001). Systolic BP levels were significantly higher in reverse dippers than in other groups at both 24-hour (135.6 ± 8.5 vs 130.4 ± 6.0 vs 128.2 ± 6.8 mm Hg, respectively; P < 0.001) and nighttime periods (138.2 ± 9.1 vs 125.0 ± 6.3 vs 114.5 ± 7.7 mm Hg; P < 0.001). Reverse dipping was associated with a significantly higher risk of stroke, even after correction for age, gender, BMI, dyslipidemia, and diabetes (OR 18.660; 95% IC [1.056-33.813]; P = 0.046). MHT with reverse dipping status was associated with higher burden of BP and relatively high risk of stroke compared to both dipping and nondipping profiles, although a limited number of CV outcomes have been recorded during the follow-up.

Effects of different statin types and dosages on systolic/diastolic blood pressure: Retrospective analysis of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure database.

We previously demonstrated lower diastolic blood pressure (BP) levels under statin therapy in adult individuals who consecutively underwent 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring and compared their levels to untreated outpatients. Here we evaluated systolic/diastolic BP levels according to different statin types and dosages. 987 patients (47.5% female, age 66.0 ± 10.1 years, BMI 27.7 ± 4.6 kg/m2 , clinic BP 146.9 ± 19.4/86.1 ± 12.1 mm Hg, 24-hour BP 129.2 ± 14.4/74.9 ± 9.2 mm Hg) were stratified into 4 groups: 291 (29.5%) on simvastatin 10-80 mg/d, 341 (34.5%) on atorvastatin 10-80 mg/d, 187 (18.9%) on rosuvastatin 5-40 mg/d, and 168 (17.0%) on other statins. There were no significant BP differences among patients treated by various statin types and dosages, except in lower clinic (P = .007) and daytime (P = .013) diastolic BP in patients treated with simvastatin and atorvastatin compared to other statins. Favorable effects of statins on systolic/diastolic BP levels seem to be independent of types or dosages, thus suggesting a potential class effect of these drugs.

Achievement of multiple therapeutic targets for cardiovascular disease prevention: Retrospective analysis of real practice in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacological therapy in patients at high cardiovascular (CV) risk should be tailored to achieve recommended therapeutic targets. HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate individual global CV risk profile and to estimate the control rates of multiple therapeutic targets for in adult outpatients followed in real practice in Italy. METHODS: Data extracted from a cross-sectional, national medical database of adult outpatients in real practice in Italy were analyzed for global CV risk assessment and rates of control of major CV risk factors, including hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and obesity. CV risk characterization was based on the European SCORE equation and the study population stratified into 3 groups: low risk (<2%), intermediate risk (≥2%-<5%), and high to very high risk (≥5%). RESULTS: We analyzed data from 7158 adult outpatients (mean age, 57.7 ±5.3 years; BMI, 28.3 ±5.0 kg/m2 , BP, 136.0 ±14.3/82.2 ±8.3 mm Hg; total cholesterol, 212.7 ±40.7 mg/dL), among whom 2029 (45.2%) had low, 1730 (24.2%) intermediate, and 731 (16.3%) high to very high risk. Increased SCORE risk was an independent predictor of poor achievement of diastolic BP <90 mm Hg (OR: 0.852, 95% CI: 0.822-0.882), LDL-C < 130 mg/dL (OR: 0.892, 95% CI: 0.861-0.924), HDL-C > 40 (males)/>50 (females) mg/dL (OR: 0.926, 95% CI: 0.895-0.958), triglycerides <160 mg/dL (OR: 0.925, 95% CI: 0.895-0.957), and BMI <25 kg/m2 (OR: 0.888, 95% CI: 0.851-0.926), even after correction for diabetes, renal function, pharmacological therapy, and referring physicians (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite low prevalence and optimal medical therapy, individuals with high to very high SCORE risk did not achieve recommended therapeutic targets in a real-world practice.

Prevalence and clinical outcomes of white-coat and masked hypertension: Analysis of a large ambulatory blood pressure database.

The aim of this study was to analyze prevalence and clinical outcomes of the following clinical conditions: normotension (NT; clinic BP < 140/90 mm Hg; 24-hour BP < 130/80 mm Hg), white-coat hypertension (WCHT; clinic BP ≥ 140 and/or ≥90 mm Hg; 24-hour BP < 130/80 mm Hg), masked hypertension (MHT; clinic BP < 140/90 mm Hg; 24-hour BP ≥ 130 and/or ≥80 mm Hg), and sustained hypertension (SHT; clinic BP ≥ 140 and/or ≥90 mm Hg; 24-hour BP ≥ 130 and/or ≥80 mm Hg) in a large cohort of adult untreated individuals. Systematic research throughout the medical database of Regione Lazio (Italy) was performed to estimate incidence of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and hospitalizations for HT and heart failure (HF). Among a total study sample of 2209 outpatients, 377 (17.1%) had NT, 351 (15.9%) had WCHT, 149 (6.7%) had MHT, and 1332 had (60.3%) SHT. During an average follow-up of 120.1 ± 73.9 months, WCHT was associated with increased risk of hospitalization for HT (OR 95% CI: 1.927 [1.233-3.013]; P = .04) and HF (OR 95% CI: 3.449 [1.321-9.007]; P = .011). MHT was associated with an increased risk of MI (OR 95% CI: 5.062 [2.218-11.550]; P < .001), hospitalization for HT (OR 95% CI: 2.553 [1.446-4.508]; P = .001), and for HF (OR 95% CI: 4.214 [1.449-12.249]; P = .008). These effects remained statistically significant event after corrections for confounding factors including age, BMI, gender, smoking, dyslipidaemia, diabetes, and presence of antihypertensive therapies.