Target organ damage: how to detect it and how to treat it?

The early detection of cardiac organ damage in clinical practice is primordial for cardiovascular risk profiling of patients with hypertension. In this respect the determination of microalbuminuria is very appealing because it increasingly appears to be the most cost-effective means to identify cardiovascular and renal complications. Considering the treatment of patients with target organ damage, blockers of the renin-angiotensin system have a key position as they are very effective in regressing left ventricular hypertrophy, lowering urinary albumin excretion and delaying the progression of nephropathy. In high-risk patients with atherosclerosis, the use of a blocker of the renin-angiotensin system is also appealing, and it appears increasingly judicious to combine such a blocker with a calcium antagonist whenever required to control blood pressure.

Renal sodium handling and nighttime blood pressure.

Blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm with a physiologic 10% to 20% decrease during the night. There is now increasing evidence that a blunted decrease or an increase in nighttime blood pressure is associated with a greater prevalence of target organ damage and a faster disease progression in patients with chronic kidney diseases. Several factors contribute to the changes in nighttime blood pressure including changes in hormonal profiles such as variations in the activity of the renin-angiotensin and the sympathetic nervous systems. Recently, it was hypothesized that the absence of a blood pressure decrease during the nighttime (nondipping) is in fact a pressure-natriuresis mechanism enabling subjects with an impaired capacity to excrete sodium to remain in sodium balance. In this article, we review the clinical and epidemiologic data that tend to support this hypothesis. Moreover, we show that most, if not all, clinical conditions associated with an impaired dipping profile are diseases associated either with a low glomerular filtration rate and/or an impaired ability to excrete sodium. These observations would suggest that renal function, and most importantly the ability to eliminate sodium during the day, is indeed a key determinant of the circadian rhythm of blood pressure.

Prevention of microalbuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes: what do we know?

Cardiovascular and chronic kidney disease are epidemic throughout industrialized societies. Diabetes leads to premature cardiovascular disease and is regarded by many as the most common etiological factor for chronic kidney disease. Because most studies of blood-pressure lowering agents in people with diabetes and hypertension have been conducted in individuals who already have some target organ damage, it is unclear whether earlier intervention could prevent or delay the onset of renal or systemic vascular disease. In early disease there is only a low possibility of observing cardiovascular or renal events; thus intervention trials in this population must rely on disease markers such as microalbuminuria. Accordingly, the authors review the evidence to support the use of microalbuminuria as a disease marker in diabetic patients based on its strong association with renal and cardiovascular events, and discuss recent trials that examine the impact of preventing or delaying the onset of microalbuminuria.

Position of indapamide , a diuretic with vasorelaxant activities, in antihypertensive therapy.

Introduction: Diuretics play a pivotal role in the management of hypertension. A large experience has been accumulated with indapamide , a long-acting thiazide-like diuretic that lowers blood pressure (BP) primarily through its natriuretic diuretic effect. Some of its long-term antihypertensive efficacy may be due to calcium antagonist-like vasorelaxant activities. Indapamide has protecting effects in a variety of conditions associated with high cardiovascular risk, such as diabetes, left ventricular hypertrophy, nephropathy and stroke. It is highly effective in lowering BP, whether given alone or in combination. Indapamide is well tolerated and has the advantage of having no adverse impact on glucose and lipid metabolism. Today, thiazide-like diuretics are regarded more and more as preferred drugs, when diuretic therapy is required to lower BP. Areas covered: The aim of this paper is to review the experience accumulated with indapamide. It is limited to clinical studies that are relevant for the everyday management of hypertensive patients, whether or not they exhibit cardiovascular or renal disease. Expert opinion: Indapamide, because of its well-documented beneficial effects on cardiovascular and renal outcomes, represents a safe and valuable option for treating patients with high BP. There is, however, still room for new trials evaluating the combination of this diuretic with other types of antihypertensive drugs, in particular a calcium antagonist such as amlodipine. There is also the need to compare the indapamide-perindopril and indapamide-amlodipine combinations, in terms of antihypertensive efficacy, tolerability and effects on target organ damage and, ideally, on cardiovascular mortality.

Diagnosis and treatment of resistant hypertension.

Hypertension resistant to lifestyle interventions and antihypertensive medications is a common problem encountered by physicians in everyday practice. It is most often defined as a blood pressure remaining ≥ 140/90 mmHg despite the regular intake of at least three drugs lowering blood pressure by different mechanisms, one of them being a diuretic. It now appears justified to include, unless contraindicated or not tolerated, a blocker of the renin-angiotensin system and a calcium channel blocker in this drug regimen, not only to gain antihypertensive efficacy, but also to prevent or regress target organ damage and delay the development of cardiorenal complications. A non-negligible fraction of treatment-resistant hypertension have normal "out of office" blood pressures. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and/or home blood pressure recording should therefore be routinely performed to identify patients with true resistant hypertension, i.e. patients who are more likely to benefit from treatment intensification.

La néphropathie ischémique par athérosclérose aortorénale : diagnostic [Atherosclerotic renal artery disease diagnosis update].

Atherosclerotic renal artery disease represents a cause of which little is known but not a cause to be neglected for hypertension and renal insufficiency. Even though its occurrence remains badly defined, atherosclerotic renal artery disease is constantly on the rise due to the aging population, the never prevailing hypertension and diabetes mellitus. This review aims to give a clinical profile of patients presenting with atherosclerotic renal artery disease and to discuss, in the light of study results, which diagnostic evaluation should be used considering the sequence and the benefit and risk of each in order to initiate a personalized treatment. Patients affected by atherosclerotic renal artery disease are likely to have more complications and more extensive target-organ damage than patients without renal artery stenosis. The evolution of the atherosclerotic renal artery disease is in general slow and progressive. Nevertheless, certain clinical cases manifest themselves with the onset of acute renal failure bought upon by the administration of blockers of the rennin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, or by some other causes responsible for a sudden drop in renal plasma flow (e.g., thrombosis of the renal artery). The relationship between atherosclerotic renal artery disease and atherosclerosis is complex, and mediators implicated in the pathophysiology of renovascular disease may also contribute to the progression of cardiovascular damage. An early assumption of the atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis is warranted to determine the adapted treatment (i.e., medical treatment, revascularisation...) just as the assumption and the correction of the more general cardiovascular risk factors.

Therapy modifications in response to poorly controlled hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Poorly controlled cardiovascular risk factors are common. Evaluating whether physicians respond appropriately to poor risk factor control in patients may better reflect quality of care than measuring proportions of patients whose conditions are controlled. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate therapy modifications in response to poor control of hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes in a large clinical population. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study within an 18-month period in 2002 to 2003. SETTING: Kaiser Permanente of Northern California. PATIENTS: 253,238 adult members with poor control of 1 or more of these conditions. MEASUREMENTS: The authors assessed the proportion of patients with poor control who experienced a change in pharmacotherapy within 6 months, and they defined "appropriate care" as a therapy modification or return to control without therapy modification within 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 64% of patients experienced modifications in therapy for poorly controlled systolic blood pressure, 71% for poorly controlled diastolic blood pressure, 56% for poorly controlled low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, and 66% for poorly controlled hemoglobin A1c level. Most frequent modifications were increases in number of drug classes (from 70% to 84%) and increased dosage (from 15% to 40%). An additional 7% to 11% of those with poorly controlled blood pressure, but only 3% to 4% of those with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level or hemoglobin A1c level, returned to control without therapy modification. Patients with more than 1 of the 3 conditions, higher baseline values, and target organ damage were more likely to receive "appropriate care." LIMITATIONS: Patient preferences and suboptimal adherence to therapy were not measured and may explain some failures to act. CONCLUSIONS: As an additional measure of the quality of care, measuring therapy modifications in response to poor control in a large population is feasible. Many patients with poorly controlled hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes had their therapy modified and, thus, seemed to receive clinically "appropriate care" with this new quality measure.

Diagnosis and treatment of resistant hypertension.

Abstract Hypertension resistant to lifestyle interventions and antihypertensive medications is a common problem encountered by physicians in everyday practice. It is most often defined as a blood pressure remaining ≥ 140/90 mmHg despite the regular intake of at least three drugs lowering blood pressure by different mechanisms, one of them being a diuretic. It now appears justified to include, unless contraindicated or not tolerated, a blocker of the renin-angiotensin system and a calcium channel blocker in this drug regimen, not only to gain antihypertensive efficacy, but also to prevent or regress target organ damage and delay the development of cardiorenal complications. A non-negligible fraction of treatment-resistant hypertension have normal "out of office" blood pressures. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and/or home blood pressure recording should therefore be routinely performed to identify patients with true resistant hypertension, i.e. patients who are more likely to benefit from treatment intensification.

Blood pressure normalization in a large population of hypertensive patients treated with perindopril/indapamide combination: results of the OPTIMAX trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the fixed-dose perindopril/indapamide combination (Per/Ind) normalizes blood pressure (BP) in the same fraction of hypertensive patients when treated in everyday practice or in controlled trials. METHODS: In this prospective trial, 17 938 hypertensive patients were treated with Per 2 mg/Ind 0.625 mg for 3-6 months. In Group 1 Per/Ind was initiated in newly diagnosed patients (n = 7032); in Group 2 Per/Ind replaced previous therapy in patients already treated but having either their BP still uncontrolled or experiencing side-effects (n = 7423); in Group 3 Per/Ind was added to previous treatment in patients with persistently high BP (n = 3483). BP was considered normalized when < or = 140/90 mm Hg. A multivariate analysis for predictors of BP normalization was performed. RESULTS: Subjects were on average 62 years old and had a baseline BP of 162.3/93.6 mm Hg. After treatment with Per/Ind, BP normalization was reached in 69.6% of patients in the Initiation group, 67.5% in the Replacement Group, and 67.4% in the Add-on Group (where patients were more frequently at risk, diabetic, or with target organ damage). Mean decreases in systolic BP of 22.8 mm Hg and in diastolic BP of 12.4 mm Hg were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: This trial was established to reflect everyday clinical practice, and a treatment strategy based on the Per/Ind combination, administered as initial, replacement, or add-on therapy, led to normalization rates that were superior to those observed in Europe in routine practice. These results support recent hypertension guidelines which encourage the use of combination therapy in the management of arterial hypertension.

The past, present and future of renin-angiotensin aldosterone system inhibition.

The renin-angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) is central to the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease. RAAS inhibition can reduce blood pressure, prevent target organ damage in hypertension and diabetes, and improve outcomes in patients with heart failure and/or myocardial infarction. This review presents the history of RAAS inhibition including a summary of key heart failure, myocardial infarction, hypertension and atrial fibrillation trials. Recent developments in RAAS inhibition are discussed including implementation and optimization of current drug therapies. Finally, ongoing clinical trials, opportunities for future trials and issues related to the barriers and approvability of novel RAAS inhibitors are highlighted.

Fixed-dose combinations as initial therapy for hypertension : a review of approved agents and a guide to patient selection.

Recent guidelines recommend initiation of antihypertensive therapy with fixed-dose combinations in high-risk patients because such patients usually need two or more blood pressure (BP)-lowering agents in order to normalize their BP. Agents that block the renin-angiotensin system (ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor antagonists [angiotensin receptor blockers; ARBs]) are preferred for the management of hypertension in most patients exhibiting subclinical target organ damage, or established cardiovascular or renal diseases. Unless contraindicated they should be one of the components of fixed-dose combinations, whereas the other component may be either a calcium channel antagonist or a thiazide diuretic. Fixed-dose combinations containing an ACE inhibitor or ARB plus a calcium channel antagonist appear particularly effective in preventing complications of coronary heart disease.

Reference values and factors associated with renal resistive index in a family-based population study.

Increased renal resistive index (RRI) has been recently associated with target organ damage and cardiovascular or renal outcomes in patients with hypertension and diabetes mellitus. However, reference values in the general population and information on familial aggregation are largely lacking. We determined the distribution of RRI, associated factors, and heritability in a population-based study. Families of European ancestry were randomly selected in 3 Swiss cities. Anthropometric parameters and cardiovascular risk factors were assessed. A renal Doppler ultrasound was performed, and RRI was measured in 3 segmental arteries of both kidneys. We used multilevel linear regression analysis to explore the factors associated with RRI, adjusting for center and family relationships. Sex-specific reference values for RRI were generated according to age. Heritability was estimated by variance components using the ASSOC program (SAGE software). Four hundred women (mean age±SD, 44.9±16.7 years) and 326 men (42.1±16.8 years) with normal renal ultrasound had mean RRI of 0.64±0.05 and 0.62±0.05, respectively (P<0.001). In multivariable analyses, RRI was positively associated with female sex, age, systolic blood pressure, and body mass index. We observed an inverse correlation with diastolic blood pressure and heart rate. Age had a nonlinear association with RRI. We found no independent association of RRI with diabetes mellitus, hypertension treatment, smoking, cholesterol levels, or estimated glomerular filtration rate. The adjusted heritability estimate was 42±8% (P<0.001). In a population-based sample with normal renal ultrasound, RRI normal values depend on sex, age, blood pressure, heart rate, and body mass index. The significant heritability of RRI suggests that genes influence this phenotype.

Medical treatment of hypertension in Switzerland. The 2009 Swiss Hypertension Survey (SWISSHYPE).

OBJECTIVES: Despite a broad and efficient pharmacological antihypertensive armamentarium, blood pressure (BP) control is suboptimal and heterogeneous throughout Europe. Recent representative data from Switzerland are limited. The goal of the present survey was therefore to assess the actual control rate of high BP in Switzerland in accordance with current guidelines. The influence of risk factors, target organ damage and medication on BP levels and control was also evaluated.METHODS : A cross-sectional visit-based survey of ambulatory hypertensive patients was performed in 2009 in Switzerland. 281 randomly selected physicians provided data on 5 consecutive hypertensive patients attending their practices for BP follow-up. Data were anonymously collected on demographics, comorbidities and current medication, and BP was recorded. Subsequent modification of pharmacological antihypertensive therapy was assessed.RESULTS : Data from 1376 patients were available. Mean age was 65 +/- 12 years, 53.9% were male subjects. 26.4% had complicated hypertension. Overall, BP control (<140/90 mm Hg for uncomplicated and <130/80 mm Hg for complicated hypertension) was achieved in 48.9%. Compared to patients with complicated hypertension, BP control was better in patients with uncomplicated hypertension (59.4% vs. 19.2%, p < 0.001). As a monotherapy the most prescribed drug class were angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB, 41%), followed by angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (21.5%), betablockers (20.8%) and calcium channel blockers (CCB, 10.8%). The most prescribed drug combinations were ARB + diuretic (30.1%) and ACE inhibitors + diuretic (15.3%). 46% were receiving a fixed drug combination. In only 32.7% of patients with uncontrolled hypertension was a change in drug therapy made.CONCLUSION : This representative survey on treated adult hypertensive patients shows that, compared to earlier reports, the control rate of hypertension has improved in Switzerland for uncomplicated but not for complicated, particularly diabetes-associated hypertension. ARBs and ACE inhibitors are the most prescribed antihypertensive drugs for monotherapy, whereas diuretics and ARBs were the most used for combination therapy.

ESH-ESC guidelines for the management of hypertension.

The following is a brief statement of the 2003 European Society of Hypertension (ESH)-European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension.The continuous relationship between the level of blood pressure and cardiovascular risk makes the definition of hypertension arbitrary. Since risk factors cluster in hypertensive individuals, risk stratification should be made and decision about the management should not be based on blood pressure alone, but also according to the presence or absence of other risk factors, target organ damage, diabetes, and cardiovascular or renal damage, as well as on other aspects of the patient's personal, medical and social situation. Blood pressure values measured in the doctor's office or the clinic should commonly be used as reference. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring may have clinical value, when considerable variability of office blood pressure is found over the same or different visits, high office blood pressure is measured in subjects otherwise at low global cardiovascular risk, there is marked discrepancy between blood pressure values measured in the office and at home, resistance to drug treatment is suspected, or research is involved. Secondary hypertension should always be investigated.The primary goal of treatment of patient with high blood pressure is to achieve the maximum reduction in long-term total risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. This requires treatment of all the reversible factors identified, including smoking, dislipidemia, or diabetes, and the appropriate management of associated clinical conditions, as well as treatment of the raised blood pressure per se. On the basis of current evidence from trials, it can be recommended that blood pressure, both systolic and diastolic, be intensively lowered at least below 140/90 mmHg and to definitely lower values, if tolerated, in all hypertensive patients, and below 130/80 mmHg in diabetics.Lifestyle measures should be instituted whenever appropriate in all patients, including subjects with high normal blood pressure and patients who require drug treatment. The purpose is to lower blood pressure and to control other risk factors and clinical conditions present.In most, if not all, hypertensive patients, therapy should be started gradually, and target blood pressure achieved progressively through several weeks. To reach target blood pressure, it is likely that a large proportion of patients will require combination therapy with more than one agent. The main benefits of antihypertensive therapy are due to lowering of blood pressure per se. There is also evidence that specific drug classes may differ in some effect or in special groups of patients. The choice of drugs will be influenced by many factors, including previous experience of the patient with antihypertensive agents, cost of drugs, risk profile, presence or absence of target organ damage, clinical cardiovascular or renal disease or diabetes, patient's preference.

Clinically relevant quality measures for risk factor control in primary care: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of the proportion of patients with well controlled cardiovascular risk factors underestimates the proportion of patients receiving high quality of care. Evaluating whether physicians respond appropriately to poor risk factor control gives a different picture of quality of care. We assessed physician response to control cardiovascular risk factors, as well as markers of potential overtreatment in Switzerland, a country with universal healthcare coverage but without systematic quality monitoring, annual report cards on quality of care or financial incentives to improve quality. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 1002 randomly selected patients aged 50-80 years from four university primary care settings in Switzerland. For hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes mellitus, we first measured proportions in control, then assessed therapy modifications among those in poor control. "Appropriate clinical action" was defined as a therapy modification or return to control without therapy modification within 12 months among patients with baseline poor control. Potential overtreatment of these conditions was defined as intensive treatment among low-risk patients with optimal target values. RESULTS: 20% of patients with hypertension, 41% with dyslipidemia and 36% with diabetes mellitus were in control at baseline. When appropriate clinical action in response to poor control was integrated into measuring quality of care, 52 to 55% had appropriate quality of care. Over 12 months, therapy of 61% of patients with baseline poor control was modified for hypertension, 33% for dyslipidemia, and 85% for diabetes mellitus. Increases in number of drug classes (28-51%) and in drug doses (10-61%) were the most common therapy modifications. Patients with target organ damage and higher baseline values were more likely to have appropriate clinical action. We found low rates of potential overtreatment with 2% for hypertension, 3% for diabetes mellitus and 3-6% for dyslipidemia. CONCLUSIONS: In primary care, evaluating whether physicians respond appropriately to poor risk factor control, in addition to assessing proportions in control, provide a broader view of the quality of care than relying solely on measures of proportions in control. Such measures could be more clinically relevant and acceptable to physicians than simply reporting levels of control.