Advertisement

Management of Hypertension

Implications of JNC 7
  • Gregory M. Singer
  • John R Setaro
Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Cardiology book series (CONCARD)

Abstract

Recent recommendations by the Joint National Committee on the Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC) 7 reflect a paradigm shift in the classification and treatment of hypertension. Incorporating findings of current clinical trials and surveys, JNC 7 reoriented the focus of hypertension management toward an intensive delineation of risk and concentration on goal achievement. This chapter analyzes the evolution of risk stratification, improvement of treatment strategies, and identification of modifiable risk patterns that affect blood pressure (BP) goal achievement. We will survey the components of evaluation and identify potential barriers to successful goal-oriented hypertension management.

Keywords

Systolic Hypertension Resistant Hypertension Hypertension Optimal Treatment Diabetic Hypertensive Patient National High Blood Pressure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Veterans Administration Cooperative Study Group on Antihypertensive Agents. Effects of treatment on morbidity in hypertension. Results in patients with diastolic BP averaging 115 through 129 mmHg. JAMA 1967;202:1028–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Veterans Administration Cooperative Study Group on Antihypertensive Agents. Effects of treatment on morbidity in hypertension. II. Results in patients with diastolic blood pressure averaging 90 through 114 mmHg. JAMA 1970;213:1143–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moser, M. Evolution of the treatment of hypertension from the 1940s to JNC V. Am J Hypertens 1997;10(part2):2S–8S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    National High Blood Pressure Education Program. Report to the Hypertension Information and Education Advisory Committee. Task Force I Data B ase. Recommendations for a national high blood pressure program database for effective antihypertensive therapy. DHEW Publication No. (NIH) 75-593, September 1, 1973.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kannel WB, Gordon T, Schwartz MJ. Systolic versus diastolic blood pressure and risk of coronary heart disease. The Framingham study. Am J Cardiol 1971;27:335–346.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Report of the Joint National Committee on Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC IV). Arch Intern Med 1988;148:1023–1038.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hulley SB, Furberg CD, Gurland B, et al. Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP): antihypertensive efficacy of chlorthalidone. Am J Cardiol 1988;56:913–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program Cooperative Research Group. Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. Final results of the systolic hypertension in the elderly program (SHEP). JAMA 1991;265:3255–3264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program Cooperative Group. Five-year findings of the Hypertension Detection and Follow-Up Program (HDFP). Reduction in mortality of persons with high blood pressure, including mild hypertension. JAMA 1979;242:2562–2571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Working Group on Hypertension in Diabetes. Statement on hypertension in diabetes mellitus: final report. Arch Intern Med 1987; 147:830–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Laasko M. Benefits of strict glucose and blood pressure control in type 2 diabetes: lessons from the UK Prospective Diabetes Study. Circulation 1999;99:461–462.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. BMJ 1998;317:703–713.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hansson L, Zanchetti A, Carruthers SG, et al. Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomized trial. Lancet 1998;351:1755–1762.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al. and the National High Blood Pressure Education Program Coordinating Committee. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. JAMA 2003;289:2560–2572.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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;360:1903–1913.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Must A, Spadano J, Coakley E, Field A, Colditz G, Dietz W. The disease burden associated with overweight and obesity. JAMA 1999;282:1523–1529.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ford ES, Giles WH, Dietz WH. Prevalence of the metabolic syndrome among US adults-findings from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. JAMA 2002;287:356–359.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gregg EW, Cheng YJ, Cadwell BI, et al. Secular trends in cardiovascular disease risk factors according to body mass index in US adults. JAMA 2005;293:1868–1874.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kannel WB. Risk stratification in hypertension: new insights from the Framingham Study. Am J Hypertens 2000;13:3S–10S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vasan RS, Beiser A, Seshadri S, et al. Residual lifetime risk for developing hypertension in middle-aged women and men: the Framingham Heart Study. JAMA 2002;287:1003–1010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Perloff D, Grim C, Flack J, et al. Human blood pressure determination by sphygmomanometry. Circulation 1993;88:2460–2470.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Staessen JA, Fagard R, Thijs L, et al. Randomised double-blind comparison of placebo and active treatment for older patients with isolated systolic hypertension. The Systolic Hypertension-Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial Investigators. Lancet 1997;350:757–764.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Julius S, Mejia A, Jones K, et al. White coat versus sustained borderline hypertension in Tecumseh, Michigan. Hypertension 1990; 16:617–623.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pickering TG. A new role for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring? JAMA 1997;278:1110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Obarzanek E, Proschan MA, Vollmer WM, et al. Individual blood pressure responses to changes in salt intake: results from the DASH-Sodium Trial. Hypertension 2003;42:459–467.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sacks FM, Svetkey LP, Vollmer WM, et al. for the DASH-Sodium Collaboration Research Group. Effects on blood pressure of reduced dietary sodium and the dietary approaches to stop hypertension (DASH) diet. N Engl J Med 2001;344:3–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Neaton JD, Grimm RH, Prineas RJ, et al. Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study (TOMHS). JAMA 1993;270:713–724.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 27a.
    Elliot WJ, Black HR. Hypertension. In: Wong NE, ed. Preventive Cardiology: A Practical Approach, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005, p. 169.Google Scholar
  29. 28.
    Julius S, Nesbitt S, Egan B, et al. for the TROPHY study group. Trial of Preventing Hypertension: design and 2-year progress report. Hypertension 2004;44:146–151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 29.
    Black HR, Elliott WJ, Grandits G, et al. CONVINCE Research Group. Principal results of the Controlled Onset Verapamil Investigation of Cardiovascular End Points (CONVINCE) trial. JAMA 2003;289:2073–2082.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 30.
    The ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Group. Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic. The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). JAMA 2002;288:1981–1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 31.
    Jamerson KA. The first hypertension trial comparing the effects of two fixed-dose combination therapy regimens on cardiovascular events: Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH). J Clin Hypertens 2003;54(Suppl 3):29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 32.
    Julius S, Kjeldsen SE, Weber M, et al. for the VALUE trial group. Outcomes in hypertensive patients a high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine: the VALUE randomized trial. Lancet 2004;3663:2022–2031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 33.
    Bakris GL, Weir MR, on behalf of the Study of Hypertension and Efficacy of Lotrel in Diabetes (SHIELD) investigators. Achieving goal blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes: conventional versus fixed-dose combination approaches. J Clin Hypertens 2003;5:201–210.Google Scholar
  35. 34.
    Pitt B, Remme W, Zannad F, et al. Eplerenone, a selective aldosterone blocker, in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1309–1321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 35.
    The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. Effects of an angiotensin converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. NEnglJMed 2000;342:145–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 36.
    Nissen SE, Tuzcu EM, Libby P, et al. for the CAMELOT Investigators. Effect of antihypertensive agents on cardiovascular events in patients with coronary disease and normal blood pressure The CAMELOT Study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004;292:2217–2226.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 37.
    Tepper D. Frontiers in congestive heart failure: effect of Metoprolol CR/XL in chronic heart failure: metoprolol CR/XL Randomised Intervention Trial in Congestive Heart Failure (MERIT-HF). Congest Heart Fail 1999;5:184–185.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 38.
    The SOLVD Investigators. Effect of enalapril on survival in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fractions and congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med 1991;325:293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 39.
    Cohn JN, Tognoni G. A randomized trial of the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan in chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med 2001;345:1667–1675.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 40.
    Packer M, Coats AJ, Fowler MB, et al. Effect of carvedilol on survival in severe chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med 2001;344:1651–1658.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 41.
    Poole-Wilson PA, Swedberg K, Cleland JG, et al. Carvedilol or Metoprolol European Trial Investigators. Comparison of carvedilol and metoprolol on clinical outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure in the Carvedilol or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET): randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003;362:7–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 42.
    Pfeffer MA, Swedberg K, Granger CB, et al. CHARM Investigators and Committees. Effects of candesartan on mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure: the CHARM-Overall programme. Lancet 2003;362:759–766.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 43.
    Pitt B, Zannad F, Remme WJ, et al. The effect of spironolactone on morbidity and mortality in patients with severe heart failure. Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study Investigators. N Engl J Med 1999;341:709–717.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 44.
    Hunt SA, Baker DW, Chin MH, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the evaluation and management of chronic heart failure in the adult: executive summary. A report of the American College of Cardiology American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to revise the 1995 Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure). J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;38:2101–2113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 45.
    Packer M, O’Connor CM, Ghali JK, et al. Effect of amlodipine on morbidity and mortality in severe chronic heart failure. Prospective Randomized Amlodipine Survival Evaluation Study Group. N Engl J Med 1996;335:1107–1114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 46.
    Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Bain RP, Rohde RD for the Collaborative Study Group. The effect of angio-tensin-converting-enzyme inhibition on diabetic nephropathy. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1456–1462.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 47.
    UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. BMJ 1998;317:703–713.Google Scholar
  49. 48.
    Hansson L, Zanchetti A, Carruthers SG, et al. Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomized trial. Lancet 1998;351:1755–1762.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 49.
    Yusuf S, Sleight P, Pogue J, Bosch J, Davies R, Dagenais G. Effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. N Engl J Med 2000;342:145–153.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 50.
    Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Clarke WR, et al. Renoprotective effect of the angiotensin receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2001;345:851–860.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 51.
    Brenner BM, Cooper ME, de Zeeuw D, et al, for the Reduction of End Points in Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) Study Investigators. Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med 2001;345:861–869.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 52.
    Whelton PK, Barzilay J, Cushman WC, et al. for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. Clinical Outcomes in ALLHAT antihypertensives trial participants with type 2 diabetes, impaired fasting glucose, and normoglycemia. Ann Intern Med 2005;165:1401–1409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 53.
    Singer GM, Setaro JF. The ALLHAT (The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering to Prevent Heart Attack Trial) Study: implications for resistant hypertension. J Clin Hypertens 2004;7:31–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 54.
    Bakris GL, Fonseca V, Katholi RE, et al. for the GEMINI Investigators. Metabolic effects of carvedilol vs metoprolol in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004;292:2227–2236.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 55.
    Lazarus JM, Bourgoignie JJ, Buckalew VM, et al. Achievement and safety of a low blood pressure goal in chronic renal disease. The Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group. Hypertension 1997;29:641–650.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 56.
    PROGRESS Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of a perindopril-based blood-pressure-lowering regimen among 6,105 individuals with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack. Lancet 2001;358:1033–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 57.
    PROGRESS Collaborative Group. Effects of a perindopril-based blood pressure lowering regimen on cardiac outcomes among patients with cerebrovascular disease. Eur Heart J 2003;24:475–484.Google Scholar
  59. 58.
    Setaro JF. Resistant hypertension. In: Black HR, Elliott WP, eds. Clinical Hypertension: A Companion to Braunwald’s Heart Disease, 1st edition. Philadelphia, Elsevier, 2006, in press.Google Scholar
  60. 59.
    Garg JP, Elliott WJ, Folker A, Izhar M, Black HR and RUSH University Hypertension Service. Resistant hypertension revisited: a comparison of two university-based cohorts. Am J Hypertens 2005; 18:619–626.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 60.
    Phillips LS, Branch WT Jr, Cook CB, et al. Clinical inertia. Ann Intern Med 2001;135:825–834.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 61.
    Berlowitz DR, Ash AS, Hickey EC, et al. Inadequate management of blood pressure in a hypertensive population. N Engl J Med 1998;339:1957–1963.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 62.
    El-Kebbi IM, Ziemer DC, Gallina DL, Dunbar V, Phillips LS. Diabetes in urban African-Americans. XV. Identification of barriers to provider adherence to management protocols. Diabetes Care 1999;22:1617–1620.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 63.
    Setaro JF, Black HR. Refractory hypertension. N Engl J Med 1992;327:543–547.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 64.
    Valli G, Giardina EV. Benefits, adverse effects and drug interactions of herbal therapies with cardiovas-cular effects. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:1083–1095.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 65.
    Singer GM, Izhar M, Black HR. Goal-oriented management of hypertension: translating clinical trial results into practice. Hypertension 2002;40:464–469.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 66.
    Singer GM, Izhar M, Black HR. Guidelines of hypertension: are quality assurance measures on target? Hypertension 2004;43:198–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 67.
    Banegas JR, Segura J, Ruilope LM, et al. on behalf of the CLUE Study Group Investigators. Blood pressure control and physician management of hypertension in hospital hypertension units in Spain. Hypertension 2004;43:1338–1344.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 68.
    Romain TM, Patel RT, Heaberlin AM, Zarowitz B J. Assessment of factors influencing blood pressure control in a managed care population. Pharmacotherapy 2003;23:1060–1070.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 69.
    Saseen JJ, Carter BL, Brown TE, Elliott WJ, Black HR. Comparison of nifedipine alone and with diltiazem or verapamil in hypertension. Hypertension 1996;28:109–114.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 70.
    Nishizaka MK, Zaman MA, Calhoun DA. Efficacy of low-dose spironolactone in subjects with resistant hypertension. Am J Hypertens 2003;16:925–930.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 71.
    Nakao N, Yoshimura A, Morita H, Takada M, Kayano T, Ideura T. Combination treatment of angio-tensin II receptor blocker and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor in non-diabetic renal disease (COOPERATE): a randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2003;361:117–124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 72.
    Mogensen CE, Neldam S, Tikkanen I, et al. Randomised controlled trial of dual blockade of rennin-angiotensin system in patients with hypertension, microalbuminuria, and non-insulin dependent diabetes: the Candesartan and Lisinopril Microalbuminuria (CALM) Study. Br Med J 2000;321:1440–1444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press Inc., Totowa, NJ 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory M. Singer
    • 1
  • John R Setaro
    • 1
  1. 1.Section of Cardiovascular MedicineYale University School of MedicineNew Haven

Personalised recommendations