Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Prevalence of resistant hypertension in non-elderly adults: prospective study in a clinical setting

Abstracts

BACKGROUND: In face of variable definitions and sampling criteria, the real prevalence of resistant hypertension in a clinical setting is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the prevalence of true resistant hypertension in an outpatient hypertension clinic. METHODS: True resistant hypertension was diagnosed when white coat phenomenon, lack of compliance and secondary hypertension were excluded in patients with blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg in two consecutive visits, despite to be using three blood pressure-lowering agents, including a diuretic. RESULTS: In the total, 606 patients, with 35 to 65 years of age, mostly women, with BP of 156.8 ± 23.8 mmHg by 91.9 ± 15.6 mmHg and a BMI of 29.7 ± 5.9 Kg/m² were sequentially evaluated. One hundred and six patients using three BP drugs had uncontrolled blood pressure (17.5% of the whole sample) in the first visit. Eighty-six patients (81% of the patients with uncontrolled BP in the first evaluation) returned for the confirmatory evaluation. Twenty-five had controlled BP, 21 had evidence of low adherence to treatment, 13 had white coat phenomenon and 9 had secondary hypertension, leaving only 18 patients (20.9% of those uncontrolled in the confirmatory visit and 3% of the whole sample) with true resistant hypertension. Considering patients with secondary hypertension as cases of resistant hypertension, the prevalence of resistant hypertension increased to 4.5%. CONCLUSION: The frequency of patients with true resistant hypertension in non-elderly patients is low in a clinical setting, and is not substantially increased with the inclusion of patients with secondary hypertension. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2012; [online].ahead print, PP.0-0)

Hypertension; prevalence; white coat hypertension; medication adherence


FUNDAMENTO: Em face de definições de variáveis e critérios de amostragem, a real prevalência de hipertensão resistente em ambiente clínico é desconhecida. OBJETIVO: Investigar a prevalência de real hipertensão resistente em uma clínica de hipertensão arterial. MÉTODOS: Hipertensão resistente verdadeira foi diagnosticada quando fenômeno do jaleco branco, insuficiente adesão ao tratamento e hipertensão secundária foram excluídos em pacientes com Pressão Arterial (PA) ≥ 140/90 mmHg em duas visitas consecutivas, usando três de fármacos anti-hipertensivos, incluindo um diurético. RESULTADOS: No total, 606 pacientes, com 35 a 65 anos de idade, a maioria mulheres, com PA de 156,8 ± 23,8 mmHg por 91,9 ± 15,6 mmHg e IMC de 29,7 ± 5,9 Kg/m² foram sequencialmente avaliados. Cento e seis pacientes em uso de três agentes anti-hipertensivos estavam com pressão arterial não controlada (17,5% da amostra total) na primeira visita. Oitenta e seis pacientes (81% dos pacientes com PA não controlada na primeira avaliação) retornaram para a avaliação de confirmação: 25 estavam com PA controlada; 21 tinham evidência de baixa adesão ao tratamento; 13 tinham fenômeno do jaleco branco; e 9 tinham hipertensão secundária, restando 18 pacientes (20,9% dos não controlados na consulta de confirmação e 3% da amostra total) com verdadeira hipertensão resistente. Considerando pacientes com hipertensão secundária como casos de hipertensão refratária, a prevalência de hipertensão resistente aumentou para 4,5%. CONCLUSÃO: A frequência de hipertensão resistente verdadeira em pacientes não idosos é baixa em um ambiente clínico, e não é substancialmente aumentada com a inclusão de pacientes com hipertensão secundária. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2012; [online].ahead print, PP.0-0)

Hipertensão; Prevalência; Hipertensão do Jaleco Branco; Adesão à Medicação


Prevalence of resistant hypertension in non-elderly adults: prospective study in a clinical setting

Daniela Massierer; Ana Claudia Tonelly Oliveira; Ana Maria Steinhorst; Miguel Gus; Aline Maria Ascoli; Sandro Cadaval Gonçalves; Leila Beltrami Moreira; Vicente Correa Jr.; Gerson Nunes; Sandra Costa Fuchs; Flávio Danni Fuchs

Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, RS - Brazil

Mailing Address

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In face of variable definitions and sampling criteria, the real prevalence of resistant hypertension in a clinical setting is unknown.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the prevalence of true resistant hypertension in an outpatient hypertension clinic.

METHODS: True resistant hypertension was diagnosed when white coat phenomenon, lack of compliance and secondary hypertension were excluded in patients with blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg in two consecutive visits, despite to be using three blood pressure-lowering agents, including a diuretic.

RESULTS: In the total, 606 patients, with 35 to 65 years of age, mostly women, with BP of 156.8 ± 23.8 mmHg by 91.9 ± 15.6 mmHg and a BMI of 29.7 ± 5.9 Kg/m2 were sequentially evaluated. One hundred and six patients using three BP drugs had uncontrolled blood pressure (17.5% of the whole sample) in the first visit. Eighty-six patients (81% of the patients with uncontrolled BP in the first evaluation) returned for the confirmatory evaluation. Twenty-five had controlled BP, 21 had evidence of low adherence to treatment, 13 had white coat phenomenon and 9 had secondary hypertension, leaving only 18 patients (20.9% of those uncontrolled in the confirmatory visit and 3% of the whole sample) with true resistant hypertension. Considering patients with secondary hypertension as cases of resistant hypertension, the prevalence of resistant hypertension increased to 4.5%.

CONCLUSION: The frequency of patients with true resistant hypertension in non-elderly patients is low in a clinical setting, and is not substantially increased with the inclusion of patients with secondary hypertension. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2012; [online].ahead print, PP.0-0)

Keywords: Hypertension; prevalence; white coat hypertension; medication adherence.

Introduction

Hypertension is among diseases with a large number of efficacious non-drug and drug therapies. Nonetheless, the proportion of patients with controlled hypertension has varied from 5.4% to 58% worldwide1-4. A large part of these patients have uncontrolled hypertension because they are not aware of their disease or do not adhere to the medical recommendations, but an unknown proportion of them are being treated and do not have controlled blood pressure. Patients with uncontrolled blood pressure taking appropriate doses of three blood pressure lowering drugs, including a diuretic, have resistant hypertension5. The exact proportion of such subjects was not clearly established to date, but has been assumed to be relatively common by countless reviews about the subject published in recent years. Based on secondary analyses of clinical trials, it has been estimated that perhaps 20% to 30% of study participants have resistant hypertension5. Findings from clinical trials may be not representative of unselected hypertensive patients, and in many studies, patients were not submitted to detailed evaluation of adherence and to the search of white coat phenomenon. Outside clinical trials, the description of the prevalence of resistant hypertension has been fragmentary and mostly based on secondary data. Moreover, the source of patients included in the surveys (the denominator for prevalence calculations) are quite variable. A secondary analysis of electronic records of patients treated for hypertension in an outpatient setting identified a prevalence of 12.4%6. Adherence to treatment and investigation of secondary causes was not reported in this survey, and the real prevalence can be somewhat lower. Ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring has shown also that a proportion of patients with resistant hypertension has white coat phenomenon7, a condition that is associated with better prognosis8. A recently reported analysis of a large Spanish database identified 8,295 (12.2%) out of 68,045 treated patients with office resistant hypertension9. About a third of these patients had normal ABP, leading to an estimate of true resistant hypertension of 5,182 patients, corresponding to 7.6% of the whole sample. Again, adherence to treatment and secondary hypertension causes were not reported, suggesting that the real resistant patients are still fewer. Guidelines recognize that lack of adherence and secondary hypertension may influence the proportion of patients that have resistant hypertension5, but it is unclear if patients with those conditions should be considered as having or not true resistant hypertension.

In this prospectively planned survey we investigated the prevalence of true resistant hypertension in an outpatient hypertension clinic, with confirmation by ABP monitoring and evaluation of adherence to treatment and of secondary hypertension.

Methods

This is an analytical cross-sectional study of patients attending to the outpatient hypertension program of our institution, whereas several observational studies and clinical trials have been carried out in the last 20 years. Detailed description of this cohort can be seen elsewhere10-12. The outpatient clinic is reference for patients with hypertension in our hospital and for the Public Health Network (Sistema Único de Saúde, SUS) in the metropolitan region of Porto Alegre, and is operating since 1988. More than 4.000 patients were evaluated since then. After the initial evaluation, most patients were followed-up in the Clinic, but around a third of them did not return after one year. Data from the extensive baseline evaluation and from the follow-up visits were collected in an electronic database specifically designed for the clinic. Currently, the clinic is mostly reference for patients with complicated hypertension. For this investigation, all consecutive patients aged 30-65 years that had medical appointments in the clinic in 2008, regardless of whether at the first evaluation or in follow-up visits, were submitted to an additional protocol. There were no criteria for exclusion. Patients with BP ≥ 140/ 90 mmHg, using three drugs in right doses, including a diuretic, were selected as having potentially resistant hypertension13. Recommendations for life style change and for the right use of the blood pressure agents were reinforced, without any modification of doses and agents, and the patients were asked to return for a confirmatory consultation. Patients who persisted with uncontrolled blood pressure in the second consultation were submitted to Ambulatory Blood Pressure (ABP) monitoring (Spacelabs 90207, Spacelabs, Redmond, WA). For analysis, normal blood pressure by ABP monitoring was mean 24 hours blood pressure below 130/80 mmHg. The investigation of secondary hypertension had been already done in most patients registered at the clinic and was completed in those that were still not investigated. The routine procedures employed to search for secondary hypertension included high clinic suspicion, mostly resistance to treatment, abnormality in urinalysis, creatinine or potassium, followed by the determination of aldosterone/renin ratio and renal artery Doppler when indicated. Obstructive sleep apnea was investigated in some patients as a part of a protocol of a case-control study14, but they were not classified as having secondary hypertension, since this syndrome is still recognized as a risk factor for resistant hypertension and not a definite cause. Adherence to drug treatment was evaluated by the Morisky-Green test15.

The cohort study that was the basis for patient selection was approved by the Institution Review Board, which is accredited by the Office of Human Research Protections as an Institutional Review Board. Since no departure from the recommended procedures for the evaluation and management of patients with hypertension, no inform consent was required. Descriptive statistics presented the proportion of patients with blood pressure uncontrolled after each step of confirmatory steps. No statistical testing of hypothesis was required.

Results

In the total, 606 patients were screened. Of these, 106 (17.5%) had blood systolic blood pressure equal of over 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure equal of over 90 mmHg despite of having a prescription of three blood pressure agents, including a diuretic. From these patients, 20 were newer patients and the remaining were being followed in the clinic for two to 14 years (mean 5.2 ± 4.4 years). The characteristics of these patients and the drugs and mean doses that they were using are shown in table 1. As can be seen in the table, the patients studied were mostly women with an average BMI close to obesity. The drugs that were being used included diuretics, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors and vasodilators.

Eighty-six patients attended the confirmatory consultation (81%). Twenty five had office blood pressure within normal limits, 21 had low adherence, 13 had the white coat phenomenon, and 9 had secondary hypertension, leading to only 18 patients of the patients screened (3% of those originally evaluated) with uncontrolled blood pressure (Figure 1). If the prevalence among patients who did not attend the confirmatory consultation was twice the prevalence among those who did attend, another 8 patients would have truly resistant hypertension. As a result, the prevalence of true resistant hypertension in the initial sample would be 4.3%. Considering the patients with secondary hypertension as having resistant hypertension (n = 9) the prevalence would increase to 4.5%. Figure 2 shows flow-chart of the patients investigated.



Discussion

Our prospectively planned cross-sectional study conducted in an outpatient hypertension clinic provided two estimates of resistant hypertension. In a broad sense, 17.5% of our non-elderly patients were using three blood pressure agents (including a diuretic) and had uncontrolled hypertension. After the confirmatory consultation, and the exclusion of those who were non-adherent to treatment, or had secondary hypertension or white coat phenomenon, the prevalence dropped to only 3% of the original sampling.

The prevalence of resistant hypertension reported by clinical trials and other cohorts has been close to our first estimate5. Our final estimate was not quite far from the 7.6% reported by de la Sierra et al9, and the difference may be explained by the checking of adherence and secondary hypertension in our study. A recent report based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2003 through 2008 estimated a prevalence of 12.8 (± 0.9) %16. Again, the patients were not submitted to the investigation of adherence to treatment and of the occurrence of a white coat phenomenon. It has been recommended that patients with controlled blood pressure taking four drugs should be diagnosed as having resistant hypertension, independently of the doses of the blood pressure agents5. This option could artificially increase the number of resistant patients, since at least a proportion of them could be using one or more of the four antihypertensive patients in lower doses.

The concept of resistant hypertension at office and by ABP monitoring has been already proposed, including the definition of true resistant hypertension when blood pressure is uncontrolled at office and by ABP monitoring9, 17. We propose that the concept of true resistant hypertension should require the exclusion of lack of adherence to treatment and secondary hypertension. Further description of prevalence of resistant hypertension in different settings could employ this definition, which seems to better describe the really difficult to treat patients seen in clinical practice. These patients should be further investigated to identify mechanisms of resistance and more efficacious therapies to control blood pressure. A condition that is not covered by the present criteria to define resistant hypertension is uncontrolled blood pressure at home (ABPM or home blood pressure measurement) and controlled at office (masked hypertension). This condition would be hard to identify, since the treatment should be oriented by blood pressure measured out of office.

Because of our sampling criteria, we were not able to describe the prevalence of true resistant hypertension in patients older than 65 years of age. Since the occurrence of systolic hypertension increases with age, a condition that has been more difficult to treat, the prevalence of true resistant hypertension in a broader age range is probably higher. On the other side, our clinic is a referral service for patients with hypertension, and a variable proportion of our patients has been referred because of difficult to treat hypertension. The prevalence of true resistant hypertension can therefore be still lower in non-elderly adults in other settings, such as in primary care services and in other clinical specialties.

Other limitations of our survey deserve mention. Patients who did not attend to the second evaluation could have more frequently true resistant hypertension and therefore the real prevalence could be somewhat higher. We performed a sensitivity analysis assuming that the prevalence among these patients would be twice the prevalence of those who returned for the confirmatory visit, but even with this assumption, the prevalence would be below 5%. The restriction of investigation to only one center reduces the external validity of our findings, particularly because the higher proportion of women, which resulted from the uneven spontaneous demand of consultations by men and women. Among the strengths of our study are its prospective design, the confirmation of resistance by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, the evaluation of adherence to treatment, and the systematic investigation of secondary causes of hypertension.

In conclusion, true resistant hypertension is infrequent in non-elderly patients with hypertension, and it is not substantially higher with the inclusion of patients with secondary hypertension. Homogeneous criteria to diagnose this condition are warranted.

Potential Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Sources of Funding

This study was supported in part by the National Institute of Science and Technology for Health Technology Assessment (IATS) - CNPq/Brazil and Fundo de Incentivo a Pesquisa (FIPE-HCPA), Brazil.

Study Association

This study is not associated with any post-graduation program.

References

  • 1. Pereira M, Lunet N, Azevedo A, Barros H. Differences in prevalence, awareness, treatment and control of hypertension between developing and developed countries. J Hypertens. 2009;27(5):963-75.
  • 2. Foguet Q, Marti H, Elosua R, Sala J, Masia R, Vazquez S, et al. Hypertension confirmation and blood pressure control rates in epidemiological surveys. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2008;15(3):263-9.
  • 3. Kearney PM, Whelton M, Reynolds K, Whelton PK, He J. Worldwide prevalence of hypertension: a systematic review. J Hypertens. 2004;22(1):11-9.
  • 4. Egan BM, Zhao Y, Axon RN. US trends in prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension, 1988-2008. JAMA. 2010; 303(20):2043-50.
  • 5. Calhoun DA, Jones D, Textor S, Goff DC, Murphy TP, Toto RD, et al. Resistant hypertension: diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Professional Education Committee of the Council for High Blood Pressure Research. Hypertension. 2008;51(6):1403-19.
  • 6. McAdam-Marx C, Ye X, Sung JC, Brixner DI, Kahler KH. Results of a retrospective, observational pilot study using electronic medical records to assess the prevalence and characteristics of patients with resistant hypertension in an ambulatory care setting. Clin Ther. 2009;31(5):1116-23.
  • 7. Brown MA, Buddle ML, Martin A. Is resistant hypertension really resistant? Am J Hypertens. 2001;14(12):1263-9.
  • 8. Salles GF, Cardoso CR, Muxfeldt ES. Prognostic influence of office and ambulatory blood pressures in resistant hypertension. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(21):2340-6.
  • 9. de la Sierra A, Segura J, Banegas JR, Gorostidi M, de la Cruz JJ, Armario P, et al. Clinical features of 8295 patients with resistant hypertension classified on the basis of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Hypertension. 2011;57(5):898-902.
  • 10. Fuchs FD, Maestri MK, Bredemeier M, Cardozo SE, Moreira FC, Wainstein MV, et al. Study of the usefulness of optic fundi examination of patients with hypertension in a clinical setting. J Hum Hypertens. 1995;9(7):547-51.
  • 11. Fuchs FD, Gus M, Moreira WD, Moreira LB, Moraes RS, Rosito GA, et al. Blood pressure effects of antihypertensive drugs and changes in lifestyle in a Brazilian hypertensive cohort. J Hypertens. 1997;15(7):783-92.
  • 12. Gonçalves CB, Moreira LB, Gus M, Fuchs FD. Adverse events of blood-pressure-lowering drugs: evidence of high incidence in a clinical setting. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2007;63(10):973-8.
  • 13. Sociedade Brasileira de Cardiologia / Sociedade Brasileira de Hipertensão / Sociedade Brasileira de Nefrologia. VI Diretrizes brasileiras de hipertensão. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2010;95(1 supl.1):1-51.
  • 14. Gonçalves SC, Martinez D, Gus M, de Abreu-Silva EO, Bertoluci C, Dutra I, et al. Obstructive sleep apnea and resistant hypertension: a case-control study. Chest. 2007;132(6):1858-62.
  • 15. Morisky DE, Green LW, Levine DM. Concurrent and predictive validity of a self-reported measure of medication adherence. Med Care. 1986;24(1):67-74.
  • 16. Persell SD. Prevalence of resistant hypertension in the United States, 2003-2008. Hypertension. 2011;57(6):1076-80.
  • 17. Muxfeldt ES, Bloch KV, Nogueira Ada R, Salles GF. True resistant hypertension: is it possible to be recognized in the office? Am J Hypertens. 2005;18(12 Pt 1):1534-40.
  • Correspondência

    :
    Flávio Danni Fuchs
    R: Ramiro Barcelos, 2350 - Sala 2060 – Rio Branco - 90035-903 – Porto Alegre, RS – Brasil
    E-mail:
  • Publication Dates

    • Publication in this collection
      29 May 2012
    • Date of issue
      July 2012

    History

    • Received
      12 Dec 2011
    • Accepted
      24 Feb 2012
    • Reviewed
      19 Dec 2011
    Sociedade Brasileira de Cardiologia - SBC Avenida Marechal Câmara, 160, sala: 330, Centro, CEP: 20020-907, (21) 3478-2700 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brazil, Fax: +55 21 3478-2770 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
    E-mail: revista@cardiol.br