OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience

The three papers reviewed for this issue deal with unrelated aspects of hypertension, illustrating the broad range of questions that still exist about optimal diagnosis and management. Physicians have for years been unsure about the efficacy, safety, and impact on morbidity of treating ISH. The result of these concerns has been that many, if not most patients with ISH never received treatment. The SHEP data are a powerful argument for routine treatment of ISH, which would represent a new standard of care for this condition. Only clinical experience and future trials will indicate whether treatment of ISH in the general population will be accompanied by the low incidence of side effects and morbidity observed in the more highly selected population of the SHEP trial. The study of Zeller et al. adds to the evidence that less is more, or at least the same, when it comes to treatment of hypertensive urgencies. The practice of oral 'loading' doses was not shown to improve therapeutic results. It is still not completely clear what criteria physicians should use in making a decision about inpatient parenteral therapy versus outpatient oral therapy. In patients with evidence of acute onset and end-organ injury, it is probably prudent to admit. In the absence of these risk factors, institution of an outpatient oral antihypertensive regimen can probably be accomplished with safety and at dramatically lower cost. The study of Koren et al. demonstrated a marked additional risk when LVH was present in hypertensive patients.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)