0
selected
-
1.
Non-Adherence to Antihypertensive Guidelines in Patients with Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis.
Haley, W, Shawl, F, Charles Sternbergh, W, Turan, TN, Barrett, K, Voeks, J, Brott, T, Meschia, JF
Journal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases : the official journal of National Stroke Association. 2021;(8):105918
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Hypertension and carotid stenosis are both risk factors for stroke, but the presence of carotid stenosis might dampen enthusiasm for tight control of hypertension because of concerns for hypoperfusion. OBJECTIVE To determine the extent to which there are opportunities to potentially improve pharmacotherapy for hypertension in patients known to have asymptomatic high-grade carotid stenosis. DESIGN We examined anti-hypertensive medication prescription and adherence to evidence-based hypertension treatment guidelines in a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data of patients enrolled in a clinical trial. SETTING The Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Trial (CREST-2) is a multicenter prospective randomized open blinded end-point clinical trial of intensive medical management with or without revascularization by endarterectomy or stenting for asymptomatic high-grade carotid stenosis. PARTICIPANTS 1479 participants (38.6% female; mean age 69.8 years) from 132 clinical centers enrolled in the CREST-2 trial as of April 6, 2020 who were taking ≥1 antihypertensive drug at baseline. EXPOSURES Pharmacotherapy for hypertension. MAIN OUTCOME Adherence to evidence-based guidelines for treating hypertension. RESULTS Of 1458 participants with complete data, 26% were on one, 31% on 2, and 43% on ≥3 antihypertensive medications at trial entry. Thirty-two percent of participants were prescribed thiazide; 74%, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB); 38%, calcium channel blocker (CCB); 56%, a beta blocker; 11%, loop diuretic; and 27%, other. Of those prescribed a single antihypertensive medication, the proportion prescribed thiazide was 5%; ACEI or ARB, 55%, and CCB, 11%. The prevalence of guideline-adherent regimens was 34% (95% CI, 31-36%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In a diverse cohort with severe carotid disease and hypertension, non-adherence to hypertension guidelines was common. All preferred classes of antihypertensive drug were under-prescribed. Using staged iterative guideline-based care for hypertension, CREST-2 will characterize drug tolerance and stroke rates under these conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Number NCT02089217.
-
2.
Blood Pressure Targets Achievement According to 2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines in Three European Excellence Centers for Hypertension.
Tocci, G, Presta, V, Ferri, C, Redon, J, Volpe, M
High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension. 2020;(1):51-59
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The most recent European guidelines on hypertension redefined office blood pressure (BP) treatment targets according to age strata and cardiovascular (CV) risk profile. AIM: To evaluate proportions of adult outpatients achieving office BP treatment targets recommended by current compared to previous hypertension guidelines. METHODS We extracted data from medical databases of adult outpatients followed in three excellence centers in hypertension (Rome, Italy; L'Aquila, Italy; Valencia, Spain). Office BP treatment targets were defined according to either 2013 ESH/ESC guidelines (< 140/90 mmHg in non-diabetic individuals aged 18-80 years, < 150/90 mmHg in those aged ≥ 80 years, and < 140/85 mmHg in diabetic individuals), or 2018 ESC/ESH guidelines: (< 130/80 mmHg in individuals aged 18-65 years, < 140/80 mmHg in those aged 65-79 and ≥ 80 years). SCORE risk was assessed in all patients. RESULTS From an overall sample of 14,229 adult subjects, 4049 (28.5%) resulted normotensive individuals, 3088 (21.7%) were untreated and 7092 (49.8%) treated hypertensive outpatients. Treated hypertensives showed significantly higher ESC score risk (8.3 ± 13.0% vs. 3.9 ± 8.4%; P < 0.001) and lower systolic/diastolic BP (140.6 ± 18.8/83.9 ± 11.5 vs. 148.3 ± 14.2/94.7 ± 10.1 mmHg; P < 0.001) than untreated hypertensives. Compared to previous guidelines, BP control significantly lowered in non-diabetic outpatients (n = 5847) of all age groups [18-65 years: (13.1% vs. 42.9%), 65-79 years (25.8% vs. 42.5%) and ≥ 80 years (29.1% vs. 66.0%); P < 0.001 for all comparisons]; similar reductions were observed in diabetic outpatients (n = 1245) [18-65 years (32.7% vs. 14.8%), 65-79 years (37.3% vs. 24.7%) and ≥ 80 years (47.1% vs. 27.9%); P < 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS According to the recommended new office BP treatment targets, the proportions of treated uncontrolled hypertensive patients substantially increased. These findings should prompt a tighter application of therapeutic recommendations and, thus, highlight the need for improving hypertension management and control strategies.
-
3.
Achievement of LDL-C Targets Defined by ESC/EAS (2011) Guidelines in Risk-Stratified Korean Patients with Dyslipidemia Receiving Lipid-Modifying Treatments.
Yang, YS, Lee, SY, Kim, JS, Choi, KM, Lee, KW, Lee, SC, Cho, JR, Oh, SJ, Kim, JH, Choi, SH
Endocrinology and metabolism (Seoul, Korea). 2020;(2):367-376
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study assessed the proportion of risk-stratified Korean patients with dyslipidemia achieving their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets as defined by the European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) (2011) guidelines while receiving lipid-modifying treatments (LMTs). METHODS In this multicenter, cross-sectional, observational study, we evaluated data from Korean patients aged ≥19 years who were receiving LMTs for ≥3 months and had an LDL-C value within the previous 12 months on the same LMT. Data were collected for demographics, cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, medical history, and healthcare consumption. Patients were risk-stratified according to the ESC Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) chart and LDL-C target achievement rate was assessed. RESULTS Guideline-based risk-stratification of the 1,034 patients showed the majority (72.2%) to be in the very high-risk category. Investigators' assessment of risk was underestimated in 71.6% compared to ESC/EAS guidelines. Overall LDL-C target achievement rate was 44.3%; target achievement was the highest (66.0%) in moderate-risk patients and the lowest (39.0%) in very high-risk patients. Overall 97.1% patients were receiving statin therapy, mostly as a single-agent (89.2%). High-intensity statins and the highest permissible dose of high-intensity statins had been prescribed to only 9.1% and 7.3% patients in the very high-risk group, respectively. Physician satisfaction with patients' LDL-C levels was the primary reason for non-intensification of statin therapy. CONCLUSION Achievement of target LDL-C level is suboptimal in Korean patients with dyslipidemia, especially in those at very high-risk of CV events. Current practices in LMTs need to be improved based on precise CV risk evaluation posed by dyslipidemia.
-
4.
Coronary artery calcium scoring in low risk patients with family history of coronary heart disease: Validation of the SCCT guideline approach in the coronary artery calcium consortium.
Dudum, R, Dzaye, O, Mirbolouk, M, Dardari, ZA, Orimoloye, OA, Budoff, MJ, Berman, DS, Rozanski, A, Miedema, MD, Nasir, K, et al
Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography. 2019;(3):21-25
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography (SCCT) recommends consideration of coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring among individuals with a family history (FH) of coronary heart disease (CHD) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk <5%. No dedicated study has examined the prognostic significance of CAC scoring among this population. METHODS The CAC Consortium is a multi-center observational cohort study from four clinical centers linked to long-term follow-up for cause-specific mortality. All CAC scans were physician referred and performed in patients without a history of CHD. Our analysis includes 14,169 patients with ASCVD scores <5% and self-reported FH of CHD. RESULTS This cohort had a mean age of 48.1 (SD 7.4), was 91.3% white, 47.4% female, had an average ASCVD score of 2.3% (SD 1.3), and 59.4% had a CAC = 0. The event rate for all-cause mortality was 1.2 per 1000 person-years, 0.3 per 1000 person-years for CVD-specific mortality, and 0.2 per 1000 person-years for CHD-specific mortality. In multivariable Cox proportional hazard models, those with CAC>100 had a 2.2 (95% CI 1.5-3.3) higher risk of all-cause mortality, 4.3 (95% CI 1.9-9.5) times higher risk of CVD-specific mortality, and a 10.4 (95% CI 3.2-33.7) times higher risk of CHD-specific mortality compared to individuals with CAC = 0. The NNS to detect CAC >100 in this sample was 9. CONCLUSION In otherwise low risk patients with FH of CHD, CAC>100 were associated with increased risk of all-cause and CHD mortality with event rates in a range that may benefit with preventive pharmacotherapy. These data strongly support new SCCT recommendations regarding testing of patients with a family history of CHD.