Key result
Integrated hemodynamic management induced similar reductions in ambulatory daytime SBP compared with conventional drug selection (-15.8 vs -15.4 mmHg; P=0.87) in uncontrolled hypertensive patients.
Why the study?
Does integrated hemodynamic management (IHM) improve daytime SBP in uncontrolled essential hypertensive patients compared to conventional drug selection?
RCT (n=167)
parallel groups
Yes
Does integrated hemodynamic management (IHM) improve daytime SBP in uncontrolled essential hypertensive patients compared to conventional drug selection?
Absolute Event Rate: -15.8% vs -15.4%
p-value: p=0.87
Noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring combined with a drug selection algorithm did not provide additional blood pressure lowering benefit over conventional management in patients with uncontrolled hypertension.
No added SBP benefit from integrated hemodynamic management over conventional selection; challenges routine adoption of noninvasive monitoring-guided therapy in uncontrolled hypertension.
BACKGROUND: In the BEtter control of BP in hypertensive pAtients monitored Using the HOTMAN sYstem study, we investigated whether utilizing noninvasive monitoring of hemodynamic parameters combined with a drug selection algorithm (integrated hemodynamic management - IHM) compared with conventional drug selection may improve uncontrolled hypertension in European Hypertension Excellence centers. METHOD: Uncontrolled (office SBP >140 mmHg and ambulatory daytime SBP >135 mmHg while taking ≥2 antihypertensive drugs) essential hypertensive patients were referred to five European Hypertension Excellence centers and, if eligible, were randomized to IHM-guided (n = 83) vs. conventional (control, n = 84) treatment adjustment in an investigator-initiated multicenter prospective randomized parallel groups controlled study. RESULTS: The average number of antihypertensive drugs increased from 3.1 to 4.1 in both groups and differed only in a rise of the use of diuretics in the IHM groups (from 13 to 31%). Daytime SBP, defined as the primary endpoint, decreased markedly and to the same extent from baseline to 6 months in IHM (-15.8 ± 14.8 mmHg) and control (-15.4 ± 14.5 mmHg) groups (P = 0.87), with a similar behavior of office SBP (no between group differences, P = 0.18). Average number of adverse events was significantly lower in IHM than in controls (P = 0.008) but of the more general type and not necessarily related to drug treatment. CONCLUSION: Thus, noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring associated with a drug selection algorithm induced similar reductions in ambulatory daytime and office SBP compared with conventional drug selection in uncontrolled hypertensive patients referred to European Hypertension Excellence centers.Clinical Trial Registration - URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01482364.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Elmula et al. (2015) conducted an RCT in Uncontrolled hypertension (n=167). Integrated hemodynamic management (IHM) vs. Conventional drug selection was evaluated on Change in daytime SBP from baseline to 6 months (p=0.87). Integrated hemodynamic management induced similar reductions in ambulatory daytime SBP compared with conventional drug selection (-15.8 vs -15.4 mmHg; P=0.87) in uncontrolled hypertensive patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: