Atypical antipsychotics is being considered in the treatment of “negative” symptoms of psychoses, such as schizophrenia. In this case report, we presented a case of a patient with psychiatric disorder who developed hypertension soon after starting using atypical antipsychotic. A 53-year-old woman had reported having episodes of tachycardia, nausea, headache and high blood pressure. At the time of the doctor’s appointment, the blood pressure was 210/110 mmHg. According to the patient, she made use of simvastatin for dyslipidemia and started taking aripiprazole, an antipsychotic for approximately 40 days before the symptoms. The initial treatment was 20 mg of olmesartan, and examinations were requested. After 2 months, the patient returned with the examinations: altered serum lipids and the other results were normal. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring showed an average of 24 h of 150/100 mmHg. Blood pressure was measured at the doctor’s office; in regular use of 20 mg of olmesartan, it was 156/92 mmHg. The dosage of olmesartan was increased to 40 mg and 1.5 mg of indapamide was initiated. The patient returned after 20 days with a blood pressure of 146/90 mmHg. After approval from the psychiatrist, the Aripiprazole was stopped, and the patient returned 15 days later with blood pressure of 120/80 mmHg. The ambulatory blood pressure monitoring control showed an average of 24 h of 130/78 mmHg. The Dopamine receptors play a role in the regulation of the blood pressure and the alterations in this system can lead to hypertension. D1, D3 and D4 receptors interact with the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, while D2 and D5 interact with the sympathetic nervous system in the regulation of PA. The case reported and the literature review bring to light the discussion of the use of atypical antipsychotics and its adverse events. If necessary, the use of these drugs should be followed by careful monitoring of blood pressure.

BackgroundResistant hypertension (RH) treatment requires an adequate and intense therapeutic approach. However, the results are not always satisfactory despite intensive treatment. Of the different pathophysiological mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of RH, sympathetic overstimulation and therapies that block the sympathetic system have been widely studied. These approaches, however, are invasive and expensive. Another possible approach is by transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), a noninvasive method that modulates activity by using low-frequency transcutaneous electrical stimulation to inhibit primary afferent pathways. Thus, the current study will evaluate the effect of applying TENS in the cervicothoracic region of subjects with RH and will seek to develop a new low-cost and readily available therapy to treat this group of hypertensive individuals.Methods/designThis is a randomized, single blind (subject), parallel-assignment study controlled with a sham group and including participants aged 40 to 70 years with resistant hypertension. The trial has two arms: the treatment and control (sham group). The treatment group will be submitted to the stimulation procedure (TENS). The sham group will not be submitted to stimulation. The primary outcomes will be a reduction in the peripheral blood pressure and adverse events. The secondary outcomes will be a reduction the central blood pressure. The study will last 30 days. The sample size was calculated assuming an alpha error of 5 % to reject the null hypothesis with a statistical power of 80 %, thereby resulting in 28 participants per group (intervention versus sham).DiscussionIn recent decades, RH has become very common and costly. Adequate control requires several drugs, and in many cases, treatment is not successful. Sympathetic nervous system inhibition by renal denervation and central inhibition have significant effects in reducing BP; however, these treatments are costly and invasive. Another type of sympathetic nervous system inhibition can also be noninvasively achieved by electric current. Therefore, the application of TENS may be a new therapeutic option for treating resistant hypertensive individuals.Trial RegistrationClinical Trials NCT02365974Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1302-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundHypertension reduction strategies use blood pressure in the brachial artery as the primary endpoint. Individuals who achieve the target blood pressure reduction with antihypertensive treatment have residual cardiovascular risk attributed to the difference in pressure between the aorta and brachial artery. Antihypertensive treatment affects the intrinsic properties of the vascular wall and arterial stiffness markers and consequently the central pressure. Recent publications stress the importance of adequate control of the central compared to peripheral blood pressure. Related clinical implications suggest that individuals with normal peripheral but high central blood pressure should not receive antihypertensive drugs that act on the central pressure. Therefore, they are at greater cardiovascular risk. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of treatment with a thiazide diuretic versus losartan on the central blood pressure in stage 1 hypertensive patients.MethodsTwenty-five patients were randomized to the chlorthalidone 25 mg/amiloride 5 mg group (q.d.) and 25 patients received losartan 50 mg (b.i.d). The central systolic blood pressure (CSBP) and augmentation index (AIx 75) were assessed using applanation tonometry. The paired t-test was used to compare the systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), pulse pressure (PP), CSBP and AIx 75 between the thiazide and losartan groups at baseline and after 6 months of treatment.ResultsSignificant reductions in CSBP (123.3 ± 14.2 vs. 113.4 ± 111.4, P = 0.0103) and AIx 75 (87.7 ± 9.6 vs. 83.8 ± 8.9, P = 0.0289) were observed after 6 months of drug treatment with chlorthalidone 25 mg/amiloride 5 mg (q.d.). The administration of losartan 50 mg (b.i.d) did not reduce the CSBP and there were insignificant changes in the AIx 75.ConclusionsSix-month treatment of chlorthalidone/amiloride but not losartan reduces the CSBP and AIx 75 in adults with stage 1 hypertension.

BackgroundResistant hypertension is characterized when the blood pressure (BP) remains above the recommended goal after taking three antihypertensive drugs with synergistic actions at their maximum recommended tolerated doses, preferably including a diuretic. Identifying the contribution of intravascular volume and serum renin in maintaining BP levels could help tailor more effective hypertension treatment, whether acting on the control of intravascular volume or sodium balance, or acting on the effects of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) on the kidney.Methods/designThis is a randomized, open-label, clinical trial is designed to compare sequential nephron blockade and its contribution to the intravascular volume component with dual blockade of the RAAS plus bisoprolol and the importance of serum renin in maintaining BP levels. The trial has two arms: sequential nephron blockade versus dual blockade of the RAAS (with an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor plus a beta-blocker) both added-on to a thiazide diuretic, a calcium-channel blocker and an angiotensin receptor-1 blocker (ARB). Sequential nephron blockade consists in a progressive increase in sodium depletion using a thiazide diuretic, an aldosterone-receptor blocker, furosemide and, finally, amiloride.On the other hand, the dual blockade of the RAAS consists of the progressive addition of an ACE inhibitor until the maximum dose and then the administration of a beta-blocker until the maximum dose. The primary outcomes will be reductions in the systolic BP, diastolic BP, mean BP and pulse pressure (PP) after 20 weeks of treatment. The secondary outcomes will evaluate treatment safety and tolerability, biochemical changes, evaluation of renal function and recognition of hypotension (ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM)). The sample size was calculated assuming an alpha error of 5% to reject the null hypothesis with a statistical power of 80% giving a total of 40 individuals per group.DiscussionIn recent years, the cost of resistant hypertension (RH) treatment has increased. Thus, identifying the contribution of intravascular volume and serum renin in maintaining BP levels could help tailor more effective hypertension treatment, whether by acting on the control of intravascular volume or sodium balance, or by acting on the effects of the RAAS on the kidney.Trial registrationSequential Nephron Blockade vs. Dual Blockade Renin-angiotensin System + Bisoprolol in Resistant Arterial Hypertension (ResHypOT). ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02832973. Registered on 14 July 2016. First received: 12 June 2016. Last updated: 18 July 2016.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2343-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction Hypertension is the most important modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease and a leading public health concern. Objectives The primary aim was to compare sequential nephron blockade (SNB) versus dual renin-angiotensin system blockade (DRASB) plus bisoprolol in patients with resistant hypertension to observe reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP) levels after 20 weeks of treatment. Material and Methods This trial was an open-label, prospective, randomized, parallel-group, clinical study with optional drug up-titration. Participants were evaluated during five visits at 28-day intervals. Results The mean age was 55.5 years in the SNB and 58.4 years in the DRASB + bisoprolol group (p=NS). Significant office BP reductions were observed in both groups. SNB group, SBP decreased from 174.5±21.0 to 127.0±14.74 mmHg (p<0.0001), and DBP decreased from 105.3±15.5 to 78.11±9.28 mmHg (p<0.0001). DRASB group, SBP decreased from 178.4±21.08 to 134.4 ± 23.25 mmHg (p<0.0001) and DBP decreased from 102.7±11.07 to 77.33±13.75 mmHg (p<0.0001). Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) showed also significant SBP and DBP reductions in both groups (p<0.0001). Conclusion In patients with RHTN adherent to treatment, SNB and DRASB plus bisoprolol showed excellent therapeutic efficacy, although SNB was associated with earlier SBP reduction.

Background Systemic arterial hypertension (SAH) is one of the major risk factors related to the development of cardiovascular diseases (CVD). Sodium intake is linked to elevated blood pressure and can be estimated by 24-h urinary sodium excretion. The objective of this study was to correlate 24 h urinary sodium excretion, blood pressure and arterial stiffness (AS) parameters in hypertensive individuals. Methods We evaluated 53 patients who underwent in-office 24-h blood pressure tests and AS parameters using the Mobil-O-Graph® equipment. Te patients were divided into controlled hypertensive and resistant hypertensive. Unpaired t-test was performed with significance at p < 0.05. Results Mean age was 64.32 years; weight 77.56 kg; height 1.61 m; and BMI of 29.68 kg/m2. Resistant hypertensive patients (25 subjects) have systolic blood pressure (SBP) (p < 0.0001), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (p = 0.004), 24 h SBP (p < 0.0001), 24 h DBP (p = 0.002), pulse pressure (PP) (p < 0.0001), central systolic blood pressure (cSBP) (p = 0.0003) and central diastolic blood pressure (cDBP) (p = 0.021) higher than controlled hypertensive patients (28 subjects). Conclusion Peripheral and central arterial pressures are higher in resistant hypertensive than in controlled hypertensive. Sodium excretion is unrelated to hemodynamic variables. Age is related to the elevation of central pressure and pulse wave velocity.

A hipertensão resistente (HAR) ocorre quando a pressão arterial (PA) permanece acima da meta recomendada após o uso de três fármacos anti-hipertensivos com ação sinérgica em suas doses máximas toleradas recomendadas, preferencialmente incluindo um diurético. A identificação da contribuição do volume intravascular e da renina sérica na manutenção dos níveis elevados da PA permite um tratamento mais eficaz da hipertensão, ao atuar sobre o controle do volume intravascular, equilíbrio de sódio e sobre os efeitos do sistema renina-angiotensina-aldosterona (SRAA) no rim. Bloqueio sequencial do néfron (BSN) consiste em um aumento progressivo na depleção de sódio usando um diurético tiazídico, um bloqueador do receptor mineralocorticoide (espironolactona), furosemida e, finalmente, amilorida. Os mecanismos de ação, as indicações e os efeitos adversos são discutidos na presente revisão.

Hypertension affects 1.4 billion of the world population, being considered the main cause of cardiovascular diseases and, therefore, an important cause of premature and preventable mortality worldwide. It is associated with complications such as atherosclerotic coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and chronic kidney disease. Given this prevalence and risk, strategies were created to control the disease, such as changes in lifestyle and use of medications. However, non-adherence to treatment is a frequent concern and it is associated with adverse results and an increased number of complications. Therefore, the present study aims to present the incidence of arterial hypertension in the population of a city in the inland part of São Paulo, relating it to its risk factors, adherence to treatment and disease control. The objective is evaluating the incidence and rate of uncontrolled systemic arterial hypertension on a campaign day in a city in the inland part of São Paulo. The method is observational, cross-sectional, descriptive, population-based study, random sample of 545 individuals, 231 women and 314 men, collected in a city in the northwest of São Paulo on a campaign day. The study showed a prevalence of 46.24% for hypertensive patients, with 88.9% adherence to treatment and pressure loss of 34.23%. Among the analyzed hypertensive patients, there was a higher incidence among the elderly, obese, and people with diabetes mellitus. Regarding adherence and disease control, better results were noted among patients with complications such as AMI and thrombotic events, and less adherence among obese, alcoholics and smokers. The results of the present study are consistent with literature data, showing that even with knowledge of the disease, part of the population does not have adequate treatment, showing the need for integrated health policies for early diagnosis, distribution and treatment regulation, and actions to improve lifestyle.