Management of Orthostatic Hypotension: A Review

Importance: Orthostatic hypotension is a common but underrecognized condition that increases with age and is associated with a lower quality of life, falls, and increased mortality. The frequent coexistence of supine hypertension and postprandial hypotension with orthostatic hypotension makes it a challenging condition to manage.

Observations: Testing for orthostatic hypotension should be done in patients with orthostatic symptoms (eg, vision changes and dizziness that occur only when upright and improve when seated or lying down), as well as asymptomatic patients in high-risk groups such as adults with frailty who are older than 70 years, individuals with neurodegenerative or autonomic disorders, and patients with unexplained falls. Patients with orthostatic hypotension should be screened for postprandial hypotension and supine hypertension to inform the treatment approach. Nonpharmacological strategies, such as medication review, increased salt and fluid intake, compression garments, and behavioral modifications, serve as fundamental approaches to treat orthostatic hypotension. Midodrine and droxidopa are the only US Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for orthostatic hypotension, but other medications (eg, fludrocortisone, atomoxetine, pyridostigmine) are used off label as part of an individualized treatment plan. Treatment targets in orthostatic hypotension are focused not on blood pressure measurements but on symptom relief and fall prevention.

Conclusions and relevance: All patients with orthostatic symptoms-along with other select patient groups-should be evaluated for orthostatic hypotension. Nonpharmacological treatments are first line, and medication decisions should be tailored based on clinical presentation and relevant comorbidities.

Author/s:

David Moloney, Ayman Youssef, Luis E. Okamoto

Final Report of a Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control

Saige Blanchard — Fri, 21 May 2021 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

May 21, 2021

Journal/Publication:

New England Journal of Medicine

Publisher:

Massachusetts Medical Society

Publication Date:

May 20, 2021

Issue:

Volume:

384

Pages:

1921-1930

URL:

Final Report of a Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1056/NEJMoa1901281

Keywords

PMID (1):

34010531

MeSH

blood-pressure

cardiovascular diseases

acute coronary syndrome

myocardial infarction

heart failure

hypotension

stroke

In patients at high risk for cardiovascular events, intensive BP control (target <120 systolic) reduced the rate of adverse CV events (CAD events, CVA, CHF, or death) by 0.63% per year. Serious adverse events of hypotension, electrolyte abnormalities, acute kidney injury or failure, and syncope were significantly more frequent in the intensive-treatment group. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

View

Background: In a previously reported randomized trial of standard and intensive systolic blood-pressure control, data on some outcome events had yet to be adjudicated and post-trial follow-up data had not yet been collected.

Methods: We randomly assigned 9361 participants who were at increased risk for cardiovascular disease but did not have diabetes or previous stroke to adhere to an intensive treatment target (systolic blood pressure, <120 mm Hg) or a standard treatment target (systolic blood pressure, <140 mm Hg). The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. Additional primary outcome events occurring through the end of the intervention period (August 20, 2015) were adjudicated after data lock for the primary analysis. We also analyzed post-trial observational follow-up data through July 29, 2016.

Results: At a median of 3.33 years of follow-up, the rate of the primary outcome and all-cause mortality during the trial were significantly lower in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group (rate of the primary outcome, 1.77% per year vs. 2.40% per year; hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.86; all-cause mortality, 1.06% per year vs. 1.41% per year; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.92). Serious adverse events of hypotension, electrolyte abnormalities, acute kidney injury or failure, and syncope were significantly more frequent in the intensive-treatment group. When trial and post-trial follow-up data were combined (3.88 years in total), similar patterns were found for treatment benefit and adverse events; however, rates of heart failure no longer differed between the groups.

Conclusions: Among patients who were at increased cardiovascular risk, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg resulted in lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and lower all-cause mortality than targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg, both during receipt of the randomly assigned therapy and after the trial. Rates of some adverse events were higher in the intensive-treatment group. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; SPRINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062.).

Author/s:

Lewis, C. E., Fine, L. J., Beddhu, S., Cheung, A. K., Cushman, W. C., Cutler, J. A., Evans, G. W., Johnson, K. C., Kitzman, D. W., Oparil, S., Rahman, M., Reboussin, D. M., Rocco, M. V., Sink, K, M., Snyder, J. K., Whelton, P. K., Williamson, J. D., Wright Jr., J. T., Ambrosius, W. T.