Why is cardiovascular risk stratification important in hypertensive patients?

BACKGROUND: The aim is to evaluate whether cardiovascular (CV) risk stratification in newly diagnosed hypertensive patients according to the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) guidelines, can predict the evolution of target organ damage (TOD) using routine examinations in clinical practice during 1 year. METHODS: Prospective study of recently diagnosed untreated hypertensives. At the moment of inclusion and 1 year later, urinary albumin excretion rate (UAER), blood analysis, electrocardiogram, retinography, self-monitored blood pressure (BP) and ambulatory BP measurement were performed. TOD was defined following the ESH guidelines and evaluated as having favorable or unfavorable evolution. RESULTS: Four hundred and seventy-nine hypertensive patients were included (58.8 years; 43.4% women). The baseline prevalence of TOD was: high UAER (2.4%), left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) (20.7%), advanced lesion of the fundus oculi (FO) (10.2%). After 1 year, no differences were found between the final systolic and diastolic BP neither in the high/very high nor in the low/moderate CV risk groups. Patients with low/moderate CV risk had less unfavorable TOD evolution, LVH (9.2% vs 41.7%; p <0.001), FO advanced damage (0.99% vs 14.3%; p <0.001), high UAER (0.3% vs 5.1%; p <0.005) and amount of TOD (9.2% vs 44.0%; 0<0.001) than those with high/very high CV risk. The odds ratios of favorable TOD evolution adjusted for BP change and antihypertensive drug treatment were (low/moderate vs high/very high CV risk); 5.14 (95% confidence interval, CI, 3.99-6.64) for LVH; 12.42 (6.67-23.14) FO advanced damage; 10.71 (3.67-31.22) high UAER and 13.99 (10.18-19.22) for amount of TOD. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to detect variations in TOD in hypertensive patients with a 1-year follow-up using the examinations available in routine clinic practice. The risk determined by the ESH guidelines predicts the evolution of TOD at 1 year.

Does blood pressure change in treated hypertensive patients depending on whether it is measured by a physician or a nurse?

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether there are differences between blood pressure (BP) measured by the nurse (NBP), BP measured by the physician (PBP) and self-measured BP in treated hypertensive patients and, if found, to evaluate their clinical importance. METHOD: An observational study is carried out with hypertensive patients recruited from two village-based community health centres in Catalonia (Spain) serving an area with a total population of 2800 inhabitants. All patients treated for hypertension visiting the health centre on a specific day of the week and during the same timetable between October 2000 and May 2001 were included. RESULTS: The difference between physician-systolic BP and nurse-systolic BP was 5.16 mmHg (95% CI 2.62-7.7; p<0.001). The difference between physician-systolic BP and self-measured systolic BP was 4.67 mmHg (95% CI 0.89-8.44; p=0.016). The differences between nurse-systolic BP and self-measured systolic BP were not significant (0.49 mmHg; 95% CI 3.71-2.71; p=0.758). With regards to diastolic BP, no significant differences were found between the different ways of measurement. NBP gave the following values: sensitivity (Sn) of 92% and specificity (Sp) of 60%; positive predictive value (PPV) of 65.7% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 90% with a positive coefficient of probability (CP+) of 2.3 and a negative coefficient of probability (CP-) of 0.133. PBP gave the following results: Sn=72%; Sp=66.7%; PPV=64.3%; NPV=74.1%; CP+=2.16 and CP- = 0.420. CONCLUSION: Systolic BP measured by the nurse in treated hypertensive patients is significantly lower than the readings obtained by the physician, and are almost identical to ambulatory BP monitoring. Blood pressure determination by the nurse is desirable not only for diagnosis but also to evaluate the level of control of blood pressure during the follow-up of treated hypertensive patients.

The usefulness of ophthalmoscopy in risk evaluation of hypertensive patients.

OBJECTIVES: The main objective was to assess whether systematic ophthalmoscopy in the baseline evaluation of hypertensive patients results in a change in the therapeutic attitude as a result of the discovery of target organ damage. A secondary objective was to find the relationship between fundus lesions and other target organ manifestations in patients with hypertension. RESULTS: 73.6% of the patients studied had damage to the optic fundus, 35% of the patients had fundus lesions attributable to hypertension, 21% of patients (p < 0.001) (JNC-VI) and 15.8% (p < 0.001) (WHO/ISH) changed group of risk. Patients who were more likely to change group of risk after ophthalmoscopy were those with moderate hypertension (Grade II). Patients with a level of creatinine <85 micromol/l (WHO/ISH and JNC-VI), female and middle-aged patients (WHO/ISH) and patients older than 63 (JNC-VI) were also more likely to change groups. Hypertension grades II/III, creatinine >85 micromol/l and body mass index increase the risk of fundus lesions. Females are less at risk and alcohol intake seems to have a protective effect. CONCLUSION: Ophthalmoscopy in the baseline evaluation of patients with hypertension permits a better stratification of risk.