Management of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy: a Position Statement of the European Society of Hypertension Working Group 'Hypertension in Women'.

Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy (HDP), remain the leading cause of adverse maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes. Epidemiological factors, comorbidities, assisted reproduction techniques, placental disorders, and genetic predisposition determine the burden of the disease. The pathophysiological substrate and the clinical presentation of HDP are multifarious. The latter and the lack of well designed clinical trials in the field explain the absence of consensus on disease management among relevant international societies. Thus, the usual clinical management of HDP is largely empirical. The current position statement of the Working Group 'Hypertension in Women' of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) aims to employ the current evidence for the management of HDP, discuss the recommendations made in the 2023 ESH guidelines for the management of hypertension, and shed light on controversial issues in the field to stimulate future research.

Malignant Hypertension:A Systemic Cardiovascular Disease: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

Malignant hypertension (MHT) is a hypertensive emergency with excessive blood pressure (BP) elevation and accelerated disease progression. MHT is characterized by acute microvascular damage and autoregulation failure affecting the retina, brain, heart, kidney, and vascular tree. BP must be lowered within hours to mitigate patient risk. Both absolute BP levels and the pace of BP rise determine risk of target-organ damage. Nonadherence to the antihypertensive regimen remains the most common cause for MHT, although antiangiogenic and immunosuppressant therapy can also trigger hypertensive emergencies. Depending on the clinical presentation, parenteral or oral therapy can be used to initiate BP lowering. Evidence-based outcome data are spotty or lacking in MHT. With effective treatment, the prognosis for MHT has improved; however, patients remain at high risk of adverse cardiovascular and kidney outcomes. In this review, we summarize current viewpoints on the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and management of MHT; highlight research gaps; and propose strategies to improve outcomes.

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.

Laboratory Testing for Endocrine Hypertension: Current and Future Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Secondary hypertension (SH) is a form of high blood pressure caused by an identifiable underlying condition. Although, it accounts for a small fraction of the overall hypertensive population, detection and management of SH is of utmost importance, because SH phenotypes carry a high cardiovascular risk and can possibly be cured by timely treatment. CONTENT: This review focuses on the endocrine causes of SH, such as primary aldosteronism, Cushing syndrome, thyroid disease, pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma, acromegaly, and rare monogenic forms. It discusses current biomarkers, analytical methods, and diagnostic strategies, highlighting advantages and limitations of each approach. It also explores the emerging -omics technologies that can provide a comprehensive and multidimensional assessment of SH and its underlying mechanisms. SUMMARY: Endocrine SH is a heterogeneous and complex condition that requires proper screening and confirmatory tests to avoid diagnostic delays and improve patient outcomes. Careful biomarker interpretation is essential due to potential interferences, variability, and method-dependent differences. Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry is a superior method for measuring low-concentration hormones and metabolites involved in SH, but it requires expertise. Omics approaches have great potential to identify novel biomarkers, pathways, and targets for SH diagnosis and treatment, especially considering its multifactorial nature.

Rationale for the Inclusion of ß-Blockers Among Major Antihypertensive Drugs in the 2023 European Society of Hypertension Guidelines.

We address the reasons why, unlike other guidelines, in the 2023 guidelines of the European Society of Hypertension ß-blockers (BBs) have been regarded as major drugs for the treatment of hypertension, at the same level as diuretics, calcium channel blockers, and blockers of the renin-angiotensin system. We argue that BBs, (1) reduce blood pressure (the main factor responsible for treatment-related protection) not less than other drugs, (2) reduce pooled cardiovascular outcomes and mortality in placebo-controlled trials, in which there has also been a sizeable reduction of all major cause-specific cardiovascular outcomes, (3) have been associated with a lower global cardiovascular protection in 2 but not in several other comparison trials, in which the protective effect of BBs versus the other major drugs has been similar or even greater, with a slightly smaller or no difference of global benefit in large trial meta-analyses and a similar protective effect when comparisons extend to BBs in combination versus other drug combinations. We mention the large number of cardiac and other comorbidities for which BBs are elective drugs, and we express criticism against the exclusion of BBs because of their lower protective effect against stroke in comparison trials, because, for still uncertain reasons, differences in protection against cause-specific events (stroke, heart failure, and coronary disease) have been reported for other major drugs. These partial data cannot replace global benefits as the main deciding factor for drug choice, also because in the general hypertensive population whether and which type of event might occur is unknown.

Comparative effectiveness of factor Xa non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants versus phenprocoumon in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have largely supplanted vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for oral anticoagulation in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). However, data on the real-world effectiveness of NOACs vs. phenprocoumon, a VKA widely used in Germany, are limited. The RELOADED study aimed to compare effectiveness of factor Xa NOACs and phenprocoumon in NVAF in clinical practice. METHODS: Patients who started on a factor Xa NOAC or phenprocoumon for NVAF during the study period were enrolled from the Institute for Applied Healthcare Research Berlin. Patients were followed from first prescription until the end of exposure or available data. Primary outcomes were analyzed by Cox proportional hazard regression models and included ischemic stroke and systemic embolism for effectiveness, and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) for safety. Subgroups of interest were patients with diabetes and patients with renal impairment. RESULTS: The total study population was 64,920; 36.3% of patients initiated phenprocoumon, 34.4% initiated rivaroxaban, 25.0% apixaban, and 4.4% edoxaban. Treatment with phenprocoumon is associated with a similar risk of ischemic stroke/systemic embolism as treatment with rivaroxaban or apixaban; while rivaroxaban (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43-0.75) and apixaban (adjusted HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.31-0.6) were associated with a lower risk of ICH compared to phenprocoumon in NVAF patients. The use of rivaroxaban and apixaban was associated with a lower risk of developing kidney failure in patients with diabetes or renal impairment in comparison to those treated with phenprocoumon. CONCLUSION: The factor Xa NOACs rivaroxaban and apixaban demonstrated similar effectiveness and lower rates of ICH compared with phenprocoumon in this study.

A European Renal Association (ERA) synopsis for nephrology practice of the 2023 European Society of Hypertension (ESH) Guidelines for the Management of Arterial Hypertension.

In June 2023, the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) presented and published the new 2023 ESH Guidelines for the Management of Arterial Hypertension, a document that was endorsed by the European Renal Association (ERA). Following the evolution of evidence in recent years, several novel recommendations relevant to the management of hypertension in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) appeared in these Guidelines. These include recommendations for target office BP < 130/80 mmHg in most and against target office BP < 120/70 mmHg in all patients with CKD; recommendations for use of spironolactone or chlortalidone for patients with resistant hypertension with eGFR higher or lower than 30 ml/min/1.73 m2, respectively; use of an SGLT2-inhibitor for patients with CKD and eGFR ≥20 ml/min/1.73 m2; use of finerenone for patients with CKD, type 2 DM, albuminuria, eGFR ≥25 ml/min/1.73 m2 and serum potassium < 5.0 mmol/L; and revascularization in patients with atherosclerotic renovascular disease and secondary hypertension or high-risk phenotypes if stenosis ≥ 70% is present. The present report is a synopsis of sections of the ESH Guidelines that are relevant to the daily clinical practice of nephrologists, prepared by experts of ESH and ERA. The sections summarized are those referring to the role of CKD in hypertension staging and cardiovascular risk stratification, the evaluation of hypertension-mediated kidney damage and the overall management of hypertension in patients with CKD.

Risk Profiles and Treatment Patterns in Atrial Fibrillation Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease Receiving or not Receiving Anticoagulation Therapy.

Background Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at high risk for both thromboembolism and bleeding events. The latter induces a potential reason for withholding oral anticoagulation (OAC) despite an indication for prophylaxis of thromboembolic events. Methods AF patients with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration [eGFR] rate between 15 and 49 mL/min per 1.73 m 2 ) were included in a prospective international registry in Europe between 2016 and 2020, that is, XARENO (factor XA inhibition in renal patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation observational registry). The study enrolled adult patients treated at the discretion of physicians with rivaroxaban, vitamin K antagonists (VKA), or without OAC (w/oOAC). Here, we report a prespecified explorative baseline comparison between patients receiving OAC or no OAC within XARENO. Results In total, 1,544 patients (mean age: 78.2 years, mean eGFR: 36.2 mL/min) were studied (rivaroxaban n = 764, VKA n = 691, w/oOAC n = 89). Patients in the w/oOAC group were older and had a similar stroke (mean CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score 4.0) but higher bleeding risk (mean modified Hypertension, Abnormal Renal/Liver Function, Stroke, Bleeding History or Predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly, Drugs/Alcohol Concomitantly score 2.5 vs. 1.8) compared with the OAC groups. The distribution of comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes, and heart failure was similar. Treatment with antiplatelet drugs was fivefold more frequent in the w/oOAC group. Conclusion Only 5.8% of the overall population of AF patients with advanced CKD received no OAC. These patients were older and had a higher bleeding risk, which might explain this decision, but which contrasts with the more frequent use of antiplatelet drugs in this vulnerable group of patients.

Assessment and Management of Patients with Obesity and Hypertension in European Society of Hypertension Excellence Centres. A survey from the ESH Working Group on Diabetes and Metabolic Risk Factors.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare providers are faced with an increasing number of patients with obesity and arterial hypertension. Preventing obesity-associated hypertension and appropriately managing patients with established disease are both important. Hence, the aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical care of patients with obesity and hypertension among ESH Excellence Centres (ECs). METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, international 30-item survey through e-mails. RESULTS: In total, 70 representatives of ECs participated (78% men) with 66% of them practicing medicine for more than 30 years and working in well-equipped clinics. Most were internists (41%) and cardiologists (37%) and 73% reported training on the management of obese patients with hypertension. A majority weigh their patients (77%) and evaluate patients for sleep disorders (93%). However, only 47% spend more than 5min to advise for lifestyle modification in general, 59% for weight loss, 56% for salt intake and 64% for exercise. Finally, a minority of participants ask patients if they like their body (6%) or about previous attempts to lose weight (28%), evaluate 24h urinary sodium excretion rate (22%) and provide written (15%) or personalized (10%) dietary advices. If the patient suffers also from type 2 diabetes mellitus, 66% switch treatment to GLP1 receptor agonists and 60% to SGLT2 inhibitors. CONCLUSION: Most clinicians in ESH ECs are well educated regarding obesity-associated hypertension, and clinics are sufficiently equipped to manage these patients, as well. However, several deficits were reported regarding efforts to address and implement obesity specific aspects and interventions to improve care in patients with obesity and hypertension.

Hypertension and obesity still remain two of the main cardiovascular risk factors worldwide.There is a need to lower the incidence of obesity-induced hypertension, and to focus on practical guidelines for the evaluation and management of patients with obesity and hypertension.This is a web-based survey to understand the current clinical practices in assessing/managing patients with obesity and hypertension in ESH Excellence Centres.Most clinicians in ESH ECs are well educated regarding obesity-associated hypertension.Clinics are sufficiently equipped to manage these patients.Several deficits were reported regarding efforts to address and implement obesity specific aspects and interventions to improve care in patients with obesity and hypertension.

Rationale of treatment recommendations in the 2023 ESH hypertension guidelines.

No abstract available.

Simultaneous 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurement on both arms: a consideration for improving hypertension management.

OBJECTIVE: Arterial hypertension is one of the common treatment goals in today's medicine. 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM) performed by oscillometric cuff-based devices is considered as the gold standard in hypertension diagnostics. This study aims at examining the measurement accuracy of a widely used, ABPM device. METHODS: Fifty-two young and healthy participants underwent simultaneous 24-h ABPM on the left and the right upper arm using two Boso/A&D TM-2430 oscillometric cuff-based devices. Pressure curves of the cuffs, as well as hydrostatic pressure difference between the cuffs were recorded. RESULTS: The mean differences between both simultaneous measurements were 1.16 mmHg with limits of agreement of 36.23 mmHg for SBP and 1.32 mmHg with limits of agreement of 32.65 mmHg for DBP. Excluding measurements where the pressure curves were disturbed and correcting for hydrostatic pressure difference between the cuffs, reduced the measurement error. However, limits of agreement remained around 20 mmHg. There were large differences in hypertension grading and dipping pattern classification between simultaneous measurements on the left and right arm. CONCLUSION: The cuff-based ABPM device reveals notable measurement uncertainties, influencing hypertension grading, dipping pattern classification and blood pressure variability. These effects are attributed in part to disturbances during cuff deflation and hydrostatic influences. Nonetheless, ABPM has shown its clinical values in several studies, while this study underscores its still unlocked potential to improve hypertension management.

What Is the Current Best Drug Treatment for Hypertensive Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction? Review of the Totality of Evidence.

BACKGROUND: More than 90% of patients developing heart failure (HF) have an epidemiological background of hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease, all disorders/diseases closely related to hypertension. METHODS: HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. RESULTS: For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, subsequently, they have been investigated and, as we see it, documented as beneficial in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) and mostly hypertensive etiology, with effect estimates assessed partly on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated.

The current best drug treatment for hypertensive heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

More than 90 % of patients developing heart failure (HF) have hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type-2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease. HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Subsequently, they have been investigated in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) of mostly hypertensive etiology, and with modest benefits largely assessed on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications. Patients with HFpEF may have diastolic dysfunction but also systolic dysfunction visualized by lack of longitudinal shortening. Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated.