Common Secondary Causes of Resistant Hypertension and Rational for Treatment

Resistant hypertension is defined as uncontrolled blood pressure despite the use of three antihypertensive drugs, including a diuretic, in optimal doses. Treatment resistance can be attributed to poor adherence to antihypertensive drugs, excessive salt intake, physician inertia, inappropriate or inadequate medication, and secondary hypertension. Drug-induced hypertension, obstructive sleep apnoea, primary aldosteronism, and chronic kidney disease represent the most common secondary causes of resistant hypertension. Several drugs can induce or exacerbate pre-existing hypertension, with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs being the most common due to their wide use. Obstructive sleep apnoea and primary aldosteronism are frequently encountered in patients with resistant hypertension and require expert management. Hypertension is commonly found in patients with chronic kidney disease and is frequently resistant to treatment, while the management of renovascular hypertension remains controversial. A step-by-step approach of patients with resistant hypertension is proposed at the end of this review paper

Time in Therapeutic Range, as a Determinant of All-Cause Mortality in Patients With Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence indicates that reducing systolic blood pressure (BP) tooutcomes; however, an optimal level has not yet been determined. Many population studies or post hoc analyses suggest a target systolic BP between 120 and 140 mm Hg with increased risk above and below that range. We tested the hypothesis that consistent control of systolic BP between 120 and 140 mm Hg-time in therapeutic range-is a strong determinant of all-cause mortality among US veterans. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 689 051 individuals from 15 Veterans Administration Medical Centers were followed over a 10-year period. Participants were classified as hypertensive, intermediate hypertensive, and normotensive according to the number of elevated BP recordings (\u3e3, 1 or 2, and none, respectively). Time within, above, or below therapeutic range (120-140 mm Hg) was considered in quartiles and related to all-cause mortality. The study population consisted of 54% hypertensive, 19.9% intermediate, and 26.1% normotensive participants; the corresponding mortality rates for the 3 groups were 11.5%, 8%, and 1.9%, respectively (P75%) to 8.9%, 15.6%, and 23.5% towards the less consistently controlled quartiles (50-75%, 25-50%, and CONCLUSIONS: An inverse and gradual association between time in therapeutic range and all-cause mortality was observed in this large veteran cohort. Consistency of BP control over time is a strong determinant of all-cause mortality, and consistency of BP control should be monitored in everyday clinical practice

Carotid Baroreceptor Stimulation for the Treatment of Resistant Hypertension

Interventional activation of the carotid baroreflex has been an appealing idea for the management of resistant hypertension for several decades, yet its clinical application remained elusive and a goal for the future. It is only recently that the profound understanding of the complex anatomy and pathophysiology of the circuit, combined with the accumulation of relevant experimental and clinical data both in animals and in humans, has allowed the development of a more effective and well-promising approach. Indeed, current data support a sustained over a transient reduction of blood pressure through the resetting of baroreceptors, and technical deficits have been minimized with a subsequent recession of adverse events. In addition, clinical outcomes from the application of a new implantable device (Rheos) that induces carotid baroreceptor stimulation point towards a safe and effective blood pressure reduction, but longer experience is needed before its integration in the everyday clinical practice. While accumulating evidence indicates that carotid baroreceptor stimulation exerts its benefits beyond blood pressure reduction, further research is necessary to assess the spectrum of beneficial effects and evaluate potential hazards, before the extraction of secure conclusions

Benefits from Treatment and Control of Patients with Resistant Hypertension

Resistant hypertension is commonly found in everyday clinical practice. However, the risks of resistant hypertension, as well as the benefits of treatment and control of blood pressure in patients with resistant hypertension remain vaguely clarified. Data from small clinical studies and observational cohorts suggest that patients with resistant hypertension are at increased cardiovascular risk, while control of blood pressure offers substantial benefits. It has to be noted however that data from appropriate large randomized studies are missing, and resistant hypertension remains remarkably understudied. Resistant hypertension has attracted significant scientific interest lately, as new therapeutic modalities become available. The interventional management of resistant hypertension either by carotid baroreceptor stimulation or renal sympathetic denervation is currently under investigation with promising preliminary results. This review presents available evidence regarding the benefits of treatment and control of blood pressure in patients with resistant hypertension and offers a critical evaluation of existing data in this field

Cardiorespiratory fitness and incidence of type 2 diabetes in United States veterans on statin therapy

Impact of cardiorespiratory fitness on statin-related incidence of type 2 diabetes has not been assessed. We assessed the cardiorespiratory fitness and diabetes incidence association in dyslipidemic patients on statins.We identified dyslipidemic patients with a normal exercise test performed during 1986 and 2014 at the Veterans Affairs Medical Centers in Washington, DC or Palo Alto, Calif. The statin-treated patients (n\ua0= 4092; age\ua0= 58.8 ± 10.9 years) consisted of 2701 Blacks and 1391 Whites. None had evidence of type 2 diabetes prior to statin therapy. We formed 4 fitness categories based on age and peak metabolic equivalents achieved: Least-fit (n\ua0= 954), Low-fit (n\ua0= 1201), Moderate-fit (n\ua0= 1242), and High-fit (n\ua0=\ua0695). The non-statin-treated cohort (n\ua0= 3001; age\ua0= 57.2 ± 11.2 years) with no evidence of type 2 diabetes prior to the exercise test served as controls.Diabetes incidence was 24% higher in statin-treated compared with non-statin-treated patients (

Statin therapy, fitness, and mortality risk in middle-aged hypertensive male veterans

BACKGROUND Hypertension often coexists with dyslipidemia, accentuating cardiovascular risk. Statins are often prescribed in hypertensive individuals to lower cardiovascular risk. Higher fitness is associated with lower mortality, but exercise capacity may be attenuated in hypertension. The combined effects of fitness and statin therapy in hypertensive individuals have not been assessed. Thus, we assessed the combined health benefits of fitness and statin therapy in hypertensive male subjects. METHODS Peak exercise capacity was assessed in 10,202 hypertensive male subjects (mean age = 60.4±10.6 years) in 2 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. We established 4 fitness categories based on peak metabolic equivalents (METs) achieved and 8 categories based on fitness status and statin therapy. RESULTS During the follow-up period (median = 10.2 years), there were 2,991 deaths. Mortality risk was 34% lower (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.59–0.74; P \u3c 0.001) among individuals treated with statins compared with those not on statins. The fitness-related mortality risk association was inverse and graded regardless of statin therapy status. Risk reduction associated with exercise capacity of 5.1–8.4 METs was similar to that observed with statin therapy. However, those achieving ≥8.5 METs had 52% lower risk (HR = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.37–0.63) when compared with the least-fit subjects (≤5 METs) on statin therapy. CONCLUSIONS The combination of statin therapy and higher fitness lowered mortality risk in hypertensive individuals more effectively than either alone. The risk reduction associated with moderate increases in fitness was similar to that achieved by statin therapy. Higher fitness was associated with 52% lower mortality risk when compared with the least fit subjects on statin therapy