Advertisement

Comparison of the 2017 ACC/AHA Hypertension Guideline with Earlier Guidelines on Estimated Reductions in Cardiovascular Disease

  • Joshua D. Bundy
  • Katherine T. Mills
  • Jiang HeEmail author
Hypertension and the Kidney (RM Carey, Section Editor)
  • 120 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Hypertension and the Kidney

Abstract

Purpose of Review

To review the recommendations of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension guideline and to compare it with previous guidelines on potential cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality risk reductions.

Recent Findings

Compared with previous guidelines, the 2017 hypertension guideline increased the prevalence of hypertension and the number of adults recommended for antihypertensive therapy in the US population. Based on data from recent analyses, the new guideline effectively directs antihypertensive therapy toward individuals at higher CVD risk. Two recent analyses using US national data estimated that implementation of the 2017 hypertension guideline could further reduce hundreds of thousands of CVD events and deaths compared with previous guidelines. However, the new guideline might increase the number of adverse events. The new guideline also improves the number of individuals needed to treat to prevent CVD events and deaths, suggesting implementation is cost-effective.

Summary

Implementation of the 2017 hypertension guideline is projected to substantially reduce CVD events and deaths in the USA but might increase the number of adverse events. Future research is needed to implement and scale up effective, equitable, and sustainable strategies for applying the new guideline in daily clinical practice.

Keywords

Cardiovascular disease Mortality Population Epidemiology Hypertension guidelines 

Notes

Funding Information

This work was supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (P20GM109036) and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL133790) of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to this manuscript.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    The US. Burden of Disease Collaborators. The state of US health, 1990–2016: burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors among US states. JAMA. 2018;319:1444–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mills KT, Bundy JD, Kelly TN, Reed JE, Kearney PM, Reynolds K, et al. Global disparities of hypertension prevalence and control: a systematic analysis of population-based studies from 90 countries. Circulation. 2016;134:441–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Forouzanfar MH, Liu P, Roth GA, Ng M, Biryukov S, Marczak L, et al. Global burden of hypertension and systolic blood pressure of at least 110 to 115 mmHg, 1990-2015. JAMA. 2017;317:165–82.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lewington S, Clarke R, Qizilbash N, Peto R, Collins R. Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies. Lancet. 2002;360:1903–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Effects of different blood-pressure-lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events: results of prospectively-designed overviews of randomised trials. Lancet. 2003;362:1527–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ettehad D, Emdin CA, Kiran A, Anderson SG, Callender T, Emberson J, et al. Blood pressure lowering for prevention of cardiovascular disease and death: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Elsevier Ltd. 2016;387:957–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Report of the Joint National Committee on Detection. Evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure. JAMA. 1977;237:255–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, Cushman WC, Green LA, Izzo JL Jr, et al. Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. JAMA. 2003;289:2560–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, Cushman WC, Dennison-Himmelfarb C, Handler J, et al. 2014 evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults. JAMA. 2014;311:507–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wright JT Jr, Fine LJ, Lackland DT, Ogedegbe G, Dennison Himmelfarb CR. Evidence supporting a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 150 mm hg in patients aged 60 years or older: the minority view. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    SPRINT Research Group. A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2103–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Xie X, Atkins E, Lv J, Bennett A, Neal B, Ninomiya T, et al. Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering on cardiovascular and renal outcomes: updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. Elsevier Ltd. 2016;387:435–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bundy JD, Li C, Stuchlik P, Bu X, Kelly TN, Mills KT, et al. Systolic blood pressure reduction and risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2:775–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    •• Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, Casey DE, Collins KJ, Dennison Himmelfarb C, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71:e127–248 This is the most recent 2017 hypertension guideline and contains detailed recommendations regarding the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of hypertension and cites substantial evidence supporting the recommendations.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    •• Bundy JD, Mills KT, Chen J, Li C, Greenland P, He J. Estimating the association of the 2017 and 2014 hypertension guidelines with cardiovascular events and deaths in US adults. JAMA Cardiol. 2018;3:572–81 This is one of two separate, but complementary, modeling analyses that estimates the potential risk reductions of cardiovascular disease and all-cause deaths in the US population. Additionally, this paper provides the most updated nationally representative data on the prevalence of hypertension under the 2014 and 2017 hypertension guidelines. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    •• Bress AP, Colantonio LD, Cooper RS, Kramer H, Booth JN, Odden MC, et al. Potential Cardiovascular Disease Events Prevented with Adoption of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Blood Pressure Guideline. Circulation. 2019;139:24–36 This is one of two separate, but complementary, modeling analyses that estimates the potential risk reductions of cardiovascular disease and all-cause deaths in the US population..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    • Muntner P, Shimbo D, Carey RM, Charleston JB, Gaillard T, Misra S, et al. Measurement of blood pressure in humans: a scientific statement from the american heart association. Hypertension. 2019. This scientific statement describes, in detail, appropriate measurement of blood pressure and represents an important reference for a crucial aspect of hypertension control. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shimbo D, Abdalla M, Falzon L, Townsend RR, Muntner P. Role of ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring in clinical practice: a narrative review. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:691–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ioannidis JPA. Diagnosis and treatment of hypertension in the 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines and in the real world. JAMA. 2018;319:115–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Qaseem A, Wilt TJ, Rich R, Humphrey LL, Frost J, Forciea MA. Pharmacologic treatment of hypertension in adults aged 60 years or older to higher versus lower blood pressure targets: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:430–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guo X, Zhang X, Guo L, Li Z, Zheng L, Yu S, et al. Association between pre-hypertension and cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2013;15:703–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    • Muntner P, Carey RM, Gidding S, Jones DW, Taler SJ, Wright JT, et al. Potential U.S. population impact of the 2017 ACC/AHA high blood pressure guideline. Circulation. 2018;137:109–18 This paper provides nationally representative data on the prevalence of hypertension under the JNC7 and 2017 hypertension guidelines.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Turnbull F, Neal B, Ninomiya T, Algert C, Arima H, Barzi F, et al. Effects of different regimens to lower blood pressure on major cardiovascular events in older and younger adults: meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ. 2008;336:1121–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Blood pressure-lowering treatment based on cardiovascular risk: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet. Elsevier Ltd. 2014;384:591–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Blood pressure lowering and major cardiovascular events in people with and without chronic kidney disease: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2013;347:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Messerli FH, Panjrath GS. The J-curve between blood pressure and coronary artery disease or essential hypertension. Exactly how essential? J Am Coll Cardiol. Elsevier Inc. 2009;54:1827–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mancia G, Grassi G. Aggressive blood pressure lowering is dangerous: the J-curve: pro side of the argument. Hypertension. 2014;63:29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cheung AK, Rahman M, Reboussin DM, Craven TE, Greene T, Kimmel PL, et al. Effects of intensive BP control in CKD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017;28:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chang TI, Sarnak MJ. Intensive blood pressure targets and kidney disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018;CJN.02010218.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    ACCORD Study Group. Effects of intensive blood-pressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1575–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Margolis KL, O’Connor PJ, Morgan TM, Buse JB, Cohen RM, Cushman WC, et al. Outcomes of combined cardiovascular risk factor management strategies in type 2 diabetes: the ACCORD randomized trial. Diabetes Care. 2014;37:1721–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    McBrien K, Rabi DM, Campbell N, Barnieh L, Clement F, Hemmelgarn BR, et al. Intensive and standard blood pressure targets in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med. 2012;172:1296–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Brunström M, Carlberg B. Effect of antihypertensive treatment at different blood pressure levels in patients with diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analyses. BMJ. 2016;352:i717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Peralta CA, Katz R, Newman AB, Psaty BM, Odden MC. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure, incident cardiovascular events, and death in elderly persons: the role of functional limitation in the cardiovascular health study. Hypertension. 2014;64:472–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Windham BG, Griswold ME, Lirette S, Kucharska-Newton A, Foraker RE, Rosamond W, et al. Effects of age and functional status on the relationship of systolic blood pressure with mortality in mid and late life: the ARIC study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2017;72:89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Peters R, Beckett N, Falaschetti E, Thijs L, Bulpitt C, Rockwood K, et al. No evidence that frailty modifies the positive impact of antihypertensive treatment in very elderly people: an investigation of the impact of frailty upon treatment effect in the HYpertension in the Very Elderly Trial (HYVET) study, a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of antihypertensives in people with hypertension aged 80 and over. BMC Med. 2015;13:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Williamson JD, Supiano MA, Applegate WB, Berlowitz DR, Campbell RC, Chertow GM, et al. Intensive vs standard blood pressure control and cardiovascular disease outcomes in adults aged ≥75 years: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;315:2673–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Reboussin DM, Allen NB, Griswold ME, Guallar E, Hong Y, Lackland DT, et al. Systematic review for the 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/ APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71:2176–98.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Goff DC, Lloyd-Jones DM, Bennett G, Coady S, D’Agostino RB, Gibbons R, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association task force on practice guidelines. Circulation. 2013;00:000–000.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bress AP, Bellows BK, King JB, Hess R, Beddhu S, Zhang Z, et al. Cost-effectiveness of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:745–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, design and objectives: the ARIC investigators. Am J Epidemiol. 1989;129:687–702.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fried LP, Borhani N, Enright P, Furberg CD, Gardin JM, Kronmal RA, et al. The Cardiovascular Health Study: design and rationale. Ann Epidemiol. 1991;Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Feinleib M, Kannel W, Garrison R, McNamara P, Castelli W. The Framingham Offspring Study. Design and preliminary data. Prev Med. 1975;4:518–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bild DE, Bluemke DA, Burke GL, Detrano R, Diez Roux AV, Folsom AR, et al. Multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis: objectives and design. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;156:871–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Greenland S. Interval estimation by simulation as an alternative to and extension of confidence intervals. Int J Epidemiol. 2004;33:1389–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Laupacis A, Sackett D, Roberts R. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med. 1988;318:1728–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Howard VJ, Cushman M, Pulley L, Gomez CR, Go RC, Prineas RJ, et al. The reasons for geographic and racial differences in stroke study: objectives and design. Neuroepidemiology. 2005;25:135–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bundy JD, Whelton PK, He J. Safety vs efficacy of lowering blood pressure—reply. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2:1399–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Greenland P. Cardiovascular guideline skepticism vs lifestyle realism? JAMA. 2018;319:117–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    •• Colantonio LD, Booth JN, Bress AP, Whelton PK, Shimbo D, Levitan EB, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure treatment guideline recommendations and cardiovascular risk. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:1187–97 This paper provides observational data supporting the recommendations of the 2017 hypertension guideline, including for the baseline risk–targeted approach in those with stage 1 hypertension.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Qi Y, Han X, Zhao D, Wang W, Wang M, Sun J, et al. Long-term cardiovascular risk associated with stage 1 hypertension defined by the 2017 ACC/AHA hypertension guideline. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:1201–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Taler SJ. Epidemiological versus trial evidence for hypertension treatment. J Am Coll Cardiol Elsevier. 2018;72:1211–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Fryar C, Ostchega Y, Hales C, Zhang G, Kruszon-Moran D. Hypertension prevalence and control among adults: United States, 2015–2016. NCHS Data Brief, No. 289. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2017.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Fine LJ, Goff DC, Mensah GA. Blood pressure control—much has been achieved, much remains to be done Blood pressure control—much has been achieved, much remains to be done Editorial. JAMA Cardiol. 2018;3:555–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    • Mills KT, Obst KM, Shen W, Molina S, Zhang H-J, He H, et al. Comparative effectiveness of implementation strategies for blood pressure control in hypertensive patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of implementation strategies for blood pressure control. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168:110–20 This paper provides a comparison of several strategies for implementation of blood pressure control using a meta-analytic framework.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Bangalore S, Toklu B, Gianos E, Schwartzbard A, Weintraub H, Ogedegbe G, et al. Optimal systolic blood pressure target after SPRINT: insights from a network meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am J Med Elsevier Inc. 2017;130:707–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Jones DW, Weatherly L, Hall JE. SPRINT: what remains unanswered and where do we Go from Here? Hypertension. 2016;67:261–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joshua D. Bundy
    • 1
  • Katherine T. Mills
    • 1
  • Jiang He
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Epidemiology, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, and Tulane University Translational Science InstituteTulane UniversityNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations