ArticleRevista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health2026
2025 AHA/ACC blood pressure guideline and HEARTS 2.0: implications for the future evolution of integrated cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic care in the Americas.
Article in Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hypertension is the leading modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease. In 2025, two major evidence-based frameworks evolved in parallel: HEARTS 2.0, an implementation-oriented clinical pathway for integrated cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) care through primary health care, and the updated American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Blood Pressure Guideline, one of the world's leading hypertension guidelines. Although developed for different intended applications, both drew on a common and rapidly expanding evidence base, making it timely to examine their areas of convergence and divergence. Using the four operational domains of the HEARTS 2.0 Clinical Pathway, this article compares both approaches and examines their implications for the future evolution of integrated CKM care in the Americas. The analysis demonstrates substantial concordance across all domains, including accurate blood pressure measurement, risk-based care, simplified treatment protocols with early use of single-pill combinations, rapid treatment intensification, team-based care, and comprehensive CKM risk reduction. The few remaining differences should not be viewed as contradictions but as opportunities for future refinement. They primarily concern the diagnostic threshold for hypertension, the application of blood pressure targets below 130/80 mmHg, and emerging cardiometabolic therapies. These areas reflect ongoing debates and evolving evidence that may inform future updates of HEARTS 2.0, with adoption varying across countries according to context, feasibility, affordability, and implementation capacity. Overall, this comparison reinforces the scientific foundations of both frameworks and supports their interpretation as complementary and mutually reinforcing approaches for advancing the implementation of scalable, integrated CKM care in the Americas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.