scholarly journals Newer and Aggressive Blood Pressure Goals to Treat Hypertension

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 64-69
Author(s):  
Prakash Sanzgiri ◽  
K. V. Charan Reddy
2003 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 266-270
Author(s):  
Maqual R Graham ◽  
Nicole M Allcock ◽  
Cameron C Lindsey

Objective: To determine whether blood pressure could be maintained for patients on lisinopril following conversion to a theorized, therapeutic dose of fosinopril. The tolerability of fosinopril was also assessed. Methods: Subjects receiving lisinopril were considered candidates for this prospective, observational study. Prescribing information for both lisinopril and fosinopril suggested a milligram-to-milligram equivalency. Patients taking lisinopril 10 mg/d were switched to fosinopril 10 mg/d. Blood pressures were compared at baseline and 2, 6, and 18 weeks after conversion. A goal blood pressure of <140/90 mm Hg was assigned to all patients at enrollment and used to determine goal attainment at baseline and 18 weeks. More aggressive blood pressure goals are currently recommended; thus, medical histories were reevaluated at the end of the study and new goals were assigned and assessed. Adverse effect occurrence was also compared between visits. Results: One hundred thirty-three subjects were enrolled. The mean dose of lisinopril prior to conversion was 15 ± 11 mg/d compared with the mean final fosinopril dose of 20 ± 14 mg/d. Both the mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures increased significantly at the 18-week visit when compared with baseline (p = 0.00007 and p = 0.015, respectively). Using a goal blood pressure of <140/90 mm Hg, there was no difference detected between the baseline and the final assessment visit (p = 0.851). A greater number of subjects were unable to achieve goal status at 18 weeks when compared with baseline after applying the newly defined goals (p = 0.003). Sixteen of the original 133 subjects discontinued fosinopril due to adverse events. Conclusions: When converting subjects from lisinopril to fosinopril, equivalent blood pressure may be difficult to achieve without increasing the dose of fosinopril.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 19-23
Author(s):  
Aparna Ramakrishna Pai ◽  
Nikith Shetty

Hypertension ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 74 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Schultz ◽  
Lien Trieu ◽  
Matthew Snyder ◽  
Sandrine Lebrun ◽  
Rebecca Mazurkiewicz

Author(s):  
Fabio Angeli ◽  
Gianpaolo Reboldi ◽  
Cristina Poltronieri ◽  
Giovanni Mazzotta ◽  
Marta Garofoli ◽  
...  

Introduction The aim of this review was to summarize the current state of evidence regarding the optimal blood pressure goals in patients with high vascular risk. In particular, this review critically addresses the issue of the “J-curve” paradox – a hypothesis indicating that low treatment-induced blood pressure values are characterized by an increase, rather than a decrease, in the incidence of cardiovascular events. Materials and methods We reviewed evidence from studies published in peer-reviewed journals indexed in Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL that compared different BP goals. Results Post-hoc analyses of randomized trials specifically conducted to test the hypothesis of the “J-shaped curve” yielded conflicting results. However, trials directly comparing different blood pressure goals and meta-analyses showed that in-treatment blood pressure values below the usual goal of less than 140/90 mmHg improve outcomes in patients at increased vascular risk. Discussion The fear that an excessive reduction in blood pressure may be dangerous is inconsistent with the available data and probably conditioned by the adverse impact of other risk factors that may be more frequent in patients with low values of achieved blood pressure. The association between blood pressure reduction and cardiovascular risk seems to be linear and not J-shaped.


Hypertension ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 943-944
Author(s):  
Waleed E. Ali ◽  
George L. Bakris

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document