hypertension

Arm Position and Blood Pressure Readings: The ARMS Crossover Randomized Clinical Trial

Author/s: 
Hairong Liu, Di Zhao, Ahmed Sabit

Importance: Guidelines for blood pressure (BP) measurement recommend arm support on a desk with the midcuff positioned at heart level. Still, nonstandard positions are used in clinical practice (eg, with arm resting on the lap or unsupported on the side).

Objective: To determine the effect of different arm positions on BP readings.

Design, setting, and participants: This crossover randomized clinical trial recruited adults between the ages of 18 and 80 years in Baltimore, Maryland, from August 9, 2022, to June 1, 2023.

Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned to sets of triplicate BP measurements with the arm positioned in 3 ways: (1) supported on a desk (desk 1; reference), (2) hand supported on lap (lap), and (3) arm unsupported at the side (side). To account for intrinsic BP variability, all participants underwent a fourth set of BP measurements with the arm supported on a desk (desk 2).

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcomes were the difference in differences in mean systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) between the reference BP (desk 1) and the 2 arm support positions (lap and side): (lap or side - desk 1) - (desk 2 - desk 1). Results were also stratified by hypertensive status, age, obesity status, and access to health care within the past year.

Results: The trial enrolled 133 participants (mean [SD] age, 57 [17] years; 70 [53%] female); 48 participants (36%) had SBP of 130 mm Hg or higher, and 55 participants (41%) had a body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 30 or higher. Lap and side positions resulted in statistically significant higher BP readings than desk positions, with the difference in differences as follows: lap, SBP Δ 3.9 (95% CI, 2.5-5.2) mm Hg and DBP Δ 4.0 (95% CI, 3.1-5.0) mm Hg; and side, SBP Δ 6.5 (95% CI, 5.1-7.9) mm Hg and DBP Δ 4.4 (95% CI, 3.4-5.4) mm Hg. The patterns were generally consistent across subgroups.

Conclusion and relevance: This crossover randomized clinical trial showed that commonly used arm positions (lap or side) resulted in substantial overestimation of BP readings and may lead to misdiagnosis and overestimation of hypertension.

Cardiovascular outcomes in adults with hypertension with evening versus morning dosing of usual antihypertensives in the UK (TIME study): a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint clinical trial

Author/s: 
Mackenzie, I. S., Rogers, A., Poulter, N. R., Williams, B., Brown, M. J., Webb, D. J., Ford, I., Rorie, D. A., Guthrie, G., Grieve, J. W. K., Pigazzani, F., Rothwell, P. M., Young, R., McConnachie, A., Struthers, A. D., Lang, C. C., MacDonald, T. M.

Background: Studies have suggested that evening dosing with antihypertensive therapy might have better outcomes than morning dosing. The Treatment in Morning versus Evening (TIME) study aimed to investigate whether evening dosing of usual antihypertensive medication improves major cardiovascular outcomes compared with morning dosing in patients with hypertension.

Methods: The TIME study is a prospective, pragmatic, decentralised, parallel-group study in the UK, that recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with hypertension and taking at least one antihypertensive medication. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), without restriction, stratification, or minimisation, to take all of their usual antihypertensive medications in either the morning (0600-1000 h) or in the evening (2000-0000 h). Participants were followed up for the composite primary endpoint of vascular death or hospitalisation for non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke. Endpoints were identified by participant report or record linkage to National Health Service datasets and were adjudicated by a committee masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was assessed as the time to first occurrence of an event in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all participants randomly assigned to a treatment group). Safety was assessed in all participants who submitted at least one follow-up questionnaire. The study is registered with EudraCT (2011-001968-21) and ISRCTN (18157641), and is now complete.

Findings: Between Dec 17, 2011, and June 5, 2018, 24 610 individuals were screened and 21 104 were randomly assigned to evening (n=10 503) or morning (n=10 601) dosing groups. Mean age at study entry was 65·1 years (SD 9·3); 12 136 (57·5%) participants were men; 8968 (42·5%) were women; 19 101 (90·5%) were White; 98 (0·5%) were Black, African, Caribbean, or Black British (ethnicity was not reported by 1637 [7·8%] participants); and 2725 (13·0%) had a previous cardiovascular disease. By the end of study follow-up (March 31, 2021), median follow-up was 5·2 years (IQR 4·9-5·7), and 529 (5·0%) of 10 503 participants assigned to evening treatment and 318 (3·0%) of 10 601 assigned to morning treatment had withdrawn from all follow-up. A primary endpoint event occurred in 362 (3·4%) participants assigned to evening treatment (0·69 events [95% CI 0·62-0·76] per 100 patient-years) and 390 (3·7%) assigned to morning treatment (0·72 events [95% CI 0·65-0·79] per 100 patient-years; unadjusted hazard ratio 0·95 [95% CI 0·83-1·10]; p=0·53). No safety concerns were identified.

Interpretation: Evening dosing of usual antihypertensive medication was not different from morning dosing in terms of major cardiovascular outcomes. Patients can be advised that they can take their regular antihypertensive medications at a convenient time that minimises any undesirable effects.

Funding: British Heart Foundation.

Effects of salt substitutes on clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author/s: 
Yin, X., Rodgers, A., Perkovic, A., Huang, L., Li, K., Yu, J., Wu, Y., Wu, J. H. Y., Marklund, M., Huffman, M. D., Miranda, J. J., Di Tanna, G. L., Labarthe, D., Elliott, P., Tian, M., Neal, B.

Objectives The Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS) recently reported blood pressure-mediated benefits of a potassium-enriched salt substitute on cardiovascular outcomes and death. This study assessed the effects of salt substitutes on a breadth of outcomes to quantify the consistency of the findings and understand the likely generalisability of the SSaSS results.

Methods We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library up to 31 August 2021. Parallel group, step-wedge or cluster randomised controlled trials reporting the effect of salt substitute on blood pressure or clinical outcomes were included. Meta-analyses and metaregressions were used to define the consistency of findings across trials, geographies and patient groups.

Results There were 21 trials and 31 949 participants included, with 19 reporting effects on blood pressure and 5 reporting effects on clinical outcomes. Overall reduction of systolic blood pressure (SBP) was −4.61 mm Hg (95% CI −6.07 to −3.14) and of diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was −1.61 mm Hg (95% CI −2.42 to −0.79). Reductions in blood pressure appeared to be consistent across geographical regions and population subgroups defined by age, sex, history of hypertension, body mass index, baseline blood pressure, baseline 24-hour urinary sodium and baseline 24-hour urinary potassium (all p homogeneity >0.05). Metaregression showed that each 10% lower proportion of sodium choloride in the salt substitute was associated with a −1.53 mm Hg (95% CI −3.02 to −0.03, p=0.045) greater reduction in SBP and a −0.95 mm Hg (95% CI −1.78 to −0.12, p=0.025) greater reduction in DBP. There were clear protective effects of salt substitute on total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0. 81 to 0.94) and cardiovascular events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94).

Conclusions The beneficial effects of salt substitutes on blood pressure across geographies and populations were consistent. Blood pressure-mediated protective effects on clinical outcomes are likely to be generalisable across population subgroups and to countries worldwide.

Unhealthy alcohol use in a 65-year-old man awaiting surgery

Author/s: 
Brothers, T. D., Kaulbach, J., Tran, A.

Three months before elective hip arthroplasty, a 65-yearold man with osteoarthritis presents to his family physician to discuss his alcohol consumption. His surgeon had expressed concern and advised him to speak to his family physician about decreasing his drinking before surgery. He reports drinking around 6 to 10 ounces of whiskey daily for the past 5 years. His alcohol intake increased gradually after retirement, and he now has cravings daily. He recently abstained from alcohol for 4 days while visiting family and developed irritability, tremor, nausea and headache. He has never had withdrawal seizures or delirium tremens, and he does not use any other substances. He is otherwise healthy, apart from hypertension that is controlled with perindopril. He is alarmed by his cravings, withdrawal symptoms and surgeon’s concerns, and is considering decreasing his alcohol use.

Screening for Hypertension in Adults

Author/s: 
U.S. Preventative Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE Hypertension is a prevalent condition that affects approximately 45% of the adult US population and is the most commonly diagnosed condition at outpatient office visits. Hypertension is a major contributing risk factor for heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and chronic kidney disease. OBJECTIVE To reaffirm its 2015 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for hypertension in adults, the accuracy of office blood pressure measurement for initial screening, and the accuracy of various confirmatory blood pressure measurement methods. POPULATION Adults 18 years or older without known hypertension. EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT Using a reaffirmation deliberation process, the USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for hypertension in adults has substantial net benefit. RECOMMENDATION The USPSTF recommends screening for hypertension in adults 18 years or older with office blood pressure measurement. The USPSTF recommends obtaining blood pressure measurements outside of the clinical setting for diagnostic confirmation before starting treatment. (A recommendation)

The Unrecognized Prevalence of Primary Aldosteronism

Author/s: 
Brown, JM, Siddiqui, M, Calhoun, DA, Carey, RM, Hopkins, PN, Williams, GH, Vaidya, A

Background:

Primary aldosteronism is a nonsuppressible renin-independent aldosterone production that causes hypertension and cardiovascular disease.

 

Objective:

To characterize the prevalence of nonsuppressible renin-independent aldosterone production, as well as biochemically overt primary aldosteronism, in relation to blood pressure.

 

Design:

Cross-sectional study.

 

Setting:

4 U.S. academic medical centers.

 

Participants:

Participants with normotension (n = 289), stage 1 hypertension (n = 115), stage 2 hypertension (n = 203), and resistant hypertension (n = 408).

 

Measurements:

Participants completed an oral sodium suppression test, regardless of aldosterone or renin levels, as a confirmatory diagnostic for primary aldosteronism and to quantify the magnitude of renin-independent aldosterone production. Urinary aldosterone was measured in participants in high sodium balance with suppressed renin activity. Biochemically overt primary aldosteronism was diagnosed when urinary aldosterone levels were higher than 12 µg/24 h.

 

Results:

Every blood pressure category had a continuum of renin-independent aldosterone production, where greater severity of production was associated with higher blood pressure, kaliuresis, and lower serum potassium levels. Mean adjusted levels of urinary aldosterone were 6.5 µg/24 h (95% CI, 5.2 to 7.7 µg/24 h) in normotension, 7.3 µg/24 h (CI, 5.6 to 8.9 µg/24 h) in stage 1 hypertension, 9.5 µg/24 h (CI, 8.2 to 10.8 µg/24 h) in stage 2 hypertension, and 14.6 µg/24 h (CI, 12.9 to 16.2 µg/24 h) in resistant hypertension; corresponding adjusted prevalence estimates for biochemically overt primary aldosteronism were 11.3% (CI, 5.9% to 16.8%), 15.7% (CI, 8.6% to 22.9%), 21.6% (CI, 16.1% to 27.0%), and 22.0% (CI, 17.2% to 26.8%). The aldosterone–renin ratio had poor sensitivity and negative predictive value for detecting biochemically overt primary aldosteronism.

 

Limitation:

Prevalence estimates rely on arbitrary and conventional thresholds, and the study population may not represent nationwide demographics.

 

Conclusion:

The prevalence of primary aldosteronism is high and largely unrecognized. Beyond this categorical definition of primary aldosteronism, there is a prevalent continuum of renin-independent aldosterone production that parallels the severity of hypertension. These findings redefine the primary aldosteronism syndrome and implicate it in the pathogenesis of “essential” hypertension.

 

Primary Funding Source:

National Institutes of Health.

Preoperative Cardiac Risk Assessment

Author/s: 
Raslau, D, Bierle, DM, Stephenson, CR, Mikhail, MA, Kebede, EB, Mauck, KF

Major adverse cardiac events are common causes of perioperative mortality and major morbidity. Preventing these complications requires thorough preoperative risk assessment and postoperative monitoring of at-risk patients. Major guidelines recommend assessment based on a validated risk calculator that incorporates patient- and procedure-specific factors. American and European guidelines define when stress testing is needed on the basis of functional capacity assessment. Favoring cost-effectiveness, Canadian guidelines instead recommend obtaining brain natriuretic peptide or N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide levels to guide postoperative screening for myocardial injury or infarction. When conditions such as acute coronary syndrome, severe pulmonary hypertension, and decompensated heart failure are identified, nonemergent surgery should be postponed until the condition is appropriately managed. There is an evolving role of biomarkers and myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery to enhance risk stratification, but the effect of interventions guided by these strategies is unclear.

Bedtime hypertension treatment improves cardiovascular risk reduction: the Hygia Chronotherapy Trial

Author/s: 
Hermida, R.C., Crespo, J.J., Domínguez-Sardiña, M, Otero, A., Moyá, A., Ríos, M.T., Sineiro, E., Castiñeira, M.C., Callejas, P.A., Pousa, L., Salgado, J.L., Durán, C., Sánchez, J.J., Fernández, J.R., Mojón, A., Ayala, D.E., Hygia Project Investigators

AIMS:

The Hygia Chronotherapy Trial, conducted within the clinical primary care setting, was designed to test whether bedtime in comparison to usual upon awakening hypertension therapy exerts better cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduction.

METHODS AND RESULTS:

In this multicentre, controlled, prospective endpoint trial, 19 084 hypertensive patients (10 614 men/8470 women, 60.5 ± 13.7 years of age) were assigned (1:1) to ingest the entire daily dose of ≥1 hypertension medications at bedtime (n = 9552) or all of them upon awakening (n = 9532). At inclusion and at every scheduled clinic visit (at least annually) throughout follow-up, ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring was performed for 48 h. During the 6.3-year median patient follow-up, 1752 participants experienced the primary CVD outcome (CVD death, myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, heart failure, or stroke). Patients of the bedtime, compared with the upon-waking, treatment-time regimen showed significantly lower hazard ratio-adjusted for significant influential characteristics of age, sex, type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, smoking, HDL cholesterol, asleep systolic blood pressure (BP) mean, sleep-time relative systolic BP decline, and previous CVD event-of the primary CVD outcome [0.55 (95% CI 0.50-0.61), P < 0.001] and each of its single components (P < 0.001 in all cases), i.e. CVD death [0.44 (0.34-0.56)], myocardial infarction [0.66 (0.52-0.84)], coronary revascularization [0.60 (0.47-0.75)], heart failure [0.58 (0.49-0.70)], and stroke [0.51 (0.41-0.63)].

CONCLUSION:

Routine ingestion by hypertensive patients of ≥1 prescribed BP-lowering medications at bedtime, as opposed to upon waking, results in improved ABP control (significantly enhanced decrease in asleep BP and increased sleep-time relative BP decline, i.e. BP dipping) and, most importantly, markedly diminished occurrence of major CVD events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00741585.

Practice Transformation Under the University of Colorado's Primary Care Redesign Model

Author/s: 
Smith, P.C., Lyon, C., English, A.F., Conry, C.

PURPOSE:

We compared the transformation experience of 2 family medicine practices that implemented the Primary Care Redesign (PCR) team-based model to improve access, quality, and experience without increasing cost. The University of Colorado's A.F. Williams Family Medicine clinic (pilot practice) implemented the model in February 2015, and a smaller, community-based practice (wave 2 practice) did so 2 years later, in February 2017.

METHODS:

The PCR model increased the ratio of medical assistants to clinicians from about 1:2 to 2.5:1 while expanding the role of the medical assistants, through enhanced rooming procedures, in-room support (eg, scribing), postclinician wrap-up, and in-basket assistance. We assessed access, clinical quality metrics, staffing costs, and clinician and staff experience and burnout for at least 7 months before and 42 months after the intervention.

RESULTS:

In the pilot practice, compared with preimplementation, there were improvements in total appointments and rates of hypertension control, colorectal cancer screening, and most diabetic quality metrics. In the wave 2 practice, total appointments increased slightly when clinicians were added pre-PCR and then increased substantially after implementation; initially variable hypertension control improved rapidly after implementation. The wave 2 practice's colorectal cancer screening improved gradually, then accelerated postimplementation, while diabetic metrics initially remained stable or declined, then improved postimplementation. New patient appointments began to increase for both practices in late 2015, but grew faster in the pilot practice under PCR. Over time, all experiential domains improved for clinicians; most remained stable for staff. Clinician burnout was reduced by at least one-half in both practices except during low staffing periods, which also adversely affected staff. After a ramp-up period, the number of staff hours per visit remained stable.

CONCLUSIONS:

The PCR model is associated with simultaneous improvements in quality, access, and clinician experience, as well as reductions in burnout, while maintaining staffing costs.

Subscribe to hypertension