Related Experiment Videos
[Guidelines for management of hypertension: why doesn't evidence lead to unanimity?]
1U.O. Nefrologia e Dialisi Laerte Poletti, Ospedale S. Maria della Scaletta, Imola (BO). a.zuccala@ausl.imola.bo.it
Insights
Multiple hypertension guidelines offer varying advice on blood pressure targets and treatment thresholds. These differences stem from divergent views on the relationship between hypertension and overall cardiovascular risk.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Nephrology
- Public Health
Context:
- Arterial hypertension management guidelines are crucial for clinical decision-making.
- Multiple international guidelines exist for hypertension management.
- Discrepancies among guidelines can complicate physician choices.
Purpose:
- To compare recent arterial hypertension management guidelines.
- To identify key differences in definitions, targets, and treatment thresholds.
- To explore the underlying reasons for these variations.
Summary:
- Analysis of WHO-ISH, ESH-ESC, BHS-IV, and JNC-7 guidelines reveals significant differences.
- Variations exist in hypertension definition, blood pressure targets, cardiovascular risk assessment, and initial drug selection.
- These disparities are attributed to differing perspectives on hypertension's role in global cardiovascular risk.
Impact:
- Understanding guideline variations is essential for evidence-based hypertension care.
- Highlights the need for harmonization or clearer justification of differing recommendations.
- Informs future guideline development regarding hypertension and cardiovascular risk integration.
Abstract:
Guidelines are systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions, and are being used to describe care based on scientific evidence. However, presence of multiple guidelines on the same subject does not help physicians make the best decision about healthcare. In this paper we examined the more recent guidelines (GL) for the management of arterial hypertension: World Health Organization-International Society of Hypertension (WHO-ISH) GL, European Society of Hypertension-European Society of Cardiology (ESH-ESC) GL, British Hypertension Society (BHS-IV) GL, and the report of Joint National Committee (JNC-7) from USA. Some differences emerged on the definition of hypertension, the blood pressure targets and the thresholds for treatment, the quantification of cardiovascular risk, the choice of initial drugs. These differences are likely to be based on divergent opinions about the relationship between hypertension and global cardiovascular risk (CVR). In the JNC-7 report, hypertension is thought to be the mainstay of CVR, hence BP treatment is to be started, taking into account the entity of blood pressure values and apart from other risk factors (with the exception of diabetes and renal insufficiency). The other GL, particularly BHS-IV GL, establish the thresholds for the start of treatment mainly taking into account the global CVR. Actually, BHS-IV GL do not recommend the start of pharmacological treatment in mild hypertension, provided that the global CVR was lower than 20% in ten years. Moreover, the difference in definition of hypertension, BP targets, choice of starting drug, is likely to spring from this different view on hypertensionglobal cardiovascular risk relationship.
Related Concept Videos
Hypertension and Regulation of Blood Pressure
Hypertension V: Nursing Management
Hypertension IV: Drug Therapy and Lifestyle Modifications
Hypertension I: Introduction
Hypertension III: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Errors occurring during blood pressure monitoring
Several factors...