3.9 Article

Temporal trends in management of hypertension among Israeli adults, 2002-2010: Lesson from the Acute Coronary Syndromes Israeli Survey (ACSIS)

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jash.2013.08.004

Keywords

Treatment of hypertension; blockers of the rennin angiotensin system; combination therapy

Funding

  1. Dr. Pinchas Borenstein Talpiot Medical Leadership Program fellowship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Our aim was to evaluate trends in blood pressure (BP) management and BP levels among patients admitted with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) over the past decade. The study population comprised 7658 ACS patients enrolled in the Acute Coronary Syndromes Israeli Survey (ACSIS) between 2002 and 2010. We compared patients' characteristics, admission systolic BP levels, and antihypertensive therapy between those hospitalized during the early (years: 2002-2004) and late (years: 2008-2010) periods. Among 7658 study participants, 4421 (58%) were hypertensive. Hypertensive patients presenting from 2008 to 2010 tended to exhibit lower BP levels (P < .001). The use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) and beta-blockers has increased over the years (P < .001 for both), whereas the use of diuretics and calcium antagonists has remained stable (P = .77 for both). The use of diuretics tended to increase in hypertensive subjects without prior cardiovascular disease (P = .05). In addition, the late period was characterized by a significant increase in the use of two or more antihypertensive agents (combination therapy) compared with the early period (57% vs 50%; P < .001). BP levels decreased among Israeli hypertensive patients presenting with ACS between 2002 and 2010, possibly due to increased use of ACEi/ARB, and combination therapies during this time period. J Am Soc Hypertens 2014;8(2):94-102. (C) 2014 American Society of Hypertension. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available