Tratamento da Hipertensão Arterial Sistêmica Resistente

Procardiol 01/2011; 6:63-96.


Leopoldo F. Saldanha, Aurélio Rotolo da Costa Araújo. Tratamento da Hipertensão Arterial Sistêmica resistente. Introdução. O objetivo do tratamento do paciente com hipertensão arterial sistêmica (HAS) é reduzir o risco cardio-vascular associado com a elevação da pressão arterial (PA). 1-3 A mortalidade por doença cardiovascular aumenta progressivamente, de forma linear, contínua e independente, em ambos os sexos e em todas as faixas etárias, com a elevação da PA a partir de 115/75mm Hg. 2,4 De acordo com diversas diretrizes, 5-7 inclusive a VI Diretrizes Brasileiras de Hipertensão, 8 as metas a serem obtidas no tratamento da HAS no adulto devem estar baseadas em características individuais e conforme o método empregado para aferição da PA. Pacientes com hipertensão arterial resistente (HAR) são aqueles cujas metas de PA não são atingidas, apesar do uso de três agentes anti-hipertensivos de diferentes classes, inclusive um diurético, ou cujas metas da PA somente são atingidas com o uso de quatro ou mais anti-hipertensivos. Quando se avalia a HAR, é importante afastar a possibilidade de pseudorresistência, resultante de fatores como medida inadequada da PA, efeito do avental branco e não adesão ao tratamento. Fatores contribuintes devem ser identificados e revertidos, incluindo obesidade, excesso de consumo de álcool e uso de subs-tâncias que interferem no controle da PA, especialmente anti-inflamatórios não hormonais (AINH), agentes simpaticomiméticos e estimulantes, além de anticoncepcionais.

Download full-text


Available from: Leopoldo Frederico Saldanha, Oct 13, 2015
102 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) has an important role in hypertension and the continuum of cardiovascular and kidney disease. The inhibition of this system, either with an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), has been shown to be beneficial for cardiorenal protection. Dual blockade with an ACE inhibitor and ARB may have additional benefits due to the more complete inhibition of the system. Most published trials, including recent large studies and meta-analyses, have reported either limited or no additional benefit. Dual-blockade therapy seems to have some benefit on proteinuria and blood pressure reduction, and on morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure, compared with monotherapy. The major issue arising from these published trials and meta-analyses is the increased frequency of dual therapy discontinuation and adverse effects on kidney function. There is a lack of hard end-point data for renal outcomes and long-term safety data in most published trials. Until the results of ongoing trials become available and as further safety data emerge, a wise approach would be to withhold use of ACE inhibitor and ARB combination therapy in general practice. When used in selected conditions, patients need to be closely monitored.
    American Journal of Kidney Diseases 03/2009; 53(2):332-45. DOI:10.1053/j.ajkd.2008.11.021 · 5.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to establish whether ambulatory blood pressure offers a better estimate of cardiovascular risk than does its clinical blood pressure counterpart in refractory hypertension. This prospective study assessed the incidence of cardiovascular events over time during an average follow-up of 49 months (range, 6 to 96). Patients were referred to specialized hypertension clinics (86 essential hypertension patients who had diastolic blood pressure >100 mm Hg during antihypertensive treatment that included three or more antihypertensive drugs, one being a diuretic). Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was performed at the time of entrance. End-organ damage was monitored yearly, and the incidence of cardiovascular events was recorded. Patients were divided into tertiles of average diastolic blood pressure during activity according to the ABPM, with the lowest tertile <88 mm Hg (LT, n=29), the middle tertile 88 to 97 mm Hg (MT, n=29), and the highest tertile >97 mm Hg (HT, n=28). While significant differences in systolic and diastolic ambulatory blood pressures were observed among groups, no differences were observed at either the beginning or at the time of the last evaluation for office blood pressure. During the last evaluation, a progression in the end-organ damage score was observed for the HT group but not for the two other groups. Twenty-one of the patients had a new cardiovascular event; the incidence of events was significantly lower for the LT group (2.2 per 100 patient-years) than it was for the MT group (9.5 per 100 patient-years) or for the HT group (13.6 per 100 patient-years). The probability of event-free survival was also significantly different when comparing the LT group with the other two groups (LT versus MT log-rank, P<.04; LT versus HT log-rank, P<.006). The HT group was an independent risk factor for the incidence of cardiovascular events (relative risk, 6.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.38 to 28.1, P<.02). Higher values of ambulatory blood pressure result in a worse prognosis in patients with refractory hypertension, supporting the recommendation that ABPM is useful in stratifying the cardiovascular risk in patients with refractory hypertension. Redon Mas, Josep,
    Hypertension 02/1998; 31(2). DOI:10.1161/01.HYP.31.2.712 · 6.48 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study compared the use of antihypertensive treatment and blood pressure (BP) controls between patients with diabetic kidney disease (DK+) and patients with non-diabetic kidney disease (DK-) exhibiting moderate-to-severe chronic renal failure who did not need renal replacement therapy. A cross-sectional survey included all renal patients with s-creatinine at ?200 micromol/l attending regular control sessions at six renal units in Norway. Of the 351 patients included, 73 (20.8%) were DK+. The proportion reaching a BP goal of <130/80 mmHg was similar in DK+ and DK- (14.1% vs 13.6%, p = 0.92), while 38% and 39% achieved a BP of <140/90 mmHg, respectively. The systolic BP goal was more difficult to achieve than the diastolic BP goal in DK+ patients (35% vs 15%) despite a mean of three different types of drugs being used. Loop diuretics and beta-adrenergic-receptor antagonists were the most frequently prescribed drugs, and the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-II-receptor antagonists declined when renal function deteriorated, from 80% to 0% and from 66% to 20% in the DK+ and DK- groups, respectively (p = 0.001). Thus, despite the use of multiple antihypertensive drugs, controlling BP - especially the systolic BP - is difficult in high-risk patients with chronic renal failure caused by diabetic kidney disease.
    Blood Pressure 07/2005; 14(3):170-6. DOI:10.1080/08037050510008959 · 1.81 Impact Factor
Show more