Cuffless wearable devices are currently being developed for long-term monitoring of blood pressure (BP) in patients with hypertension and in apparently healthy people. This study evaluated the feasibility and measurement stability of smartwatch-based cuffless BP monitoring in real-world conditions. Users of the first smartwatch-based cuffless BP monitor approved in Korea (Samsung Galaxy Watch) were invited to upload their data from using the device for 4 weeks post calibration. A total of 760 participants (mean age 43.7 ± 11.9, 80.3% men) provided 35,797 BP readings (average monitoring 22 ± 4 days [SD]; average readings 47 ± 42 per participant [median 36]). Each participant obtained 1.5 ± 1.3 readings/day and 19.7% of the participants obtained measurements every day. BP showed considerable variability, mainly depending on the day and time of the measurement. There was a trend towards higher BP levels on Mondays than on other days of the week and on workdays than in weekends. BP readings taken between 00:00 and 04:00 tended to be the lowest, whereas those between 12:00 and 16:00 the highest. The average pre-post calibration error for systolic BP (difference in 7-day BP before and after calibration), was 6.8 ± 5.6 mmHg, and was increased with higher systolic BP levels before calibration. Smartwatch-based cuffless BP monitoring is feasible for out-of-office monitoring in the real-world setting. The stability of BP measurement post calibration and the standardization and optimal time interval for recalibration need further investigation.

Blood pressure is not a static parameter, but rather undergoes continuous fluctuations over time, as a result of the interaction between environmental and behavioural factors on one side and intrinsic cardiovascular regulatory mechanisms on the other side. Increased blood pressure variability (BPV) may indicate an impaired cardiovascular regulation and may represent a cardiovascular risk factor itself, having been associated with increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, stroke, coronary artery disease, heart failure, end-stage renal disease, and dementia incidence. Nonetheless, BPV was considered only a research issue in previous hypertension management guidelines, because the available evidence on its clinical relevance presents several gaps and is based on heterogeneous studies with limited standardization of methods for BPV assessment. The aim of this position paper, with contributions from members of the European Society of Hypertension Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability and from a number of international experts, is to summarize the available evidence in the field of BPV assessment methodology and clinical applications and to provide practical indications on how to measure and interpret BPV in research and clinical settings based on currently available data. Pending issues and clinical and methodological recommendations supported by available evidence are also reported. The information provided by this paper should contribute to a better standardization of future studies on BPV, but should also provide clinicians with some indications on how BPV can be managed based on currently available data.

The nondipping blood pressure (BP) pattern corresponds to a disruption in the circadian BP rhythm with an insufficient decrease in BP levels during nighttime sleep as observed using 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring. Patients with nondipping BP pattern have poorer renal and cardiovascular outcomes, independent of their average 24-hour BP levels. The pathophysiology of nondipping BP is complex and involves numerous mechanisms: perturbations of (1) the circadian rhythm, (2) the autonomic nervous system, and (3) water and sodium regulation. This review provides an outline of the pathways potentially involved in the nondipping BP profile in different conditions. A recent hypothesis is also discussed involving the role of gut microbiota in the dipping/nondipping patterns, via the fecal diet-derived short chain fatty acids.

Conventional blood pressure (BP) measurement devices based on an inflatable cuff only provide a narrow view of the continuous BP profile. Cuffless BP measuring technologies could permit numerous BP readings throughout daily life and thereby considerably improve the assessment and management of hypertension. Several wearable cuffless BP devices based on pulse wave analysis (applied to a photoplethysmography or tonometry waveform) with or without use of pulse arrival time are now available on the market. The key question is: Can these devices provide accurate measurement of BP? Microsoft Research recently published a complex article describing perhaps the most important and highest resource project to date (Aurora Project) on assessing the accuracy of several pulse wave analysis and pulse wave analysis-pulse arrival time devices. The overall results from 1125 participants were clear-cut negative. The present article motivates and describes emerging cuffless BP devices and then summarizes the Aurora Project. The study methodology and findings are next discussed in the context of regulatory-cleared devices, physiology, and related studies, and the study strengths and limitations are pinpointed thereafter. Finally, the implications of the Aurora Project are briefly stated and recommendations for future work are offered to finally realize the considerable potential of cuffless BP measurement in health care.

Healthy individuals exhibit blood pressure variation over a 24-hour period with higher blood pressure during wakefulness and lower blood pressure during sleep. Loss or disruption of the blood pressure circadian rhythm has been linked to adverse health outcomes, for example, cardiovascular disease, dementia, and chronic kidney disease. However, the current diagnostic and therapeutic approaches lack sufficient attention to the circadian rhythmicity of blood pressure. Sleep patterns, hormone release, eating habits, digestion, body temperature, renal and cardiovascular function, and other important host functions as well as gut microbiota exhibit circadian rhythms, and influence circadian rhythms of blood pressure. Potential benefits of nonpharmacologic interventions such as meal timing, and pharmacologic chronotherapeutic interventions, such as the bedtime administration of antihypertensive medications, have recently been suggested in some studies. However, the mechanisms underlying circadian rhythm-mediated blood pressure regulation and the efficacy of chronotherapy in hypertension remain unclear. This review summarizes the results of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute workshop convened on October 27 to 29, 2021 to assess knowledge gaps and research opportunities in the study of circadian rhythm of blood pressure and chronotherapy for hypertension.

Raised blood pressure (BP) is the leading cause of preventable death in the world. Yet, its global prevalence is increasing, and it remains poorly detected, treated, and controlled in both high- and low-resource settings. From the perspective of members of the International Society of Hypertension based in all regions, we reflect on the past, present, and future of hypertension care, highlighting key challenges and opportunities, which are often region-specific. We report that most countries failed to show sufficient improvements in BP control rates over the past three decades, with greater improvements mainly seen in some high-income countries, also reflected in substantial reductions in the burden of cardiovascular disease and deaths. Globally, there are significant inequities and disparities based on resources, sociodemographic environment, and race with subsequent disproportionate hypertension-related outcomes. Additional unique challenges in specific regions include conflict, wars, migration, unemployment, rapid urbanization, extremely limited funding, pollution, COVID-19-related restrictions and inequalities, obesity, and excessive salt and alcohol intake. Immediate action is needed to address suboptimal hypertension care and related disparities on a global scale. We propose a Global Hypertension Care Taskforce including multiple stakeholders and societies to identify and implement actions in reducing inequities, addressing social, commercial, and environmental determinants, and strengthening health systems implement a well-designed customized quality-of-care improvement framework.

Background Published randomized controlled trials are underpowered for binary clinical end points to assess the safety and efficacy of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) in adults with COVID-19. We therefore performed a meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of RASi in adults with COVID-19. Methods and Results MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register were searched for randomized controlled trials that randomly assigned patients with COVID-19 to RASi continuation/commencement versus no RASi therapy. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at ≤30 days. A total of 14 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled 1838 participants (aged 59 years, 58% men, mean follow-up 26 days). Of the trials, 11 contributed data. We found no effect of RASi versus control on all-cause mortality (7.2% versus 7.5%; relative risk [RR], 0.95; [95% CI, 0.69-1.30]) either overall or in subgroups defined by COVID-19 severity or trial type. Network meta-analysis identified no difference between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors versus angiotensin II receptor blockers. RASi users had a nonsignificant reduction in acute myocardial infarction (2.1% versus 3.6%; RR, 0.59; [95% CI, 0.33-1.06]), but increased risk of acute kidney injury (7.0% versus 3.6%; RR, 1.82; [95% CI, 1.05-3.16]), in trials that initiated and continued RASi. There was no increase in need for dialysis or differences in congestive cardiac failure, cerebrovascular events, venous thromboembolism, hospitalization, intensive care admission, inotropes, or mechanical ventilation. Conclusions This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers versus control in patients with COVID-19 found no difference in all-cause mortality, a borderline decrease in myocardial infarction, and an increased risk of acute kidney injury with RASi. Our findings provide strong evidence that RASi can be used safely in patients with COVID-19.

Antihypertensive drug therapy is one of the most efficient medical interventions for preventing disability and death globally. Most of the evidence supporting its benefits has been derived from outcome trials with morning dosing of medications. Accumulating evidence suggests an adverse prognosis associated with night-time hypertension, nondipping blood pressure (BP) profile and morning BP surge, with increased incidence of cardiovascular events during the first few morning hours. These observations provide justification for complete 24-h BP control as being the primary goal of antihypertensive treatment. Bedtime administration of antihypertensive drugs has also been proposed as a potentially more effective treatment strategy than morning administration. This Position Paper by the International Society of Hypertension reviewed the published evidence on the clinical relevance of the diurnal variation in BP and the timing of antihypertensive drug treatment, aiming to provide consensus recommendations for clinical practice. Eight published outcome hypertension studies involved bedtime dosing of antihypertensive drugs, and all had major methodological and/or other flaws and a high risk of bias in testing the impact of bedtime compared to morning treatment. Three ongoing, well designed, prospective, randomized controlled outcome trials are expected to provide high-quality data on the efficacy and safety of evening or bedtime versus morning drug dosing. Until that information is available, preferred use of bedtime drug dosing of antihypertensive drugs should not be routinely recommended in clinical practice. Complete 24-h control of BP should be targeted using readily available, long-acting antihypertensive medications as monotherapy or combinations administered in a single morning dose.

The HYPEDIA study aimed at evaluating the implementation of the 2018 European guidelines for treating hypertension in primary care. A nationwide prospective non-interventional cross-sectional study was performed in consecutive untreated or treated hypertensives recruited mainly in primary care in Greece. Participants' characteristics, office blood pressure (BP) (triplicate automated measurements, Microlife BPA3 PC) and treatment changes were recorded on a cloud platform. A total of 3,122 patients (mean age 64 ± 12.5 [SD] years, 52% males) were assessed by 181 doctors and 3 hospital centers. In 772 untreated hypertensives (25%), drug treatment was initiated in the majority, with monotherapy in 53.4%, two-drug combination in 36.3%, and three drugs in 10.3%. Angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) monotherapy was initiated in 30%, ARB/calcium channel blocker (CCB) 20%, ARB/thiazide 8%, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)-based 19%. Of the combinations used, 97% were in single-pill. Among 977 treated hypertensives aged <65 years, 79% had BP ≥ 130/80 mmHg (systolic and/or diastolic), whereas among 1,373 aged ≥65 years, 66% had BP ≥ 140/80 mmHg. ARBs were used in 69% of treated hypertensives, CCBs 47%, ACEis 19%, diuretics 39%, beta-blockers 19%. Treatment modification was decided in 53% of treated hypertensives aged <65 years with BP ≥ 130/80 mmHg and in 62% of those ≥65 years with BP ≥ 140/80 mmHg. Renin-angiotensin system blocker-based therapy constitutes the basis of antihypertensive drug treatment in most patients in primary care, with wide use of single-pill combinations. In almost half of treated uncontrolled hypertensives, treatment was not intensified, suggesting suboptimal implementation of the guidelines and possible physician inertia.

Clinically validated, automated arm-cuff blood pressure measuring devices (BPMDs) are recommended for BP measurement. However, most BPMDs available for purchase by consumers globally are not properly validated. This is a problem because non-validated BPMDs are less accurate and precise than validated ones, and therefore if used clinically could lead to misdiagnosis and mismanagement of BP. In response to this problem, several validated device lists have been developed, which can be used by clinicians and consumers to identify devices that have passed clinical validation testing. The purpose of this review is to describe the resources that are available for finding validated BPMDs in different world regions, to identify the differences between validated device lists, and describe current gaps and challenges. How to use validated BPMDs properly is also summarised.