Skip to content

Statistics register — hypertensive heart disease

Last curated: 2026-08-31. This register preserves denominator, population, measurement, year, and uncertainty. Every PMID was resolved through live PubMed E-utilities during this build. Values are not interchangeable across office, automated office, home, ambulatory, ECG, echo, or CMR methods.

Global and population burden

Quantity Estimate Population / period Method Source
Adults aged 30–79 with hypertension 1.28 billion Global, 2019 Pooled population studies NCD-RisC 2021, PMID 34450083
Proportion living in LMICs ~82% Global, 2019 Pooled population studies NCD-RisC 2021, PMID 34450083
Women with hypertension 626 million Global, 2019 Pooled population studies NCD-RisC 2021, PMID 34450083
Men with hypertension 652 million Global, 2019 Pooled population studies NCD-RisC 2021, PMID 34450083
Hypertension control among affected women 23% Global, 2019 Standardized survey synthesis NCD-RisC 2021, PMID 34450083
Hypertension control among affected men 18% Global, 2019 Standardized survey synthesis NCD-RisC 2021, PMID 34450083
Global risk-factor burden framing 88 risk factors assessed 204 countries/territories, 1990–2021 Comparative risk assessment GBD 2021, PMID 38762324
Raised systolic BP burden trend Remained a leading attributable risk Global, 1990–2021 Comparative risk assessment GBD 2021, PMID 38762324
Prevalence gap by wealth Control improved mainly in high-income settings Global, 1990–2019 Repeated pooled surveys NCD-RisC 2021, PMID 34450083
Guideline implementation gap Marked between HIC and LMIC settings Cross-country Narrative/policy analysis Schutte 2017, PMID 27698059
HHD share of acute HF (clinically assigned) 576 / 1,578 (36.5%) — leading aetiology, ahead of cardiomyopathy (23.4%) and ischaemic heart disease (23.3%) 50 hospitals, 17 African countries, Jul 2024–Jul 2025 Prospective observational cohort of acute-HF presentations; hospital denominator, not population Sliwa 2026, PMID 42669305
Acute-HF presentation rate 0.03 per 10,000 adults per week (95% CI 0.02–0.05); 0.02 (0.01–0.04) for de novo Same cohort, adult catchment populations Seven 24-hour surveillance periods in an 8-week site window Sliwa 2026, PMID 42669305
Acute-HF mortality in that cohort In-hospital 8.7% (7.3–10.2); 30-day 11.1% (9.6–12.9); 180-day 20.6% (18.4–23.0) Median age 56.0 years (IQR 40.0–69.0) 33.7% lost to follow-up before 180 days — bounds the estimate Sliwa 2026, PMID 42669305

HHD coding and case-definition instability

Quantity Estimate / finding Population Method Source
HHD case definition No single universally operationalized definition Clinical literature Review Nwabuo 2020, PMID 32016791
HHD attribution Depends on definition and exclusion of competing cardiac causes Clinical literature Pathophysiology review Nwabuo 2020, PMID 32016791
ECG-LVH sensitivity Generally low across common criteria Hypertensive adults Systematic review Pewsner 2007, PMID 17726091
ECG-LVH specificity Generally high, criterion-dependent Hypertensive adults Systematic review Pewsner 2007, PMID 17726091
ECG versus imaging phenotype ECG criteria are insensitive for anatomical LVH Hypertensive cohorts Systematic review Pewsner 2007, PMID 17726091
CMR diagnostic role Highest reproducibility for mass and tissue characterization Imaging cohorts Review Ismail 2023, PMID 37176563

Blood-pressure reduction and cardiovascular outcomes

Exposure / trial Population Effect estimate Outcome Source
10-mm Hg systolic reduction 123 studies; 613,815 participants RR 0.80 (95% CI 0.77–0.83) Major cardiovascular disease Ettehad 2016, PMID 26724178
10-mm Hg systolic reduction Same meta-analysis RR 0.73 (0.68–0.77) Stroke Ettehad 2016, PMID 26724178
10-mm Hg systolic reduction Same meta-analysis RR 0.72 (0.67–0.78) Heart failure Ettehad 2016, PMID 26724178
5-mm Hg systolic reduction Individual-participant meta-analysis ~10% relative reduction Major cardiovascular events BPLTTC 2021, PMID 33933205
Benefit by prior CVD With and without previous cardiovascular disease Directionally consistent Major cardiovascular events BPLTTC 2021, PMID 33933205

Intensive-target trials

Trial / outcome Intensive Comparator Effect Source
SPRINT participants 9,361 Randomized SPRINT 2015, PMID 26551272
SPRINT achieved SBP, year 1 121.4 mm Hg 136.2 mm Hg Difference 14.8 mm Hg SPRINT 2015, PMID 26551272
SPRINT primary outcome, initial 1.65%/yr 2.19%/yr HR 0.75 (0.64–0.89) SPRINT 2015, PMID 26551272
SPRINT all-cause mortality, initial HR 0.73 (0.60–0.90) SPRINT 2015, PMID 26551272
SPRINT primary outcome, final 1.77%/yr 2.40%/yr HR 0.73 (0.63–0.86) SPRINT final 2021, PMID 34010531
SPRINT mortality, final 1.06%/yr 1.41%/yr HR 0.75 (0.61–0.92) SPRINT final 2021, PMID 34010531
STEP participants 8,511 Age 60–80, China STEP 2021, PMID 34491661
STEP achieved SBP, year 1 127.5 mm Hg 135.3 mm Hg Difference 7.8 mm Hg STEP 2021, PMID 34491661
STEP primary composite 3.5% 4.6% HR 0.74 (0.60–0.92) STEP 2021, PMID 34491661
STEP stroke HR 0.67 (0.47–0.97) STEP 2021, PMID 34491661
STEP acute decompensated HF HR 0.27 (0.08–0.98) STEP 2021, PMID 34491661
ACCORD BP primary outcome Intensive Standard HR 0.88 (0.73–1.06) ACCORD 2010, PMID 20228401
ACCORD BP stroke Intensive Standard HR 0.59 (0.39–0.89) ACCORD 2010, PMID 20228401
ACCORD treatment-attributed serious adverse events 3.3% 1.3% Absolute +2.0 points ACCORD 2010, PMID 20228401

LVH and remodeling

Study / marker Population Estimate Interpretation Source
LIFE participants 9,193 Hypertension + ECG-LVH Phenotype-enriched RCT Dahlöf 2002, PMID 11937178
LIFE primary composite Losartan vs atenolol RR 0.87 (0.77–0.98) Similar achieved brachial BP Dahlöf 2002, PMID 11937178
LIFE stroke Losartan vs atenolol RR 0.75 (0.63–0.89) Major driver of composite Dahlöf 2002, PMID 11937178
LIFE echo LV-mass-index change Losartan vs atenolol −21.7 vs −17.7 g/m²; P=0.021 Greater regression Devereux 2004, PMID 15326072
Regression prognosis meta-analysis 5 studies; 3,149 patients HR 0.54 (0.35–0.84) Regression/persistent normal vs persistent/new LVH Pierdomenico 2010, PMID 20414193
ARNI vs olmesartan, week 12 114 participants −6.36 vs −2.32 g/m² CMR LV-mass index Schmieder 2017, PMID 29029087
ARNI vs olmesartan, week 52 Same trial −6.83 vs −3.55 g/m² CMR LV-mass index Schmieder 2017, PMID 29029087
REVERSE-LVH participants 78 CMR-LVH Phase 2 RCT Lee 2025, PMID 40739095
REVERSE-LVH interstitial volume ARNI vs valsartan −5.2±5.4 vs −2.5±3.1 mL; P=0.006 Similar 52-week ambulatory SBP Lee 2025, PMID 40739095
STEP LVH analysis Older hypertensive adults Intensive treatment improved LVH endpoints Secondary trial analysis Deng 2023, PMID 37259845

Biomarkers and imaging prognostication

Marker / model Cohort Estimate Boundary Source
REMODEL cohort 1,054 asymptomatic adults Prospective follow-up Essential hypertension Sharp 2026, PMID 41771092
NT-proBNP threshold REMODEL derivation 152 pg/mL Internally selected Sharp 2026, PMID 41771092
hs-troponin T threshold REMODEL derivation 12.7 pg/mL Internally selected Sharp 2026, PMID 41771092
Both markers elevated REMODEL HR 17.11 (8.12–36.09) Requires external validation Sharp 2026, PMID 41771092
CMR phenotype prognosis HHD cohort Phenotype-specific risk separation Recent, needs replication Lertsiripatarajit 2026, PMID 41953289
LV mass-to-strain ratio HHD cohort Incremental prognostic candidate No treatment threshold Hwang 2025, PMID 40970541
GLS in hypertension Imaging literature Impairment can precede reduced EF Load/vendor dependent Ismail 2023, PMID 37176563
Fibrosis markers HHD literature Associations across serum and CMR measures No interchangeable cutoff González 2024, PMID 38084597

Atrial fibrillation and rhythm

Association / intervention Population Effect / finding Source
BP and incident AF Prospective cohorts Dose-related positive association Aune 2023, PMID 36626102
Losartan strategy and new AF LIFE population Reduced new-onset AF Wachtell 2005, PMID 15734615
Lower left-atrial diameter during treatment LIFE Associated with less new AF Wachtell 2010, PMID 20438307
ECG/imaging LVH and incident AF MESA Positive association Chrispin 2014, PMID 24657688
Renal denervation plus AF ablation ERADICATE-AF Reduced AF recurrence signal Steinberg 2020, PMID 31961420
Renal denervation across hypertension trials Meta-analysis BP-lowering signal with heterogeneity Vukadinović 2024, PMID 39355923

Lifestyle and food-environment interventions

Intervention Evidence base Effect estimate Outcome / boundary Source
DASH dietary pattern RCT meta-analysis −3.2 mm Hg systolic approximately Mean effect; baseline BP varies Filippou 2020, PMID 32330233
Sodium reduction Dose-response meta-analysis Greater reduction with greater sodium reduction BP; context-dependent adherence Filippini 2021, PMID 33586450
Exercise training RCT meta-analysis Significant office and ambulatory BP lowering Modality/intensity heterogeneous Cornelissen 2013, PMID 23525435
Weight loss RCT meta-analysis −1.05 mm Hg SBP/kg Average linear estimate Neter 2003, PMID 12975389
Weight loss Same analysis −0.92 mm Hg DBP/kg Average linear estimate Neter 2003, PMID 12975389
SSaSS participants 600 villages; 20,995 adults Mean 4.74-year follow-up Rural China, high-risk Neal 2021, PMID 34459569
SSaSS stroke Salt substitute vs usual salt RR 0.86 (0.77–0.96) Primary outcome Neal 2021, PMID 34459569
SSaSS major CVD Same RR 0.87 (0.80–0.94) Composite Neal 2021, PMID 34459569
SSaSS death Same RR 0.88 (0.82–0.95) All-cause death Neal 2021, PMID 34459569
SSaSS serious hyperkalemia Same RR 1.04 (0.80–1.37) No significant difference Neal 2021, PMID 34459569
Village-doctor intervention Rural China Improved BP control Cluster delivery model Sun 2022, PMID 35500594
Home-based care Rural South Africa Improved hypertension outcomes Health-system delivery Siedner 2025, PMID 40888742
CRHCP 7-year BP 138.8/80.7 vs 152.3/86.1 mm Hg (difference −13.5/−5.4, P<0.0001) 326 villages, 33,995 adults ≥40 y, rural China Cluster-randomized; nonphysician-led intensive target <130/80 Sun 2026, PMID 42666029
CRHCP 7-year CVD composite 2.4% vs 3.0% per person-year; HR 0.76 (95% CI 0.72–0.81) Same MI, stroke, HF hospitalization, CV death Sun 2026, PMID 42666029
CRHCP 3-year post-trial period 3.4% vs 4.2% per person-year; HR 0.79 (0.73–0.85) Same, years 4–7 after subsidy/incentive withdrawal Effect persisted without free medication or performance incentives Sun 2026, PMID 42666029
CRHCP harms over 7 years Hypotension RR 1.58 (1.39–1.79); mild hypokalemia RR 1.38 (1.23–1.56) Same Both P<0.001 Sun 2026, PMID 42666029

Resistant and secondary hypertension

Quantity Estimate Setting Source
PATHWAY-2 spironolactone vs placebo −8.70 mm Hg home SBP (95% CI −9.72 to −7.69) Confirmed resistant hypertension Williams 2015, PMID 26414968
PATHWAY-2 vs mean active comparators −4.26 mm Hg (−5.13 to −3.38) Bisoprolol/doxazosin comparison Williams 2015, PMID 26414968
Primary aldosteronism cardiovascular risk Higher than essential hypertension at comparable BP Systematic review/meta-analysis Monticone 2018, PMID 29129575
OSA and concentric LVH Positive pooled association Meta-analysis Cuspidi 2020, PMID 31863113
True versus apparent resistance Requires adherence and out-of-office BP confirmation Clinical review Sarathy 2022, PMID 35227430

Harms and safety

Harm Comparison / estimate Population Source
SPRINT hypotension More frequent with intensive treatment High-risk adults without diabetes/stroke SPRINT 2015, PMID 26551272
SPRINT syncope More frequent with intensive treatment Same SPRINT 2015, PMID 26551272
SPRINT electrolyte abnormality More frequent with intensive treatment Same SPRINT 2015, PMID 26551272
SPRINT AKI/failure More frequent with intensive treatment Same SPRINT 2015, PMID 26551272
SPRINT injurious falls Not significantly increased initially Same SPRINT 2015, PMID 26551272
ACCORD treatment-attributed serious events 3.3% vs 1.3% Type 2 diabetes ACCORD 2010, PMID 20228401
Spironolactone hyperkalemia Requires potassium/renal monitoring Resistant hypertension PATHWAY-2, PMID 26414968
Salt-substitute serious hyperkalemia RR 1.04 (0.80–1.37) Rural high-risk population Neal 2021, PMID 34459569
Hypertensive crisis frequency in older ED patients 186 / 25,557 visits = 0.73% (95% CI 0.63–0.84); women 0.87%, men 0.56% (OR for men 0.64, 0.47–0.87) Adults ≥65 y, 52 Spanish public hospitals, one-week recruitment Retrospective analysis of the multipurpose EDEN cohort
Hypertensive crisis annual rate 429 per 100,000 older inhabitants (371–493); men 341 (267–436), women 493 (413–590) Spanish population ≥65 y Extrapolated from the one-week ED sample; not a measured incidence
Hypertensive crisis outcome Hospitalization 7.5%, ICU 0.5%, in-hospital death 1.1%; 1-year combined adverse event 57.9% (men 65.6%, women 52.5%; adjusted HR 1.61, 1.01–2.57) Same Low acute hospitalization and ICU use, but high one-year revisit/hospitalization/death

Conflicts that should remain visible

Question Estimate A Estimate B Why both can be true
Does intensive BP control reduce events? SPRINT primary HR 0.75 (0.64–0.89), PMID 26551272 ACCORD primary HR 0.88 (0.73–1.06), PMID 20228401 Populations, diabetes status, power and endpoint composition differ
Is LVH regression causal? Regression associated with HR 0.54 (0.35–0.84), PMID 20414193 No randomized treat-to-regression event trial Association may include achieved BP, adherence and baseline-risk effects
Is dual-biomarker staging decisive? HR 17.11 (8.12–36.09), PMID 41771092 No external calibration or treatment-utility trial Strong prognostic separation is not the same as actionable prediction
Is potassium salt universally safe? Serious hyperkalemia RR 1.04 (0.80–1.37), PMID 34459569 CKD/medication-specific risk remains Trial setting and event ascertainment do not cover every clinical subgroup
Does ARNI reverse HHD beyond BP? Interstitial-volume difference P=0.006, PMID 40739095 No clinical-event evidence Surrogate improvement may or may not mediate outcomes

Interpretation rules

  • Preserve absolute event rates alongside relative effects whenever available.
  • Do not transfer standardized automated-office targets directly to casual office readings.
  • Distinguish prevalent hypertension, coded HHD, imaging LVH, and clinical HF denominators.
  • Treat internally derived biomarker cutoffs as hypotheses until externally calibrated.
  • Do not call an observational regression association a mediated treatment effect.
  • Report confidence intervals; a point estimate without uncertainty is incomplete.
  • Separate population prevention effectiveness from efficacy in tightly monitored trials.
  • Keep kidney function, potassium risk, orthostasis, frailty, pregnancy, and drug interactions visible.
  • For clinical use, check the current primary guideline and local formulary rather than relying on this static register.