Hypertension is the leading cause of death in human being, which shows high prevalence and associated complications that increase the mortality and morbidity. Controlling blood pressure (BP) is very important because it is well known that lowering high BP effectively improves patients’ prognosis. This review aims to provide a focused update of the 2018 Korean Hypertension Society Guidelines for the management of hypertension. The importance of ambulatory BP and home BP monitoring was further emphasized not only for the diagnosis but also for treatment target. By adopting corresponding BPs, the updated guideline recommended out-of-office BP targets for both standard and intensive treatment. Based on the consensus on corresponding BPs and Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) revisit, the updated guidelines recommended target BP in high-risk patients below 130/80 mmHg and it applies to hypertensive patients with three or more additional cardiovascular risk factors, one or more risk factors with diabetes, or hypertensive patients with subclinical organ damages, coronary or vascular diseases, heart failure, chronic kidney disease with proteinuria, and cerebral lacunar infarction. Cerebral infarction and chronic kidney disease are also high-risk factors for cardiovascular disease. However, due to lack of evidence, the target BP was generally determined at < 140/90 mmHg in patients with those conditions as well as in the elderly. Updated contents regarding the management of hypertension in special situations are also discussed.

The standardized techniques of blood pressure measurement in the clinic are emphasized and the indications for ambulatory and/or home blood pressure monitoring are specified more broadly. The epidemiologic findings specific to Korean population related to blood pressure are reviewed. Cardiovascular risk of hypertensive patients are stratified based upon the data of a Korean population cohort study.

Background: Few studies have investigated optimal revascularization strategies in non–ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease. We investigated 3‐year clinical outcomes according to revascularization strategy in patients with non–ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Methods and Results: This retrospective, observational, multicenter study included patients with non–ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease without cardiogenic shock. Data were analyzed at 3 years according to the percutaneous coronary intervention strategy: culprit‐only revascularization (COR), 1‐stage multivessel revascularization (MVR), and multistage MVR. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE: a composite of all‐cause death, nonfatal spontaneous myocardial infarction, or any repeat revascularization). The COR group had a higher risk of MACE than those involving other strategies (COR versus 1‐stage MVR; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54–0.77; P <0.001; and COR versus multistage MVR; hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57–0.97; P =0.027). There was no significant difference in the incidence of MACE between 1‐stage and multistage MVR (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86–1.51; P =0.355). The results were consistent after multivariate regression, propensity score matching, inverse probability weighting, and Bayesian proportional hazards modeling. In subgroup analyses stratified by the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score, 1‐stage MVR lowered the risk of MACE compared with multistage MVR in low‐to‐intermediate risk patients but not in patients at high risk. Conclusions: MVR reduced 3‐year MACE in patients with non–ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease compared with COR. However, 1‐stage MVR was not superior to multistage MVR for reducing MACE except in low‐to‐intermediate risk patients.

Treatment strategies are provided in accordance with the level of global cardiovascular risk, from lifestyle modification in the lower risk group to more comprehensive treatment in the higher risk group. Considering the common trend of combination drug regimen, the choice of the first drug is suggested more liberally according to the physician’s discretion.

Background: Prehospital delay is an important contributor to poor outcomes in both acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We aimed to compare the prehospital delay and related factors between AIS and AMI. Methods and Results: We identified patients with AIS and AMI who were admitted to the 11 Korean Regional Cardiocerebrovascular Centers via the emergency room between July 2016 and December 2018. Delayed arrival was defined as a prehospital delay of >3 hours, and the generalized linear mixed‐effects model was applied to explore the effects of potential predictors on delayed arrival. This study included 17 895 and 8322 patients with AIS and AMI, respectively. The median value of prehospital delay was 6.05 hours in AIS and 3.00 hours in AMI. The use of emergency medical services was the key determinant of delayed arrival in both groups. Previous history, 1‐person household, weekday presentation, and interhospital transfer had higher odds of delayed arrival in both groups. Age and sex had no or minimal effects on delayed arrival in AIS; however, age and female sex were associated with higher odds of delayed arrival in AMI. More severe symptoms had lower odds of delayed arrival in AIS, whereas no significant effect was observed in AMI. Off‐hour presentation had higher and prehospital awareness had lower odds of delayed arrival; however, the magnitude of their effects differed quantitatively between AIS and AMI. Conclusions: The effects of some nonmodifiable and modifiable factors on prehospital delay differed between AIS and AMI. A differentiated strategy might be required to reduce prehospital delay.