Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Research

  • ISSN: 2386-5180
  • Journal h-index: 19
  • Journal CiteScore: 5.42
  • Journal Impact Factor: 4.64
  • Average acceptance to publication time (5-7 days)
  • Average article processing time (30-45 days) Less than 5 volumes 30 days
    8 - 9 volumes 40 days
    10 and more volumes 45 days
+44 7460731551
Awards Nomination
Indexed In
  • Genamics JournalSeek
  • China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI)
  • CiteFactor
  • Directory of Research Journal Indexing (DRJI)
  • Publons
  • Euro Pub
  • Google Scholar
  • Secret Search Engine Labs
  • Zenodo
Share This Page

Rapid Communication - (2022) Volume 10, Issue 9

Hypertension Management: Cardiology Procedures

Lisa Janet*
Department of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
*Correspondence: Lisa Janet, Department of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, USA, Email:

Received: 07-Aug-2022, Manuscript No. IPACLR-22-13212; Editor assigned: 10-Aug-2022, Pre QC No. IPACLR-22-13212(PQ); Reviewed: 26-Aug-2022, QC No. IPACLR-22-13212; Revised: 09-Sep-2022, Manuscript No. IPACLR-22-13212(R); Published: 16-Sep-2022, DOI: 10.36648/2386-5180.22.10.431


Even though the COVID infection 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has the attention of the entire world, it is crucial to remain aware of other extremely dangerous situations that have not abated at this time. Such concerns include the prevalence of cardiovascular infections worldwide, with hypertension at the top of the list. Additionally, although uncontrolled hypertension per se has not been confirmed as a free indicator of serious complications or death from COVID-19, it causes heart and kidney infections as well as stroke, all of which are highly avoidable conditions that increase vulnerability to health risks, including COVID-19.


Avoidance, Hypertension, Quality improvement.


Avoidance, Hypertension, Quality improvement.


The management of hypertension raising awareness of the dangers of uncontrolled hypertension to health. Recognize the substantial financial costs of uncontrolled hypertension. Get rid of anomalies when managing and treating hypertension. Make sure that the environments where people learn, work, play, and live support the management of hypertension. Increase access to and admission to open doors inside networks that are currently doing work. Improve access to and admission into networks that offer high-quality food options. Promote connections between clinical management and regional programmes. Improve patient care for managing hypertension. Promote the use of standard treatment modalities and follow recommended care. Increase the use of medical services organisations to manage hypertension. Encourage and educate patients to use self-assumed pulse checking and medication adherence techniques. Recognize and reward clinicians and wellbeing frameworks that are successful in controlling hypertension. Due to the clear causal relationship between an uncontrolled pulse and ischemic heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, cardiovascular collapse, stroke, kidney infection, and pregnancy complications, the entire call to action is significant to practising cardiologists; however, certain procedures have specific consequences. In particular, it is in the capacity, all else being equal, to raise awareness of the health risks of uncontrolled hypertension, to identify and address health inconsistencies in their practises, to adhere to normalised, rule-suggested treatment conventions, to support the utilisation of medical services groups, and to encourage self-estimated circulatory strain checking [1].

The call to action also serves as a prompt to assess how well we cardiologists are managing hypertension in our patient populations. The largest short-term cardiovascular practise information store on the planet, the Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence vault, provides experiences that enlighten the response.

Cardiologists participating in the PINNACLE library report better hypertension control rates compared to population-level data, but when these patterns are examined, a new question comes to light. Why, when process proportions of their consideration have improved over time, have pulse control rates for cardiologists' patients slowed down in the low 70% range? [2].

To answer this question, it is important to note that with public campaigns like Million Hearts 2022, higher levels of successbeyond 80% hypertension control-have been attained in a variety of medical care delivery settings, including private practises, coordinated medical care frameworks, scholarly gatherings, and local community health centres, all with patient populations that have different risk profiles. The achievement of more severe hypertension control rates has been made possible by a combination of methods and resources. Electronic health record systems, therapy gatherings, integrated medical services groups, performance feedback to clinicians, medication heightening and adherence monitoring, and imparted administration to self-estimation of circulatory strain have been some of these. Experience has shown that many of these actions can be carried out successfully in offices of all sizes and types [3].

It is conceivable that this isn't fundamentally important for some clinical cardiologists because a higher pace of pulse control is achievable at the training partner level; as a result, cardiologists may not have sent resources to complete the objective. This is irrational in light of the expectations of cardiologists to prevent cardiovascular disease as well as the solid evidence that the risk of dying from a coronary illness, stroke, or other vascular disease is cut in half for every 20 mm Hg decline in systolic pressure or 10 mm Hg decline in diastolic pressure. What could be the possible reasons if pulse control is not a cardiologist's top priority?

Cardiologists' perception of hypertension as a condition that requires careful consideration could be one reason why hypertension control rates for their patients don't appear to be ideal [4]. Cardiologists may be reluctant to initiate or modify hypertension treatment due to their awareness of their role as an essential consideration professional and their strong opposition to the idea of the expert taking control of the patient's entire consideration.

The fact that hypertension has been the focus of remedial efforts in about three different ways may be a further explanation for why control rates have not improved over time. First off, in a group of patients who are typically older and more debilitated, other serious and on-going conditions like hypotension and renal failure may muddy the clinical picture and make the board of hypertension testing more misleading [5]. Another plausible explanation for why control rates haven't improved over time is that there have been roughly three different ways to focus on hypertension as a treatment. First off, in a population of patients who are typically older and more debilitated, other severe and on-going conditions, such as hypotension and renal disappointment, may muddy the clinical picture and make the board of hypertension truly testing [6].


  1. Roth GA, Mensah GA, Johnson CO, Addolorato G, Ammirat E, et al. (2020) Global burden of cardiovascular diseases and risk factors: 1990-2019. J Am Coll Cardiol 76: 2982-3021.
  2. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  3. Maddox TM, Song Y, Allen J, Chan PS, Khan A, et al. (2020) Trends in U.S. ambulatory cardiovascular care 2013 to 2017: JACC Review Topic of the Week. J Am Coll Cardiol 75: 93-112.
  4. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  5. Lewington S, Clarke R, Qizilbash N, Peto R, Collins R, et al. (2002) prospective studies collaboration. age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies. Lancet 360: 1903-1913.
  6. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  7. Gauer R, LaRocque J (2014) JNC 8: relaxing the standards. Am Fam Physician 90: 449-452.
  8. Indexed at, Google Scholar

  9. Roth GA, Forouzanfar MH, Moran AE (2015) Demographic and epidemiologic drivers of global cardiovascular mortality. N Engl J Med 372:1333-1341.
  10. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  11. Forbes TL, Lawlor DK, DeRose G, Harris KA (2006) Gender differences in relative dilatation of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann Vasc Surg 20: 564-568.
  12. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref