Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 47
Filter
1.
J Hum Hypertens ; 36(11): 945-951, 2022 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2151012

ABSTRACT

Out-of-office blood pressure (BP) measurement is considered an integral component of the diagnostic algorithm and management of hypertension. In the era of digitalization, a great deal of wearable BP measuring devices has been developed. These digital blood pressure monitors allow frequent BP measurements with minimal annoyance to the patient while they do promise radical changes regarding the diagnostic accuracy, as the importance of making an accurate diagnosis of hypertension has become evident. By increasing the number of BP measurements in different conditions, these monitors allow accurate identification of different clinical phenotypes, such as masked hypertension and pathological BP variability, that seem to have a negative impact on cardiovascular prognosis. Frequent measurements of BP and the incorporation of new features in BP variability, both enable well-rounded interpretation of BP data in the context of real-life settings. This article is a review of all different technologies and wearable BP monitoring devices.


Subject(s)
Hypertension , Wearable Electronic Devices , Humans , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory , Blood Pressure/physiology , Reproducibility of Results , Blood Pressure Determination , Hypertension/diagnosis , Hypertension/therapy
2.
Hypertension ; 79(12): 2733-2742, 2022 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2098093

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic may have negatively affected medical care for and self-management of chronic hypertension. We sought to examine the impact of the pandemic on blood pressure (BP) among individuals with hypertension. METHODS: Using an interrupted time series analysis, we compared the level and trend (slope) of BP outcomes before the public health emergency declaration (prepandemic period: August 2018 through January 2020) versus after the stay-at-home orders (pandemic period: April 2020 through November 2020) among adults with hypertension followed at 3 large health systems (n=137 593). Outcomes include systolic and diastolic BP recorded in electronic health records and the proportion of individuals with BP <140/90 mm Hg. RESULTS: The number of BP measurements substantially dropped early in the pandemic and then gradually increased. During the pandemic period, systolic and diastolic BP increased by 1.79 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.57-2.01; P<0.001) and 1.30 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.18-1.42; P<0.001), respectively, compared with the prepandemic period. Similarly, the proportion of patients with controlled BP decreased by 3.43 percentage points (95% CI, -3.97 to -2.90; P<0.001). A trend showing increasing control in the prepandemic period (+3.19 percentage points per year [95% CI, +2.96 to +3.42]; P<0.001) flattened during the pandemic period (+0.27 percentage points per year [95% CI, -0.81 to -1.37]; P=0.62). CONCLUSIONS: The first 8 months of the pandemic were associated with worsening BP outcomes among individuals with hypertension. Opportunities to ensure ongoing access to health care with telemedicine and home BP monitoring may mitigate adverse impacts on BP control for future disasters/emergencies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hypertension , Telemedicine , Adult , Humans , Blood Pressure/physiology , Pandemics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Time Factors , Hypertension/epidemiology , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory
3.
Am J Hypertens ; 35(11): 948-954, 2022 Nov 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2097304

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Although hypertension is a risk factor for severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) illness, little is known about the effects of COVID-19 on blood pressure (BP). Central BP measures taken over a 24-hour period using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) adds prognostic value in assessing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk compared with brachial BP measures from a single time point. We assessed CVD risk between adults with and without a history of COVID-19 via appraisal of 24-hour brachial and central hemodynamic load from ABPM. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis was performed on 32 adults who tested positive for COVID-19 (29 ± 13 years, 22 females) and 43 controls (28 ± 12 years, 26 females). Measures of 24-hour hemodynamic load included brachial and central systolic and diastolic BP, pulse pressure, augmentation index (AIx), pulse wave velocity (PWV), nocturnal BP dipping, the ambulatory arterial stiffness index (AASI), and the blood pressure variability ratio (BPVR). RESULTS: Participants who tested positive for COVID-19 experienced 6 ± 4 COVID-19 symptoms, were studied 122 ± 123 days after testing positive, and had mild-to-moderate COVID-19 illness. The results from independent samples t-tests showed no significant differences in 24-hour, daytime, or nighttime measures of central or peripheral hemodynamic load across those with and without a history of COVID-19 (P > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: No differences in 24-hour brachial or central ABPM measures were detected between adults recovering from mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and controls without a history of COVID-19. Adults recovering from mild-to-moderate COVID-19 do not have increased 24-hour central hemodynamic load.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hypertension , Vascular Stiffness , Adult , Female , Humans , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory/methods , Pulse Wave Analysis/methods , Cross-Sectional Studies , Blood Pressure , Vascular Stiffness/physiology , Hemodynamics
4.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(16)2022 08 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2023647

ABSTRACT

Mild left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) has been considered as one of the possible structural, physiological adaptations to regular, intensive physical activity. However, it may also appear as one of the subclinical complications of hypertension. In athletes, the differential diagnosis between these two entities may be complicated as regular physical activity may potentially mask the presence of arterial hypertension. We sought to determine the relation between LVH in middle-age athletes and the presence of hypertension. The study included 71 healthy, male long-time amateur athletes (mean age 41 ± 6 years, 83% endurance and 17% power sports) without known hypertension or any other cardiovascular diseases and with normal self-measured and office blood pressure. All subjects underwent resting electrocardiogram, transthoracic echocardiography, maximal exercise test on a treadmill and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. LVH was diagnosed as left ventricular wall diameter >11 mm. Hypertension was defined as mean 24 h systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 130 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥ 80 mmHg. Exaggerated blood pressure response (EBPR) to exercise was defined as SBP ≥ 210 mmHg. LVH (range > 11 to 14 mm) was found in 20 subjects (28%) and hypertension was diagnosed in 33 subjects (46%). Athletes with LVH were more likely to have hypertension than those without LVH (70% vs. 37%, p = 0.01). EBPR to exercise was found equally common in athletes with and without LVH (35% vs. 29%, p = 0.68), but more often in subjects with hypertension (51% vs. 13%, p < 0.001). Presence of LVH and hypertension was equally common in the studied endurance and power sport athletes (p = 0.66 and p = 0.79, respectively). In comparison to athletes without LVH, those with LVH had larger left atrial size (26 ± 6 vs. 21 ± 4 cm2, p < 0.001) and a tendency for lower left ventricular diastolic function (E/A 1.2 ± 0.4 vs. 1.5 ± 0.4, p = 0.05) and a larger ascending aorta diameter (34 ± 3 vs. 32 ± 3, p = 0.05), but a similar left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (51 ± 3 vs. 51 ± 4, p = 0.71). The presence of mild left ventricular hypertrophy in middle-age male amateur athletes with normal home and office blood pressure may be considered as a potential sign of masked hypertension. It should not be overlooked as an element of a physiological adaptation to exercise and may warrant further medical evaluation with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.


Subject(s)
Hypertension , Masked Hypertension , Adult , Athletes , Blood Pressure/physiology , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory/adverse effects , Humans , Hypertension/complications , Hypertrophy, Left Ventricular/etiology , Male , Masked Hypertension/complications , Middle Aged
5.
Medicina (Kaunas) ; 58(9)2022 Aug 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2006132

ABSTRACT

Background and Objectives: Individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Arterial stiffness is an independent prognostic marker for cardiovascular disease development. We aimed at determining the effect of two different sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors on ambulatory arterial stiffness in individuals with T2DM. Materials and Methods: In this single-center, single-arm, prospective study performed from January 2020 to August 2021, we planned to enroll adult subjects with T2DM and stable antidiabetic and antihypertensive treatment, assigned either to empagliflozin or dapagliflozin for 6 months. All eligible subjects underwent ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. We set as the primary efficacy outcome the change in ambulatory pulse wave velocity (PWV) from baseline to week 24. Results: We finally enrolled 46 diabetic subjects, with a mean age of 62.89 (8.53) years and mean T2DM duration of 9.72 (6.37) years. Thirty patients received dapagliflozin, while sixteen patients received empagliflozin. Due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictive measures during the study, the mean follow-up period extended from 6 months to 9.98 (3.27) months. Regarding the prespecified primary efficacy outcome, we found that the SGLT-2 inhibitor treatment did not have a significant effect on PWV (p = 0.65). Prior history of cardiovascular disease did not significantly affect the observed effects. Other indices of arterial stiffness, such as augmentation index and central pulse pressure, were not significantly affected, neither by empagliflozin nor by dapagliflozin. Conclusions: SGLT-2 inhibitor treatment with empagliflozin or dapagliflozin in subjects with T2DM failed to improve ambulatory PWV over a mean follow-up of 10 months. Registration number: ISRCTN88851713.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cardiovascular Diseases , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors , Symporters , Vascular Stiffness , Antihypertensive Agents/pharmacology , Benzhydryl Compounds , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory , Cardiovascular Diseases/chemically induced , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/complications , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/drug therapy , Glucose , Glucosides , Humans , Hypoglycemic Agents/adverse effects , Middle Aged , Morbidity , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , Pulse Wave Analysis , Sodium , Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors/adverse effects , Symporters/pharmacology , Treatment Outcome
6.
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci ; 26(15): 5587-5595, 2022 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1988906

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection is associated with autonomic dysfunction. Data on the long-term relationship between COVID-19 infection, heart rate recovery (HRR), and exaggerated blood pressure response to exercise (EBPR) are very limited. In our study, we aimed at investigating the long-term association between COVID-19, HRR, EBPR, metabolic, and echocardiographic parameters. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 65 patients in the study group (33 female, median age 46) and 57 in the control group (30 female, 39 median age) between 1 April 2020 and 1 January 2021. Office blood pressure measurement, 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, treadmill test, echocardiography, and metabolic parameters were evaluated. RESULTS: The frequency of blunted HRR (25 subjects, 38.5%, p < 0.001) and EBPR (7 subjects, 10.8%, p = 0.014) were significantly higher in study group. The study group had higher levels of white blood cell (p = 0.002), neutrophil, c-reactive protein, and uric acid (p < 0.001). Diameters of left atrium, aortic root, and ascending aorta were significantly higher in study group (p < 0.05). Age adjusted multiple logistic regression analysis showed that neutrophil levels (odds ratio (OR), 9.21; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.52-55.75, p = 0.016), glomerular filtration rate (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.13-1.59, p = 0.001), basal heart rate (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.17-2.12, p = 0.003), and mean heart rate (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.03-1.45, p = 0.0021) were independently associated with COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of blunted HRR and EBPR, and uric acid levels were significantly higher in the study group compared to the control group, suggesting autonomic dysfunction as the possible sequelae of the COVID-19 infection and increased risk of cardiovascular events in the future.


Subject(s)
Autonomic Nervous System Diseases , COVID-19 , Metabolic Diseases , Autonomic Nervous System Diseases/etiology , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory , COVID-19/complications , Exercise Test , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Uric Acid
7.
J Hypertens ; 40(9): 1702-1712, 2022 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1985146

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Home blood pressure (BP) telemonitoring combined with case management leads to BP reductions in individuals with hypertension. However, its benefits are less clear in older (age ≥ 65 years) adults. METHODS: Twelve-month, open-label, randomized trial of community-dwelling older adults comparing the combination of home BP telemonitoring (HBPM) and pharmacist-led case management, vs. enhanced usual care with HBPM alone. The primary outcome was the proportion achieving systolic BP targets on 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). Changes in HBPM were also examined. Logistic and linear regressions were used for analyses, adjusted for baseline BP. RESULTS: Enrollment was stopped early due to coronavirus disease 2019. Participants randomized to intervention (n = 61) and control (n = 59) groups were mostly female (77%), with mean age 79.5 years. The adjusted odds ratio for ABPM BP target achievement was 1.48 (95% confidence interval 0.87-2.52, P = 0.15). At 12 months, the mean difference in BP changes between intervention and control groups was -1.6/-1.1 for ABPM (P-value 0.26 for systolic BP and 0.10 for diastolic BP), and -4.9/-3.1 for HBPM (P-value 0.04 for systolic BP and 0.01 for diastolic BP), favoring the intervention. Intervention group participants had hypotension (systolic BP < 110) more frequently (21% vs. 5%, P = 0.009), but no differences in orthostatic symptoms, syncope, non-mechanical falls, or emergency department visits. CONCLUSIONS: Home BP telemonitoring and pharmacist case management did not improve achievement of target range ambulatory BP, but did reduce home BP. It did not result in major adverse consequences.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hypertension , Aged , Antihypertensive Agents/pharmacology , Antihypertensive Agents/therapeutic use , Blood Pressure/physiology , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory , Case Management , Female , Humans , Hypertension/diagnosis , Hypertension/drug therapy , Independent Living , Male
8.
Pregnancy Hypertens ; 30: 7-12, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1967012

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how English maternity units implemented self-monitoring of blood pressure (SMBP) in pregnancy in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Mixed methods including surveys, anonymised patient data and in-depth interviews with women. SETTING: Maternity units across England. PARTICIPANTS: 45 maternity units completed a survey about the implementation of SMBP (supported by the provision of guidance and blood pressure monitors) during the pandemic, 166 women completed a survey about their experiences of SMBP, and 23 women took part in in-depth interviews. Clinical data from 627 women undertaking SMBP were available from 13 maternity units. RESULTS: SMBP was predominantly used to provide additional BP monitoring for hypertensive or high-risk pregnant women. Overall maternity units and women were positive about its use in terms of reducing the need for additional face-to-face contacts and giving women more control and insight into their own BP. However, there were challenges in setting up SMBP services rapidly and embedding them within existing care pathways, particularly around interpreting readings and managing the provision of monitors. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable proportion of maternity units in England commenced a SMBP service for hypertensive or high-risk women from March 2020. There is a need for further research into appropriate care pathways, including guidance around white coat or masked hypertension and the use of SMBP postnatally.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hypertension , Pre-Eclampsia , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Blood Pressure/physiology , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory/methods , Pandemics , Pre-Eclampsia/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Hypertension/diagnosis , Hypertension/epidemiology
10.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ; 22(1): 454, 2022 May 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1951113

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends self-monitoring of blood pressure (SMBP) for hypertension management. In addition, during the COVID-19 response, WHO guidance also recommends SMBP supported by health workers although more evidence is needed on whether SMBP of pregnant individuals with hypertension (gestational hypertension, chronic hypertension, or pre-eclampsia) may assist in early detection of pre-eclampsia, increase end-user autonomy and empowerment, and reduce health system burden. To expand the evidence base for WHO guideline on self-care interventions, we conducted a systematic review of SMBP during pregnancy on maternal and neonatal outcomes. METHODS: We searched for publications that compared SMBP with clinic-based monitoring during antenatal care. We included studies measuring any of the following outcomes: maternal mortality, pre-eclampsia, long-term risk and complications, autonomy, HELLP syndrome, C-section, antenatal hospital admission, adverse pregnancy outcomes, device-related issues, follow-up care with appropriate management, mental health and well-being, social harms, stillbirth or perinatal death, birthweight/size for gestational age, and Apgar score. After abstract screening and full-text review, we extracted data using standardized forms and summarized findings. We also reviewed studies assessing values and preferences as well as costs of SMBP. RESULTS: We identified 6 studies meeting inclusion criteria for the effectiveness of SMBP, 6 studies on values and preferences, and 1 study on costs. All were from high-income countries. Overall, when comparing SMBP with clinic-monitoring, there was no difference in the risks for most of the outcomes for which data were available, though there was some evidence of increased risk of C-section among pregnant women with chronic hypertension. Most end-users and providers supported SMBP, motivated by ease of use, convenience, self-empowerment and reduced anxiety. One study found SMBP would lower health sector costs. CONCLUSION: Limited evidence suggests that SMBP during pregnancy is feasible and acceptable, and generally associated with maternal and neonatal health outcomes similar to clinic-based monitoring. However, more research is needed in resource-limited settings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021233839 .


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced , Pre-Eclampsia , Blood Pressure , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory , Female , Humans , Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced/diagnosis , Infant, Newborn , Pre-Eclampsia/diagnosis , Pregnancy
11.
Hipertens Riesgo Vasc ; 39(3): 121-127, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1936480

ABSTRACT

Hypertension (HYP) is the first cause of death and disability worldwide. In Spain, one in 3 adults was hypertensive in 2010 (62% in those >65 years in 2017). Despite improvement in HYP management over time, only half of treated hypertensive patients are adequately controlled, which translates in 30,000 annual cardiovascular deaths attributable to HYP. Among modifiable determinants of lack of blood pressure (BP) control in Spain are: (a) the white-coat phenomenon (accounting for 20-50% of apparent lack of control) due to not using ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM, use ≈20%) or self-measurement of home BP (HBPM, use ≈60%) for confirming HYP diagnosis; (b) insufficient patients adherence to BP-lowering lifestyles (e.g., only 40% of hypertensive patients have a sodium intake <2.4g/day, or follow a weight reduction advice), and (c) use of drug monotherapy (≈50% currently), usually insufficient to achieve an optimal control. It is necessary to implement strategies to monitor the evolution of the proportion of subjects with HYP with reasonable national update, to promote population's knowledge of their BP figures and of other cardiovascular risk factors, to improve the degree of HYP control and vascular risk in Spain.


Subject(s)
Hypertension , Adult , Blood Pressure , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory , Humans , Hypertension/diagnosis , Hypertension/drug therapy , Hypertension/epidemiology , Spain/epidemiology
12.
Hypertension ; 79(10): 2148-2158, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1902159

ABSTRACT

Digital therapeutics refers to the use of evidence-based therapeutic interventions driven by high-quality software programs to treat, manage, or prevent a medical condition. This approach is being increasingly investigated for the management of hypertension, a common condition that is the leading preventable cardiovascular disease risk factor worldwide. Digital interventions can help facilitate uptake of important guideline-recommended lifestyle modifications, reinforce home blood pressure monitoring, decrease therapeutic inertia, and improve medication adherence. However, current studies are only of moderate quality, and are highly heterogeneous in the interventions evaluated, comparator used, and results obtained. Therefore, additional studies are needed, focusing on the development of universally applicable and consistent digital therapeutic strategies designed with health care professional input and evaluation of these interventions in robust clinical trials with objective end points. Hopefully, the momentum for digital therapeutics triggered by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic can be utilized to maximize advancements in this field and drive widespread implementation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hypertension , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory , Humans , Hypertension/drug therapy , Medication Adherence
13.
J Appl Physiol (1985) ; 133(1): 183-190, 2022 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1902130

ABSTRACT

Previous studies have reported detrimental effects of COVID-19 on the peripheral vasculature. However, reports on blood pressure (BP) are inconsistent, and measurements are made only in the laboratory setting. To date, no studies have measured ambulatory BP. In addition, in previous studies, time since COVID-19 diagnosis among participants varied across a wide range, potentially contributing to the inconsistent BP results. Thus, we aimed to perform a comprehensive assessment of BP and BP variability using ambulatory and laboratory (brachial and central) measurements in young adults who had COVID-19. We hypothesized that ambulatory BP would be elevated post-COVID-19 and that measures of BP would be inversely related with time since diagnosis. Twenty-eight young adults who had COVID-19 [11 ± 6 (range 3-22) wk since diagnosis] and 10 controls were studied. Ambulatory daytime, nighttime, and 24-h systolic BP, diastolic BP, and mean BP were not different between the control and COVID groups (e.g., daytime systolic BP: control, 122 ± 12 mmHg; COVID, 122 ± 10 mmHg; P = 0.937). Similar results were observed for laboratory BPs (all P > 0.05). However, ambulatory daytime, nighttime, and 24-h BPs as well as laboratory brachial BPs were inversely correlated with time since COVID-19 diagnosis (e.g., daytime systolic BP: r = -0.444; P = 0.044, nighttime systolic BP: r = -0.518; P = 0.016). Ambulatory and laboratory-measured BP variability were not different between groups nor correlated with time since diagnosis. Collectively, these data suggest that adverse effects of COVID-19 on BP in young adults are minimal and likely transient.NEW & NOTEWORTHY We report for the first time that ambulatory daytime, nighttime, and 24-h blood pressure (BP), as well as laboratory BP, were not different between control and COVID participants. However, a significant inverse relationship with time since COVID-19 diagnosis was found (i.e., greater BP with more recent infection). Ambulatory and laboratory BP variability were unaffected and not related with diagnosis time. These findings suggest that COVID-19 may exert only short-lasting effects on BP in young adults.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hypertension , Blood Pressure/physiology , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , Circadian Rhythm/physiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Hypertension/diagnosis , Young Adult
14.
Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis ; 32(8): 1998-2009, 2022 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1867633

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) poses significant health risks for seniors, especially among low-income and minority communities. Senior centers offer multiple services. We tested whether implementing two evidence-based interventions- DASH-aligned meals provided through an existing congregate meal program, and support for home Self-Measured Blood Pressure (SMBP) monitoring-lowers blood pressure among participants at two senior centers serving low-income, racially diverse communities. METHODS AND RESULTS: Open-label study, enrolling clients aged ≥60, eating ≥4 meals/week at two NYC senior centers. Participants received DASH-aligned congregate meals, and training in nutrition, BP management education, and personal SMBP device. Co-Primary outcomes: a) change in systolic BP measured by independent health professionals, and b) change in percent with "controlled BP" (Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC-8) Guidelines), at Month 1 compared to Baseline. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Changes in BP at Months 3 and 5/6 (last measure). We enrolled 94 participants; COVID closures interrupted implementation mid-study. Mean systolic BP at Month-1 changed by -4.41 mmHg (n = 61 p = 0.07) compared to Baseline. Participants with controlled BP increased (15.7%) at Month 1. Change in mean BP at Month 1 was significantly correlated with BMI (p = 0.02), age (p = 0.04), and baseline BP (p < 0.001). Mean systolic SMBP changed by -6.9 mmHg (p = 0.004) at Months 5/6. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing an evidence-based multi-component BP-lowering intervention within existing congregate meal programs at senior centers serving minority and low-income communities is feasible, and early findings show promising evidence of effectiveness. This approach to cardiovascular risk reduction should be further tested for widespread adoption and impact. Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03993808 (June 21st, 2019).


Subject(s)
Dietary Approaches To Stop Hypertension , Hypertension , Aged , Blood Pressure , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory , COVID-19 , Female , Humans , Hypertension/diagnosis , Hypertension/epidemiology , Hypertension/prevention & control , Male , Meals , Self Efficacy
17.
Blood Press Monit ; 27(5): 305-309, 2022 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1831486

ABSTRACT

The pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) had profound effects on healthcare delivery in the USA and abroad. Although ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is the recommended method for confirming hypertension (HTN) diagnosis and management, it is unclear how the pandemic affected ABPM utilization. We surveyed 81 pediatric nephrologists from 54 pediatric nephrology centers regarding their ABPM practices during the pandemic; 56.8% of providers continued to provide ABPM to their patients, but only 21% used disposable cuffs, and only 28.4% had specific equipment cleaning protocols in place. Only a minority of 81 practitioners felt comfortable (26.2%) or very comfortable (11.2%) in following published guidelines on ABPM during the pandemic, and 22.5% felt uncomfortable or very uncomfortable (7.5%). Additionally, only about half (49.4%) of practitioners were comfortable with managing HTN via telehealth. Our findings underscore the need to supplement existing and future guidance on how to manage HTN protocols, HTN patients, and equipment during healthcare crises.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hypertension , Blood Pressure , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Humans , Hypertension/diagnosis , Hypertension/epidemiology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
18.
Blood Press ; 31(1): 71-79, 2022 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1805938

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Covid-19 pandemic necessitated a decrease in non-Covid-19 related diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in many countries. We explored the impact on tertiary hypertension care. METHODS: We conducted an electronic survey regarding 6 key procedures in hypertension care within the Excellence Center network of the European Society of Hypertension. RESULTS: Overall, 54 Excellence Centers from 18 European and 3 non-European countries participated. From 2019 to 2020, there were significant decreases in the median number per centre of ambulatory blood pressure monitorings (ABPM: 544/289 for 2019/2020), duplex ultrasound of renal arteries (Duplex RA: 88.5/55), computed tomographic/magnetic resonance imaging angiography of renal arteries (CT/MRI RA: 66/19.5), percutaneous angioplasties of renal arteries (PTA RA: 5/1), laboratory tests for catecholamines (116/67.5) and for renin/aldosterone (146/83.5) (p < 0.001 for all comparisons, respectively). While reductions in all assessed diagnostic and therapeutic procedures were observed in all annual 3-months periods in the comparisons between 2019 and 2020, the most pronounced reduction occurred between April and June 2020, which was the period of the first wave and the first lockdown in most affected countries. In this period, the median reductions in 2020, as compared to 2019, were 50.7% (ABPM), 47.1% (Duplex RA), 50% (CT/MRI RA), 57.1% (PTA RA), 46.9% (catecholamines) and 41.0% (renin/aldosterone), respectively. Overall differences in reduction between 3-month time intervals were statistically highly significant. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic and therapeutic procedures related to hypertension were dramatically reduced during the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic, with the largest reduction during the first lockdown. The long-term consequences regarding blood pressure control and, ultimately, cardiovascular events remain to be investigated.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hypertension , Aldosterone , Antihypertensive Agents/therapeutic use , Blood Pressure , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory/methods , COVID-19/epidemiology , Catecholamines , Communicable Disease Control , Humans , Hypertension/diagnosis , Hypertension/drug therapy , Hypertension/epidemiology , Pandemics , Renin
19.
Hypertens Res ; 45(4): 555-572, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1773972

ABSTRACT

Despite the challenges associated with the coronavirus pandemic, the last 2 years have been active periods for hypertension research and initiatives in Asia. There are new hypertension guidelines from the World Health Organization that can be interpreted and applied locally. This is also the case for data from the latest Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration meta-analysis, which showed that greater reductions in systolic blood pressure (BP) are associated with lower risks of cardiovascular events. The randomized controlled Strategy of Blood Pressure Intervention in the Elderly Hypertensive study and the Salt Substitute and Stroke Study provide local data to inform practice. Other initiatives to help reduce high salt intake in Asia are also underway. Both drug-resistant and nocturnal hypertension are appropriate areas of focus in Asia, and there are an increasing number of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment options for these conditions. Digital therapeutics to promote uptake and implementation of lifestyle interventions are showing promise, and other digital-based strategies such as telemedicine, wearable BP monitors to detect beat-by-beat BP and artificial intelligence will no doubt become integral parts of future strategies to reduce the burden of hypertension and hypertension-related disease. A number of initiatives from the Hypertension Cardiovascular Outcome Prevention and Evidence in Asia Network and Japanese Society of hypertension are underway, and there is good reason for optimism regarding the ongoing and future management of hypertension in Asia based on these and the active research activities in the region.


Subject(s)
Hypertension , Aged , Artificial Intelligence , Asia/epidemiology , Blood Pressure , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory , Humans , Hypertension/diagnosis , Hypertension/drug therapy
20.
Hypertens Res ; 45(5): 856-865, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1641956

ABSTRACT

The global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a health crisis. It remains unclear how anxiety affects blood pressure (BP) and cardiovascular risk among older patients with hypertension. In this study, we extracted longitudinal data on home BP monitored via a smartphone-based application in 3724 elderly patients with hypertension from a clinical trial (60-80 years; 240 in Wuhan and 3484 in non-Wuhan areas) to examine changes in morning BP during the COVID-19 outbreak in China. Anxiety was evaluated using Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 item scores. Changes in morning systolic BP (SBP) were analyzed for five 30-day periods during the pandemic (October 21, 2019 to March 21, 2020), including the pre-epidemic, incubation, developing, outbreak, and plateau periods. Data on cardiovascular events were prospectively collected for one year. A total of 262 individuals (7.0%) reported an increased level of anxiety, and 3462 individuals (93.0%) did not. Patients with anxiety showed higher morning SBP than patients without anxiety, and the between-group differences in SBP change were +1.2 mmHg and +1.7 mmHg during the outbreak and plateau periods (P < 0.05), respectively. The seasonal BP variation in winter among patients with anxiety was suppressed during the pandemic. Anxious patients had higher rates of uncontrolled BP. During the 1-year follow-up period, patients with anxiety had an increased risk of cardiovascular events with a hazard ratio of 2.47 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-5.58; P = 0.03). In summary, COVID-19-related anxiety was associated with a short-term increase in morning SBP among older patients and led to a greater risk of cardiovascular events. (ClinicalTrials. gov number, NCT03015311).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hypertension , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety Disorders/epidemiology , Blood Pressure/physiology , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory , Humans , Hypertension/complications , Hypertension/epidemiology , Middle Aged , Pandemics
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL