hypertension

Cardiovascular Events and Mortality in White Coat Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Author/s: 
M.G., Cohen, J.B., Lotito, M.J., Denker, M.G., Cohen, D.L., Townsend, R.R.

BACKGROUND:

The long-term cardiovascular risk of isolated elevated office blood pressure (BP) is unclear.

PURPOSE:

To summarize the risk for cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality associated with untreated white coat hypertension (WCH) and treated white coat effect (WCE).

DATA SOURCES:

PubMed and EMBASE, without language restriction, from inception to December 2018.

STUDY SELECTION:

Observational studies with at least 3 years of follow-up evaluating the cardiovascular risk of WCH or WCE compared with normotension.

DATA EXTRACTION:

2 investigators independently extracted study data and assessed study quality.

DATA SYNTHESIS:

27 studies were included, comprising 25 786 participants with untreated WCH or treated WCE and 38 487 with normal BP followed for a mean of 3 to 19 years. Compared with normotension, untreated WCH was associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular events (hazard ratio [HR], 1.36 [95% CI, 1.03 to 2.00]), all-cause mortality (HR, 1.33 [CI, 1.07 to 1.67]), and cardiovascularmortality (HR, 2.09 [CI, 1.23 to 4.48]); the risk of WCH was attenuated in studies that included stroke in the definition of cardiovascular events(HR, 1.26 [CI, 1.00 to 1.54]). No significant association was found between treated WCE and cardiovascular events (HR, 1.12 [CI, 0.91 to 1.39]), all-cause mortality (HR, 1.11 [CI, 0.89 to 1.46]), or cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.04 [CI, 0.65 to 1.66]). The findings persisted across several sensitivity analyses.

LIMITATION:

Paucity of studies evaluating isolated cardiac outcomes or reporting participant race/ethnicity.

CONCLUSION:

Untreated WCH, but not treated WCE, is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. Out-of-office BP monitoring is critical in the diagnosis and management of hypertension.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE:

National Institutes of Health.

Yoga as Antihypertensive Lifestyle Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Author/s: 
Wu, Yin, Johnson, Blair T., Acabchuk, Rebecca L., Chen, Shiqi, Lewis, Holly K., Livingston, Jill, Park, Crystal L., Pescatello, Linda S.

OBJECTIVE:

To investigate the efficacy of yoga as antihypertensive lifestyle therapy and identify moderators that account for variability in the blood pressure (BP) response to yoga.

METHODS:

We systematically searched 6 electronic databases from inception through June 4, 2018, for articles published in English language journals on trials of yoga interventions that involved adult participants, reported preintervention and postintervention BP, and had a nonexercise/nondiet control group. Our search yielded 49 qualifying controlled trials (56 interventions). We (1) evaluated the risk of bias and methodological study quality, (2) performed meta-regression analysis following random-effects assumptions, and (3) generated additive models that represented the largest possible clinically relevant BP reductions.

RESULTS:

On average, the 3517 trial participants were middle-aged (49.2±19.5 years), overweight (27.9±3.6 kg/m2) adults with high BP (systolic BP, 129.3±13.3 mm Hg; diastolic BP, 80.7±8.4 mm Hg). Yoga was practiced 4.8±3.4 sessions per week for 59.2±25.0 minutes per session for 13.2±7.5 weeks. On average, yoga elicited moderate reductions in systolic BP (weighted mean effect size, -0.47; 95% CI, -0.62-0.32, -5.0 mm Hg) and diastolic BP (weighted mean effect size, -0.47; 95% CI, -0.61 to -0.32; -3.9 mm Hg) compared with controls (P<.001 for both systolic BP and diastolic BP). Controlling for publication bias and methodological study quality, when yoga was practiced 3 sessions per week among samples with hypertension, yoga interventions that included breathing techniques and meditation/mental relaxation elicited BP reductions of 11/6 mm Hg compared with those that did not (ie, 6/3 mm Hg).

CONCLUSION:

Our results indicate that yoga is a viable antihypertensive lifestyle therapy that produces the greatest BP benefits when breathing techniques and meditation/mental relaxation are included.

A meta-analysis of alcohol consumption and the risk of 15 diseases

Author/s: 
Corrao, Giovanni, Bagnardi, Vincenzo, Zombon, Antonella, La Cecchia, Carlo

BACKGROUND:

To compare the strength of evidence provided by the epidemiological literature on the association between alcohol consumption and the risk of 14 major alcohol-related neoplasms and non-neoplastic diseases, plus injuries.

METHODS:

A search of the epidemiological literature from 1966 to 1998 was performed by several bibliographic databases. Meta-regression models were fitted considering fixed and random effect models and linear and nonlinear effects of alcohol intake. The effects of some characteristics of the studies, including an index of their quality, were considered.

RESULTS:

Of the 561 initially reviewed studies, 156 were selected for meta-analysis because of their a priori defined higher quality, including a total of 116,702 subjects. Strong trends in risk were observed for cancers of the oral cavity, esophagus and larynx, hypertension, liver cirrhosis, chronic pancreatitis, and injuries and violence. Less strong direct relations were observed for cancers of the colon, rectum, liver, and breast. For all these conditions, significant increased risks were also found for ethanol intake of 25 g per day. Threshold values were observed for ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes. For coronary heart disease, a J-shaped relation was observed with a minimum relative risk of 0.80 at 20 g/day, a significant protective effect up to 72 g/day, and a significant increased risk at 89 g/day. No clear relation was observed for gastroduodenal ulcer.

CONCLUSIONS:

This meta-analysis shows no evidence of a threshold effect for both neoplasms and several non-neoplastic diseases. J-shaped relations were observed only for coronary heart disease.

Keywords 

2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task F

Author/s: 
Whelton, Paul K., Aronow, Wilbert S., Casey, Donald E., Jr., Collins, Karen J., Himmelfarb, Charyl Dennison, DePalma, Sondra M., Gidding, Samuel, Jamerson, Kenneth A., Jones, Daniel W., MacLaughlin, Eric J., Muntner, Paul, Ovbiagele, Bruce, Smith, Sidney C., Jr., Spencer, Crystal C., Stafford, Randall S., Taler, Sandra J., Thomas, Randal J., Williams, Kim A., Williamson, Jeff D., Wright, Jackson T., Jr.

Preamble

Since 1980, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) have translated scientific evidence into clinical practice guidelines (guidelines) with recommendations to improve cardiovascular health. In 2013, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Advisory Council recommended that the NHLBI focus specifically on reviewing the highest-quality evidence and partner with other organizations to develop recommendations.P-1,P-2 Accordingly, the ACC and AHA collaborated with the NHLBI and stakeholder and professional organizations to complete and publish 4 guidelines (on assessment of cardiovascular risk, lifestyle modifications to reduce cardiovascular risk, management of blood cholesterol in adults, and management of overweight and obesity in adults) to make them available to the widest possible constituency. In 2014, the ACC and AHA, in partnership with several other professional societies, initiated a guideline on the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure (BP) in adults. Under the management of the ACC/ AHA Task Force, a Prevention Subcommittee was appointed to help guide development of the suite of guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). These guidelines, which are based on systematic methods to evaluate and classify evidence, provide a cornerstone for quality cardiovascular care. The ACC and AHA sponsor the development and publication of guidelines without commercial support, and members of each organization volunteer their time to the writing and review efforts. Guidelines are official policy of the ACC and AHA.

Keywords 

Management of Systolic BP in the Elderly

Author/s: 
Mold, James

 Discuss management of blood pressure in the elderly:

§ Disease or risk factor

§ BP components and their significance

§ Benefits and hazards of BP reduction

§ Other ways to reduce CV risk and law of diminishing returns

§ BP reduction strategies

§ Individualization relevant to prevention of premature death and disability

Blood Pressure Targets for the Treatment of People with Hypertension and Cardiovascular Disease

Author/s: 
Saiz, Luis Carlos, Gorricho, Javier, Garjón, Javier, Celaya, Mª Concepción, Erviti, Juan, Leache, Leire

BACKGROUND:

Hypertension is a prominent preventable cause of premature morbidity and mortality. People with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease are at particularly high risk, so reducing blood pressure below standard targets may be beneficial. This strategy could reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity but could also increase adverse events. The optimal blood pressure target in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease remains unknown.

OBJECTIVES:

To determine if 'lower' blood pressure targets (≤ 135/85 mmHg) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity as compared with 'standard' blood pressure targets (≤ 140 to 160/ 90 to 100 mmHg) in the treatment of people with hypertension and a history of cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, peripheral vascular occlusive disease).

SEARCH METHODS:

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to February 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Literature Database (from 1982) and contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with more than 50 participants per group and at least six months follow-up. Trial reports needed to present data for at least one primary outcome (total mortality, serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality). Eligible interventions were lower target for systolic/diastolic blood pressure (≤ 135/85 mmHg) compared with standard target for blood pressure (≤ 140 to 160/90 to 100 mmHg).Participants were adults with documented hypertension or who were receiving treatment for hypertension and cardiovascular history for myocardial infarction, stroke, chronic peripheral vascular occlusive disease or angina pectoris.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Two review authors independently assessed search results and extracted data using standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS:

We included six RCTs that involved a total of 9795 participants. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (range 1.0 to 4.7 years). Five RCTs provided individual patient data for 6775 participants.We found no change in total mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.21; moderate-quality evidence). Similarly, no differences were found in serious adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.11; low-quality evidence). There was a reduction in fatal and non fatal cardiovascular events (including myocardial infarction, stroke, sudden death, hospitalization or death from congestive heart failure) with the lower target (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.98; ARR 1.6% over 3.7 years; low-quality evidence). There were more participant withdrawals due to adverse effects in the lower target arm (RR 8.16, 95% CI 2.06 to 32.28; very low-quality evidence). Blood pressures were lower in the lower' target group by 9.5/4.9 mmHg. More drugs were needed in the lower target group but blood pressure targets were achieved more frequently in the standard target group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

No evidence of a difference in total mortality and serious adverse events was found between treating to a lower or to a standard blood pressure target in people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease. This suggests no net health benefit from a lower systolic blood pressure target despite the small absolute reduction in total cardiovascular serious adverse events. There was very limited evidence on adverse events, which lead to high uncertainty. At present there is insufficient evidence to justify lower blood pressure targets (≤ 135/85 mmHg) in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease. More trials are needed to answer this question.

Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Disease: Current State of the Evidence

Author/s: 
Balk, Ethan M., Adam, Gaelen P., Langberg, Valerie, Halladay, Christopher, Chung, Mei, Lin, Lin, Robertson, Sarah, Yip, Agustin, Steele, Dale, Smith, Bryant T., Lau, Joseph, Lichtenstein, Alice H., Trikalinos, Thomas A.

Focus of This Summary

This is a summary of a systematic review that evaluated the recent evidence regarding the effects of omega-3 fatty acids (FAs), primarily from marine oil supplements, on clinical and selected intermediate cardiovascular (CV) outcomes (i.e., blood pressure, lipid concentrations) and the association of omega-3 FA dietary intake and biomarkers with CV outcomes. The systematic review included 147 articles published between 2000 and June 2015. Studies that analyzed levels of fish (or other food) consumption without exact quantification of omega-3 FA intake were excluded from this review. This summary is provided to assist in informed clinical decisionmaking. However, reviews of evidence should not be construed to represent clinical recommendations or guidelines.

Background

The first observation of a link between fish consumption and cardiovascular (CV) health was made in the late 1970s in a Greenland Eskimo population. This population exhibited a comparatively low rate of CV mortality and consumed a greater than average amount of fish. Since this original observation, there have been hundreds of studies conducted to evaluate the effect of omega-3 fatty acids (FAs) on cardiovascular disease (CVD), its risk factors, and its biomarkers.

The omega-3 FAs include eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), docosapentaenoic acid (DPA), and alpha-linolenic acid (ALA). These are essential long-chain and very-long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids that have many physiological effects, including inflammation regulation. EPA, DHA, and DPA are found in fish and other seafood (called dietary marine oils), as well as in supplements prepared from these foods (referred to here as marine oil supplements). ALA is found in walnuts, leafy green vegetables, and oils such as canola, soy, and flaxseed.

An original systematic review of omega-3 FAs was prepared by the Agency for Healthcare and Research Quality in 2004.1,2 Based on the observational studies available at that time, several expert panels suggested that regular consumption of fish and seafood is associated with lower risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) and cardiac death. The recommendations were based on assumptions of benefits from EPA and DHA and their content in fish and seafood.

The current systematic review aimed to update the evidence in light of the more recent literature published on the topic and included both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Studies that analyzed levels of fish (or other food) consumption without exact quantification of omega-3 FA intake were excluded.

Conclusions

Observational studies suggest possible benefits of dietary intake of marine oils (such as through consumption of fish) for CV death and total stroke (mainly ischemic stroke).

In contrast, there is high strength of evidence (SOE) from RCTs that marine oil supplements do not affect the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), all-cause death, sudden cardiac death, revascularization, or high blood pressure (BP). Marine oil supplements also have no effect on the risk of atrial fibrillation (moderate SOE). Importantly, RCTs focused primarily on marine oil supplements, not on food sources.

Marine oil supplements affect several intermediate outcomes. First, they significantly lower triglycerides (TGs)—possibly having greater effects in higher doses and in people with higher baseline TGs. Second, they cause small increases in both high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c). Finally, marine oil supplements produce small changes in the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL-c (high SOE).

Subscribe to hypertension