Hypertension is among the most important risk factors for cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and dementia. The artificial intelligence (AI) field is advancing quickly, and there has been little discussion on how AI could be leveraged for improving the diagnosis and management of hypertension. AI technologies, including machine learning tools, could alter the way we diagnose and manage hypertension, with potential impacts for improving individual and population health. The development of successful AI tools in public health and health care systems requires diverse types of expertise with collaborative relationships between clinicians, engineers, and data scientists. Unbiased data sources, management, and analyses remain a foundational challenge. From a diagnostic standpoint, machine learning tools may improve the measurement of blood pressure and be useful in the prediction of incident hypertension. To advance the management of hypertension, machine learning tools may be useful to find personalized treatments for patients using analytics to predict response to antihypertension medications and the risk for hypertension-related complications. However, there are real-world implementation challenges to using AI tools in hypertension. Herein, we summarize key findings from a diverse group of stakeholders who participated in a workshop held by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in March 2023. Workshop participants presented information on communication gaps between clinical medicine, data science, and engineering in health care; novel approaches to estimating BP, hypertension risk, and BP control; and real-world implementation challenges and issues.

Objective Real-life management of patients with hypertension and chronic kidney disease (CKD) among European Society of Hypertension Excellence Centres (ESH-ECs) is unclear : we aimed to investigate it. Methods A survey was conducted in 2023. The questionnaire contained 64 questions asking ESH-ECs representatives to estimate how patients with CKD are managed. Results Overall, 88 ESH-ECS representatives from 27 countries participated. According to the responders, renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers, calcium-channel blockers and thiazides were often added when these medications were lacking in CKD patients, but physicians were more prone to initiate RAS blockers (90% [interquartile range: 70-95%]) than MRA (20% [10-30%]), SGLT2i (30% [20-50%]) or (GLP1-RA (10% [5-15%]). Despite treatment optimisation, 30% of responders indicated that hypertension remained uncontrolled (30% (15-40%) vs 18% [10%-25%]) in CKD and CKD patients, respectively). Hyperkalemia was the most frequent barrier to initiate RAS blockers, and dosage reduction was considered in 45% of responders when kalaemia was 5.5-5.9 mmol/L. Conclusions RAS blockers are initiated in most ESH-ECS in CKD patients, but MRA and SGLT2i initiations are less frequent. Hyperkalemia was the main barrier for initiation or adequate dosing of RAS blockade, and RAS blockers' dosage reduction was the usual management.

Measuring blood pressure (BP) and investigating arterial hemodynamics are essential in understanding cardiovascular disease and assessing cardiovascular risk. Several methods are used to measure BP in the doctor's office, at home, or over 24 h under ambulatory conditions. Similarly, several noninvasive methods have been introduced for assessing arterial structure and function; these methods differ for the large arteries, the small ones, and the capillaries. Consequently, when studying arterial hemodynamics, the clinician is faced with a multitude of assessment methods whose technical details, advantages, and limitations are sometimes unclear. Moreover, the conditions and procedures for their optimal implementation, and/or the reference normality values for the parameters they yield are not always taken into sufficient consideration. Therefore, a practice guideline summarizing the main methods and their use in clinical practice is needed. This expert group position paper was developed by an international group of scientists after a two-day meeting during which each of the most used methods and techniques for blood pressure measurement and arterial function and structure evaluation were presented and discussed, focusing on their advantages, limitations, indications, normal values, and their pragmatic clinical application.

Recent evidence suggests that an exaggerated blood pressure (BP) response to standing (ERTS) is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes, both in young and old individuals. In addition, ERTS has been shown to be an independent predictor of masked hypertension. In the vast majority of studies reporting on the prognostic value of orthostatic hypertension (OHT), the definition was based only on systolic office BP measurements. This consensus statement provides recommendations on the assessment and management of individuals with ERTS and/or OHT. ERTS is defined as an orthostatic increase in SBP at least 20 mmHg and OHT as an ERTS with standing SBP at least 140 mmHg. This statement recommends a standardized methodology to assess ERTS, by considering body and arm position, and the number and timing of BP measurements. ERTS/OHT should be confirmed in a second visit, to account for its limited reproducibility. The second assessment should evaluate BP changes from the supine to the standing posture. Ambulatory BP monitoring is recommended in most individuals with ERTS/OHT, especially if they have high-normal seated office BP. Implementation of lifestyle changes and close follow-up are recommended in individuals with ERTS/OHT and normotensive seated office BP. Whether antihypertensive treatment should be administered in the latter is unknown. Hypertensive patients with ERTS/OHT should be managed as any other hypertensive patient. Standardized standing BP measurement should be implemented in future epidemiological and interventional studies.

This study investigated the seasonal effect on blood pressure (BP) variability. Patients on stable antihypertensive drug treatment were assessed with office (OBP), home (HBP), and ambulatory BP (ABP) measurements in winter, next summer, and in next winter. Fifty-eight participants with full data for winter and summer were analyzed (mean age 65.2 ± 7.9 [SD], 64% males). OBP, HBP and ABP (24-h; daytime) were lower in summer than in winter (P < 0.01), whereas nighttime ABP was unchanged (p = NS). Standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV) and average real variability (ARV) for systolic OBP were higher in winter than summer (p < 0.01/ < 0.05/ < 0.01, respectively). These indices for HBP and ABP measurements did not differ in winter and summer (p = NS). Forty participants had complete data for winter-summer-next winter and HBP/ABP variability indices did not differ for both winters versus summer. These preliminary data suggest that BP variability is unaffected by seasonal changes in contrast to average BP levels.