Blood Pressure Pills for Hypertension, When to Treat? by Jeffrey Dach MD
A good friend, age 60, has a mild hypertension, 147 mm Hg systolic, and accordingly takes blood pressure pills. The current guideline recommends treatment for blood pressure above 140 mm Hg systolic, regardless of age, usually with a “water pill” called a thiazide diuretic(1). My friend asks me, does he need to take these blood pressure pills forever? Above Image: Sphyngomanometer courtesy of wikimedia commons. As we age, we all develop "hardening of the arteries", also called atherosclerotic vascular disease. This involves the gradual loss of flexibility and increased stiffness of the arterial walls from loss of elastin fibers as we age. This process also involves a more serious caking up of plaque inside the arteries which can block blood flow and cause a heart attack or stroke. Our hearts beat about 80 times per minutes at rest, and each heart beat produces a pulsatile wave of pressure which expands the arterial wall. These pulsatile waves produce mechanical stress which cause small cracks at weak points where the arteries divide. The body must repair these cracks, and the repair mechanism involves deposition of cholesterol plaque to seal these small cracks and prevent leakage. The final result of the repair process is the plaque buildup which blocks blood flow causing heart attacks and strokes. Sometimes the repair process involves inflammation which causes more damage to the lining of the artery. Reducing the blood pressure obviously reduces the mechanical stress on the arteries, and thereby reduces the risk of heart attack and stroke. The real question is, "what blood pressure level requires treatment?", and "what is the optimal target area for the lowered blood pressure?" A blood pressure brought too low with pills leads to dizziness and fainting, so too low is not good either. The blood pressure increases gradually with age, a normal consequence of aging, but the guidelines ignore this, and use the same number, 140 mm Hg as a treatment threshold for all ages, and genders.(22) Why is this? The blood pressure treatment guideline is based on the famous Framingham Study which showed the benefits of blood pressure reduction. The 18 year Framingham Blood Pressure study found increased risk of heart disease and death in people with blood pressure 140 to 160 mm Hg, and even more risk above 160 mm Hg. (NEJM, Levy)(2)(4) (5)(6)(7)(8). Let's examine the original data from the study in Figure 1 (below). Here is the Framingham Study Data with computer smoothing as published in the medical journals. Note the smooth gradual line of increasing mortality as blood pressure goes up between 140 and 160 mm Hg. This is called the Linear Model.(from Port, Lancet)(17)(18)(28) (See Figure 1 below. ) Linear Model -Figure 1. Courtesy Dr. Port Lancet Next in Figure 2 (below), here is the original Framingham RAW Data before computer smoothing. Notice the mortality rate is fairly constant at 15 deaths per 1000 until a blood pressure of 160 mm Hg is exceeded. This suggests a threshold of 160 mm Hg blood pressure above which treatment is desirable and beneficial. The relationship in Figure Two is NOT linear. (from Port, Lancet)(17)(18)(28) These two charts, Figure 1 and Figure 2, are quite different. Figure One is linear because of computer smooting, and Figure Two shows non-linear raw data. Non-Linear Model - Figure 2. Courtesy Dr. Port Lancet(17)(18)(28) Notice that the raw data in Figure 2 is non-linear, and does not support the Linear Model. Doctor Port introduces a new model which takes into account age and gender. The mortality risk increases steadily with blood pressures that exceed a threshold based on sex and age. The threshold blood pressure formula is 110 + (2/3) (age) for a man aged 45-74, and 104 +(5/6) age for a woman aged 45-74. Here is the Lancet chart for the blood pressure thresholds, showing treatment thresholds based on age and gender.(17) (18)(28) Age......Male BP Threshold....Female BP Threshold 70th percentile 45..........139.........................142 mm Hg 50..........143.........................146 mm Hg 55..........147.........................150 mm Ng 60..........150.........................154 mm Hg 65..........153.........................158 mm Hg 70..........157.........................162 mm Hg According to this chart, a blood pressure of 147 mm Hg in a 60 year old man does not require treatment with “water pills”. Blood pressure goes up with age, and this is normal. Before you run to your doctor with a print out of this newsletter, please be aware of the response by Dr. Lenfant, Director National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), the agency which funded Dr. Port’s report. Dr. Lenfant outright rejected Dr. Port’s non-linear model, and he restates his belief the relationship between mortality and blood pressure is a clear linear one.(9) Here is what Dr. Lenfant says, “A study funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and published in the January 15 issue of the Lancet (by Port) challenges [us] by asserting that the relationship between systolic blood pressure and mortality is not "continuous and graded." After careful review of this study, the NHLBI finds that it does not offer a basis for changing the current hypertension guidelines….We attach great value to new scientific findings and our careful review of Dr. Port's paper finds his analysis thought provoking. However, we would not recommend a change in the guidelines based on one epidemiological analysis….The totality of evidence found a clear linear relationship between systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and deaths.” Perhaps Dr. Lenfant didn’t actually look at figure 2 raw data which clearly shows it is non-linear. Dr. Lewiston published a rebuttal in Lancet 2002 which says ” Throughout middle and old age, usual blood pressure is strongly and directly related to vascular (and overall) mortality, without any evidence of a threshold down to at least 115/75 mm Hg” (12). Dr. Lewiston apparently didn’t look at raw data figure 2, either. Jan Basile, MD, Walter A. Brzezinski, MD published a rebuttal in the Journal of Clinical Hypertension J Clin Hypertens 2(4):290-294, 2000. which says that the Port paper did not evaluate morbidity, (i.e. non-fatal strokes and heart attacks), which the SHEP study did examine and the SHEP study showed considerable reduction in morbidity by reducing systolic pressure.(29)(15) They argued that the reduction in stroke morbidity in the SHEP study justifies treatment with blood pressure pills for the 140-160 range. This discussion can be found at the AngryDoc Blog.(14) The problem with this reasoning is the SHEP study patients all started with blood pressures above 160, and does not address the below 160 question asked by Port. The Shep data showed a reduction of 5 years stroke rate from 8.2 to 5.2 per cent. However the average blood pressure was 170, with all patients above 160 at the start. There is no question that BP’s above 160 require treatment, our question pertains to the 140 to 160 range which showed no increased mortality in the Framingham raw data. "No randomized trial has ever demonstrated any reduction in risk of either overall or cardiovascular death by reducing systolic blood pressure from the thresholds in the above chart by Dr. Port to below 140 mm HG". (17)(18)(28) What is the risk of stroke and heart attack at any particular blood pressure? Is lower better, and if so, how low is better? Perhaps the use of blood pressure to assess CV disease risk is too simplistic. The cause of damaged and diseased arteries is more complicated than simple blood pressure. There are multiple factors at work to produce damaged blood vessels which lead to heart attack and stroke. First Factor is Mechanical Stress The first factor is the mechanical stress on the artery wall represented by the pressure. This pressure wave is pulsatile, and has a waveform which is more complex than a simple blood pressure number. The second factor is the intrinsic strength of the arterial wall which is made of collagen. The third factor is the vigor of the reparative mechanism mounted as a defense against the small cracks in the wall from mechanical stress which may cause an inflammatory response inside the arterial wall. The fourth doctor is the extent of underlying arterial disease. If the arteries are already severely damaged with extensive plaque formation, then even small increases in blood pressure could be potentially damaging. In patients with severe underlying arterial disease with known claudication, angina, or history of stroke and heart attack, controlling the blood pressure is a more urgent issue. Arterial stiffness increases with age, requiring more pressure to perfuse the arterial system than the younger, more elastic arterial tree. This "arterial stiffness" can be studied with various techniques such as ultrasound of carotid artery thickness, the pulse pressure and the pulse wave form, and these techniques are all excellent indicators of cardiovascular disease risk and strong predictors of stroke, and actually may be more representative of mechanical stress on the arterial wall than simple blood pressure measurement.(21)(22)(24)(25) The second factor is the intrinsic strength of the arterial wall which is made of the protein called collagen. For example, vitamin C deficiency is associated with poor collagen formation and increased risk of stroke as discussed in a previous newsletter. (27) Blood pressure pills do nothing to improve the strength of the arterial system, on the other hand, supplemental vitamin C increases collagen formation and strengthens artery walls. The trace mineral Copper is required as a cofactor for elastin production which allows the arteries to be flexible and elastic. Copper deficiency is associated with weakening in the wall and bubble formation in the arteries, called aneurysms, caused by lack of elastin.(26) The third factor, inflammation inside the artery as a repair mechanism can be addressed with options discussed on my web site Heart Disease page.(30) A more complete vascular evaluation includes an ultrasound of the carotid arteries to measure wall thickness, an aortic ultrasound to screen for aneurysm, and measurement of the pulse pressure (this is the difference between systolic and diastolic pressures). A knowledge of the medical history and pre-existing risk factors such as smoking and diabetes is also important. After reviewing all this information, an informed decision can be made to treat or not to treat patients with blood pressures below 160. In a healthy adult with no other risk factors, and a blood pressure below 160, the Framingham Study raw data clearly shows no mortality risk. Therefore, following the guidelines published in Lancet by Port is a valid personal choice. The current blood pressure treatment guidelines are based on deceptive data smoothing on the Framingham data set, resulting in lower treatment thresholds which translate into extra billions of dollars for the drug companies. Should you accept the “Linear Model” or the NonLinear model? That is an individual decision that is up to you depending oin your knowledge of your own risk factors. After all, its your body and your blood pressure. Patients with normal arteries have the luxury to explore all options. However, in patients with known vascular disease with history of angina, claudication, previous stroke or heart attack, controlling the blood pressure becomes more urgent. In this severely diseased group, even small elevations of blood pressure may be harmful. More information on lowering your blood pressure naturally without drugs can be found at my web site at this page.(31) Thanks to Joel Kauffman PhD for chapter 4 in his book, Malignant Medical Myths which brought this information to my attention.(10) Articles with related Content: Fifty Million Americans Have High Blood Pressure BLOG TrueMedMD Newsletter 4700 Sheridan, Suite T. Hollywood Florida, 33021 954 983 1443 http://www.jeffreydach.com/ www.jeffreydach.com www.drdach.com www.naturalmedicine101.com www.truemedmd.com References: (1) http://www.guideline.gov/summary/summary.aspx?ss=15&doc_id=4771&nbr=003450&string=blood+AND+pressure The reader is advised to discuss the comments on these pages with his/her personal physicians and to only act upon the advice of his/her personal physician Also note that concerning an answer which appears as an electronically posted question, I am NOT creating a physician -- patient relationship. Although identities will remain confidential as much as possible, as I can not control the media, I can not take responsibility for any breaches of confidentiality that may occur. Finally, the material produced by myself may be reproduced for personal use, provided that appropriate credit is given. (c) 2007-2008 All Rights Reserved Jeffrey Dach MD This article may be copied or reproduced on the internet provided a link and credit is given. Link to this article: http://jeffreydach.com/2007/07/22/blood-pressure-pills-for-hypertension-when-to-treat--by-jeffrey-dach-md.aspx |








A good friend, age 60, has a mild hypertension, 147 mm Hg systolic, and accordingly takes blood pressure pills. The current guideline recommends treatment for blood pressure above 140 mm Hg systolic, regardless of age, usually with a “water pill” called a thiazide diuretic(1). My friend asks me, does he need to take these blood pressure pills forever?




Dear Doctor Dach,
I live in Belgium and I read with great interest your article about hypertension (when to treat).
I was pleased to read your comments about tresholds. As a Nuclear Engineer I had a teacher who used to say: "statistic is like the bikini bathsuit, it gives ideas...but hides the main things".
Your article does not comment the diastolic BP. What's your advise about it?
My doctor would like me to take pills for hypertension because my diastolic BP is around 100-105. Much too high he said. However it drops to about 85-90 while resting in the evening. My systolic BP is around 140-145 dropping to 130 in the evening.
I read some recent studies stating that the diastolic BP could be ignored for people aged 50 or more, if the pulse pressure remains acceptable. With reference to your article and these studies, I have the feeling that treatment may not be necessary for me, male aged 55, and with 140/100 BP.
What do you think?
Your advise would be much appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
JB from Belgium (Europe)__________________________________________________________________________
Dear JG from Belgium,
In a 2002 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, Dr Benetos reports that control of systolic blood pressure is more important than the control of diastolic blood pressure in hypertensive men, and that diastolic blood pressure was of little value in predicting cardiovascular risk.(1)
Dr Fang reports that diastolic hypertension actually has a more favorable outcome when compared to systolic hypertension. See Hypertension. 1995;26:377-382. (2)
These two studies tend to agree with your comments.
regards,
Jeffrey Dach MD
4700 Sheridan Suite T
Hollywood Fl 33021
954-983-1443
www.jeffreydach.com
www.drdach.com
www.naturalmedicine101.com
www.truemedmd.com
(c) 2008 Jeffrey Dach MD All Rights Reserved This article may be reproduced on the internet without permission, provided there is a link to this page and proper credit is given.
References
(1) http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/162/5/577
Prognostic Value of Systolic and Diastolic Blood Pressure in Treated Hypertensive Men
Athanase Benetos, MD, PhD; Frédérique Thomas, PhD; Kathryn Bean, MA, MPH; Sylvie Gautier, MD; Harold Smulyan, MD; Louis Guize, MD
Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:577-581.
ABSTRACT
Background The aim of this study was to assess the cardiovascular risk in hypertensive subjects according to systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) levels.
Methods The study sample consisted of 4714 hypertensive men, treated by their physician, who had a standard health checkup at the d'Investigations Préventives et Cliniques Center, Paris, France, between 1972 and 1988. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality were assessed for a mean period of 14 years.
Results Among treated subjects, 85.5% presented uncontrolled values for SBP (40 mm Hg) and/or DBP (90 mm Hg). After adjustment for age and associated risk factors, these subjects presented an increased risk for CVD mortality (risk ratio [RR], 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.64) and for CHD mortality (RR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.03-5.35) compared with controlled subjects. After adjustment for age, associated risk factors, and DBP, and compared with subjects with SBP under 140 mm Hg, the RR for CVD mortality was 1.81 (95% CI, 1.04-3.13) in subjects with SBP between 140 and 160 mm Hg and 1.94 (95% CI, 1.10-3.43) in subjects with SBP over 160 mm Hg. By contrast, after adjustment for SBP levels, CVD risk was not associated with DBP. Compared with subjects with DBP under 90 mm Hg, RR for CVD mortality was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.80-1.70) in subjects with DBP between 90 and 99 mm Hg and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.67-1.56) in subjects with DBP over 100 mm Hg. Similar results were observed for CHD mortality.
Conclusions In hypertensive men treated in clinical practice, SBP is a good predictor of CVD and CHD risk. Diastolic blood pressure, which remains the main criterion used by most physicians to determine drug efficacy, appears to be of little value in determining cardiovascular risk. Evaluation of risk in treated individuals should take SBP rather than DBP values into account.
(2) http://hyper.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/short/26/3/377
Isolated Diastolic Hypertension - A Favorable Finding Among Young and Middle-aged Hypertensive Subjects. Jing Fang; Shantha Madhavan; Hillel Cohen; Michael H. Alderman (Hypertension. 1995;26:377-382.)
Age-adjusted incidence rates for myocardial infarction were 5.20 and 2.21 per 1000 person-years in systolic/diastolic hypertension and isolated diastolic hypertension, respectively, and the relative risk of systolic/diastolic hypertension was 2.31 (95% confidence interval, 1.29-4.15).
Jeffrey Dach MD www.drdach.com disclaimer
Reply to this
Very useful and much appreciated!
Thank you very much.
Kind regards,
JB
Reply to this
Minipress can also be used with Reynaud’s disease, congestive heart failure, and to relieve prostate enlargement symptoms like urinary urgency/hesitancy-It works by relaxing the blood vessels. I purchased Minipress online at www.medsheaven.com
Reply to this