Why is cardiovascular risk stratification important in hypertensive patients?

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: The aim is to evaluate whether cardiovascular (CV) risk stratification in newly diagnosed hypertensive patients according to the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) guidelines, can predict the evolution of target organ damage (TOD) using routine examinations in clinical practice during 1 year. METHODS: Prospective study of recently diagnosed untreated hypertensives. At the moment of inclusion and 1 year later, urinary albumin excretion rate (UAER), blood analysis, electrocardiogram, retinography, self-monitored blood pressure (BP) and ambulatory BP measurement were performed. TOD was defined following the ESH guidelines and evaluated as having favorable or unfavorable evolution. RESULTS: Four hundred and seventy-nine hypertensive patients were included (58.8 years; 43.4% women). The baseline prevalence of TOD was: high UAER (2.4%), left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) (20.7%), advanced lesion of the fundus oculi (FO) (10.2%). After 1 year, no differences were found between the final systolic and diastolic BP neither in the high/very high nor in the low/moderate CV risk groups. Patients with low/moderate CV risk had less unfavorable TOD evolution, LVH (9.2% vs 41.7%; p <0.001), FO advanced damage (0.99% vs 14.3%; p <0.001), high UAER (0.3% vs 5.1%; p <0.005) and amount of TOD (9.2% vs 44.0%; 0<0.001) than those with high/very high CV risk. The odds ratios of favorable TOD evolution adjusted for BP change and antihypertensive drug treatment were (low/moderate vs high/very high CV risk); 5.14 (95% confidence interval, CI, 3.99-6.64) for LVH; 12.42 (6.67-23.14) FO advanced damage; 10.71 (3.67-31.22) high UAER and 13.99 (10.18-19.22) for amount of TOD. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to detect variations in TOD in hypertensive patients with a 1-year follow-up using the examinations available in routine clinic practice. The risk determined by the ESH guidelines predicts the evolution of TOD at 1 year.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.