Treating high blood pressure: is reaching the target more important than the means? Yes, the target is more important.

The effectiveness of hypertension treatments is attributed either to the change in blood pressure, independent of the means used, or to an important contribution of appropriate drug selection: this debate probably stems from an inappropriate comparison. Treating essential hypertension in relatively healthy patients without advanced vascular disease and co-morbidities affords cardio-vascular protection by the lowering of the mechanical shear stress determined by blood pressure per se: thus, lowering blood pressure is the critical step, while the methods used can only differ through side effects. This treatment is, in fact, a lifetime prophylaxis, as hypertension, rather than a disease, is a symptom affecting one tail of the Gaussian distribution of blood pressure across the normal population. Treating hypertension in the context of diseases, like diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, left ventricular hypertrophy, and advanced atherosclerosis, would be improper if focused on just one symptom, while the appropriate treatment must include options which exhibit a more extended profile to include effectiveness on cardiac hypertrophy, insulin resistance, cardiac output, and systemic hemodynamics: thus, drugs may be different in their effectiveness and in the cardio-vascular protection afforded, even though the trials quoted in favour of this thesis were designed to compare drugs in their ability to lower blood pressure rather than in improving the overall complex clinical derangements. In conclusion, while the answer to the question is a sharp YES when dealing with primary prevention, it might be a NO, still clouded by contradictory and inconclusive evidence when dealing with secondary prevention and/or treatment of complex disease conditions and co-morbidities.