Objectives This study sought to characterize temporal trends in hospitalizations with heart failure as a primary or secondary diagnosis. Background Heart failure patients are frequently admitted for ...both heart failure and other causes. Methods Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), we evaluated trends in heart failure hospitalizations between 2001 and 2009. Hospitalizations were categorized as either primary or secondary heart failure hospitalizations based on the location of heart failure in the discharge diagnosis. National estimates were calculated using the sampling weights of the NIS. Age- and sex-standardized hospitalization rates were determined by dividing the number of hospitalizations by the U.S. population in a given year and using direct standardization. Results The number of primary heart failure hospitalizations in the United States decreased from 1,137,944 in 2001 to 1,086,685 in 2009, whereas secondary heart failure hospitalizations increased from 2,753,793 to 3,158,179 over the same period. Age- and sex-adjusted rates of primary heart failure hospitalizations decreased steadily from 2001 to 2009, from 566 to 468 per 100,000 people. Rates of secondary heart failure hospitalizations initially increased from 1,370 to 1,476 per 100,000 people from 2001 to 2006, then decreased to 1,359 per 100,000 people in 2009. Common primary diagnoses for secondary heart failure hospitalizations included pulmonary disease, renal failure, and infections. Conclusions Although primary heart failure hospitalizations declined, rates of hospitalizations with a secondary diagnosis of heart failure were stable in the past decade. Strategies to reduce the high burden of hospitalizations of heart failure patients should include consideration of both cardiac disease and noncardiac conditions.
There is concern about the potential of an increased risk related to medications that act on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in patients exposed to coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), ...because the viral receptor is angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2).
We assessed the relation between previous treatment with ACE inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, or thiazide diuretics and the likelihood of a positive or negative result on Covid-19 testing as well as the likelihood of severe illness (defined as intensive care, mechanical ventilation, or death) among patients who tested positive. Using Bayesian methods, we compared outcomes in patients who had been treated with these medications and in untreated patients, overall and in those with hypertension, after propensity-score matching for receipt of each medication class. A difference of at least 10 percentage points was prespecified as a substantial difference.
Among 12,594 patients who were tested for Covid-19, a total of 5894 (46.8%) were positive; 1002 of these patients (17.0%) had severe illness. A history of hypertension was present in 4357 patients (34.6%), among whom 2573 (59.1%) had a positive test; 634 of these patients (24.6%) had severe illness. There was no association between any single medication class and an increased likelihood of a positive test. None of the medications examined was associated with a substantial increase in the risk of severe illness among patients who tested positive.
We found no substantial increase in the likelihood of a positive test for Covid-19 or in the risk of severe Covid-19 among patients who tested positive in association with five common classes of antihypertensive medications.
Abstract Background The optimal blood pressure (BP) target has been a matter of debate. The recent SPRINT trial showed significant benefits of a BP target of <120 mm Hg albeit with an increase in ...serious adverse effects related to low BP. Methods PUBMED, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched for randomized trials comparing treating to different BP targets. Trial arms were grouped into five systolic BP target categories: 1) <160 mm Hg; 2) <150 mm Hg; 3) <140 mm Hg; 4) <130 mm Hg and 5) <120 mm Hg. Efficacy outcomes of stroke, myocardial infarction, death, cardiovascular death, heart failure and safety outcomes of serious adverse effects were evaluated using a network meta-analysis. Results Seventeen trials that enrolled 55,163 patients with 204,103 patient-years of follow-up were included. There was a significant decrease in stroke (RR=0.54; 95% CI 0.29-1.00) and myocardial infarction (RR=0.68; 95% CI 0.47-1.00) with systolic BP <120 mm Hg (vs. <160 mm Hg). Sensitivity analysis using achieved systolic BP showed a 72%, 97% and 227% increase in stroke with systolic BP of <140 mm Hg, <150 mm Hg and <160 mm respectively, when compared with systolic BP <120 mm Hg. There was no difference in death, cardiovascular death or heart failure when comparing any of the BP targets. However, the point estimate favored lower BP targets (<120 mm Hg, <130 mm Hg) when compared with higher BP targets (<140 mm Hg or <150 mm Hg). BP targets of <120 mm Hg and <130 mm Hg ranked #1 and #2 respectively, as the most efficacious target. There was a significant increase in serious adverse effects with systolic BP <120 mm Hg vs. <150 mm Hg (RR=1.83; 95% CI 1.05-3.20) or vs. <140 mm Hg (RR=2.12; 95% CI 1.46-3.08). BP targets of <140 mm Hg and <150 mm Hg ranked #1 and #2 respectively, as the safest target for the outcome of serious adverse effects. Cluster plots for combined efficacy and safety showed that a systolic BP target of <130 mm Hg had optimal balance between efficacy and safety. Conclusions In patients with hypertension, a systolic BP target of <130 mm Hg achieved optimal balance between efficacy and safety.
Although the mercury sphygmomanometer is widely regarded as the gold standard for office blood pressure measurement, the ban on use of mercury devices continues to diminish their role in office and ...hospital settings. To date, mercury devices have largely been phased out in United States hospitals. This situation has led to the proliferation of nonmercury devices and has changed (probably forever) the preferable modality of blood pressure measurement in clinic and hospital settings. In this article, the basic techniques of blood pressure measurement and the technical issues associated with measurements in clinical practice are discussed. The devices currently available for hospital and clinic measurements and their important sources of error are presented. Practical advice is given on how the different devices and measurement techniques should be used. Blood pressure measurements in different circumstances and in special populations such as infants, children, pregnant women, elderly persons, and obese subjects are discussed.
To compare the efficacy and safety of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients without heart failure.
Meta-analysis of randomized trials ...identified using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials searches from January 1, 1980, through April 13, 2015, of ACEis and ARBs compared with placebo or active controls and corroborated with head-to-head trials of ARBs vs ACEis. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), angina, stroke, heart failure, revascularization, and new-onset diabetes.
Our search yielded 106 randomized trials that enrolled 254,301 patients. Compared with placebo, ACEis but not ARBs reduced the outcomes of all-cause mortality (ACEis vs placebo: relative risk RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-1.00; ARBs vs placebo: RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96-1.06; Pinteraction=.04), cardiovascular death (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.99 and RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.14; Pinteraction=.05), and MI (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.90 and RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.03; Pinteraction=.06). The meta-regression analysis revealed that the difference between ACEis and ARBs compared with placebo was due to a higher placebo event rate in the ACEis trials (most of these trials were conducted a decade earlier than the ARB trials) for the outcome of all-cause mortality (P=.001), cardiovascular death (P<.001), and MI (P=.02). Sensitivity analyses restricted to trials published after 2000 revealed similar outcomes with ACEis vs placebo and ARBs vs placebo (Pinteraction>.05). Head-to-head comparison trials of ARBs vs ACEis exhibited no difference in outcomes except for a lower risk of drug withdrawal due to adverse effects with ARBs (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.65-0.81).
In patients without heart failure, evidence from placebo-controlled trials (restricted to trials after 2000), active controlled trials, and head-to-head randomized trials all suggest ARBs to be as efficacious and safe as ACEis, with the added advantage of better tolerability.
A growing body of research demonstrates that psychosocial factors play an important role in the development of hypertension. Previous reviews have identified several key factors (i.e., occupational ...stress) that contribute to the onset of hypertension; however, they are now outdated. In this review, we provide an updated synthesis of the literature from 2010 to April 2014. We identified 21 articles for inclusion in the review, of which there were six categories of psychosocial stressors: occupational stress, personality, mental health, housing instability, social support/isolation, and sleep quality. Sixteen of the studies reported an association between the psychosocial stressor and blood pressure. While several findings were consistent with previous literature, new findings regarding mediating and moderating factors underlying the psychosocial-hypertension association help to untangle inconsistencies reported in the literature. Moreover, sleep quality is a novel additional factor that should undergo further exploration. Areas for future research based on these findings are discussed.
Increasing evidence links cognitive-decline and Alzheimer's disease (AD) to various sleep disorders, including obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). With increasing age, there are substantial differences in ...OSA's prevalence, associated comorbidities and phenotypic presentation. An important question for sleep and AD researchers is whether OSA's heterogeneity results in varying cognitive-outcomes in older-adults compared to middle-aged adults. In this review, we systematically integrated research examining OSA and cognition, mild cognitive-impairment (MCI) and AD/AD biomarkers; including the effects of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment, particularly focusing on characterizing the heterogeneity of OSA and its cognitive-outcomes. Broadly, in middle-aged adults, OSA is often associated with mild impairment in attention, memory and executive function. In older-adults, OSA is not associated with any particular pattern of cognitive-impairment at cross-section; however, OSA is associated with the development of MCI or AD with symptomatic patients who have a higher likelihood of associated disturbed sleep/cognitive-impairment driving these findings. CPAP treatment may be effective in improving cognition in OSA patients with AD. Recent trends demonstrate links between OSA and AD-biomarkers of neurodegeneration across all age-groups. These distinct patterns provide the foundation for envisioning better characterization of OSA and the need for more sensitive/novel sleep-dependent cognitive assessments to assess OSA-related cognitive-impairment.
Given the increasing use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in both clinical practice and hypertension research, a group of scientists, participating in the European Society of ...Hypertension Working Group on blood pressure monitoring and cardiovascular variability, in year 2013 published a comprehensive position paper dealing with all aspects of the technique, based on the available scientific evidence for ABPM. The present work represents an updated schematic summary of the most important aspects related to the use of ABPM in daily practice, and is aimed at providing recommendations for proper use of this technique in a clinical setting by both specialists and practicing physicians. The present article details the requirements and the methodological issues to be addressed for using ABPM in clinical practice, The clinical indications for ABPM suggested by the available studies, among which white-coat phenomena, masked hypertension, and nocturnal hypertension, are outlined in detail, and the place of home measurement of blood pressure in relation to ABPM is discussed. The role of ABPM in pharmacological, epidemiological, and clinical research is also briefly mentioned. Finally, the implementation of ABPM in practice is considered in relation to the situation of different countries with regard to the reimbursement and the availability of ABPM in primary care practices, hospital clinics, and pharmacies.
PDF
