What is known and Objective Controversy has arisen in the scientific community on whether the use of renin‐angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors in the context of COVID‐19 would be beneficial or harmful. A meta‐analysis of eligible studies comparing the occurrence of severe and fatal COVID‐19 in infected hypertensive patients who were under treatment with angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) vs no treatment or other antihypertensives was conducted. Methods PubMed, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv and bioRxiv were searched for relevant studies. Fixed‐effects models or random‐effects models were used depending on the heterogeneity between estimates. Results and discussion A total of eighteen studies with 17 311 patients were included. The use of RAS inhibitors was associated with a significant 16% decreased risk of the composite outcome (death, admission to intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation requirement or progression to severe or critical pneumonia): RR: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.73‐0.95), P = .007, I2 = 65%. What is new and conclusion The results of this pooled analysis suggest that the use of ACEI/ARB does not worsen the prognosis of COVID‐19, and could even be protective in hypertensive subjects. Hypertensive patients should continue these drugs even if they become infected with SARS‐CoV‐2.

Background: Whether cardiovascular risk is more tightly associated with central (cSBP) than brachial (bSBP) systolic pressure remains debated, because of their close correlation and uncertain thresholds to differentiate cSBP into normotension versus hypertension. Methods: In a person-level meta-analysis of the International Database of Central Arterial Properties for Risk Stratification (n=5576; 54.1% women; mean age 54.2 years), outcome-driven thresholds for cSBP were determined and whether the cross-classification of cSBP and bSBP improved risk stratification was explored. cSBP was tonometrically estimated from the radial pulse wave using SphygmoCor software. Results: Over 4.1 years (median), 255 composite cardiovascular end points occurred. In multivariable bootstrapped analyses, cSBP thresholds (in mm Hg) of 110.5 (95% CI, 109.1–111.8), 120.2 (119.4–121.0), 130.0 (129.6–130.3), and 149.5 (148.4–150.5) generated 5-year cardiovascular risks equivalent to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association bSBP thresholds of 120, 130, 140, and 160. Applying 120/130 mm Hg as cSBP/bSBP thresholds delineated concordant central and brachial normotension (43.1%) and hypertension (48.2%) versus isolated brachial hypertension (5.0%) and isolated central hypertension (3.7%). With concordant normotension as reference, the multivariable hazard ratios for the cardiovascular end point were 1.30 (95% CI, 0.58–2.94) for isolated brachial hypertension, 2.28 (1.21–4.30) for isolated central hypertension, and 2.02 (1.41–2.91) for concordant hypertension. The increased cardiovascular risk associated with isolated central and concordant hypertension was paralleled by cerebrovascular end points with hazard ratios of 3.71 (1.37–10.06) and 2.60 (1.35–5.00), respectively. Conclusions: Irrespective of the brachial blood pressure status, central hypertension increased cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risk indicating the importance of controlling central hypertension.

Pulsatile blood pressure (BP) confers cardiovascular risk. Whether associations of cardiovascular end points are tighter for central systolic BP (cSBP) than peripheral systolic BP (pSBP) or central pulse pressure (cPP) than peripheral pulse pressure (pPP) is uncertain. Among 5608 participants (54.1% women; mean age, 54.2 years) enrolled in nine studies, median follow-up was 4.1 years. cSBP and cPP, estimated tonometrically from the radial waveform, averaged 123.7 and 42.5 mm Hg, and pSBP and pPP 134.1 and 53.9 mm Hg. The primary composite cardiovascular end point occurred in 255 participants (4.5%). Across fourths of the cPP distribution, rates increased exponentially (4.1, 5.0, 7.3, and 22.0 per 1000 person-years) with comparable estimates for cSBP, pSBP, and pPP. The multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios, expressing the risk per 1-SD increment in BP, were 1.50 (95% CI, 1.33–1.70) for cSBP, 1.36 (95% CI, 1.19–1.54) for cPP, 1.49 (95% CI, 1.33–1.67) for pSBP, and 1.34 (95% CI, 1.19–1.51) for pPP ( P <0.001). Further adjustment of cSBP and cPP, respectively, for pSBP and pPP, and vice versa, removed the significance of all hazard ratios. Adding cSBP, cPP, pSBP, pPP to a base model including covariables increased the model fit ( P <0.001) with generalized R 2 increments ranging from 0.37% to 0.74% but adding a second BP to a model including already one did not. Analyses of the secondary end points, including total mortality (204 deaths), coronary end points (109) and strokes (89), and various sensitivity analyses produced consistent results. In conclusion, associations of the primary and secondary end points with SBP and pulse pressure were not stronger if BP was measured centrally compared with peripherally.

Easily measurable parameters such as age, office systolic BP, history of PAD, and OHT may help to detect a population at risk of MH that would benefit from home BP monitoring.

Participant-level meta-analyses assessed the age-specific relevance of office blood pressure to cardiovascular complications, but this information is lacking for out-of-office blood pressure. At baseline, daytime ambulatory (n=12 624) or home (n=5297) blood pressure were measured in 17 921 participants (51.3% women; mean age, 54.2 years) from 17 population cohorts. Subsequently, mortality and cardiovascular events were recorded. Using multivariable Cox regression, floating absolute risk was computed across 4 age bands (≤60, 61–70, 71–80, and >80 years). Over 236 491 person-years, 3855 people died and 2942 cardiovascular events occurred. From levels as low as 110/65 mm Hg, risk log-linearly increased with higher out-of-office systolic/diastolic blood pressure. From the youngest to the oldest age group, rates expressed per 1000 person-years increased ( P <0.001) from 4.4 (95% CI, 4.0–4.7) to 86.3 (76.1–96.5) for all-cause mortality and from 4.1 (3.9–4.6) to 59.8 (51.0–68.7) for cardiovascular events, whereas hazard ratios per 20-mm Hg increment in systolic out-of-office blood pressure decreased ( P ≤0.0033) from 1.42 (1.19–1.69) to 1.09 (1.05–1.12) and from 1.70 (1.51–1.92) to 1.12 (1.07–1.17), respectively. These age-related trends were similar for out-of-office diastolic pressure and were generally consistent in both sexes and across ethnicities. In conclusion, adverse outcomes were directly associated with out-of-office blood pressure in adults. At young age, the absolute risk associated with out-of-office blood pressure was low, but relative risk high, whereas with advancing age relative risk decreased and absolute risk increased. These observations highlight the need of a lifecourse approach for the management of hypertension.

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is an increasingly recognized disorder that is associated with functional impairment, quality-of-life deterioration, increased risk of cardiovascular ischemic events, and increased risk of total and cardiovascular mortality. Although earlier studies suggested that PAD was more common in men, recent reports based on more sensitive tests have shown that the prevalence of PAD in women is at least the same as in men, if not higher. PAD tends to present itself asymptomatically or with atypical symptoms more frequently in women than in men, and is associated with comorbidities or situations particularly or exclusively found in the female sex, such as osteoporosis, hypothyroidism, the use of oral contraceptives, and a history of complications during pregnancy. Fat-distribution patterns and differential vascular characteristics in women may influence the interpretation of diagnostic methods, whereas sex-related vulnerability to drugs typically used in subjects with PAD, differences in risk-factor distribution among sexes, and distinct responses to revascularization procedures in men and women must be taken into account for proper disease management. All these issues pose important challenges associated with PAD in women. Of note, this group has classically been underrepresented in research studies. As a consequence, several sex-related challenges regarding diagnosis and management issues should be acknowledged, and research gaps should be addressed in order to successfully deal with this major health issue.

Objective: Resistant hypertension carries a poor prognosis and current guidelines recommend the exclusion of the white-coat phenomenon for proper diagnosis. However, guidelines do not focus on patients treated with at least three drugs whose blood pressure (BP) is controlled at the office but elevated out of it. We aimed at determining whether this masked uncontrolled apparent resistant hypertension (MUCRH) detected through home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) has prognostic value for fatal and nonfatal events in these hypertensive patients. Methods: Hypertensive patients treated with at least three drugs who performed a baseline HBPM between 2008 and 2015 were followed to register the occurrence of total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and fatal and nonfatal cardiac and cerebrovascular events. MUCRH was defined as office blood pressure less than 140/90 mmHg and home BP at least 135 and/or 85 mmHg. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were adjusted to determine the independent prognostic value of MUCRH for the events of interest. Results: We included 470 patients, 35.5% male, mean age 71.9 years, and treated with 3.3 antihypertensive drugs on average. Among study population, 15.5% had MUCRH (33.3% when considering only patients with adequate BP control at the office). Median follow-up was 6.7 years. In multivariable models, MUCRH was an independent predictor for cardiovascular mortality and cerebrovascular events: hazard ratio 4.9 (95% CI 1.2–19.9, P = 0.03) and 5.1 (95% CI 1.5–16.9, P = 0.01), respectively. Conclusion: MUCRH is not rare and is independently associated with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The systematic monitoring of intensively treated individuals through HBPM would be useful for the detection of patients at increased risk of events.

Background: controversy has arisen in the scientific community on whether the use of renin angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors in the context of COVID-19 would be of benefit or harmful. A meta-analysis of eligible studies comparing the occurrence of severe and fatal COVID-19 in infected patients who were under treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) vs no treatment or other antihypertensives was conducted. Methods: PubMed, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library, MedRxiv and BioRxiv were searched for relevant studies. Fixed-effect models or random-effect models were used depending on the heterogeneity between estimates. Results: a total of fifteen studies with 21,614 patients were included. The use of RAS inhibitors was associated with a non-significant 20% decreased risk of the composite outcome (death, admission to intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation requirement or progression to severe or critical pneumonia): RR 0.81 (95%CI: 0.63-1.04), p=0.10, I2=82%. In a subgroup analysis that included hypertensive subjects only, ACEI/ARB were associated with a 27% significant decrease in the risk of the composite outcome (RR 0.73 (95%CI: 0.56-0.96), p=0.02, I2=65%). Conclusion: the results of this pooled analysis suggest that the use of ACEI/ARB does not worsen the prognosis, and could even be protective in hypertensive subjects. Patients should continue these drugs during their COVID-19 illness.