Persistence of divergent views of hospital staff in detecting and managing hypertension.

A questionnaire concerning views of hospital clinical staff was completed by 408 out of 542 staff (75%), comprising 214 medical staff of all clinical specialties, 106 first year clinical medical students, and 88 third year student nurses. On average 386 of 407 (95%) thought that blood pressure should be measured routinely in all inpatients but only 294 of 404 (73%) thought that this was appropriate for outpatients. Although 251 of 390 (64%) were taught to use the muffling of sounds (phase IV) as the diastolic blood pressure, only 219 of 406 (54%) actually used this phase alone. There were appreciable differences between the grades of staff in this respect, a small majority of most grades using phase IV. Roughly half (50 out of 102) of the medical student respondents were taught to use phase IV, but only 38 of 106 (36%) were actually using this phase. While only three out of 16 general practitioners were using phase IV diastolic blood pressure alone, the figure was 66 out of 88 (75%) for student nurses. The level of diastolic blood pressure at which clinicians would begin to treat a 50 year old asymptomatic man ranged from 90 to 121 mm Hg. When these figures were corrected to phase V values, assuming a 5 mm Hg difference between phases IV and V, the range was 85 to 116 mm Hg. Despite the general agreement among physicians interested in hypertension that the disappearance of sounds (phase V) should be used to denote diastolic blood pressure there is still considerable divergence of opinion among hospital medical staff.     

Nocturnal blood pressure in normotensive subjects and those with white coat,primary, and secondary hypertension.

OBJECTIVE--To compare the mean nocturnal blood pressure of patients with various forms of renal and endocrine hypertension with that in patients with primary and white coat hypertension, and normal blood pressure. DESIGN--Ambulatory monitoring of blood pressure over 24 hours in a prospective study. SETTING--Two German centres for outpatients with hypertension and kidney diseases. SUBJECTS--176 normotensive subjects, 490 patients with primary hypertension including mild and severe forms, 42 with white coat hypertension, 208 patients with renal and renovascular hypertension, 43 with hypertension and endocrine disorders, and three with coarctation of the aorta. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Fall in nocturnal blood pressure. RESULTS--Blood pressure in normotensive subjects fell by a mean of 14 mm Hg (11%) systolic and 13 mm Hg (17%) diastolic overnight (2200 to 0600). The falls in patients with primary and white coat hypertension were not significantly different. In all patients with renal and renovascular hypertension, however, the fall was significantly reduced (range of fall from 3/3 mm Hg to 7/9 mm Hg). In patients with hypertension and endocrine disorders the pattern of night time blood pressure was not uniform: patients with hyperthyroidism, primary hyperaldosteronism, and Cushing''s syndrome had significantly smaller reductions in blood pressure (6/8, 4/7, 3/6 mm Hg, respectively). In patients with phaeochromocytoma the mean night time blood pressure increased by 4/2 mm Hg. In patients with hypertension, primary hyperparathyroidism, and unoperated coarctation of the aorta the falls in blood pressure were normal. CONCLUSIONS--In normotensive subjects and those with primary hypertension there is usually a reduction in blood pressure at night. In all renal forms of secondary hypertension and in most endocrine forms the reduction in blood pressure is only a third to a half of normal. Patients with primary hyperparathyroidism and unoperated coarctation of the aorta show a normal reduction.     

Blood Pressure in a Scottish Town

As part of a general health screening survey in the Burgh of Renfrew blood pressure was measured in 3,001 subjects (78·8% of those eligible) aged 45 to 64. In 468 (15·6%) diastolic blood pressure was 100 mm Hg or more. A year later the mean blood pressure for those of the population re-examined showed no change, there being an equal number of subjects with increased and decreased pressures. The prognostic significance of those showing the larger fluctuations remains to be determined through medical-record linkage.Examination of the general practitioners'' medical records of 422 of the 468 subjects with diastolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or more showed that 255 had no previous documented hypertension. Of the remainder 73 were receiving antihypertensive therapy. Examination of the records of subjects whose blood pressure was under 100 mm Hg showed that 55 were receiving antihypertensive treatment and that another 113 had previously been recorded as having a diastolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or more by their general practitioner. Altogether at least 636 (21·2%) of those who were examined had been considered at some time to have evidence of hypertension.The prevalence of undetected hypertension in the general population has important implications for the resources of the National Health Service if current trials show benefit to the health of the community from treating “mild” as well as “moderate” hypertension.     

Control of blood pressure and risk of first acute myocardial infarction: Skaraborg hypertension project.

OBJECTIVE--To analyse the relation between treated blood pressure and concomitant risk factor and morbidity from acute myocardial infarction. DESIGN--Prospective longitudinal study. Treated blood pressures and other variables were used to predict acute myocardial infarction. SETTING--Primary health care in Skaraborg, Sweden. SUBJECTS--1121 men and 1453 women aged 40-69 years at registration at outpatient clinics, 1977-81, with no evidence of previous myocardial infarction were followed up for an average of 7.4 years. Subjects were undergoing treatment with drugs to lower blood pressure or had blood pressure that exceeded the systolic or diastolic limits, or both, for diagnosis (> 170/> 105 mm Hg (patients aged 40-60 years) and > 180/> 110 mm Hg (older than 60 years)) on three different occasions, or both. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--First validated event of fatal or non-fatal acute myocardial infarction. RESULTS--In men but not in women there was a negative relation between treated diastolic blood pressure and risk of acute myocardial infarction. Left ventricular hypertrophy and smoking were contributory risk factors in both sexes, as was serum cholesterol concentration in men. In men with normal electrocardiograms (n = 345) risk increased with increasing diastolic blood pressure (P = 0.047), whereas the opposite was found in men with electrocardiograms suggesting ischaemia or hypertrophy, or both (n = 499, P = 0.009). In those with a reading of 95-99 mm Hg the relative risk was 0.30 (P = 0.034); at > or = 100 mm Hg it was 0.37 (P = 0.027). No similar relations were seen in women or for systolic blood pressure. CONCLUSION--It may be hazardous to lower diastolic blood pressure below 95 mm Hg in hypertensive men with possible ischaemia or hypertrophy, or both. Electrocardiographic findings should be considered when treatment goals are decided for men with hypertension.     

Blood pressure control by home monitoring: meta-analysis of randomised trials

Objective To determine the effect of home blood pressure monitoring on blood pressure levels and proportion of people with essential hypertension achieving targets.Design Meta-analysis of 18 randomised controlled trials.Participants 1359 people with essential hypertension allocated to home blood pressure monitoring and 1355 allocated to the “control” group seen in the healthcare system for 2-36 months.Main outcome measures Differences in systolic (13 studies), diastolic (16 studies), or mean (3 studies) blood pressures, and proportion of patients achieving targets (6 studies), between intervention and control groups.Results Systolic blood pressure was lower in people with hypertension who had home blood pressure monitoring than in those who had standard blood pressure monitoring in the healthcare system (standardised mean difference 4.2 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 6.9) mm Hg), diastolic blood pressure was lower by 2.4 (1.2 to 3.5) mm Hg, and mean blood pressure was lower by 4.4 (2.0 to 6.8) mm Hg. The relative risk of blood pressure above predetermined targets was lower in people with home blood pressure monitoring (risk ratio 0.90, 0.80 to 1.00). When publication bias was allowed for, the differences were attenuated: 2.2 (-0.9 to 5.3) mm Hg for systolic blood pressure and 1.9 (0.6 to 3.2) mm Hg for diastolic blood pressure.Conclusions Blood pressure control in people with hypertension (assessed in the clinic) and the proportion achieving targets are increased when home blood pressure monitoring is used rather than standard blood pressure monitoring in the healthcare system. The reasons for this are not clear. The difference in blood pressure control between the two methods is small but likely to contribute to an important reduction in vascular complications in the hypertensive population.     

Sodium restriction and blood pressure in hypertensive type II diabetics: randomised blind controlled and crossover studies of moderate sodium restriction and sodium supplementation.

OBJECTIVE--To determine the effect of moderate dietary sodium restriction on the hypertension of non-insulin-dependent (type II) diabetes. DESIGN--Randomised parallel controlled study of moderate sodium restriction for three months compared with usual diabetic diet, followed by randomised double blind crossover trial of sustained release preparation of sodium for one month versus placebo for one month in patients continuing with sodium restriction. SETTING--Patients attending diabetic outpatient clinic of city hospital. PATIENTS--Thirty four patients with established type II diabetes complicated by mild hypertension (systolic blood pressure greater than 160 mm Hg or diastolic pressure greater than 95 mm Hg on three consecutive occasions). Patients already taking antihypertensive agents (but not diuretics) not barred from study provided that criteria for mild hypertension still met. Conditions precluding patients from study were diabetic or hypertensive nephropathy, cardiac failure, and pregnancy. INTERVENTIONS--After run in phase with recordings at seven weeks, three weeks, and time zero patients were allocated at random to receive moderate dietary sodium restriction for three months (n = 17) or to continue with usual diabetic diet. Subsequently nine patients in sodium restriction group continued with regimen for a further two months, during which they completed a randomised double blind crossover trial of sustained release preparation of sodium (Slow Sodium 80 mmol daily) for one month versus matching placebo for one month. END POINT--Reduction in blood pressure in type II diabetics with mild hypertension. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS--Supine and erect blood pressure, body weight, and 24 hour urinary sodium and potassium excretion measured monthly during parallel group and double blind crossover studies. After parallel group study sodium restriction group showed significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (supine 19.2 mm Hg, erect 21.4 mm Hg; p less than 0.001) and mean daily urinary sodium excretion (mean reduction 60 mmol/24 h). There were no appreciable changes in weight, diabetic control, or diastolic pressure. No significant changes occurred in controls. In double blind crossover study mean supine systolic blood pressure rose significantly (p less than 0.005) during sodium supplementation (to 171 mm Hg) compared with value after three months of sodium restriction alone (159.9 mm Hg) and after one month of placebo (161.8 mm Hg). CONCLUSIONS--Moderate dietary restriction of sodium has a definite hypotensive effect, which may be useful in mild hypertension of type II diabetes.     

Relation between arterial pressure,dietary sodium intake,and renin system in essential hypertension.

Forty-one patients with mild essential hypertension, 36 patients with severe hypertension, and 28 normotensive subjects were studied on a high sodium intake of 350 mmol/day for five days and low sodium intake of 10 mmol/day for five days. The fall in mean arterial pressure on changing from the high-sodium to the low-sodium diet was 0.7 +/- 1.7 mm Hg in normotensive subjects, 8 +/- 1.4 mm Hg in patients with mild hypertension, and 14.5 +/- 1.4 mm Hg in patients with severe hypertension. The fall in blood pressure was not correlated with age. Highly significant correlations were obtained for all subjects between the ratio of the fall in mean arterial pressure to the fall in urinary sodium excretion on changing from a high- to a low-sodium diet and (a) the level of supine blood pressure on normal diet, (b) the rise in plasma renin activity, and (c) the rise in plasma aldosterone. In patients with essential hypertension the blood pressure is sensitive to alterations in sodium intake. This may be partly due to some change either produced by or associated directly with the hypertension. A decreased responsiveness of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system shown in the patients with essential hypertension could partly account for the results.     

Community care compared with hospital outpatient care for hypertensive patients.

Three hundred and seventy-six patients with treated diastolic blood pressures of less than 105 mm Hg and no history of accelerated hypertension or renal failure were selected from among those attending the Hammersmith Hospital hypertension clinic. Their average lying treated blood pressure was 146 mm Hg systolic and 90 mm Hg diastolic and average age 56 years; 18% were black, 6% Asian, and 76% white. The patients were mostly having multiple treatment, 90% receiving a diuretic, 35% methyldopa, 33% propranolol, 18% atenolol, 9% hydrallazine, and 7% bethanidine. They were randomly allocated to either two years of further hospital outpatient care or referred back to their general practitioners. During the two years 19 (10%) of the 187 patients followed up in hospital defaulted and three had their treatment discontinued. Twelve (6%) of the 189 followed up by their general practitioners defaulted from follow-up and nine had their treatment discontinued. At the end of the trial the average lying blood pressure was 148 mm Hg systolic and 88 mm Hg diastolic in the hospital group and 149 mm Hg systolic and 90 mm Hg diastolic in the general practice group. The change in blood pressure was calculated for each individual and showed an average fall of 1.6 mm Hg in standing diastolic pressure in the hospital group and a rise of 1.4 mm Hg in the general practice group (p less than 0.05). The 90% confidence limits for a difference in standing diastolic pressure between the groups were 1 and 5 mm Hg with the pressure lower in the hospital group. General practice care was not quite as effective in controlling blood pressure as continued specialist supervision over two years in this selected group of treated outpatients with mild or moderate hypertension, but these results show that the discharge back to general practitioners of patients who are well controlled after hospital treatment is a sensible policy.     

Blood pressure and five year survival in the very old

During 1977-8 we measured blood pressure in 561 old people (83% of those aged 85 or more living in Tampere) and analysed their five year survival according to their blood pressure group. The subjects were divided into six groups on the basis of their blood pressures (from <120 to >200 mm Hg systolic, from <70 to >110 diastolic). The greatest mortality was observed in those in the lowest systolic and lowest diastolic groups. Mortality was least in subjects with systolic pressures of 160 mm Hg or more and diastolic pressures of 90 mm Hg or more.The most essential finding in this series of the very old was an increased mortality in the lowest blood pressure groups.     

Factors predictive of attendance at clinic and blood pressure control in hypertensive patients.

Poor compliance with appointments and drug treatment is one of the recognised factors preventing effective management of hypertension. Factors predictive of poor attendance and inadequate blood pressure control in patients attending a hypertension clinic were therefore determined using univariate analyses and a multivariate logistic model. Out of 1346 patients with blood pressure exceeding 160/95 mm Hg followed up for three years, 209 (15.5%) dropped out during the first year. Variables that were significantly related to increased drop out rates were male sex, young age, obesity at entry, cigarette smoking, direct referral to the clinic as a result of screening instead of referral by a general practitioner, absence of pre-existing antihypertensive treatment at the first visit, moderate hypertension, and low socioeconomic category. Variables at entry that were significantly related to poor blood pressure control at one year were old age, evidence of coronary heart disease, severe hypertension, and raised blood glucose concentrations. Early detection of patients at high risk of drop out or poor blood pressure control might improve treatment of hypertension and allow management to be more individually adapted to each patient.     

Prognostic significance of acute systolic hypertension after myocardial infarction.

The clinical behaviour and mean peak serum aspartate aminotransferase (SGOT) values of 106 patients admitted to a coronary care unit with acute myocardial infarction who displayed acute systolic hypertension were studied. Another 106 normotensive patients with acute myocardial infarction acted as controls. Neither group had established hypertension. The mortality rate, incidence of cardiac failure, major arrhythmias, and mean peak SGOT were significantly greater in the hypertensive group, within which the duration of hypertension was correlated with mean peak SGOT levels--through there was no definite relation between the height of systolic or diastolic pressure and SGOT. Transient systolic hypertension after acute myocardial infarction was therefore associated with a relatively poor prognosis, but our observations suggest that patients with a systolic blood pressure of at least 170 mm Hg might benefit from early hypotensive treatment.     

Relaxation therapy and continuous ambulatory blood pressure in mild hypertension: a controlled study.

OBJECTIVE--To determine the long term effects of relaxation therapy on 24 hour ambulatory intra-arterial blood pressure in patients with mild untreated and uncomplicated hypertension. DESIGN--Four week screening period followed by randomisation to receive either relaxation therapy or non-specific counselling for one year. Ambulatory intra-arterial blood pressure was measured before and after treatment. SETTING--Outpatient clinic in Amsterdam''s university hospital. SUBJECTS--35 Subjects aged 20-60 who were being treated by general practitioners for hypertension but were referred to take part in the study. At three consecutive screening visits all subjects had a diastolic blood pressure without treatment of 95-110 mm Hg. Subjects were excluded if they had damaged target organs, secondary hypertension, diabetes mellitus, a cholesterol concentration greater than 8 mmol/l, or a history of malignant hypertension. INTERVENTIONS--The group allocated to relaxation therapy was trained for eight weeks (one hour a week) in muscle relaxation, yoga exercises, and stress management and continued exercising twice daily for one year with monthly visits to the clinic. The control group had the same attendance schedule but had no training and were requested just to sit and relax twice a day. All subjects were asked not to change their diet or physical activity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--Changes in ambulatory intra-arterial blood pressure after one year of relaxation therapy or non-specific counselling. RESULTS--Mean urinary sodium excretion, serum concentration of cholesterol, and body weight did not change in either group. Diastolic pressures measured by sphygmomanometry were 2 and 3 mm Hg lower in subjects in the relaxation group and control group respectively at the one year follow up compared with initial readings. The mean diastolic ambulatory intra-arterial pressure during the daytime had not changed after one year in either group, but small treatment effects could not be excluded: the mean change for the relaxation group was -1 mm Hg (95% confidence interval -6 to 3.9 mm Hg) and for the control group -0.4 mm Hg (-5.3 to 4.6 mm Hg). Mean ambulatory pressure in the evening also had not changed over the year, and in both groups nighttime pressure was 5 mm Hg higher. The variability in blood pressure was the same at both measurements. CONCLUSIONS--Relaxation therapy was an ineffective method of lowering 24 hour blood pressure, being no more beneficial than non-specific advice, support, and reassurance--themselves ineffective as a treatment for hypertension.     

Approach to Assessment of Risk Factors in Mild Hypertension

Criteria are urgently needed for the early detection of subjects with only mildly raised blood pressure who may be at high risk of developing the complications of hypertension. As a step towards the establishment of such criteria we have examined the association of certain possible “risk” factors—namely, x-ray evidence of cardiac enlargement, high serum cholesterol levels, effort pain, E.C.G. abnormalities, and high systolic blood pressure—with fatal or morbid endpoints in a five-year follow-up study of subjects whose diastolic pressure had been found initially to be between 95 and 114 mm Hg. The index group consisted of 22 patients in whom these end-points occurred. They comprised death from cardiovascular disease, clinical or E.C.G. deterioration, and either an increase in diastolic pressure of at least 10 mm Hg or a diastolic pressure of 115 mm Hg or both. The control group consisted of 22 subjects chosen at random from other respondents with the same range of diastolic pressures and the same age and sex distribution.“Any two or more” of the possible risk factors examined were found to occur significantly more often in the index group than in the controls, suggesting a possible approach to the early detection of high-risk subjects. The value of longterm studies along these lines and the urgent need for them are emphasized.     

Case-control study of stroke and the quality of hypertension control in north west England.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the risk of stroke in relation to quality of hypertension control in routine general practice across an entire health district. DESIGN: Population based matched case-control study. SETTING: East Lancashire Health District with a participating population of 388,821 aged < or = 80. SUBJECTS: Cases were patients under 80 with their first stroke identified from a population based stroke register between 1 July 1994 and 30 June 1995. For each case two controls matched with the case for age and sex were selected from the same practice register. Hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure > or = 160 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure > or = 95 mm Hg, or both, on at least two occasions within any three month period or any history of treatment with antihypertensive drugs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of hypertension and quality of control of hypertension assessed by using the mean blood pressure recorded before stroke) and odds ratios of stroke (derived from conditional logistic regression). RESULTS: Records of 267 cases and 534 controls were examined; 61% and 42% of these subjects respectively were hypertensive. Compared with non-hypertensive subjects hypertensive patients receiving treatment whose average pre-event systolic blood pressure was controlled to < 140 mm Hg had an adjusted odds ratio for stroke of 1.3 (95% confidence interval 0.6 to 2.7). Those fairly well controlled (140-149 mm Hg), moderately controlled (150-159 mm Hg), or poorly controlled (> or = 160 mm Hg) or untreated had progressively raised odds ratios of 1.6, 2.2, 3.2, and 3.5 respectively. Results for diastolic pressure were similar; both were independent of initial pressures before treatment. Around 21% of strokes were thus attributable to inadequate control with treatment, or 46 first events yearly per 100,000 population aged 40-79. CONCLUSIONS: Risk of stroke was clearly related to quality of control of blood pressure with treatment. In routine practice consistent control of blood pressure to below 150/90 mm Hg seems to be required for optimal stroke prevention.     

Randomised controlled trial of computer assisted management of hypertension in primary care.

The hypothesis that general practitioners would obtain better outcomes for patients with hypertension using a computer than doctors not using a computer was tested. Sixty family physicians were randomised to two treatment strategies. "Test" physicians completed a data collection form after each visit from a patient with hypertension and mailed the forms to the test centre for processing. Computer feedback on management was mailed to the doctors. This encouraged doctors to apply the "stepped care" protocol, supplied charts of diastolic blood pressure v time, and ranked patients'' diastolic blood pressures by percentile. Letters were mailed to patients to remind them of appointments. "Control" doctors filled out the same data collection forms as test physicians, but neither doctors nor patients received computer feedback. Physicians who used the computer saw more patients per practice than control doctors (test 50 patients, control 40). For all patients the length of follow up was significantly longer in test practices (test 199 days, control 167), and a smaller percentage dropped out of active treatment in test practices (test 37.5%, control 42.1%). For patients with "moderate" hypertension of a baseline diastolic pressure of greater than 104 mm Hg the mean score of the last recorded pressure was below the goal of 90 mm Hg in test practices (88.5 mm Hg), but it failed to reach this goal in control practices (93.3 mm Hg). A greater average reduction of diastolic pressure was achieved in test practices (test 21.7 mm Hg, control 16.7 mm Hg). Though patients with "moderate" hypertension were better controlled in test practices than in control practices, the patients in test practices visited their doctors less often (test 13.3 visits per patient-year, control 17.4 visits). Among patients with newly detected hypertension test practices achieved a greater reduction in diastolic pressure than control practices (test 15.1 mm Hg v control 11.3 mm Hg) and more sustained control of hypertension (test 323 days per patient-year with a diastolic pressure of 90 mm Hg or less v control 259 days).     

Hypertension after renal transplantation.

The incidence of hypertension (mean diastolic pressure above 90 mm Hg) was evaluated in 85 patients with renal transplants whose follow-up ranged from 3 to 84 months. Bilateral nephrectomy had been performed in 80 recipients. The proportion of hypertensive subjects rose during the first three months, subsequently stabilised around 50-60% for up to five years, and then decreased slightly during the next two years. Over the years hypertension fluctuated so that one-third of the initially hypertensive patients became normotensive, and over one-third of the initially normotensive patients became hypertensive. The main single aetiological factor was renal failure. A significant relation between steroid dosage and blood pressure was found in only a quarter of the hypertensive patients, and in another quarter no cause could be found.     

Approach to drug therapy for hypertension.

Prevention of complications of hypertension requires the lowering of blood pressure. The therapeutic goal is to achieve and maintain a diastolic pressure of less than 90 mm Hg with minimal adverse effects. The treatment of patients with established diastolic blood pressures between 90 and 104 mm Hg (determined from three separate readings) should be individualized; general measures such as weight loss and salt restriction should be tried first as an alternative to drug therapy. Patients with diastolic pressure in excess of 104 mm Hg should be treated with antihypertensive drugs; the first step should be the use of a thiazide diuretic in addition to general measures. Patients with diastolic pressures of 90 to 115 mm Hg may require the addition of a beta-adrenergic-receptor antagonist, methyldopa or clonidine if the therapeutic goal is not achieved; rarely they require the further addition of hydralazine or prazosin. Patients with diastolic pressures of 116 to 129 mm Hg usually require initially both a thiazide diuretic and a beta-blocker, methyldopa or clonidine; if the therapeutic goal is not achieved, hydralazine or prazosin is added, and if a further hypotensive effect is required guanethidine can be added. Patients with severe hypertension (diastolic pressures greater than 130 mm Hg) may require urgent treatment with combinations of drugs of all three levels. Emphasis should be placed on individualized therapy and patient compliance in the assessment of therapeutic failures. These "step-care" guidlines represent a framework for antihypertensive therapy devised from information available in 1977. It is not a rigid scheme and should be adjusted to the individual patient to ensure as normal a life as possible.     

Hypertension—Indications,Goals and Potential Risks of Drug Therapy

Double-blind, placebo-controlled studies show that drug treatment of hypertension does not significantly reduce morbidity and mortality at diastolic pressures less than 105 mm of mercury. Nevertheless, most physicians start drug therapy at 90 to 104 mm of mercury. Few reports have dealt with the level to which blood pressure should be reduced. Available data, including reports from two large-scale studies, suggest that excessively low diastolic pressure due to drug therapy may cause an increase in deaths from coronary heart disease. Other studies suggest that reducing diastolic pressure below 100 mm of mercury does not enhance the prevention of complications of hypertension nor the reversal of pretreatment secondary change. Therefore, it is suggested that drug treatment of hypertension should be begun only if diastolic pressure is consistently 105 mm of mercury despite hygienic measures of treatment. A goal diastolic pressure of at least 100 mm of mercury is suggested.     

Beta blockade,diuretics, and salt restriction for the management of mild hypertension: a randomised double blind trial.

Ninety four patients with mild hypertension (average supine diastolic blood pressure (phase V) 95-110 mm Hg) were allocated at random to receive restriction of dietary sodium (maximum allowed 70 mmol(mEq)/24 h) or a normal diet. In addition, they received in random order 25 mg chlorthalidone, 200 mg metoprolol (slow release), and a fixed combination of these two drugs. Each drug treatment was given for four weeks and alternated with four weeks of placebo. Forty four patients were allocated to sodium restriction (group 1) and 50 to normal diet (group 2). The mean 24 hour urinary sodium excretion in group 1 was 74 (SD 31) mmol(mEq)/24 h, and in group 2 132 (51) mmol/24 h. Compared with the screening blood pressure the average decrement of the supine blood pressure in group 1 was 16.0/8.6 mm Hg with placebo, 21.7/11.5 mm Hg with the diuretic, 28.5/17.8 mm Hg with the beta blocker, and 28.9/18.4 mm Hg with the combined agent; in group 2 these values were 13.3/6.1, 20.3/9.7, 21.3/12.9, and 29.4/16.8 mm Hg, respectively. There was a sharp decrease of the average potassium concentration during chlorthalidone and combination treatment periods (average value 3.3 mmol(mEq)/1). These results suggest that moderate salt restriction used as sole treatment has a limited though demonstrable blood pressure lowering effect but that when it is used as an adjuvant to beta blocker treatment its value is greatly enhanced.     

The dilemma of isolated systolic hypertension.

Isolated systolic hypertension, characterized by elevated systolic blood pressure (greater than 150 to 165 mm Hg), normal diastolic blood pressure (less than 90 to 95 mm Hg) and, often, atherosclerosis, is now recognized as an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease. When the systolic pressure is 200 mm Hg or greater, or when it is 180 mm Hg or greater and accompanied by target organ damage, therapeutic intervention may be of value in patients under the age of 80 years. Low doses of thiazide diuretics have been shown to be safe and effective in lowering the systolic pressure. If the blood pressure remains high, treatment with methyldopa may be added.