BACKGROUND: Hypertension (HTN) confers increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk; however, the variation in risk and how treatment and control rates may differ according to extent of risk needs clarification. We examined CVD risk distribution and treatment and control patterns according to risk group. METHODS: We estimated 10-year Framingham global risk in 1,509 U.S. persons aged ≥30 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2005-2006 with HTN and the proportion of subjects in low (<10%), intermediate (10-20%), and high (>20%) risk groups, or with pre-existing CVD, or who otherwise had high cardiometabolic risk according to European Society of Hypertension (ESH) criteria (diabetes (DM), metabolic syndrome (MetS), stage 3 HTN, or 3 additional CVD risk factors). We also examined HTN treatment and control rates by risk group. RESULTS: From Framingham risk assessment, 24% of subjects were low risk, 21% intermediate risk, 23% high risk, and 32% had CVD. An additional 39% of low and 51% of intermediate risk subjects were at high or very high risk based on European criteria, for a total of 80% classified high risk or with CVD by either criterion. Treatment rates across Framingham risk groups ranged from 58 to 75%. HTN control rates were over 80% for lower risk persons, but under 50% for higher risk subjects. CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide variation in CVD risk in persons with HTN with control rates still suboptimal in higher risk subjects. Future guidelines should consider risk stratification combining shorter and longer-term risk assessment to best identify those who have the greatest CVD risk.
BACKGROUND:Hypertension (HTN) confers increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk; however, the variation in risk and how treatment and control rates may differ according to extent of risk needs clarification. We examined CVD risk distribution and treatment and control patterns according to risk group. METHODS: We estimated 10-year Framingham global risk in 1,509 U.S. persons aged ≥30 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2005-2006 with HTN and the proportion of subjects in low (<10%), intermediate (10-20%), and high (>20%) risk groups, or with pre-existing CVD, or who otherwise had high cardiometabolic risk according to European Society of Hypertension (ESH) criteria (diabetes (DM), metabolic syndrome (MetS), stage 3 HTN, or 3 additional CVD risk factors). We also examined HTN treatment and control rates by risk group. RESULTS: From Framingham risk assessment, 24% of subjects were low risk, 21% intermediate risk, 23% high risk, and 32% had CVD. An additional 39% of low and 51% of intermediate risk subjects were at high or very high risk based on European criteria, for a total of 80% classified high risk or with CVD by either criterion. Treatment rates across Framingham risk groups ranged from 58 to 75%. HTN control rates were over 80% for lower risk persons, but under 50% for higher risk subjects. CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide variation in CVD risk in persons with HTN with control rates still suboptimal in higher risk subjects. Future guidelines should consider risk stratification combining shorter and longer-term risk assessment to best identify those who have the greatest CVD risk.
Authors: Alan S Go; Dariush Mozaffarian; Véronique L Roger; Emelia J Benjamin; Jarett D Berry; Michael J Blaha; Shifan Dai; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Sheila Franco; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Rachel H Mackey; David J Magid; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Michael E Mussolino; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Dilip K Pandey; Nina P Paynter; Matthew J Reeves; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Nathan D Wong; Daniel Woo; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Emelia J Benjamin; Michael J Blaha; Stephanie E Chiuve; Mary Cushman; Sandeep R Das; Rajat Deo; Sarah D de Ferranti; James Floyd; Myriam Fornage; Cathleen Gillespie; Carmen R Isasi; Monik C Jiménez; Lori Chaffin Jordan; Suzanne E Judd; Daniel Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda Lisabeth; Simin Liu; Chris T Longenecker; Rachel H Mackey; Kunihiro Matsushita; Dariush Mozaffarian; Michael E Mussolino; Khurram Nasir; Robert W Neumar; Latha Palaniappan; Dilip K Pandey; Ravi R Thiagarajan; Mathew J Reeves; Matthew Ritchey; Carlos J Rodriguez; Gregory A Roth; Wayne D Rosamond; Comilla Sasson; Amytis Towfighi; Connie W Tsao; Melanie B Turner; Salim S Virani; Jenifer H Voeks; Joshua Z Willey; John T Wilkins; Jason Hy Wu; Heather M Alger; Sally S Wong; Paul Muntner Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 29.690