Background: Whether cardiovascular risk is more tightly associated with central (cSBP) than brachial (bSBP) systolic pressure remains debated, because of their close correlation and uncertain thresholds to differentiate cSBP into normotension versus hypertension. Methods: In a person-level meta-analysis of the International Database of Central Arterial Properties for Risk Stratification (n=5576; 54.1% women; mean age 54.2 years), outcome-driven thresholds for cSBP were determined and whether the cross-classification of cSBP and bSBP improved risk stratification was explored. cSBP was tonometrically estimated from the radial pulse wave using SphygmoCor software. Results: Over 4.1 years (median), 255 composite cardiovascular end points occurred. In multivariable bootstrapped analyses, cSBP thresholds (in mm Hg) of 110.5 (95% CI, 109.1–111.8), 120.2 (119.4–121.0), 130.0 (129.6–130.3), and 149.5 (148.4–150.5) generated 5-year cardiovascular risks equivalent to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association bSBP thresholds of 120, 130, 140, and 160. Applying 120/130 mm Hg as cSBP/bSBP thresholds delineated concordant central and brachial normotension (43.1%) and hypertension (48.2%) versus isolated brachial hypertension (5.0%) and isolated central hypertension (3.7%). With concordant normotension as reference, the multivariable hazard ratios for the cardiovascular end point were 1.30 (95% CI, 0.58–2.94) for isolated brachial hypertension, 2.28 (1.21–4.30) for isolated central hypertension, and 2.02 (1.41–2.91) for concordant hypertension. The increased cardiovascular risk associated with isolated central and concordant hypertension was paralleled by cerebrovascular end points with hazard ratios of 3.71 (1.37–10.06) and 2.60 (1.35–5.00), respectively. Conclusions: Irrespective of the brachial blood pressure status, central hypertension increased cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risk indicating the importance of controlling central hypertension.

Abstract-In the double-blind Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial, active treatment was initiated with nitrendipine (10 to 40 mg/d) with the possible addition of enalapril (5 to 20 mg/d) and/or hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 to 25 mg/d) titrated or combined to reduce sitting systolic blood pressure by at least 20 mm Hg to Ͻ150 mm Hg. In the control group, matching placebos were used similarly. (nϭ2297), patients receiving monotherapy with nitrendipine had 25% (Pϭ0.05) fewer cardiovascular end points, and those progressing to other active treatments showed decreases (PՅ0.01) in total mortality (40%), stroke (59%), and all cardiovascular end points (39%). Among the control patients, 863 used only the first-line placebo. Compared with this subgroup, patients receiving monotherapy with nitrendipine showed a nearly 50% (PՅ0.004) reduction of all types of end points, including total and cardiovascular mortality. The full relative benefit from nitrendipine was seen as early as 6 months after randomization. To ascertain that the benefit conferred by the dihydropyridine was not due to selection bias, the 1327 patients remaining on monotherapy with nitrendipine were matched by gender, age, previous cardiovascular complications, and systolic blood pressure at entry with an equal number of placebo patients. In this analysis, nitrendipine reduced (PՅ0.05) cardiovascular mortality by 41%, all cardiovascular end points by 33%, and fatal and nonfatal cardiac end points by 33%. Despite the limitations inherent in post hoc analyses, the present findings suggest that the calcium channel blocker nitrendipine, given as a single antihypertensive medication, prevents cardiovascular complications in older patients with isolated systolic hypertension. (Hypertension. 1998;32:410-416.)

QTc dispersion is increased in the elderly hypertensive individuals, with the presence of LVH and myocardial ischaemia on ECG. These patients are more likely to demonstrate severe ventricular dysrhythmias.

Only 20-30% out of the treated hypertensive patients in Europe are achieving blood pressure (BP) control. Among other recognized factors, these poor results could be attributable to the fact that for many doctors it is very difficult to detect which is the predominant hemodynamic cause of the hypertension (hypervolemia, hyperinotropy or vasoconstriction). The aim of the study was to use non-invasive thoracic electrical bioimpedance (TEB) to evaluate hemodynamic modulators and subsequent hemodynamic status in uncontrolled hypertensive patients, receiving at least two antihypertensive drugs. A number of 134 uncontrolled hypertensive patients with essential hypertension were evaluated in nine European Hypertension Excellence centers by means of TEB (the HOTMAN(®) System). Baseline office systolic and diastolic BP averaged 156/92 mmHg. Hemodynamic measurements show that almost all patients (98.5%) presented at least one altered hemodynamic modulator: intravascular hypervolemia (96.4%) and/or hypoinotropy (42.5%) and/or vasoconstriction (49.3%). Eleven combinations of hemodynamic modulators were present in the study population, the most common being concomitant hypervolemia, hypoinotropy and vasoconstriction in 51(38%) patients. Six different hemodynamic states (pairs of mean arterial pressure and stroke index) were found. Data suggest that there is a strong relation between hypertension and abnormal hemodynamic modulators. This method might be helpful for treatment individualization of hypertensive patients.

This randomized, comparative, parallel-group trial investigated strategies of blood pressure (BP)-lowering in patients with diabetes and hypertension. Patients not reaching goal BP (<130/80 mm1 Aggressive treatment of hypertension in patients with diabetes is important because reductions in blood pressure (BP) are strongly correlated with reductions in cardiovascular (CV) disease morbidity, CV events, and renal disease in patients with diabetes.2,3 In patients with increased risk of CV complications, worldwide clinical recommendations specify a more rigorous goal BP of <130/80 mm Hg and the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs). 4,5 Despite the established benefit of these recommendations, statistics suggest that only 11% to 20% of patients in the United States with both hypertension and diabetes currently achieve the recommended target BP. [6][7][8] The majority of hypertensive patients require more than 1 medication to reach goal BP, and most reports concentrate on initial rather than final combined therapy. 5,9-11 Although many approved medications are available to treat high BP, the