Beyond the Evidence of the New Hypertension Guidelines. Blood pressure measurement - is it good enough for accurate diagnosis of hypertension? Time might be in, for a paradigm shift (I).

Cornel Pater
{"title":"Beyond the Evidence of the New Hypertension Guidelines. Blood pressure measurement - is it good enough for accurate diagnosis of hypertension? Time might be in, for a paradigm shift (I).","authors":"Cornel Pater","doi":"10.1186/1468-6708-6-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite widespread availability of a large body of evidence in the area of hypertension, the translation of that evidence into viable recommendations aimed at improving the quality of health care is very difficult, sometimes to the point of questionable acceptability and overall credibility of the guidelines advocating those recommendations.The scientific community world-wide and especially professionals interested in the topic of hypertension are witnessing currently an unprecedented debate over the issue of appropriateness of using different drugs/drug classes for the treatment of hypertension. An endless supply of recent and less recent \"drug-news\", some in support of, others against the current guidelines, justifying the use of selected types of drug treatment or criticising other, are coming out in the scientific literature on an almost weekly basis. The latest of such debate (at the time of writing this paper) pertains the safety profile of ARBs vs ACE inhibitors.To great extent, the factual situation has been fuelled by the new hypertension guidelines (different for USA, Europe, New Zeeland and UK) through, apparently small inconsistencies and conflicting messages, that might have generated substantial and perpetuating confusion among both prescribing physicians and their patients, regardless of their country of origin.The overwhelming message conveyed by most guidelines and opinion leaders is the widespread use of diuretics as first-line agents in all patients with blood pressure above a certain cut-off level and the increasingly aggressive approach towards diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. This, apparently well-justified, logical and easily comprehensible message is unfortunately miss-obeyed by most physicians, on both parts of the Atlantic.Amazingly, the message assumes a universal simplicity of both diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, while ignoring several hypertension-specific variables, commonly known to have high level of complexity, such as:- accuracy of recorded blood pressure and the great inter-observer variability,- diversity in the competency and training of diagnosing physician,- individual patient/disease profile with highly subjective preferences,- difficulty in reaching consensus among opinion leaders,- pharmaceutical industry's influence, and, nonetheless,- the large variability in the efficacy and safety of the antihypertensive drugs.The present 2-series article attempts to identify and review possible causes that might have, at least in part, generated the current healthcare anachronism (I); to highlight the current trend to account for the uncertainties related to the fixed blood pressure cut-off point and the possible solutions to improve accuracy of diagnosis and treatment of hypertension (II).</p>","PeriodicalId":53230,"journal":{"name":"Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine","volume":"6 1","pages":"6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1468-6708-6-6","citationCount":"33","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1468-6708-6-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 33

Abstract

Despite widespread availability of a large body of evidence in the area of hypertension, the translation of that evidence into viable recommendations aimed at improving the quality of health care is very difficult, sometimes to the point of questionable acceptability and overall credibility of the guidelines advocating those recommendations.The scientific community world-wide and especially professionals interested in the topic of hypertension are witnessing currently an unprecedented debate over the issue of appropriateness of using different drugs/drug classes for the treatment of hypertension. An endless supply of recent and less recent "drug-news", some in support of, others against the current guidelines, justifying the use of selected types of drug treatment or criticising other, are coming out in the scientific literature on an almost weekly basis. The latest of such debate (at the time of writing this paper) pertains the safety profile of ARBs vs ACE inhibitors.To great extent, the factual situation has been fuelled by the new hypertension guidelines (different for USA, Europe, New Zeeland and UK) through, apparently small inconsistencies and conflicting messages, that might have generated substantial and perpetuating confusion among both prescribing physicians and their patients, regardless of their country of origin.The overwhelming message conveyed by most guidelines and opinion leaders is the widespread use of diuretics as first-line agents in all patients with blood pressure above a certain cut-off level and the increasingly aggressive approach towards diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. This, apparently well-justified, logical and easily comprehensible message is unfortunately miss-obeyed by most physicians, on both parts of the Atlantic.Amazingly, the message assumes a universal simplicity of both diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, while ignoring several hypertension-specific variables, commonly known to have high level of complexity, such as:- accuracy of recorded blood pressure and the great inter-observer variability,- diversity in the competency and training of diagnosing physician,- individual patient/disease profile with highly subjective preferences,- difficulty in reaching consensus among opinion leaders,- pharmaceutical industry's influence, and, nonetheless,- the large variability in the efficacy and safety of the antihypertensive drugs.The present 2-series article attempts to identify and review possible causes that might have, at least in part, generated the current healthcare anachronism (I); to highlight the current trend to account for the uncertainties related to the fixed blood pressure cut-off point and the possible solutions to improve accuracy of diagnosis and treatment of hypertension (II).

Abstract Image

超越新高血压指南的证据。血压测量-它是否足以准确诊断高血压?也许是时候进行范式转变了(1)。
尽管在高血压领域广泛存在大量证据,但将这些证据转化为旨在提高保健质量的可行建议是非常困难的,有时甚至到了提倡这些建议的准则的可接受性和总体可信度存疑的程度。世界范围内的科学界,特别是对高血压话题感兴趣的专业人士,目前正在目睹一场前所未有的关于使用不同药物/药物类别治疗高血压是否合适的争论。科学文献中几乎每周都会出现层出不穷的近期或不那么近期的“药物新闻”,有的支持现行指导方针,有的反对现行指导方针,有的为某些药物治疗的使用辩护,有的则批评其他药物治疗。最近的争论(在撰写本文时)涉及arb与ACE抑制剂的安全性。在很大程度上,新的高血压指南(美国、欧洲、新西兰和英国不同)通过明显的小矛盾和相互矛盾的信息加剧了实际情况,这可能会在处方医生和患者之间产生实质性的和持久的混淆,无论他们来自哪个国家。大多数指南和意见领袖传达的压倒性信息是,在所有血压高于某一临界值的患者中,利尿剂作为一线药物被广泛使用,并且高血压的诊断和治疗方法越来越积极。不幸的是,大西洋两岸的大多数医生都没有遵守这个显然是合理的、合乎逻辑的、容易理解的信息。令人惊讶的是,这个信息假设高血压的诊断和治疗都是普遍的简单性,而忽略了一些通常被认为具有高度复杂性的高血压特异性变量,例如:-记录血压的准确性和观察者之间的巨大差异,-诊断医生的能力和培训的多样性,-个体患者/疾病概况具有高度主观偏好,-意见领袖之间难以达成共识,-制药业的影响,尽管如此,-降压药的疗效和安全性存在很大差异。本系列文章试图确定和回顾可能导致(至少部分导致)当前医疗保健时代错误的原因(1);强调当前的趋势,以解释与固定血压分界点相关的不确定性,以及提高高血压诊断和治疗准确性的可能解决方案(II)。
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
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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