[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.204.2.53. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Viewpoint
November 6, 2018

The 2018 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension and 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Blood Pressure Guidelines: More Similar Than Different

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Epidemiology, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana
  • 2Department of Medicine, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana
  • 3UCL Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom
  • 4National Institute for Health Research, UCL Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, London, United Kingdom
JAMA. 2018;320(17):1749-1750. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.16755

Clinical practice guidelines are an important established resource in medicine and public health. Clinical practice guidelines are particularly well suited to conditions such as high blood pressure (BP) that are common, result in a substantial disease burden and utilization of health care resources, incur individual and societal cost, demonstrate large variation in practice patterns, and have enough high-quality evidence to guide decision-making. Although many BP-related clinical practice guidelines have been developed by individual countries and professional societies, few would dispute that 2 such reports released during the past 12 months—the 2017 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA)1 and 2018 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Society of Hypertension (ESH)2 guidelines—have substantial influence beyond their immediate regions of origin.

×