Benefits of Treating Higher Versus Lower BP Targets in Older Adults Across all trials , treating high BP in older adults was beneficial .
This is probably related to the higher frequency of cardiovascular events seen in these patients .
Treatment Effects According to Diastolic BP Evidence was insufficient to determine the benefit of treating diastolic hypertension in the absence of systolic hypertension .
A subgroup analysis of SPRINT showed a nonstatistically significant increase in the rate of serious adverse events , hypotension , syncope , electrolyte abnormalities , or acute
Hypertension , an elevation of systemic arterial blood pressure ( BP ) , is a very common chronic disease in the United States .
The overall prevalence of hypertension among U.S. adults is 29.0 % , and it increases to 64.9 % in adults aged 60 years or older ( 1 ) .
Hypertension was associated with a total of $ 46 billion in health care services , medications , and missed days of work in the United States in 2011 ( 2 ) .
Appropriate management of hypertension reduces the risk for cardiovascular disease , renal disease , cerebrovascular disease , and death ( 36 ) .
However , determining the most appropriate BP targets , particularly for adults aged 60 years or older , has been controversial .
Debate about the goal for systolic BP ( SBP ) among adults treated for hypertension has intensified , especially in light of recent recommendations ( 7 ) .
In addition , when selecting BP targets for adults aged 60 years or older , clinicians need to consider comorbid conditions that could affect treatment choice .
Original Version ( PDF ) Guideline Focus and Target Population The purpose of this American College of Physicians ( ACP ) and American Academy of Family Physicians ( AAFP ) joint guideline is to present evidence -based recommendations on the benefits and harms of higher ( < 150 mm Hg ) versus lower ( 140 mm Hg ) SBP targets for the treatment of hypertension in adults aged 60 years or older .
These recommendations are based on a background evidence review ( 8) and systematic review sponsored by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ( VA ) ( 9 ) .
Mortality and Morbidity Results from the European Working Party on High Blood Pressure in the Elderly Trial
Summary The latter was due to a reduction in cardiac mortality ( −38 % , p=0.036 ) and a nonsignificant decrease in cerebrovascular mortality ( −32 % , p=0.16 ) . In the double-blind part of the trial , the total mortality rate was not significantly reduced ( −26 % , p=0.077 ) . However , cardiovascular mortality was reduced in the actively treated group ( −38 % , p=0.023 ) , owing to a reduction in cardiac deaths ( −47 % , p=0.048 ) and a non-significant decrease in cerebrovascular mortality ( −43 % , p=0.15 ) . Deaths from myocardial infa rct ion were reduced ( −60 % , p=0.043 ) , and study -terminating morbid cardiovascular events were significantly reduced by active treatment ( −60 % , p=0.0064 ) . Non-terminating cerebrovascular events were reduced ( −52 % , p=0.026 ) , but the non-terminating cardiac events were not ( + 3 % , p=0.98 ) . In the patients r and omised to active treatment there were 29 fewer cardiovascular events and 14 fewer cardiovascular deaths per 1000 patient years during the double-blind part of the trial . A double-blind r and omised placebo-controlled trial of antihypertensive treatment was conducted in patients over the age of 60 . Entry criteria included both a sitting diastolic blood pressure on placebo treatment in the range 90 to 119 mm Hg and a systolic pressure in the range 160 to 239 mm Eg . 840 patients were r and omised either to active treatment ( hydrochlorothiazide and triamterene ) or to  matching placebo  . If the blood pressure remained raised , methyldopa was added to the active regimen and matching placebo in the placebo group . An overall intention-to-treat analysis , combining the double-blind part of the trial and all subsequent follow-up , revealed a non-significant change in total mortality rate ( −9 % , p=0.41 ) but a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality rate ( −27 % , p=0.037 )
Benefits of Treating Higher Versus Lower BP Targets in Older Adults Across all trials , treating high BP in older adults was beneficial .
This is probably related to the higher frequency of cardiovascular events seen in these patients .
Treatment Effects According to Diastolic BP Evidence was insufficient to determine the benefit of treating diastolic hypertension in the absence of systolic hypertension .
A subgroup analysis of SPRINT showed a nonstatistically significant increase in the rate of serious adverse events , hypotension , syncope , electrolyte abnormalities , or acute
Hypertension , an elevation of systemic arterial blood pressure ( BP ) , is a very common chronic disease in the United States .
The overall prevalence of hypertension among U.S. adults is 29.0 % , and it increases to 64.9 % in adults aged 60 years or older ( 1 ) .
Hypertension was associated with a total of $ 46 billion in health care services , medications , and missed days of work in the United States in 2011 ( 2 ) .
Appropriate management of hypertension reduces the risk for cardiovascular disease , renal disease , cerebrovascular disease , and death ( 36 ) .
However , determining the most appropriate BP targets , particularly for adults aged 60 years or older , has been controversial .
Debate about the goal for systolic BP ( SBP ) among adults treated for hypertension has intensified , especially in light of recent recommendations ( 7 ) .
In addition , when selecting BP targets for adults aged 60 years or older , clinicians need to consider comorbid conditions that could affect treatment choice .
Original Version ( PDF ) Guideline Focus and Target Population The purpose of this American College of Physicians ( ACP ) and American Academy of Family Physicians ( AAFP ) joint guideline is to present evidence -based recommendations on the benefits and harms of higher ( < 150 mm Hg ) versus lower ( 140 mm Hg ) SBP targets for the treatment of hypertension in adults aged 60 years or older .
These recommendations are based on a background evidence review ( 8) and systematic review sponsored by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ( VA ) ( 9 ) .