European and US guidelines for arterial hypertension: similarities and differences.

Hypertension is one of the most common chronic diseases in adults and a leading cause of disability and mortality worldwide. Recently, new Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of hypertension have been released in Europe and in the United States, with changes regarding how to diagnose and treat the condition, and the extent to which intensive blood pressure control should be pursued. Important differences between the Guidelines exist in the classification of blood pressure levels and definition of treatment goals. Diagnosis of hypertension starts at 140/90 mmHg for the European Guidelines, and 130/80 mmHg for the US Guidelines. Besides, the European guidelines introduced the concept of "safety boundaries", consisting of BP thresholds not to be exceeded towards lower levels (120 mmHg for age < 65 years, 130 mmHg for older people) because of the fear of important adverse events associated with overtreatment. Such discrepancies can indeed have an impact on treatment attitudes and outcome incidence. Hence, we appraised facts in favor and against each of these controversial issues. In conclusion we believe that, instead of fixing rigid BP targets and boundaries, modern hypertension management should be aimed to achieve in each patient an optimal balance between intensive BP reduction and treatment safety.

Impact of Chamber Dilatation on the Prognostic Value of Left Ventricular Geometry in Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: The different geometric patterns of the left ventricle may or may not coexist with chamber dilatation. The prognostic impact of such a combination is unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied a cohort of 2635 initially untreated patients with hypertension, mean age 50 years. At entry, 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure progressively increased across the patterns of normal geometry, concentric left ventricular (LV) remodeling, eccentric nondilated LV hypertrophy (LVH), eccentric dilated LVH, concentric nondilated LVH, and concentric dilated LVH. During a mean follow-up of 9.7 years, 360 patients developed a first major cardiovascular event at a rate (×100 patient-years) of 1.41. The event rate was 0.93 in the group with normal LV geometry, 1.10 in the group with LV concentric remodeling, 1.40 in the group with nondilated eccentric LVH, 2.10 in the group with eccentric dilated LVH, 2.34 in the group with nondilated concentric LVH, and 4.67 in the group with dilated concentric LVH (log-rank test: P<0.001). In a Cox model, after adjustment for several independent covariables (age, sex, diabetes mellitus, current smoking, total cholesterol, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and average 24-hour systolic blood pressure), concentric dilated LVH was associated with a 98% excess risk of cardiovascular events (P=0.0037). However, LV geometric pattern lost statistical significance when LV mass was entered into the model. CONCLUSIONS: In initially untreated patients with hypertension, LV dilatation adds an adverse prognostic burden to the patterns of eccentric and concentric LVH. This phenomenon is explained by the greater LV mass associated with LV chamber dilatation.