4.7 Review

ACC/AHA Versus ESC/ESH on Hypertension Guidelines

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 73, 期 23, 页码 3018-3026

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.507

关键词

blood pressure; guidelines; hypertension; lifestyle; mortality; outcomes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compares the recommendations of the most recent American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Society of Hypertension (ESH) blood pressure guidelines. Both guidelines represent updates of previous guidelines and reinforce previous concepts of prevention regarding elevated blood pressure. Specifically, a low-sodium diet, exercise, body weight reduction, low to moderate alcohol intake, and adequate potassium intake are emphasized. Overall, both guidelines agree on the proper method of blood pressure measurement, the use of home blood pressure and ambulatory monitoring, and restricted use of beta-blockers as first-line therapy. The major disagreements are with the level of blood pressure defining hypertension, flexibility in identifying blood pressure targets for treatment, and the use of initial combination therapy. Although initial single-pill combination therapy is strongly recommended in both guidelines, the ESC/ESH guideline recommends it as initial therapy in patients at >= 140/90 mm Hg. The ACC/AHA guideline recommends its use in patients >20/10 mm Hg above blood pressure goal. Thus, the only real disagreement is that the ACC/AHA guidelines maintain that all people with blood pressure >130/80 mm Hg have hypertension, and blood pressure should be lowered to <130/80 mm Hg in all. In contrast, the ESC/ESH guidelines state that hypertension is defined as >140/90 mm Hg, with the goal being a level <140/90 mm Hg for all targeting to <130/80 mm Hg only in those at high cardiovascular risk, but always considering individual tolerability of the proposed goal. (C) 2019 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据