OBJECTIVES: Refractory and resistant hypertension is defined as hypertension that is uncontrolled despite the use of multiple antihypertensives. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the prevalence, both in young and elderly, and the pattern of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in South-Eastern Chinese patients with refractory, resistant and non-resistant hypertension. METHODS: A total of 1455 patients (age 60.3 ± 13.9, male 55.7%) with essential hypertension were recruited. Refractory hypertension was defined as uncontrolled blood pressure (systolic/diastolic, ≥140/90 mm Hg) on ≥5 antihypertensive drug classes. Resistant hypertension was defined as uncontrolled blood pressure (systolic/diastolic, ≥140/90 mm Hg) on 3 or <140/90 mm Hg on ≥4 antihypertensive classes. RESULTS: Among the total population, 1273 (87.4%) patients were considered non-resistant hypertension; 170 (11.7%) with resistant hypertension and 12 (0.8%) with refractory hypertension. The prevalence of the three groups of hypertension were similar between patients age <60 or ≥60. Patients with refractory hypertension had the most dilated LV dimension, greatest left ventricular mass index and highest prevalence of diastolic dysfunction than patients with resistant and non-resistant hypertension. In particular, all patients with refractory hypertension had either concentric or eccentric LVH. CONCLUSIONS: In South-Eastern Chinese patients, the prevalence of refractory and resistant hypertension was 0.8% and 11.7%, respectively. Furthermore, no difference was observed in the hypertensive patterns between patients age <60 and ≥60. Importantly, patients with refractory hypertension had the worst LV remodeling with all suffering from either concentric or eccentric hypertrophy.
OBJECTIVES: Refractory and resistant hypertension is defined as hypertension that is uncontrolled despite the use of multiple antihypertensives. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the prevalence, both in young and elderly, and the pattern of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in South-Eastern Chinese patients with refractory, resistant and non-resistant hypertension. METHODS: A total of 1455 patients (age 60.3 ± 13.9, male 55.7%) with essential hypertension were recruited. Refractory hypertension was defined as uncontrolled blood pressure (systolic/diastolic, ≥140/90 mm Hg) on ≥5 antihypertensive drug classes. Resistant hypertension was defined as uncontrolled blood pressure (systolic/diastolic, ≥140/90 mm Hg) on 3 or <140/90 mm Hg on ≥4 antihypertensive classes. RESULTS: Among the total population, 1273 (87.4%) patients were considered non-resistant hypertension; 170 (11.7%) with resistant hypertension and 12 (0.8%) with refractory hypertension. The prevalence of the three groups of hypertension were similar between patients age <60 or ≥60. Patients with refractory hypertension had the most dilated LV dimension, greatest left ventricular mass index and highest prevalence of diastolic dysfunction than patients with resistant and non-resistant hypertension. In particular, all patients with refractory hypertension had either concentric or eccentric LVH. CONCLUSIONS: In South-Eastern Chinese patients, the prevalence of refractory and resistant hypertension was 0.8% and 11.7%, respectively. Furthermore, no difference was observed in the hypertensive patterns between patients age <60 and ≥60. Importantly, patients with refractory hypertension had the worst LV remodeling with all suffering from either concentric or eccentric hypertrophy.
Authors: Fred Stephen Sarfo; John Akassi; Sheila Adamu; Vida Obese; Manolo Agbenorku; Bruce Ovbiagele Journal: J Neurol Sci Date: 2020-06-05 Impact factor: 3.181
Authors: Macy M S Lui; H F Tse; Judith C W Mak; David C L Lam; Carmen W S Chan; Peony W C Chong; Mary S M Ip Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2018-11-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Giovanna Bacan; Angélica Ribeiro-Silva; Vinicius A S Oliveira; Claudia R L Cardoso; Gil F Salles Journal: Curr Hypertens Rep Date: 2022-02-02 Impact factor: 5.369
Authors: Michelle C Johansen; Amil M Shah; Seth T Lirette; Michael Griswold; Thomas H Mosley; Scott D Solomon; Rebecca F Gottesman Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-12-18 Impact factor: 5.501