Comparative Efficacy of Hypertension Management Strategies

Jordan Schneider, Alejandro Alvarez-Betancourt, Joshua Elbaz, P. Wenn, A. Makaryus, R. Zeltser
{"title":"Comparative Efficacy of Hypertension Management Strategies","authors":"Jordan Schneider, Alejandro Alvarez-Betancourt, Joshua Elbaz, P. Wenn, A. Makaryus, R. Zeltser","doi":"10.1055/s-0044-1788068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Hypertension (HTN) is a major cardiovascular risk factor and a significant contributor to disease burden in the United States. Despite therapeutic advances, gaps remain between clinical trials and practice. This study aims to bridge those gaps by evaluating antihypertensive strategies. This was a retrospective analysis of HTN patients seen at a hospital clinic from 2016 to 2022 with 3- and 12-month follow-up appointments. Demographics, history, blood pressure (BP), and medication regimen were recorded. Treatment strategies were categorized as follows: adding medication (AM), increasing dosage (ID), switching medications (SM), dropped medications (DrM), or no change (NC). Changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP) were compared using linear regressions to assess the efficacy of HTN management. Of 873 patient charts reviewed, 332 patients were included. The AM group had an adjusted ∆SBP of −11 mm Hg at 3 months ( p  < 0.001) and −9 mm Hg at 12 months ( p  = 0.006). The ID group had an ∆SBP of −8.5 mm Hg at 3 months ( p  = 0.074) and −7 mm Hg at 12 months ( p  = 0.3). ∆SBP between the AM and ID groups was not statistically significant ( p  = 0.8). SM was associated with an ∆SBP of −3 mm Hg at 3 months ( p  = 0.6) and −3 mm Hg at 12 months ( p  = 0.7). There are meaningful differences in SBP reduction between antihypertensive medication adjustment strategies. AM had the greatest effect on lowering SBP, with ID having a slightly lesser effect. The difference in ∆SBP between the AM versus ID groups was not significant. While further study with a larger dataset is warranted, our findings highlight trends in the efficacy of HTN management strategies to help guide therapeutic regimens.","PeriodicalId":506654,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Angiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Angiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1788068","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Hypertension (HTN) is a major cardiovascular risk factor and a significant contributor to disease burden in the United States. Despite therapeutic advances, gaps remain between clinical trials and practice. This study aims to bridge those gaps by evaluating antihypertensive strategies. This was a retrospective analysis of HTN patients seen at a hospital clinic from 2016 to 2022 with 3- and 12-month follow-up appointments. Demographics, history, blood pressure (BP), and medication regimen were recorded. Treatment strategies were categorized as follows: adding medication (AM), increasing dosage (ID), switching medications (SM), dropped medications (DrM), or no change (NC). Changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP) were compared using linear regressions to assess the efficacy of HTN management. Of 873 patient charts reviewed, 332 patients were included. The AM group had an adjusted ∆SBP of −11 mm Hg at 3 months ( p  < 0.001) and −9 mm Hg at 12 months ( p  = 0.006). The ID group had an ∆SBP of −8.5 mm Hg at 3 months ( p  = 0.074) and −7 mm Hg at 12 months ( p  = 0.3). ∆SBP between the AM and ID groups was not statistically significant ( p  = 0.8). SM was associated with an ∆SBP of −3 mm Hg at 3 months ( p  = 0.6) and −3 mm Hg at 12 months ( p  = 0.7). There are meaningful differences in SBP reduction between antihypertensive medication adjustment strategies. AM had the greatest effect on lowering SBP, with ID having a slightly lesser effect. The difference in ∆SBP between the AM versus ID groups was not significant. While further study with a larger dataset is warranted, our findings highlight trends in the efficacy of HTN management strategies to help guide therapeutic regimens.
高血压管理策略的疗效比较
摘要 在美国,高血压(HTN)是主要的心血管风险因素,也是造成疾病负担的重要因素。尽管在治疗方面取得了进展,但临床试验与实践之间仍存在差距。本研究旨在通过评估降压策略来弥补这些差距。这是一项回顾性分析,研究对象是 2016 年至 2022 年在一家医院门诊就诊的高血压患者,并进行了 3 个月和 12 个月的随访。研究记录了患者的人口统计学特征、病史、血压(BP)和用药方案。治疗策略分为以下几种:加药(AM)、加大剂量(ID)、换药(SM)、停药(DrM)或不换药(NC)。通过线性回归比较收缩压(SBP)的变化,以评估高血压管理的效果。在审查的 873 份病历中,有 332 名患者被纳入其中。AM组的调整后ΔSBP在3个月时为-11毫米汞柱(p < 0.001),在12个月时为-9毫米汞柱(p = 0.006)。ID组的∆SBP在3个月时为-8.5毫米汞柱(p = 0.074),在12个月时为-7毫米汞柱(p = 0.3)。AM 组和 ID 组之间的∆SBP 没有统计学意义(p = 0.8)。SM 与 3 个月时 -3 mm Hg(p = 0.6)和 12 个月时 -3 mm Hg(p = 0.7)的∆SBP 相关。不同降压药物调整策略在降低 SBP 方面存在显著差异。AM 对降低 SBP 的效果最大,ID 的效果稍差。AM 组与 ID 组之间的 ∆SBP 差异并不显著。我们的研究结果突显了高血压管理策略的疗效趋势,有助于指导治疗方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信