Prognosis

Several trials have shown that uncontrolled hypertension is a major risk factor for the development of cardiac, vascular, renal, and cerebrovascular disease, morbidity, and mortality. However, even modest reductions in blood pressure (BP) decrease morbidity and mortality.[2] Systolic BP may have a greater effect on cardiovascular outcomes, but both systolic and diastolic hypertension have been shown to independently influence the risk of adverse cardiovascular events.[218]​ The association between BP and mortality from cardiovascular disease (CVD) may be sex-specific, with increased CVD mortality seen at lower systolic BP in women compared with men.[219]

There is currently no randomised controlled trial evidence for the benefit of treating white-coat hypertension. One meta-analysis found that untreated white-coat hypertension is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality; there was no significant association between treated white coat effect and cardiovascular events or mortality.[220] Preliminary evidence from the ANTI-MASK trial suggests that treating masked hypertension may reduce target organ damage (TOD). However, the trial focused on TOD outcomes rather than cardiovascular outcomes, and there are criticisms regarding the methods, such as the use of electrocardiography instead of echocardiography to assess left ventricular hypertrophy. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and establish the cardiovascular benefits of treating masked hypertension.[221]​ The American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guideline notes that masked hypertension and masked uncontrolled hypertension are associated with an increased prevalence of target organ damage and risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke, and mortality compared with normotensive individuals and those with white coat hypertension.[2][222]​ Out-of-clinic BP monitoring is critical in the management of hypertension and improving outcomes.

Further studies are needed to confirm optimal BP targets in patients with diabetes. In one randomised clinical trial (ACCORD), a more stringent BP goal for patients with type 2 diabetes did not significantly reduce the primary cardiovascular outcome or most secondary outcomes compared with standard BP goals. In this study, the number of total and non-fatal strokes was lower in the intensive therapy group, although the clinical benefit was limited (number needed to treat = 89 for 5 years to prevent one stroke).[94] Data from the ACCORD study and the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trials were also used in an analysis to show an association between BP variability and risk of heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes, possibly related to diastole.[223]

In patients with diabetes, the decrease in asleep BP - a novel therapeutic target requiring evaluation by ambulatory monitoring - has been shown to be the most significant independent predictor of event-free survival in some studies.[224][225][226][227][228]

Use of this content is subject to our disclaimer