Blood Pressure最新文献

A growing number of epidemiological studies have reported the beneficial effects of habitual coffee consumption on incident cardiovascular disease (CVD), and mortality. However, the effects of coffee on arterial hypertension are still objects of active discussion mainly because of the debated effects of caffeine on blood pressure and cardiovascular system. In particular, the negative impact of caffeine would involve the whole cardiovascular system and could be responsible for an excess in the relative risk of new onset of hypertension and a worsening of blood pressure control. Recent evidence has been published excluding a significant effect of coffee consumption on hypertension development and blood pressure control in treated and untreated hypertensive supporting a protective role for the antioxidant components of coffee that may counteract the claimed negative effect of caffeine. The presence and amount of caffeine and cardio-protective chemical constituents of coffee is largely dependent on the type, production, and method of preparation and this can partially explain the divergent opinions on the effects of coffee intake on blood pressure and cardiovascular system. In addition, some genetic aspect of caffeine metabolism can contribute to the heterogeneity of published evidence while the most recent cardiovascular guidelines largely endorse coffee consumption in hypertension and CV disease. The purpose of this short review is to briefly summarise some of the recent information available in the literature on coffee and blood pressure.Key points  According to the considerable amount of observational evidence we can suggest that:  • While acute coffee administration in non-habitual users may induce a blood pressure rise, habitual coffee consumption in medium-high dosages (from 3 to 5 cups/day), has neutral or even beneficial impact on blood pressure values and the new onset of hypertension.   • The same intake significantly reduces the incidence of cardiovascular disease, as well as all-cause mortality.   • The consumption of coffee is compatible with a correct and balanced lifestyle and should therefore not be discouraged in subjects with hypertension and cardiovascular diseases.

Purpose: Obesity is a clear risk factor for hypertension. Blood pressure (BP) measurement in obese patients may be biased by cuff size and upper arm shape which may affect the accuracy of measurements. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of the OptiBP smartphone application for three different body mass index (BMI) categories (normal, overweight and obese).

Materials and methods: Participants with a wide range of BP and BMI were recruited at Lausanne University Hospital's hypertension clinic in Switzerland. OptiBP estimated BP by recording an optical signal reflecting light from the participants' fingertips into a smartphone camera. Age, sex and BP distribution were collected to fulfil the AAMI/ESH/ISO universal standards. Both auscultatory BP references and OptiBP BP were measured and compared using the simultaneous opposite arms method, as described in the 81060-2:2018 ISO norm. Subgroup analyses were performed for each BMI category.

Results: We analyzed 414 recordings from 95 patients: 34 were overweight and 15 were obese. The OptiBP application had a performance acceptance rate of 82%. The mean and standard deviation (SD) differences between the optical BP estimations and the auscultatory reference rates (criterion 1) were respected in all subgroups: SBP mean value was 2.08 (SD 7.58); 1.32 (6.44); -2.29 (5.62) respectively in obese, overweight and normal weight subgroup. For criterion 2, which investigates the precision errors on an individual level, the threshold for systolic BP in the obese group was slightly above the requirement for this criterion.

Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the OptiBP application is easily applicable to overweight and obese participants. Differences between the reference measure and the OptiBP estimation were within ISO limits (criterion 1). In obese participants, the SD of mean error was outside criterion 2 limits. Whether auscultatory measurement, due to arm morphology or the OptiBP is associated with increasing bias in obese still needs to be studied.

Purpose: Chemical adherence testing is a reliable method to assess adherence to antihypertensive drugs. However, it is expensive and has limited availability in clinical practice. To reduce the number and costs of chemical adherence tests, we aimed to develop and validate a clinical screening tool to identify patients with a low probability of non-adherence in patients with uncontrolled hypertension.

Materials and methods: In 495 patients with uncontrolled hypertension referred to the University Medical Centre Utrecht (UMCU), the Netherlands, a penalised logistic regression model including seven pre-specified easy-to-measure clinical variables was derived to estimate the probability of non-adherence. Non-adherence was defined as not detecting at least one of the prescribed antihypertensive drugs in plasma or urine. Model performance and test characteristics were evaluated in 240 patients with uncontrolled hypertension referred to the Heartlands Hospital, United Kingdom.

Results: Prevalence of non-adherence to antihypertensive drugs was 19% in the UMCU and 44% in the Heartlands Hospital population. After recalibration of the model's intercept, predicted probabilities agreed well with observed frequencies. The c-statistic of the model was 0.63 (95%CI 0.53-0.72). Predicted probability cut-off values of 15%-22.5% prevented testing in 5%-15% of the patients, carrying sensitivities between 97% (64-100) and 90% (80-95), and negative predictive values between 74% (10-99) and 70% (50-85).

Conclusion: The combination of seven clinical variables is not sufficient to reliably discriminate adherent from non-adherent individuals to safely reduce the number of chemical adherence tests. This emphasises the complex nature of non-adherence behaviour and thus the need for objective chemical adherence tests in patients with uncontrolled hypertension.

Purpose: In a pilot study including 35 patients with apparently treatment-resistant hypertension (ATRH), we documented associations between psychological profile, drug adherence and severity of hypertension. The current study aims to confirm and expand our findings in a larger and more representative sample of patients with ATRH, using controlled hypertensive patients as the comparator.

Materials and methods: Patients with ATRH were enrolled in hypertension centres from Brussels and Torino. The psychological profile was assessed using five validated questionnaires. Drug adherence was assessed by high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry analysis of urine samples, and drug resistance by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure was adjusted for drug adherence.

Results: The study sample totalised 144 patients, including 81 ATRH and 63 controlled hypertensive patients. The mean adherence level was significantly lower in the "resistant" group (78.9% versus 92.7% in controlled patients, p-value = .022). In patients with ATRH, independent predictors of poor drug adherence were somatisation, smoking and low acceptance level of difficult situations, accounting for 41% of the variability in drug adherence. Independent predictors of severity of hypertension were somatisation, smoking, more frequent admissions to the emergency department and low acceptation, accounting for 63% of the variability in the severity of hypertension. In contrast, in patients with controlled hypertension, the single predictors of either drug adherence or severity of hypertension were the number of years of hypertension and, for the severity of hypertension, alcohol consumption, accounting for only 15-20% of the variability.

Conclusion: Psychological factors, mostly related to somatisation and expression of emotions are strong, independent predictors of both drug adherence and severity of hypertension in ATRH but not in controlled hypertensive patients.

Purpose: Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) might be considered a valid alternative to ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) for both the diagnosis and management of hypertension. Correct information on how to perform HBPM are crucial for its reliability. The aim of the present survey was to assess if hypertensive patients followed current recommendation on how to correctly perform HBPM measurements.

Materials and methods: The survey included 30 different items on how to perform the HBPM. It was developed by the 'Young Investigators' group of the Italian Society of Arterial Hypertension (SIIA) and it was administered during the office visit between May 2019 and December 2021.

Results: A total of 643 hypertensive patients participated in the study. Main results show that, despite the rate of informed patients was relatively high (71% of the whole population), unacceptable number of patients did not follow indications on how to perform a correct HBPM. Patients who were informed on how to measure home BP had a significantly higher rate of correct position during measurement (78 vs. 22%, p < 0.01), avoidance of talking and moving during measurement (68 vs. 32%, p < 0.0001), and correct number and time interval between two measurements (85 vs. 15%, p < 0.001). More accurate measurements of home BP were associated with less prevalence of carotid plaque.

Conclusions: Correct performance for HBPM is low among patients treated in Italian hypertension centers. These findings shed light on the importance of correct HBPM measurements for the detection of accurate BP values for the proper management of hypertensive patients.

Purpose: Compared to unattended office blood pressure (uOBP), attended office blood pressure (aOBP) is higher. It is not known, however, to what extent distance between physician and patient influences blood pressure (BP) values.

Materials and methods: Participants were stable hypertensive patients, followed in the university hospital-based out-patient center. During a session, automated office BP was measured three times after a pre-set five-minute pause, using the Omron 907 device; both aOBP and uOBP were done, in a random order. Simultaneously, beat-to-beat BP measurement was performed using the Finapress device. During aOBP, some participants were in close contact with the physician while others were in loose contact where the doctor was sitting in the room about 2.5 m apart. One year later, the second session with the same protocol was organized, but the close and loose contact were interchanged. The data were analyzed using a paired t-test.

Results: Complete data were collected in 32 patients, baseline uOBP was 122.8 ± 14.8/69.5 ± 11.7 mmHg. Systolic and diastolic aOBP with close contact was higher by 4.6 ± 6.9 and 1.9 ± 3.4 mmHg (p < 0.0007 and 0.0039, respectively), while aOBP with loose contact was not different from uOBP. Beat-to-beat BP increased during aOBP by 6.5 ± 8.5/3.3 ± 4.8 mmHg. The increase persisted during all the three aOBP measurements (p < 0.0001 for all systolic and diastolic BP values); the results were similar for close and loose contact. The peak increase during uOBP was of similar magnitude as during aOBP but it lasted shorter: it reached the significance level of p < 0.0001 only during the first uOBP measurement.

Conclusions: Compared to uOBP, aOBP values were higher with close, but not with loose contact between physician and patient. These differences were, however, not detected by beat-to-beat BP measurement.

Purpose: To investigate the relationship between morning blood pressure surge (MBPS) and neutrophilgelatinase associated lipocalin (NGAL) in patients with H-type hypertension.

Materials and methods: A total of 224 patients with diagnosed H-type hypertension [homocysteine (Hcy)≧10umol/L] were selected and underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). In the morning peak group (115 cases), NGAL and serum cystatin C levels, ${\beta }_2$-microglobulin levels were detected in each group, and general biochemical indicators were also detected.

Results: There was no significant difference in the course of hypertension, age, blood glucose, blood lipids, Hcy, BUN, Cr, and UA between the two groups (p > 0.05). CysC, ${\beta }_2$-MG were higher than those in the nonmorning peak group, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05).; Pearson correlation analysis showed that NGAL was moderately and highly correlated with CysC, systolic blood pressure morning peak, ${\beta }_2$-MG, and high (p < 0.05), low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C), and Hcy were lowly correlated (p < 0.05).) and morning peak diastolic blood pressure (p > 0.05); multiple linear stepwise regression analysis indicated that morning peak systolic blood pressure, CysC,${\beta }_2$-MG, and FBG were the risk factors for NGAL.

Conclusion: The morning peak of systolic blood pressure in H-type hypertension is an important factor causing kidney injury. Paying attention to the ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and the control of morning peak blood pressure in patients with H-type hypertension, and early screening of NGAL has important clinical significance for the early prevention and treatment of renal injury in patients with H-type hypertension. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARYThe morning peak of blood pressure is closely related to target organ damage.There are few studies on the relationship between morning peak phenomenon and renal damage in patients with H-type hypertension at home and abroad.We investigated the relationship between MBPS and NGAL in H-type hypertensive patients with BUN, Cr and UA in the normal range to provide a clinical basis for early renal protection in hypertensive patients.

Beta-blockers have solid documentation in preventing cardiovascular complications in the treatment of hypertension; atenolol, metoprolol, oxprenolol and propranolol demonstrate proven cardiovascular prevention in hypertension mega-trials. Hypertension is characterised by activation of the sympathetic nervous system from early to late phases, which makes beta-blockers an appropriate treatment seen from a pathophysiological viewpoint, especially in patients with an elevated heart rate. Beta-blockers represent a heterogenous class of drugs with regard to both pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties. This position is manifest by reference to another clinical context, beta-blocker treatment of heart failure, where unequivocally there is no class effect (no similar benefit from all beta-blockers); there are good and less good beta-blockers for heart failure. Analogous differences in beta-blocker efficacy is also likely in hypertension. Beta-blockers are widely used for the treatment of diseases comorbid with hypertension, in approximately 50 different concomitant medical conditions that are frequent in patients with hypertension, leading to many de facto beta-blocker first choices in clinical practice. Thus, beta-blockers should be regarded as relevant first choices for hypertension in clinical practice, particularly if characterised by a long half-life, highly selective beta-1 blocking activity and no intrinsic agonist properties.SUMMARYBeta-blockers have solid documentation in preventing cardiovascular complications in the treatment of hypertension; atenolol, metoprolol, oxprenolol and propranolol demonstrate proven cardiovascular prevention in hypertension mega-trialsHypertension is characterised by activation of the sympathetic nervous system from early to late phases, which makes beta-blockers an appropriate treatment seen from a pathophysiological viewpoint, especially in patients with an elevated heart rateBeta-blockers represent a heterogenous class of drugs with regard to both pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic propertiesThis position is manifest by reference to another clinical context, beta-blocker treatment of heart failure, where unequivocally there is no class effect (no similar benefit from all beta-blockers); there are good and less good beta-blockers for heart failureAnalogous differences in beta-blocker efficacy is also likely in hypertensionBeta-blockers are widely used for the treatment of diseases comorbid with hypertension, in approximately 50 different concomitant medical conditions that are frequent in patients with hypertension, leading to many de facto beta-blockers first choices in clinical practiceThese observations, in totality, inform our opinion that beta-blockers are relevant first choices for hypertension in clinical practice and this fact needs highlightingFurther, these arguments suggest European hypertension guideline downgrading of beta-blockers is not justified.