High Blood Pressure & Cardiovascular Prevention最新文献

Environmental pollution in considered an established determinant of non-communicable illness, including cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). Air pollution is the result of a complex combination of chemical, physical, and biological agents, and represents one of the main causes of mortality and morbidity in the world population. It is responsible for 7.6% of global mortality. In this regard, it has been documented that it increases the risk of CVDs and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. In northern regions of China, long-term exposures to the particulate matter < 2.5 µm (PM_2.5) increase in the risk of ischemic heart disease by almost two-folds. Similarly, the additional risk for stroke, increases by almost 10% for long-term exposure to PM_2.5. The detrimental effects of air pollution on cardiovascular system are particularly manifest in vulnerable subjects, such as the elderly, patients with heart disease, and obese individuals. Therefore, nowadays, cardiovascular prevention strategies, in addition to controlling traditional risk factors, should also include measures to improve the environment. This goal can be achieved by the implementation of the health surveillance in occupational medicine and by the extensive application of the national and international legislative measures. In fact, the health surveillance represents a crucial preventive measure for workers exposed to health risks (chemical, physical agents, etc.) that may lead to occupational diseases after long-term exposure. On the other hand, since environmental pollution does not recognize well-defined boundaries, only the implementation of regulations among large territorial areas can be useful to improve the quality of environment.

Introduction: Hypertension is a significant risk factor in heart failure for worldwide patients. More than half of hypertensive patients suffer from heart failure. Recently, sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) has been approved as an antihypertensive agent in China and Japan. Additionally, it is not approved for treating hypertension in Europe or the USA.

Aim: To accumulate more real-world experiences to investigate the effectiveness and optimize clinical medication of sac/val in hypertensive patients with heart failure.

Methods: We retrospectively enrolled adult patients diagnosed with hypertension (HTN) and heart failure (HF) and newly treated with sac/val. The baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were retrospectively extracted from electronic medical records (EMR) in three centers. The efficacy and safety of sac/val were first analyzed in all enrolled patients. Stratified analyses were conducted in patients with different ages (≥ 65, < 65), maximum tolerated doses (≥ 200 mg/days, < 200 mg/days), and renal functions (e-GFR ≥ 60 ml/min/1.73 m², < 60 ml/min/1.73 m²).

Results: Overall, 794 patients diagnosed with both HF and HTN were included in our study. During follow-up, significant reductions were found in blood pressure (BP) (SBP 12.8 ± 21.2 mmHg, P < 0.001, DBP 7.1 ± 16.5 mmHg, P < 0.001), and cardiac biomarkers (cardiac troponin 1.78 ± 19.1 ng/mL, P < 0.001, NT-proBNP 1403 ± 6937 pg/mL, P < 0.001) from baseline. In stratification analyses, the lower dosage group earned a higher BP control rate (83.4% vs. 75.6%, P = 0.025) and an overall improvement rate of cardiac indicators (61.3% vs. 48.0%, P = 0.002). The younger patients' group had significantly less cumulative hazard of recurrent cerebral-cardiovascular events than the elder group (log-rank P value < 0.001). Patients with renal dysfunction were observed with more AE incidences.

Conclusions: Sac/val could reduce BP and improve cardiac structural and functional parameters in hypertensive patients with HF, even with less than target doses. However, more attention should be paid to older patients and renal dysfunction patients when using sac/val because of additional risks in adverse events.

Subclinical alterations in cardiac structure and function include a variety of abnormal phenotypes of established adverse prognostic significance such as left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), alterations of LV geometry, left atrial (LA) enlargement, and aortic root (AR) dilatation. The excess cardiovascular (CV) risk associated with these phenotypes has been consistently demonstrated in different clinical settings such in patients with systemic hypertension, coronary heart disease, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, heart failure and in geneal population samples. The Pressioni Monitorate e Loro Associazioni (PAMELA), a longitudinal population-based study originally designed to assess the normality values, prognostic significance of office, home and 24-hour blood pressure, including among the many clinical and laboratory variables the collection of echocardiographic data, allowed to gather important information on the clinical prognostic significance of subclinical cardiac damage during a long follow-up period. This article summarizes the original findings provided by the PAMELA study on the clinical correlates and prognostic significance of echocardiographic markers of subclinical organa damage namely LVH, left atrial enlargement (LA) and AR dilatation at the community level.

Introduction: Resistant hypertension (RH) is characterized by the failure to reach a goal blood pressure despite the administration of three medications at maximally tolerated doses, one of which being a diuretic. RH can be observed in a variety of clinical conditions, such as heart failure and reduced renal function and may confer high cardiovascular risk.

Aim: To evaluate the prevalence of RH and its association with clinical outcomes; the primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and the composite outcome was all-cause of mortality and morbidity in a cohort of patients with cardiorenal multimorbidity hospitalized in an internal medicine ward.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of consecutive hypertensive patients with cardiorenal multimorbidity. The composite outcome incorporated all-cause of in-hospital mortality and occurrence of sepsis, pulmonary embolism, acute coronary syndrome, stroke and renal replacement therapy.

Results: We collected data in 141 inpatients with a mean age of 77 years ± 10 (males 65.9 %), estimated glomerular filtration rate of 34 ± 18.6 ml/min with length of stay of 17 ± 12 days. The prevalence of RH was 52.4%. In-hospital mortality was observed in 24 patients (17%) and the composite outcome occurred in 87 patients (61.7%) and among these 74 (85.1%) were patients with RH. Free survival for composite outcome was significantly higher in patients without RH than patients with RH (log rank 7.52, p = 0.006). Resistant hypertension was a risk factor for composite outcome [HR 1.857(C.I. 1.170-2.946, p = 0.009)].

Conclusion: In patients with cardiorenal multimorbidity there is a high proportion of RH that represents a risk factor for composite outcome but not for in-hospital mortality.

Introduction: The number of Italian citizens unaware of their risk of cardiovascular disease it is still very high.

Aim: This study aimed to translate and preliminarily validate a brief Italian version of the Perception of Risk of Heart Disease Scale (PRHDS).

Methods: PRHDS was culturally adapted to the Italian context. Then, the scale was administered to 772 healthy adults. By randomly dividing the sample into two subsamples, we tested the scale dimensionality through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) followed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Finally, we evaluated internal consistency.

Results: Psychometric properties of the scale were appropriate. EFA and CFA evidenced a unidimensional structure of a brief version of the scale, composed of six items. Internal consistency was adequate.

Conclusions: Italian version of the brief PRHDS is a promising self-report questionnaire to measure cardiovascular risk perception among Italian adults.

Introduction: Epicardial adipose tissue may have an important role in the pathogenesis of coronary artery disease (CAD).

Aim: We aimed to study the association between epicardial fat volume (EFV) and presence of obstructive as well as multivessel CAD.

Methods: A total of 87 adult subjects with suspected CAD who underwent both quantified by multidetector computerized tomography (MDCT) and Invasive Coronary Angiography (ICA) were enrolled in this observational study. EVF was measured by MDCT by calculating the sum of cross- sectional areas of fat multiplied by slice thickness. EFV measurement and its association with the presence of obstructive CAD (defined as coronary artery stenosis > 70%) was evaluated.

Results: Overall, 89.6% patients had obstructive CAD with higher EFV as compared to 10.3% patients with non-obstructive CAD (57 ± 20.14 cm³ vs. 44 ± 7.4 cm³; P < 0.001). Furthermore, EFV was significantly increased in group II as compared with group I (74 ± 24.3 ml vs. 53 ± 16.2 ml; P < 0.003). On the hand, the coronary calcium score (CAC) was insignificantly increased in group II as compared with group I (486.1 vs. 211.2; P = 0.10). Multivariate analysis revealed that, EFV might be an independent risk factor for not only the presence of obstructive CAD (odds ratio [OR], 1.062; 95% CI 1.018- 1.108; P < 0.005) but also in predicting multivessel disease affection.

Conclusions: Our results demonstrated that, EFV was significantly increased not only with obstructive CAD, independent of other traditional risk factors and CAC score, but also it can be considered a good predictor of multivessel disease occurrence.

Introduction: Acute decompensated heart failure (AHF) is a clinical syndrome with a poor prognosis.

Aim: This study was conducted to identify clusters of inpatients with acute decompensated heart failure that shared similarities in their clinical features.

Methods: We analyzed data from a cohort of patients with acute decompensated heart failure hospitalized between February 2013 and January 2017 in a Department of Cardiology. Patients were clustered using factorial analysis of mixed data. The clusters (phenotypes) were then compared using log-rank tests and profiled using a logistic model. In total, 458 patients (255; 55.7% male) with a mean (SD) age of 72.7 (11.1) years were included in the analytic dataset. The demographic, clinical, and laboratory features were included in the cluster analysis.

Results: The two clusters were significantly different in terms of time to mortality and re-hospitalization (all P < 0.001). Cluster profiling yielded an accurate discriminating model (AUC = 0.934). Typically, high-risk patients were elderly females with a lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and hemoglobin on admission compared to the low-risk phenotype. Moreover, the high-risk phenotype had a higher likelihood of diabetes type 2, transient ischemic attack/cerebrovascular accident, previous heart failure or ischemic heart disease, and a higher serum potassium concentration on admission. Patients with the high-risk phenotype were of higher New York Heart Association functional classes and more positive in their medication history.

Conclusions: There are two phenotypes among patients with decompensated heart failure, high-risk and low-risk for mortality and re-hospitalization. They can be distinguished by easy-to-measure patients' characteristics.

Introduction: Azelnidipine is one of the newer Calcium Channel Blockers (CCB) approved in China, Japan, and India. Some studies have found that the blood pressure-lowering effect of azelnidipine is more than amlodipine, and others found the effect similar.

Aim: This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of azelnidipine in managing hypertensive patients by lowering Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP), Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP), and Heart Rate (HR) as compared to amlodipine.

Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, PROQUEST, and International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP) were searched for published articles to evaluate the clinical efficacy of azelnidipine in the management of hypertension patients. Data were extracted from the selected 11 randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The risk of bias 2 (RoB2) tool was used for the quality assessment of the included studies, and the random-effects model was used to estimate the effect size.

Results: There were no statistically significant differences in the reduction of SBP (Mean Difference, MD: - 1.07; 95% CI: - 4.10, 1.95, p-value: 0.49) and DBP (MD: 0.27; 95% CI: - 2.66, 3.20, p-value: 0.86) between both the drugs. In terms of HR reduction, there was a statistically significant difference (MD: - 3.63; 95% CI: - 5.27, - 2.00, p-value: < 0.0001) between both drugs. Egger's test excluded any publication bias for the included studies (p = 0.21). Meta-regression excluded the effect of the duration of treatment on outcome parameters.

Conclusion: Though no significant difference between azelnidipine and amlodipine was found, in terms of reduction in SBP and DBP, azelnidipine reduced heart rate significantly compared to amlodipine.

Prospero registration: CRD42023390361.