Faisal Rahman1,2, John W McEvoy3,4,5. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Blalock 524C, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. 2. Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Heart Disease, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Blalock 524C, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. jmcevoy1@jhmi.edu. 4. Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Heart Disease, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. jmcevoy1@jhmi.edu. 5. Department of Epidemiology and the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. jmcevoy1@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Recent US guidelines have changed the definition of hypertension to ≥ 130/80 mmHg and recommended more intense blood pressure (BP) targets. We summarize the evidence for intense BP treatment and discuss risks that must be considered when choosing treatment goals for individual patients. RECENT FINDINGS: The SPRINT study reported that treating to a systolic BP target of 120 mmHg reduces cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk individuals, supporting more intensive BP reduction than previously recommended. However, recent observational studies have placed emphasis on the BP J-curve phenomenon, where low BPs are associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes, suggesting that overly aggressive BP targets may sometimes be harmful. We attempt to reconcile these apparent contradictions for the clinician. We also review other potential dangers of aggressive BP targets, including syncope, renal impairment, polypharmacy, drug interactions, subjective drug side-effects, and non-adherence. We suggest a personalized approach to BP drug management considering individual risks, benefits, and preferences when choosing therapeutic targets, recognizing that a goal of 130/80 mmHg should always be considered. Additionally, we recommend an intense focus on lifestyle changes and medication adherence.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Recent US guidelines have changed the definition of hypertension to ≥ 130/80 mmHg and recommended more intense blood pressure (BP) targets. We summarize the evidence for intense BP treatment and discuss risks that must be considered when choosing treatment goals for individual patients. RECENT FINDINGS: The SPRINT study reported that treating to a systolic BP target of 120 mmHg reduces cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk individuals, supporting more intensive BP reduction than previously recommended. However, recent observational studies have placed emphasis on the BP J-curve phenomenon, where low BPs are associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes, suggesting that overly aggressive BP targets may sometimes be harmful. We attempt to reconcile these apparent contradictions for the clinician. We also review other potential dangers of aggressive BP targets, including syncope, renal impairment, polypharmacy, drug interactions, subjective drug side-effects, and non-adherence. We suggest a personalized approach to BP drug management considering individual risks, benefits, and preferences when choosing therapeutic targets, recognizing that a goal of 130/80 mmHg should always be considered. Additionally, we recommend an intense focus on lifestyle changes and medication adherence.
Authors: Mary E Tinetti; Ling Han; David S H Lee; Gail J McAvay; Peter Peduzzi; Cary P Gross; Bingqing Zhou; Haiqun Lin Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: J A Staessen; R Fagard; L Thijs; H Celis; G G Arabidze; W H Birkenhäger; C J Bulpitt; P W de Leeuw; C T Dollery; A E Fletcher; F Forette; G Leonetti; C Nachev; E T O'Brien; J Rosenfeld; J L Rodicio; J Tuomilehto; A Zanchetti Journal: Lancet Date: 1997-09-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: John W McEvoy; Seth S Martin; Zeina A Dardari; Michael D Miedema; Veit Sandfort; Joseph Yeboah; Matthew J Budoff; David C Goff; Bruce M Psaty; Wendy S Post; Khurram Nasir; Roger S Blumenthal; Michael J Blaha Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-11-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: John W McEvoy; Yuan Chen; Andreea Rawlings; Ron C Hoogeveen; Christie M Ballantyne; Roger S Blumenthal; Josef Coresh; Elizabeth Selvin Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: William C Cushman; Gregory W Evans; Robert P Byington; David C Goff; Richard H Grimm; Jeffrey A Cutler; Denise G Simons-Morton; Jan N Basile; Marshall A Corson; Jeffrey L Probstfield; Lois Katz; Kevin A Peterson; William T Friedewald; John B Buse; J Thomas Bigger; Hertzel C Gerstein; Faramarz Ismail-Beigi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-03-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Faisal Rahman; Mahmoud Al Rifai; Michael J Blaha; Khurram Nasir; Matthew J Budoff; Bruce M Psaty; Wendy S Post; Roger S Blumenthal; John W McEvoy Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2017-08-08 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Srinivasan Beddhu; Glenn M Chertow; Alfred K Cheung; William C Cushman; Mahboob Rahman; Tom Greene; Guo Wei; Ruth C Campbell; Margaret Conroy; Barry I Freedman; William Haley; Edward Horwitz; Dalane Kitzman; James Lash; Vasilios Papademetriou; Roberto Pisoni; Erik Riessen; Clive Rosendorff; Suzanne G Watnick; Jeffrey Whittle; Paul K Whelton Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-10-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Faisal Rahman; John W McEvoy; Toshiaki Ohkuma; Michel Marre; Pavel Hamet; Stephen Harrap; Giuseppe Mancia; Anthony Rodgers; Elizabeth Selvin; Bryan Williams; Paul Muntner; John Chalmers; Mark Woodward Journal: Hypertension Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 10.190