美国、欧洲和国际高血压指南:是时候握手了?

Christina Antza, Ioannis Doundoulakis, Stella Stabouli, Vasilios Kotsis
{"title":"美国、欧洲和国际高血压指南:是时候握手了?","authors":"Christina Antza,&nbsp;Ioannis Doundoulakis,&nbsp;Stella Stabouli,&nbsp;Vasilios Kotsis","doi":"10.1016/j.ijchy.2020.100075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Following evidence-based medicine through guidelines is the first step to successfully treat hypertension and prevent cardiovascular outcomes.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This study compares the recommendations of the most recent American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA), European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Society of Hypertension (ESH) blood pressure and International Society of Hypertension (ISH) focusing on prevalent contrasts among guidelines on when, how and in whom start the treatment, which is a major health implications of guidelines.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The three guidelines disagree for the cut-off values in the definition of hypertension. Due to the different cut-off values of BP at the definition of hypertension, a patient may be misclassified to one of the four phenotypes of BP from office and out of office measurements, based to which guidelines are followed by the physicians. In addition to this, each society propose different risk score to evaluate the cardiovascular risk in patients with hypertension.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>These differences cause a confusion not only to the general practitioners, but also the hypertension experts about the correct approach. The poor agreement between guidelines and diagnostic tools implies a huge number of patients remained unknown whether they should receive treatment.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36839,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cardiology: Hypertension","volume":"8 ","pages":"Article 100075"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ijchy.2020.100075","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"American, European and international hypertension guidelines: Time to shake hands?\",\"authors\":\"Christina Antza,&nbsp;Ioannis Doundoulakis,&nbsp;Stella Stabouli,&nbsp;Vasilios Kotsis\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijchy.2020.100075\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Following evidence-based medicine through guidelines is the first step to successfully treat hypertension and prevent cardiovascular outcomes.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This study compares the recommendations of the most recent American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA), European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Society of Hypertension (ESH) blood pressure and International Society of Hypertension (ISH) focusing on prevalent contrasts among guidelines on when, how and in whom start the treatment, which is a major health implications of guidelines.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The three guidelines disagree for the cut-off values in the definition of hypertension. Due to the different cut-off values of BP at the definition of hypertension, a patient may be misclassified to one of the four phenotypes of BP from office and out of office measurements, based to which guidelines are followed by the physicians. In addition to this, each society propose different risk score to evaluate the cardiovascular risk in patients with hypertension.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>These differences cause a confusion not only to the general practitioners, but also the hypertension experts about the correct approach. The poor agreement between guidelines and diagnostic tools implies a huge number of patients remained unknown whether they should receive treatment.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36839,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Cardiology: Hypertension\",\"volume\":\"8 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100075\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ijchy.2020.100075\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Cardiology: Hypertension\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590086220300525\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Cardiology: Hypertension","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590086220300525","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

背景:遵循循证医学指南是成功治疗高血压和预防心血管疾病的第一步。方法本研究比较了最新的美国心脏病学会(ACC)/美国心脏协会(AHA)、欧洲心脏病学会(ESC)/欧洲高血压学会(ESH)和国际高血压学会(ISH)的血压建议,重点比较了指南中关于何时、如何以及在谁身上开始治疗的普遍差异,这是指南的主要健康意义。结果3份指南对高血压定义的临界值不一致。由于高血压定义时血压的临界值不同,在办公室和办公室外测量时,患者可能被错误地分类为四种血压表型之一,医生根据这些表型遵循指南。除此之外,各个协会还提出了不同的风险评分来评价高血压患者的心血管风险。结论这些差异不仅给全科医生造成困惑,也给高血压专家造成困惑。指南和诊断工具之间的不一致意味着大量患者仍然不知道他们是否应该接受治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
American, European and international hypertension guidelines: Time to shake hands?

Background

Following evidence-based medicine through guidelines is the first step to successfully treat hypertension and prevent cardiovascular outcomes.

Methods

This study compares the recommendations of the most recent American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA), European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Society of Hypertension (ESH) blood pressure and International Society of Hypertension (ISH) focusing on prevalent contrasts among guidelines on when, how and in whom start the treatment, which is a major health implications of guidelines.

Results

The three guidelines disagree for the cut-off values in the definition of hypertension. Due to the different cut-off values of BP at the definition of hypertension, a patient may be misclassified to one of the four phenotypes of BP from office and out of office measurements, based to which guidelines are followed by the physicians. In addition to this, each society propose different risk score to evaluate the cardiovascular risk in patients with hypertension.

Conclusion

These differences cause a confusion not only to the general practitioners, but also the hypertension experts about the correct approach. The poor agreement between guidelines and diagnostic tools implies a huge number of patients remained unknown whether they should receive treatment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Cardiology: Hypertension
International Journal of Cardiology: Hypertension Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
COVID-19 morbidity and mortality associated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers use among 14,129 patients with hypertension from a US integrated healthcare system Reduced global longitudinal strain at rest and inadequate blood pressure response during exercise treadmill testing in male heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia patients Association of family history with incidence and gestational hypertension outcomes of preeclampsia Critical questions in cardiovascular risk: What nutrition labels should be used on food? Why is salt-sensitivity of blood pressure, a known cardiovascular risk factor, not treated?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1