4.7 Article

Management of Stage 1 Hypertension in Adults With a Low 10-Year Risk for Cardiovascular Disease: Filling a Guidance Gap A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Journal

HYPERTENSION
Volume 77, Issue 6, Pages E58-E67

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/HYP.0000000000000195

Keywords

AHA Scientific Statements; heart disease risk factors; hypertension; pharmacotherapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

High blood pressure is a leading cause of cardiovascular disease globally, and evidence from randomized controlled clinical trials is crucial for developing treatment guidelines. However, in cases where this evidence is not available, alternative sources of evidence are needed for treatment decision making.
High blood pressure (BP) is the leading cause of worldwide cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality. Patients and clinicians dealing with hypertension have benefited from the evidence of event-based randomized controlled clinical trials. One result from those trials has been the development of evidence-based guidelines. The commitment to using evidence from these event-based randomized trials has been a cornerstone in the development of guideline treatment recommendations. However, in some situations, evidence from event-based trials is not available to guideline writers or clinicians for assistance in treatment decision making. Such is the case for the management of many patients with stage 1 hypertension. The purpose of this scientific statement is to provide information complementary to the 2017 Hypertension Clinical Practice Guidelines for the patient with untreated stage 1 hypertension (systolic BP/diastolic BP, 130-139/80-89 mm Hg) with a 10-year risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease <10% who fails to meet the systolic BP/diastolic goal (<130/80 mm Hg) after 6 months of guideline-recommended lifestyle therapy. This statement provides evidence from sources other than event-based randomized controlled clinical trials and offers therapy options for consideration by clinicians.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available