The epidemiology and management of severe hypertension

Hypertension guidelines stress that patients with severe hypertension (systolic blood pressure (BP)⩾180 or diastolic BP⩾110 mm Hg) require multiple drugs to achieve control and should have close follow-up to prevent adverse outcomes. However, little is known about the epidemiology or actual management of these patients. We retrospectively studied 59 207 veterans with hypertension. Patients were categorized based on their highest average BP over an 18-month period (1 July 1999 to 31 December 2000) as controlled (<140/90 mm Hg), mild (140–159/90–99 mm Hg), moderate (160–179/100–109 mm Hg) and severe hypertension. We examined severe hypertension prevalence, pattern, duration, associated patient characteristics, time to subsequent visit, percentage of visits with a medication increase, and final BP control and antihypertensive medication adequacy. Twenty-three per cent had ⩾1 visit with severe hypertension, 42% of whom had at least two such visits; median day with severe hypertension was 80 (range 1–548). These subjects were significantly older, more likely black, and with more comorbidities than other hypertension subjects. Medication increases occurred at 20% of visits with mild hypertension compared to 40% with severe hypertension; P<0.05). At study end, 76% of patients with severe hypertension remained uncontrolled; severe hypertension subjects with uncontrolled BP were less likely to be on adequate therapy than those with controlled BP (43.7 vs 45.4%). Among hypertensive veterans, severe hypertension episodes are common. Many subjects had relatively prolonged elevations, with older, sicker subjects at highest risk. Although, follow-up times are shorter and antihypertensive medication use greater in severe hypertension subjects, they are still not being managed aggressively enough. Interventions to improve providers' management of these high-risk patients are needed

Variations and inter-relationship in outcome from emergency admissions in England: a retrospective analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics from 2005-2010.

BACKGROUND: The quality of care delivered and clinical outcomes of care are of paramount importance. Wide variations in the outcome of emergency care have been suggested, but the scale of variation, and the way in which outcomes are inter-related are poorly defined and are critical to understand how best to improve services. This study quantifies the scale of variation in three outcomes for a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing emergency medical and surgical admissions. The way in which the outcomes of different diagnoses relate to each other is investigated. METHODS: A retrospective study using the English Hospital Episode Statistics 2005-2010 with one-year follow-up for all patients with one of 20 of the commonest and highest-risk emergency medical or surgical conditions. The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause risk-standardised mortality rate (in-RSMR). Secondary outcomes were 1-year all-cause risk-standardised mortality rate (1 yr-RSMR) and 28-day all-cause emergency readmission rate (RSRR). RESULTS: 2,406,709 adult patients underwent emergency medical or surgical admissions in the groups of interest. Clinically and statistically significant variations in outcome were observed between providers for all three outcomes (p < 0.001). For some diagnoses including heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, stroke and fractured neck of femur, more than 20% of hospitals lay above the upper 95% control limit and were statistical outliers. The risk-standardised outcomes within a given hospital for an individual diagnostic group were significantly associated with the aggregated outcome of the other clinical groups. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-level risk-standardised outcomes for emergency admissions across a range of specialties vary considerably and cross traditional speciality boundaries. This suggests that global institutional infra-structure and processes of care influence outcomes. The implications are far reaching, both in terms of investigating performance at individual hospitals and in understanding how hospitals can learn from the best performers to improve outcomes

Determinants of racial/ethnic differences in blood pressure management among hypertensive patients

BACKGROUND: Prior literature has shown that racial/ethnic minorities with hypertension may receive less aggressive treatment for their high blood pressure. However, to date there are few data available regarding the confounders of racial/ethnic disparities in the intensity of hypertension treatment. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 1,205 patients who had a minimum of two hypertension-related outpatient visits to 12 general internal medicine clinics during 7/1/01-6/30/02. Using logistic regression, we determined the odds of having therapy intensified by patient race/ethnicity after adjustment for clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Blacks (81.9%) and Whites (80.3%) were more likely than Latinos (71.5%) to have therapy intensified (P = 0.03). After adjustment for racial differences in the number of outpatient visits and presence of diabetes, there were no racial differences in rates of intensification. CONCLUSION: We found that racial/ethnic differences in therapy intensification were largely accounted for by differences in frequency of clinic visits and in the prevalence of diabetes. Given the higher rates of diabetes and hypertension related mortality among Hispanics in the U.S., future interventions to reduce disparities in cardiovascular outcomes should increase physician awareness of the need to intensify drug therapy more agressively in patients without waiting for multiple clinic visits, and should remind providers to treat hypertension more aggressively among diabetic patients

Association between mental health conditions and rehospitalization, mortality, and functional outcomes in patients with stroke following inpatient rehabilitation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Limited evidence exists regarding the association of pre-existing mental health conditions in patients with stroke and stroke outcomes such as rehospitalization, mortality, and function. We examined the association between mental health conditions and rehospitalization, mortality, and functional outcomes in patients with stroke following inpatient rehabilitation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Our observational study used the 2001 VA Integrated Stroke Outcomes database of 2162 patients with stroke who underwent rehabilitation at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center.</p> <p>Separate models were fit to our outcome measures that included 6-month rehospitalization or death, 6-month mortality post-discharge, and functional outcomes post inpatient rehabilitation as a function of number and type of mental health conditions. The models controlled for patient socio-demographics, length of stay, functional status, and rehabilitation setting.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patients had an average age of 68 years. Patients with stroke and two or more mental health conditions were more likely to be readmitted or die compared to patients with no conditions (OR: 1.44, p = 0.04). Depression and anxiety were associated with a greater likelihood of rehospitalization or death (OR: 1.33, p = 0.04; OR:1.47, p = 0.03). Patients with anxiety were more likely to die at six months (OR: 2.49, p = 0.001).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Patients with stroke with pre-existing mental health conditions may need additional psychotherapy interventions, which may potentially improve stroke outcomes post-hospitalization.</p

Part II, Provider perspectives: should patients be activated to request evidence-based medicine? a qualitative study of the VA project to implement diuretics (VAPID)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Hypertension guidelines recommend the use of thiazide diuretics as first-line therapy for uncomplicated hypertension, yet diuretics are under-prescribed, and hypertension is frequently inadequately treated. This qualitative evaluation of provider attitudes follows a randomized controlled trial of a patient activation strategy in which hypertensive patients received letters and incentives to discuss thiazides with their provider. The strategy prompted high discussion rates and enhanced thiazide-prescribing rates. Our objective was to interview providers to understand the effectiveness and acceptability of the intervention from their perspective, as well as the suitability of patient activation for more widespread guideline implementation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with 21 primary care providers. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and reviewed by the interviewer before being analyzed for content. Interviews were coded, and relevant themes and specific responses were identified, grouped, and compared.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 21 providers interviewed, 20 (95%) had a positive opinion of the intervention, and 18 of 20 (90%) thought the strategy was suitable for wider use. In explaining their opinions of the intervention, many providers discussed a positive effect on treatment, but they more often focused on the process of patient activation itself, describing how the intervention facilitated discussions by informing patients and making them more pro-active. Regarding effectiveness, providers suggested the intervention worked like a reminder, highlighted oversights, or changed their approach to hypertension management. Many providers also explained that the intervention 'aligned' patients' objectives with theirs, or made patients more likely to accept a change in medications. Negative aspects were mentioned infrequently, but concerns about the use of financial incentives were most common. Relevant barriers to initiating thiazide treatment included a hesitancy to switch medications if the patient was at or near goal blood pressure on a different anti-hypertensive.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Patient activation was acceptable to providers as a guideline implementation strategy, with considerable value placed on the activation process itself. By 'aligning' patients' objectives with those of their providers, this process also facilitated part of the effectiveness of the intervention. Patient activation shows promise for wider use as an implementation strategy, and should be tested in other areas of evidence-based medicine.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>National Clinical Trial Registry number NCT00265538</p