Optimizing Precision of Hypertension Care to Maximize Blood Pressure Control: A Pilot Study Utilizing a Smartphone App to Incorporate Plasma Renin Activity Testing.

Only half of patients with hypertension (HTN) respond to any given antihypertensive medication. Heterogeneity in pathophysiologic pathways underlying HTN is a major contributor. Personalizing antihypertensive therapy could improve blood pressure (BP) reduction. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of pragmatic implementation of a personalized plasma renin activity (PRA)-based smartphone app on improving BP reduction. Patients with untreated or treated but uncontrolled HTN were recruited. BP and PRA were measured at baseline with final BP measured at 6 months. Patient's information was entered into the app and treatment recommendations were returned. Clinicians were at liberty to follow or disregard the app's recommendations. BP levels and percent BP control among patients whose clinicians did and did not follow the app's recommendations were compared using independent t-test and Fisher's exact test, respectively. Twenty-nine European American patients were included (38% women) with mean age of 52 ± 9 years and median PRA of 1.3 ng/mL/hr (interquartile range 0.5-3.1 ng/mL/hr). Participants whose clinicians followed the app's recommendations (n = 16, 55%) as compared with those whose clinicians did not (n = 13, 45%), had a greater reduction in 6-month systolic BP (-15 ± 21 vs. -3 ± 21 mm Hg; adjusted-P = 0.1) and diastolic BP (-8 ± 8 vs. -1 ± 8 mm Hg; adjusted-P = 0.04). BP control at 6 months tended to be greater among patients whose clinicians accepted the app's recommendations vs. those whose clinicians did not (63% vs. 23%, P = 0.06). This pilot study demonstrates that acceptance of the app's recommendations was associated with a greater BP reduction. Future studies to confirm these pilot findings are warranted.

Attended vs unattended systolic blood pressure measurement: A randomized comparison in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Recent clinical guidelines recommend lower blood pressure (BP) goals for most patients, and recent trends have favored use of automated unattended BP measurements in the office setting to minimize observer error and white-coat effects. Patients attending a routinely scheduled CVD clinic visit were prospectively randomized to BP measured using an attended, followed by an unattended method, or vice versa, after a controlled rest period. All study BP measurements were obtained in triplicate using the automated Omron HEM-907XL BP monitor, and averaged. The outcome was difference in SBP. Routinely measured clinic BP from the same visit was extracted from the medical record, and compared with attended and unattended BP. A total of 102 patients were randomized, and mean age was 63 years, 52% female and 75% Caucasian. Attended and unattended SBP was 125.4 ± 20.4 and 122.6 ± 21.0 mm Hg, mean ± SD, respectively. Routine clinic SBP was 130.6 ± 23.6 mm Hg. Attended SBP was 2.7 mm Hg higher than the unattended measurement (95% CI 1.3-4.1; P = .0002). Routine clinic SBP was 5.2 mm Hg higher than attended SBP (95% CI 2.4-8.0; P = .0003) and 8.0 mm Hg higher than unattended SBP (95% CI 5.4-10.5; P < .0001). Attended measurement of BP is significantly higher than unattended measurement and the difference is physiologically meaningful, even in a CVD cohort with generally well-controlled hypertension. Furthermore, routine clinic SBP substantially overestimates both attended and unattended automated SBP, with important implications for treatment decisions like dose and/or drug escalation.

Risk and Blood Pressure Control Rates Across the Spectrum of Coronary Artery Disease in Hypertensive Women: An Analysis from The INternational VErapamil SR-Trandolapril STudy (INVEST).

Background: Hypertension is a major modifiable risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD), the main cause of death in women. While association between the two is frequent, limited data exist regarding the feasibility of blood pressure (BP) management and outcomes in women across the spectrum of CAD. Accordingly, we analyzed patient characteristics, BP control rates, and outcomes among hypertensive women with CAD, enrolled in The INternational VErapamil SR-trandolapril STudy (INVEST). Methods: The 11,770 hypertensive women with CAD in INVEST were studied based on presence (n = 3,879) or absence (n = 7,891) of history of myocardial infarction (MI) or coronary revascularization, to evaluate outcomes across risk groups based on severity of CAD. Results: Women with prior MI or revascularization were older (4 years, p < 0.0001), were predominantly white (62% vs. 29%), and had more associated comorbidities than women without these events. At 24 months, JNC VI (sixth report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure) BP control rates were lower in women with prior MI or revascularization (57% vs. 64%, p < 0.0001), despite more intensive antihypertensive therapy. The primary outcome (first occurrence of all-cause death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke) was also more frequent in women with prior MI or revascularization (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-1.74), who were 42% more likely to die (adjusted HR 1.42; 95% CI 1.22-1.64), twice as likely to have a nonfatal MI (adjusted HR 2.4, 95% CI 1.64-3.51), and 56% more likely to have a nonfatal stroke (adjusted HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.1-2.21). Conclusions: In a prospective, multinational cohort of hypertensive women with CAD, those with prior MI or revascularization comprised a group at higher risk for death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke, and were less likely to have their BP controlled, despite more aggressive therapy. The feasibility and benefit of reducing BP to <130/80 mmHg in women, particularly with more severe CAD, warrant further investigation.