Skip to content

Hypertensive heart disease — overview

TL;DR — Hypertensive heart disease (HHD) is cumulative cardiac target-organ damage attributable to elevated blood pressure, not a single uniformly validated bedside diagnosis (Nemtsova 2023, PMID 37048689). Its phenotype extends beyond left-ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) to fibrosis, atrial and ventricular remodeling, diastolic dysfunction, arrhythmia and heart failure (Nwabuo 2020, PMID 32016791; Gallo 2024, PMID 38928371). Burden estimates derived from Global Burden of Disease (GBD) models must not be interpreted as echocardiographically adjudicated prevalence (Yang 2023, PMID 37698022; Abughazaleh 2024, PMID 38718934). Blood-pressure lowering prevents cardiovascular events, while newer studies test whether imaging and circulating markers can identify or reverse myocardial injury before overt failure (Ettehad 2016, PMID 26724178; Sharp 2026, PMID 41771092; Lee 2025, PMID 40739095).

Definition: a causal phenotype, not one threshold

HHD is best treated as a causal clinicopathologic construct: sustained pressure exposure plus cardiac structural, tissue, functional or clinical injury for which hypertension is a material contributor (Nwabuo 2020, PMID 32016791; Nemtsova 2023, PMID 37048689). Reviews consistently include myocardial fibrosis and atrial, ventricular and arterial remodeling in addition to LVH (Nwabuo 2020, PMID 32016791; Tadic 2021, PMID 32170529).

Domain Observable signal What it establishes—and does not establish
Pressure exposure Office blood pressure, with ambulatory monitoring when confirmation or out-of-office characterization is needed Establishes the pressure phenotype; ambulatory monitoring identifies white-coat, masked and nocturnal phenotypes but does not by itself establish cardiac injury (Hinderliter 2018, PMID 29404785)
Electrical phenotype Cornell voltage/product or Sokolow–Lyon LVH Identifies a prognostic phenotype; in hypertension, ECG-LVH was associated with stroke risk ratios of 1.63 (Cornell voltage), 1.41 (Cornell product) and 1.42 (Sokolow–Lyon) in a seven-study meta-analysis, although the Cornell-product result was not robust in sensitivity analysis (Yi 2020, PMID 32504899)
Structural phenotype Increased LV mass, concentric remodeling or hypertrophy, left-atrial enlargement Supports target-organ damage but does not by itself supply a comprehensive HHD classification (Nwabuo 2020, PMID 32016791; Nemtsova 2023, PMID 37048689)
Tissue phenotype Late gadolinium enhancement, native T1 or extracellular-volume evidence of fibrosis CMR can characterize replacement and diffuse fibrosis; MRI-vendor, post-processing-software and study-region heterogeneity limit universal thresholds (Tadic 2021, PMID 32170529; Zhao 2024, PMID 39156132)
Functional phenotype Impaired relaxation, increased filling pressure, abnormal strain or reduced ejection fraction Places remodeling on a functional continuum but does not prove hypertension is the sole cause (Nwabuo 2020, PMID 32016791; Gallo 2024, PMID 38928371)
Clinical phenotype Atrial fibrillation, HFpEF or HFrEF in a compatible hypertensive substrate Represents overt disease on the continuum; hypertension treatment in HF relies partly on extrapolation from high-risk hypertension trials rather than trials designed specifically for HF populations (Gallo 2024, PMID 38928371)

As of the 2026-08-29 audit, a targeted PubMed E-utilities search found proposed imaging algorithms and biomarker staging but no externally validated universal rule that joins all six domains (Nemtsova 2023, PMID 37048689). This is now a validation gap, not an absence of staging research: the 2026 REMODEL cohort derived NT-proBNP and high-sensitivity troponin-T strata associated with CMR remodeling and events, but selected thresholds within the same 1,054-person cohort (Sharp 2026, PMID 41771092).

Epidemiology and the attribution problem

In 2019, an estimated 626 million women and 652 million men aged 30–79 had hypertension worldwide. Among people with hypertension, modeled control rates were 23% (95% credible interval 20%–27%) for women and 18% (16%–21%) for men (NCD-RisC 2021, PMID 34450083). These figures define the exposure pool, not HHD prevalence.

Evidence source Population or estimate Quantitative result Interpretation
Pooled population surveys 104 million participants in 1,201 studies, 200 countries and territories 1.278 billion adults aged 30–79 with hypertension in 2019 Measured BP and treatment status; no cardiac phenotype (NCD-RisC 2021, PMID 34450083)
GBD 2019, older adults Ages 60–89, 204 countries and territories 14.35 million prevalent HHD cases, 0.85 million deaths and 14.56 million DALYs in 2019 Modeled HHD construct; prevalence AAPC 0.38% (95% CI 0.36%–0.41%) during 1990–2019 (Yang 2023, PMID 37698022)
GBD 2019, United States All-age modeled national series 1,487,975 prevalent cases and 51,253 deaths in 2019 Not a prospectively imaged cohort; female prevalence AAPC 0.3% (95% CI 0.2%–0.4%) (Abughazaleh 2024, PMID 38718934)
Echocardiographic or CMR cohorts Study-specific clinical samples LV mass, geometry, function and tissue characterization Phenotype-rich but dependent on referral, modality and reference limits (Tadic 2021, PMID 32170529; Zhao 2024, PMID 39156132)

The practical rule is therefore to name the denominator and ascertainment method whenever quoting HHD burden. “GBD-attributed HHD” and “imaging-defined hypertensive remodeling” are related but non-interchangeable entities (Yang 2023, PMID 37698022; Abughazaleh 2024, PMID 38718934).

Mechanism and progression

Hypertension-related remodeling includes cardiomyocyte hypertrophy, myocardial and vascular fibrosis, and micro- and macrovascular change. LVH may be initially adaptive but can become maladaptive across heart-failure phenotypes with preserved and then reduced ejection fraction (Nemtsova 2023, PMID 37048689; Đorđević 2024, PMID 38747417).

HHD is not determined by pressure alone (Monticone 2018, PMID 29129575; Mouton 2020, PMID 32163341):

  • Primary aldosteronism was associated with higher odds of stroke (OR 2.58, 95% CI 1.93–3.45), atrial fibrillation (OR 3.52, 2.06–5.99), heart failure (OR 2.05, 1.11–3.78) and LVH (OR 2.29, 1.65–3.17) than essential hypertension across 31 observational studies (Monticone 2018, PMID 29129575).
  • A separate 31-study synthesis found that the primary-aldosteronism groups also had systolic pressure 4.14 mm Hg higher (95% CI 2.60–5.68), so its risk estimates should not be described as fully pressure-matched (Wu 2019, PMID 31261504).
  • Obesity and hypertension commonly coexist and are linked through low-grade inflammation, macrophage metabolic polarization and adverse remodeling; the mechanistic interaction remains incompletely resolved (Mouton 2020, PMID 32163341).
  • Blood-pressure genetics includes more than 1,477 associated common variants, but these explained only about 27% of estimated 30%–50% heritability in a 2021 review; individual common-variant effects remain small (Padmanabhan 2021, PMID 33219353).

Prognosis and regression

LVH is a risk marker, and serial change contains information beyond a baseline measurement (Okin 2004, PMID 15547161; Devereux 2004, PMID 15547162).

Study Population and comparison Quantitative finding Boundary
LIFE main trial 9,193 hypertensive adults aged 55–80 with ECG-LVH; losartan- versus atenolol-based therapy Primary cardiovascular outcome RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.77–0.98); stroke RR 0.75 (0.63–0.89) Similar achieved BP, but findings apply to the enrolled ECG-LVH population (Dahlöf 2002, PMID 11937178)
LIFE echo substudy 916 participants with follow-up LV-mass measurement LV-mass index fell 21.7 versus 17.7 g/m² with losartan versus atenolol; P=0.021 Intermediate imaging endpoint, not proof of mediation (Devereux 2004, PMID 15326072)
LIFE serial ECG analysis 9,193 participants Each 1-SD lower in-treatment Cornell product was associated with composite-event HR 0.86 (95% CI 0.82–0.90) Association adjusted for BP and treatment, but not randomized mediation (Okin 2004, PMID 15547161)
LIFE echo prognosis substudy 941 participants Each 1-SD (25.3 g/m²) lower in-treatment LV-mass index was associated with composite-event HR 0.78 (95% CI 0.65–0.94) Prospective substudy association; residual confounding remains possible (Devereux 2004, PMID 15547162)
STEP LVH analysis 7,141 older adults with hypertension New ECG-LVH HR 0.76 (95% CI 0.66–0.89) with intensive treatment; baseline-LVH regression did not differ LVH adjustment scarcely changed the cardiovascular HR, arguing against LVH change explaining most benefit (Deng 2023, PMID 37259845)
REVERSE-LVH phase 2 78 participants with essential hypertension and CMR-LVH Interstitial volume changed by −5.2±5.4 versus −2.5±3.1 mL with sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan; P=0.006, at similar 52-week ambulatory systolic BP Open-label, small, imaging endpoint; larger outcome studies are required (Lee 2025, PMID 40739095)

Together, these studies support regression as a prognostic and candidate mechanistic marker but do not establish that targeting a specific LV-mass or fibrosis change independently improves clinical outcomes (Okin 2004, PMID 15547161; Devereux 2004, PMID 15547162; Lee 2025, PMID 40739095).

Detection and differential diagnosis

Ambulatory monitoring more accurately reflects cardiovascular-event risk than office measurement and distinguishes white-coat, masked and nocturnal hypertension; it is used to confirm hypertension and guide antihypertensive therapy (Hinderliter 2018, PMID 29404785).

Echocardiography is used to identify LVH and diastolic dysfunction. CMR adds late-gadolinium-enhancement and T1-mapping assessment of myocardial fibrosis and assists when the differential includes hypertrophic cardiomyopathy or Fabry disease (Tadic 2021, PMID 32170529).

In a 26-study meta-analysis including 1,349 HHD and 1,581 hypertrophic-cardiomyopathy cases, HHD had lower native T1 (Hedges g −0.469), extracellular volume (g −0.417), LV-mass index (g −0.437) and maximal wall thickness (g −2.076), but vendor, software and regional heterogeneity limited transportability (Zhao 2024, PMID 39156132). These are group-level discriminators, not universal patient-level cutoffs.

Prevention and treatment evidence

The prevention evidence summarized here comes from broad hypertension trials whose endpoints include heart failure, stroke, coronary events or death, rather than trials restricted to a uniformly imaged HHD phenotype (Ettehad 2016, PMID 26724178; SPRINT 2015, PMID 26551272; SPRINT 2021, PMID 34010531; Zhang 2021, PMID 34491661).

Evidence Comparison Effect estimate
123-trial meta-analysis, 613,815 participants Each 10-mm Hg systolic reduction Major CVD RR 0.80 (95% CI 0.77–0.83), stroke RR 0.73 (0.68–0.77), heart failure RR 0.72 (0.67–0.78), all-cause mortality RR 0.87 (0.84–0.91) (Ettehad 2016, PMID 26724178)
Individual-participant meta-analysis, 344,716 participants Each 5-mm Hg systolic reduction Major cardiovascular events HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.89–0.94) without prior CVD and 0.89 (0.86–0.92) with prior CVD (BPLTTC 2021, PMID 33933205)
SPRINT, 9,361 high-risk adults without diabetes or prior stroke Target <120 versus <140 mm Hg Final primary-outcome HR 0.73 (95% CI 0.63–0.86); mortality HR 0.75 (0.61–0.92), with more hypotension, electrolyte abnormality, acute kidney injury/failure and syncope (SPRINT 2021, PMID 34010531)
STEP, 8,511 Chinese adults aged 60–80 Target 110–<130 versus 130–<150 mm Hg Primary-outcome HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.60–0.92); hypotension was more frequent (Zhang 2021, PMID 34491661)
ALLHAT, 33,357 high-risk adults Initial amlodipine or lisinopril versus chlorthalidone Primary coronary outcome did not differ; HF RR 1.38 (95% CI 1.25–1.52) for amlodipine and 1.19 (1.07–1.31) for lisinopril versus chlorthalidone (ALLHAT 2002, PMID 12479763)
PATHWAY-2, resistant hypertension Spironolactone versus placebo and active comparators Home systolic BP difference −8.70 mm Hg (95% CI −9.72 to −7.69) versus placebo and −4.26 (−5.13 to −3.38) versus mean of bisoprolol/doxazosin (Williams 2015, PMID 26414968)
DASH meta-analysis, 30 trials and 5,545 participants DASH versus control diet Systolic difference −3.2 mm Hg (95% CI −4.2 to −2.3); diastolic −2.5 (−3.5 to −1.5) (Filippou 2020, PMID 32330233)
Smartphone-supported monitoring trial, 333 randomized Coaching plus home monitor versus tracking plus monitor Adjusted systolic difference −2.0 mm Hg (95% CI −4.9 to 0.8); P=0.16 (Persell 2020, PMID 32119093)

The 2025 multisociety AHA/ACC guideline explicitly retires and replaces the 2017 document; the 2024 ESC guideline is a separate current European framework (Jones 2025, PMID 40815242; McEvoy 2024, PMID 39210715). For reproducible comparison, any reported threshold should identify its governing guideline and measurement protocol.

Renal denervation: pressure evidence versus outcome evidence

SYMPLICITY HTN-3 found no significant six-month advantage over sham: the between-group office systolic difference was −2.39 mm Hg (95% CI −6.89 to 2.12) and ambulatory difference −1.96 mm Hg (−4.97 to 1.06) (Bhatt 2014, PMID 24678939).

A later meta-analysis of ten sham-controlled trials and 2,478 participants found reductions of 4.4 mm Hg (95% CI 2.7–6.1) in 24-hour and 6.6 mm Hg (3.6–9.7) in office systolic pressure, with significant between-trial heterogeneity (Vukadinović 2024, PMID 39355923). A 2026 review still identified the lack of large cardiovascular outcome trials as a limitation (Awashra 2026, PMID 42144689).

The 2026-08-29 audit repeated PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov searches for renal-denervation cardiovascular outcomes. The registries contained outcome-oriented and post-approval studies, but the retrieved evidence did not establish a completed, adequately powered randomized reduction in myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure or cardiovascular death. The positive current randomized evidence is therefore BP reduction and no detected difference in selected safety outcomes, not proven HHD-event prevention (Vukadinović 2024, PMID 39355923; Awashra 2026, PMID 42144689).

Current staging frontier

REMODEL prospectively followed 1,054 asymptomatic adults with essential hypertension after CMR and biomarker sampling. Thresholds selected within that cohort—NT-proBNP 152 pg/mL and high-sensitivity troponin T 12.7 pg/mL—separated remodeling and outcomes; dual elevation was associated with event HR 17.11 (95% CI 8.12–36.09), and one-marker elevation with HR 3.44 (1.71–6.94) (Sharp 2026, PMID 41771092).

This materially narrows the old “no staging system” gap, but it does not close it. External validation, calibration across assays and populations, incremental value over conventional risk models, and evidence that biomarker-directed intervention improves outcomes remain to be demonstrated (Sharp 2026, PMID 41771092).

Open questions

  • Can a single HHD definition reproducibly join pressure exposure, imaging injury and clinical attribution across cohorts and GBD datasets? (Nwabuo 2020, PMID 32016791; Yang 2023, PMID 37698022)
  • Do the REMODEL biomarker thresholds validate externally and improve decisions beyond conventional risk assessment? (Sharp 2026, PMID 41771092)
  • Does directly targeting LV mass or interstitial fibrosis improve events, rather than merely track effective treatment? (Devereux 2004, PMID 15547162; Lee 2025, PMID 40739095)
  • Which intensive target maximizes net benefit outside the enrolled populations—SPRINT's high-risk adults without diabetes or prior stroke and STEP's Chinese adults aged 60–80? (SPRINT 2021, PMID 34010531; Zhang 2021, PMID 34491661)
  • How much HHD is attributable to underdetected primary aldosteronism and other secondary hypertension? (Monticone 2018, PMID 29129575; Wu 2019, PMID 31261504)
  • Can renal denervation prevent cardiovascular events, rather than only lower pressure? (Vukadinović 2024, PMID 39355923; Awashra 2026, PMID 42144689)
  • Which interval and modality identify transition from asymptomatic remodeling to HFpEF early enough for an intervention to change outcomes? A 1,600-person retrospective cohort associated change across echocardiograms obtained 6–18 months apart with subsequent outcomes, and a 756-person referral cohort associated baseline CMR geometry with events over a median 7.1 years; neither compared surveillance schedules. The 2026-08-29 search found no validated HHD-specific interval (Hwang 2025, PMID 40970541; Lertsiripatarajit 2026, PMID 41953289).

References

  1. Nwabuo CC, et al. Pathophysiology of Hypertensive Heart Disease: Beyond Left Ventricular Hypertrophy. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2020;22:11. PMID 32016791
  2. Gallo G, et al. Hypertension and Heart Failure: From Pathophysiology to Treatment. Int J Mol Sci. 2024;25. PMID 38928371
  3. Tadic M, et al. Comprehensive assessment of hypertensive heart disease: cardiac magnetic resonance in focus. Heart Fail Rev. 2021;26:1383-1390. PMID 32170529
  4. Hinderliter AL, et al. Implementing ABPM into Clinical Practice. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2018;20:5. PMID 29404785
  5. Yi S, et al. Prediction of stroke with electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy in hypertensive patients: A meta-analysis. J Electrocardiol. 2020;61:27-31. PMID 32504899
  6. Đorđević DB, et al. Hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy. J Hypertens. 2024;42:1505-1515. PMID 38747417
  7. Zhao Q, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for discrimination of hypertensive heart disease and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2024;11:1421013. PMID 39156132
  8. Sharp A, et al. Role of natriuretic peptides and cardiac troponins in staging hypertensive heart disease: the REMODEL study. Eur J Heart Fail. 2026. PMID 41771092
  9. NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC). Worldwide trends in hypertension prevalence and progress in treatment and control from 1990 to 2019: a pooled analysis of 1201 population-representative studies with 104 million participants. Lancet. 2021;398:957-980. PMID 34450083
  10. Yang R, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of hypertensive heart disease among older adults in 204 countries and territories between 1990 and 2019: a trend analysis. Chin Med J (Engl). 2023;136:2421-2430. PMID 37698022
  11. Abughazaleh S, et al. Trends of hypertensive heart disease prevalence and mortality in the United States between the period 1990-2019, Global burden of disease database. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2024;49:102621. PMID 38718934
  12. Monticone S, et al. Cardiovascular events and target organ damage in primary aldosteronism compared with essential hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018;6:41-50. PMID 29129575
  13. Wu X, et al. Cardiovascular risk in primary aldosteronism: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98:e15985. PMID 31261504
  14. Mouton AJ, et al. Obesity, Hypertension, and Cardiac Dysfunction: Novel Roles of Immunometabolism in Macrophage Activation and Inflammation. Circ Res. 2020;126:789-806. PMID 32163341
  15. Padmanabhan S, et al. Genomics of hypertension: the road to precision medicine. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2021;18:235-250. PMID 33219353
  16. Dahlöf B, et al. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol. Lancet. 2002;359:995-1003. PMID 11937178
  17. Devereux RB, et al. Regression of hypertensive left ventricular hypertrophy by losartan compared with atenolol: the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) trial. Circulation. 2004;110:1456-62. PMID 15326072
  18. Okin PM, et al. Regression of electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy during antihypertensive treatment and the prediction of major cardiovascular events. JAMA. 2004;292:2343-9. PMID 15547161
  19. Devereux RB, et al. Prognostic significance of left ventricular mass change during treatment of hypertension. JAMA. 2004;292:2350-6. PMID 15547162
  20. Deng Y, et al. Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering Improves Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Older Patients with Hypertension: The STEP Trial. Hypertension. 2023;80:1834-1842. PMID 37259845
  21. Lee V, et al. Effects of sacubitril/valsartan on hypertensive heart disease: the REVERSE-LVH randomized phase 2 trial. Nat Commun. 2025;16:6981. PMID 40739095
  22. Ettehad D, et al. Blood pressure lowering for prevention of cardiovascular disease and death: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2016;387:957-967. PMID 26724178
  23. Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration. Pharmacological blood pressure lowering for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease across different levels of blood pressure: an individual participant-level data meta-analysis. Lancet. 2021;397:1625-1636. PMID 33933205
  24. SPRINT Research Group. A Randomized Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2103-16. PMID 26551272
  25. SPRINT Research Group. Final Report of a Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:1921-1930. PMID 34010531
  26. Zhang W, et al. Trial of Intensive Blood-Pressure Control in Older Patients with Hypertension. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:1268-1279. PMID 34491661
  27. ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial. Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). JAMA. 2002;288:2981-97. PMID 12479763
  28. Williams B, et al. Spironolactone versus placebo, bisoprolol, and doxazosin to determine the optimal treatment for drug-resistant hypertension (PATHWAY-2): a randomised, double-blind, crossover trial. Lancet. 2015;386:2059-2068. PMID 26414968
  29. Filippou CD, et al. Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) Diet and Blood Pressure Reduction in Adults with and without Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Adv Nutr. 2020;11:1150-1160. PMID 32330233
  30. Persell SD, et al. Effect of Home Blood Pressure Monitoring via a Smartphone Hypertension Coaching Application or Tracking Application on Adults With Uncontrolled Hypertension: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3:e200255. PMID 32119093
  31. Jones DW, et al. 2025 AHA/ACC/AANP/AAPA/ABC/ACCP/ACPM/AGS/AMA/ASPC/NMA/PCNA/SGIM Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2025;86:1567-1678. PMID 40815242
  32. McEvoy JW, et al. 2024 ESC Guidelines for the management of elevated blood pressure and hypertension. Eur Heart J. 2024;45:3912-4018. PMID 39210715
  33. Bhatt DL, et al. A controlled trial of renal denervation for resistant hypertension. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1393-401. PMID 24678939
  34. Vukadinović D, et al. Effects of Catheter-Based Renal Denervation in Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Circulation. 2024;150:1599-1611. PMID 39355923
  35. Awashra A, et al. Renal Denervation in Cardiovascular Diseases: Mechanisms, Evidence, and Expanding Applications. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2026;108:357-375. PMID 42144689
  36. Hwang IC, et al. Left Ventricular Mass-to-Strain Ratio to Predict Change in Left Ventricular Hypertrophy and Prognosis in Hypertensive Heart Disease. J Am Heart Assoc. 2025;14:e042032. PMID 40970541
  37. Lertsiripatarajit P, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance assessment of left ventricular phenotypes and prognostic implications in hypertensive heart disease. Clin Hypertens. 2026;32:e14. PMID 41953289
  38. Nemtsova V, et al. Hypertensive Heart Disease: A Narrative Review Series-Part 1: Pathophysiology and Microstructural Changes. J Clin Med. 2023;12. PMID 37048689