Hypertension is one of the major treatable factors contributing to the burden of disease worldwide. However, despite national programs to encourage detection and treatment, there are still shortcomings in hypertension management. A large proportion of these can be attributed to socioeconomic factors, professional shortcomings, and patient noncompliance with management regimens. The Evaluation and Interventions for Systolic Blood pressure Elevation—Regional and Global (EISBERG) project was conceived to examine the reasons for suboptimal management of hypertension in more detail. Emphasis was placed on control of elevated systolic blood pressure because this is often neglected despite evidence that it is more important than diastolic pressure in predicting cardiovascular risk. The goals of the project include analysis of the relative importance of systolic and diastolic blood pressure as cardiovascular risk factors, identification of any necessary changes in practice, and the development and implementation of programs to promote appropriate changes in practice or attitudes. The three components of the initiative are a formal collection of epidemiologic evidence to examine the relation between systolic blood pressure and outcome; a cross-sectional, quantitative database (CardioMonitor) providing information on the treatment of patients with cardiovascular diseases including hypertension in seven countries, and qualitative research into hypertension management to assess attitudes, awareness, and knowledge among primary care physicians, patients and their carers. The study showed more effort was directed toward control of diastolic than systolic blood pressure. Adequate control of systolic blood pressure was seldom achieved. Blood pressure targets tended to be raised in elderly patients in conflict with recommendations and evidence that there is greater benefit in treating hypertension more aggressively in this population. Despite awareness of guidelines for treating hypertension, doctors were unsuccessful in practice. (Am Heart J 1999;138:S231-S237.)