Key result
Refractory hypertension is linked to ~68% higher major cardiovascular events risk vs resistant non-refractory hypertension.
Why the study?
The long-term prognosis of refractory hypertension had never been evaluated.
Does refractory hypertension increase the risk of adverse cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with resistant hypertension?
Cohort (n=1,576)
No
Does refractory hypertension increase the risk of adverse cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with resistant hypertension?
Refractory hypertension is a true extreme phenotype of antihypertensive treatment failure associated with significantly higher cardiovascular morbidity and mortality than resistant non-refractory hypertension.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Refractory hypertension may warrant intensified surveillance; this Level 3 finding leaves open whether specific interventions improve outcomes.
Background The long-term prognosis of refractory hypertension (RfHT), defined as failure to control blood pressure (BP) levels despite an antihypertensive treatment with ≥5 medications including a diuretic and mineraloreceptor antagonist, has never been evaluated. Methods and Results In a prospective cohort study with 1576 patients with resistant hypertension, patients were classified as refractory or nonrefractory based on uncontrolled clinic (or office) and ambulatory BPs during the first 2 years of follow-up. Multivariate Cox analyses examined the associations between the diagnosis of RfHT and the occurrence of total cardiovascular events (CVEs), major adverse CVEs, and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, after adjustments for other risk factors. In total, 135 patients (8.6%) had RfHT by uncontrolled ambulatory BPs and 167 (10.6%) by uncontrolled clinic BPs. Over a median Follow-Up of 8.9 years, 338 total CVEs occurred (288 major adverse CVEs, including 124 myocardial infarctions, and 96 strokes), and 331 patients died, 196 from cardiovascular causes. The diagnosis of RfHT, using either classification by clinic or ambulatory BPs, was associated with significantly higher risks of major adverse CVEs, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke incidence, with hazard ratios varying from 1.54 to 2.14 in relation to patients with resistant nonrefractory hypertension; however, the classification based on ambulatory BPs was better in identifying higher risk patients than the classification based on clinic BP levels. Conclusions Patients with RfHT, particularly when defined by uncontrolled ambulatory BP levels, had higher risks of major adverse CVEs and mortality in relation to patients with resistant but nonrefractory hypertension, supporting the concept of refractory hypertension as a true extreme phenotype of antihypertensive treatment failure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cardoso et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Resistant hypertension (n=1,576). Refractory hypertension (RfHT) vs. Resistant non-refractory hypertension was evaluated on Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.16-2.45). Refractory hypertension, defined by uncontrolled ambulatory blood pressure, was associated with a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared to resistant non-refractory hypertension.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: