Implementation of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines on Hypertension in Clinical Practice.

Background: The 2017 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines on hypertension recommend a threshold blood pressure (BP) of ≥130/80 mmHg for diagnosis of hypertension and treating hypertension to a goal BP of <130/80 mmHg. For this study, we assessed the rate of compliance to the 2017 ACC/AHA hypertension guidelines by internal medicine residents and cardiology fellows in clinics affiliated with a teaching hospital in New York, New York. Methods: We conducted a retrospective medical records review for patients who had a clinical encounter at the internal medicine resident and cardiology fellow clinics from January to February 2019. To distinguish from adherence with prior guidelines, patients with BP of 130-139/80-89 mmHg (unless age ≥60 years and systolic blood pressure [SBP] 140-149 mmHg without chronic kidney disease or diabetes) were included. The primary outcome was accurate assessment of uncontrolled BP in accordance with the 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines. Results: Included in the analysis were 435 patients from the internal medicine resident clinic and 127 patients from the cardiology fellow clinic. Accurate assessment of uncontrolled BP was higher in the cardiology fellow clinic compared to the internal medicine resident clinic (29.1% vs 10.3%, P<0.001), even after adjusting for baseline characteristics differences between the 2 clinics. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that the type of clinic (internal medicine, odds ratio [OR] 0.27, 95% CI 0.16-0.47; P<0.001), established diagnosis of hypertension (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.06-3.99; P<0.001), and SBP (OR 1.16 per mmHg, 95% CI 1.11-1.22; P=0.031) were independently associated with the primary outcome. Conclusion: Cardiology fellows were better at identifying hypertension diagnosis thresholds and BP treatment goals in accordance with 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines compared to internal medicine residents.

Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis Comparing Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump During High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Cardiogenic Shock.

The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVAD) are commonly used in different clinical scenarios. The goal of this study was to carry out a meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) comparing the IABP versus pVAD (TandemHeart and the Impella) during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or cardiogenic shock (CS). Using PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE we searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies that compared pVAD versus IABP in patients who underwent high-risk PCI or with CS. We included 5 RCTs and 1 nonrandomized study comparing pVAD versus IABP. Based on the RCTs, we demonstrated no difference in short-term (6 months) (risk ratio [RR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.52; p = 0.59) or long-term (12 months) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.76; p = 1.00) all-cause mortality. The use of pVAD seemed associated with more adverse events (acute kidney injury, limb ischemia, infection, major bleeding, and vascular injury) compared with IABP (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.39; p = 0.008) but this was not supported by TSA (random-effects RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.89 to 3.09; p = 0.11; TSA-adjusted CI 0.13 to 21.3). In conclusion there were no differences in short or long-term mortality when using IABP versus pVAD for high-risk PCI or CS. IABP showed superiority over pVAD in terms of risk of harm. However, further RCTs are needed to establish more conclusively the role of these modalities of mechanical circulatory support during high-risk PCI or CS.