BackgroundThe incidence of hypertensive emergency in US emergency departments (ED) is not well established.Methods and ResultsThis study is a descriptive epidemiological analysis of nationally representative ED visit‐level data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample for 2006–2013. Nationwide Emergency Department Sample is a publicly available database maintained by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. An ED visit was considered to be a hypertensive emergency if it met all the following criteria: diagnosis of acute hypertension, at least 1 diagnosis indicating acute target organ damage, and qualifying disposition (admission to the hospital, death, or transfer to another facility). The incidence of adult ED visits for acute hypertension increased monotonically in the period from 2006 through 2013, from 170 340 (1820 per million adult ED visits overall) to 496 894 (4610 per million). Hypertensive emergency was rare overall, accounting for 63 406 visits (677 per million adult ED visits overall) in 2006 to 176 769 visits (1670 per million) in 2013. Among adult ED visits that had any diagnosis of hypertension, hypertensive emergency accounted for 3309 per million in 2006 and 6178 per million in 2013.ConclusionsThe estimated number of visits for hypertensive emergency and the rate per million adult ED visits has more than doubled from 2006 to 2013. However, hypertensive emergencies are rare overall, occurring in about 2 in 1000 adult ED visits overall, and 6 in 1000 adult ED visits carrying any diagnosis of hypertension in 2013. This figure is far lower than what has been sometimes cited in previous literature.

Diagnostic testing is an integral component of patient evaluation in the emergency department (ED). Emergency clinicians frequently use diagnostic testing to more confidently exclude “worst case” diagnoses rather than to determine the most likely etiology for a presenting complaint. Increased utilization of diagnostic testing has not been associated with reductions in disease-related mortality but has led to increased overall healthcare costs and other unintended consequences (e.g., incidental findings requiring further work-up, unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiation or potentially nephrotoxic contrast). Shared decision making (SDM) presents an opportunity for clinicians to discuss the benefits and harms associated with diagnostic testing with patients to more closely tailor testing to patient risk. This article introduces the challenges and opportunities associated with incorporating SDM into emergency care by summarizing the conclusions of the diagnostic testing group at the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference on SDM. Three primary domains emerged: 1) characteristics of a condition or test appropriate for SDM; 2) critical elements of and potential barriers to SDM discussions on diagnostic testing; and 3) financial aspects of SDM applied to diagnostic testing. The most critical research questions to improve engagement of patients in their acute care diagnostic decisions were determined by consensus.

Background Poor blood pressure (BP) control is a primary risk factor for target organ damage in the heart, brain, and kidney. Uncontrolled hypertension is common among emergency department (ED) patients, particularly in underresourced settings, but it is unclear what role ED providers should play in the management of chronic antihypertensive therapy. Objectives The objective was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of prescribing antihypertensive therapy from the ED. Methods This was a retrospective study of data pooled from two prospective, longitudinal, randomized controlled trials, both of which enrolled ED patients with asymptomatic hypertension. Antihypertensives were prescribed at emergency physician discretion, and this was not related to randomization arm. Demographic data, BP at screening and randomization visit, and data on adverse effects potentially related to antihypertensive therapy were compiled. Means were compared using Student’s t-tests, and proportions were compared using chi-square tests. The effect of antihypertensive therapy on BP control was further analyzed using multivariable regression modeling controlling for age, race, sex, hypertension history, study cohort, and ED BP. Results Data were abstracted for 217 subjects. The median interval from ED visit to randomization was 12 days. Seventy-six subjects (35%) received one or more prescriptions for antihypertensive therapy. Age, sex, race, hypertension history, and mean duration of hypertension were equivalent between groups. Although mean ED BP was higher among those who received prescriptions, the mean systolic BP (sBP) reduction from ED to randomization was significantly greater (difference = 19 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval = 12 to 26 mm Hg). No patient in either group had an sBP less than 100 mm Hg at randomization. On multiple regression modeling, randomization sBP reduction was independently associated with antihypertensive prescription (p = 0.001). The incidence of adverse effects was equivalent and low in both groups. No new neurological deficits, ischemic events, or life-threatening anaphylactic reactions were reported in either group. Conclusions Prescription of antihypertensive medication from the ED is associated with significantly lower sBP at short-term outpatient follow-up. Antihypertensive therapy was not associated with an increased incidence of adverse events, and BP reduction did not exceed potentially harmful levels. Initiation of chronic antihypertensive therapy in the ED is safe and effective and may be a reasonable consideration for at-risk populations.

Predicting blood pressure (BP) response to antihypertensive therapy is challenging. The therapeutic intensity score (TIS) is a summary measure that accounts for the number of medications and the relative doses a patient received, but its relationship to BP change and its utility as a method to project dosing equivalence has not been reported. We conducted a prospective, single center, randomized controlled trial to compare the effects of Joint National Committee (JNC) 7 compliant treatment with more intensive (<120/80 mm Hg) BP goals on left ventricular structure and function in hypertensive patients with echocardiographically determined subclinical heart disease who were treated over a 12-month period. For this preplanned subanalysis, we sought to compare changes in BP over time with changes in TIS. Antihypertensive therapy was open label. TIS and BP were determined at 3-month intervals with titration of medication doses as needed to achieve targeted BP. Mixed linear models defined antihypertensive medication TIS as an independent variable and change in systolic BP as an outcome measure, while controlling for gender, age, baseline BP, and treatment group. A total of 123 patients (mean age 49.4 ± 8.2 years; 66% female; 95.1% African-American) were enrolled and 88 completed the protocol. For each single point increase in total antihypertensive TIS, a 14.5 (95% confidence interval: 11.5, 17.4) mm Hg decrease in systolic BP was noted (15.5 [95% confidence interval: 13.0, 18.0] mm Hg for those who completed the trial). Total TIS is a viable indicator of the anticipated BP-lowering effect associated with antihypertensive therapy.

No abstract