Hypertension
-
Comparative Study
Cardiovascular Event Risks Associated With Masked Nocturnal Hypertension Defined by Home Blood Pressure Monitoring in the J-HOP Nocturnal Blood Pressure Study.
There is no information regarding the potential association between cardiovascular disease (CVD) event risks and masked nocturnal hypertension defined by home blood pressure (BP) monitoring. We sought to examine this association in a general practice population. For this purpose, we used data from the J-HOP (Japan Morning Surge-Home Blood Pressure) Nocturnal BP Study, which recruited 2745 high-cardiovascular-risk participants (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [10.4] years; 48.7% men; 82.7% on antihypertensive medications). ⋯ The cumulative incidence of CVD events was higher in those with masked nocturnal hypertension and sustained hypertension than in the controlled BP group. Results from Cox models suggested that masked nocturnal hypertension (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.00-2.46]) and sustained hypertension (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.26-3.06]) were associated with increased risk of CVD events. Participants with masked nocturnal hypertension defined by HBP monitoring are at high risk of future CVD events.
-
With the capability of inducing elevated expression of ACE2 (angiotensin-converting enzyme 2), the cellular receptor for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) or ACE inhibitors treatment may have a controversial role in both facilitating virus infection and reducing pathogenic inflammation. We aimed to evaluate the effects of ARBs/ACE inhibitors on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a retrospective, single-center study. One hundred twenty-six patients with COVID-19 and preexisting hypertension at Hubei Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine in Wuhan from January 5 to February 22, 2020, were retrospectively allocated to ARBs/ACE inhibitors group (n=43) and non-ARBs/ACE inhibitors group (n=83) according to their antihypertensive medication. ⋯ However, ARBs/ACE inhibitors group had significantly lower concentrations of hs-CRP (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein; P=0.049) and PCT (procalcitonin, P=0.008). Furthermore, a lower proportion of critical patients (9.3% versus 22.9%; P=0.061) and a lower death rate (4.7% versus 13.3%; P=0.216) were observed in ARBs/ACE inhibitors group than non-ARBs/ACE inhibitors group, although these differences failed to reach statistical significance. Our findings thus support the use of ARBs/ACE inhibitors in patients with COVID-19 and preexisting hypertension.
-
During the spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2, some reports of data still emerging and in need of full analysis indicate that certain groups of patients are at risk of COVID-19. This includes patients with hypertension, heart disease, diabetes mellitus, and clearly the elderly. Many of those patients are treated with renin-angiotensin system blockers. ⋯ Moreover, there are no data to support the notion that ACE inhibitor or angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker administration facilitates coronavirus entry by increasing ACE2 expression in either animals or humans. Indeed, animal data support elevated ACE2 expression as conferring potential protective pulmonary and cardiovascular effects. In summary, based on the currently available evidence, treatment with renin-angiotensin system blockers should not be discontinued because of concerns with coronavirus infection.
-
The Reference Values for Arterial Stiffness Collaboration has derived an equation using age and mean blood pressure to estimated pulse wave velocity (ePWV), which predicted cardiovascular events independently of Systematic COoronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) and Framingham Risk Score. The study aim was to investigate the independent association between ePWV and clinical outcomes in 107 599 apparently healthy subjects (53% men) aged 19 to 97 years from the MORGAM Project who were included between 1982 and 2002 in 38 cohorts from 11 countries. Using multiple Cox-regression analyses, the predictive value of ePWV was calculated adjusting for country of inclusion and either SCORE, Framingham Risk Score, or traditional cardiovascular risk factors (age, sex, smoking, systolic blood pressure, body mass index [BMI], total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol). ⋯ However, after adjusting for traditional cardiovascular risk factors, ePWV was only associated with all-cause mortality (1.15 [1.08-1.22], P<0.001) and not with cardiovascular mortality (0.97 [0.91-1.03]) nor composite cardiovascular end point (1.10 [0.97-1.26]). The areas under the last 3 receiver operator characteristic curves remained unchanged when adding ePWV. Elevated ePWV was associated with subsequent mortality and cardiovascular morbidity independently of systematic coronary risk evaluation and Framingham Risk Score but not independently of traditional cardiovascular risk factors.