| 1. |
- Okin, Peter M., et al.
(författare)
-
The relationship of electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy to decreased serum potassium
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Blood Pressure. - : Informa UK Limited. - 0803-7051 .- 1651-1999. ; 21:3, s. 146-152
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background. Low serum potassium (K) is associated with increased blood pressure, impaired cardiac function and renal dysfunction. Although lower serum K is associated with cardiac hypertrophy in animal models, the relationship of low serum K to the presence and severity of electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is unclear. Methods. Baseline and yearly Cornell product LVH levels were examined in relation to low serum K (serum K <= 3.90 mEq/l, the lowest quartile of baseline K levels) in 8586 patients with baseline K levels. Patients were randomized to losartan-vs atenolol-based treatment and additional hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) therapy as needed. Results. After adjusting for age, sex, race, prior antihypertensive treatment, losartan vs atenolol therapy, HCTZ use, baseline diastolic and systolic pressure, body mass index, serum creatinine and urine albumin/creatinine ratio, baseline serum K <= 3.90 was associated with significantly higher mean baseline Cornell product LVH (2898 vs 2801 mm.ms, p = 0.001) and a 24% higher risk of Cornell product LVH > 2440 mm.ms at baseline (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.11-1.38, p < 0.001). After also adjusting for baseline Cornell product and changes in diastolic and systolic pressure between baseline and each year of measurement, in-treatment serum K <= 3.90 determined yearly was associated with significantly higher mean Cornell product LVH at years 1-3 and with statistically signifi cant 16-32% increased risks of LVH by Cornell product at years 1-4. Conclusions. A low serum K is independently associated with a greater likelihood and severity of Cornell product LVH during antihypertensive therapy.
|
|
| 2. |
- Ruwald, Anne Christine H., et al.
(författare)
-
Losartan versus atenolol-based antihypertensive treatment reduces cardiovascular events especially well in elderly patients : the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Journal of Hypertension. - 0263-6352 .- 1473-5598. ; 30:6, s. 1252-1259
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study has previously demonstrated a beneficial effect of losartan compared to atenolol-based antihypertensive treatment in patients with essential hypertension and left-ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). However, patient age often influences the choice of antihypertensive drugs. Therefore, we investigated the influence of age on the effects of losartan versus atenolol-based antihypertensive treatment. Methods: A total of 9193 hypertensive patients with LVH aged 45-83 years were followed for a mean of 4.8 years. Blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), Sokolow-Lyon voltage, Cornell voltage-duration product and urine albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) were measured yearly throughout the study. Patients were divided into two age groups according to the median age of 67 years and the effects of losartan versus atenolol-based antihypertensive treatment on the primary composite endpoint (CEP) consisting of cardiovascular death, nonfatal stroke or nonfatal myocardial infarction were investigated. Results: The beneficial effect of losartan versus atenolol-based treatment was greater in the group of patients older than 67 years [hazard ratio 0.79 (0.69-0.91), P=0.001] compared to the group of patients younger than 67 years [hazard ratio 1.03 (0.82-1.28), P=0809], P=0.045 for interaction. The beneficial effects of losartan versus atenolol-based antihypertensive treatment on pulse pressure, HDL-C, UACR, and Cornell and Sokolow-Lyon voltage were not more pronounced in patients older than 67 years compared to patients younger than 67 years. All five risk factors considered as time-varying covariates predicted CEP independently (P<0.01) with the exception of pulse pressure (P=0.37) and the interaction between age and treatment on outcome remained significant (P=0.042). Conclusions: We showed a greater beneficial effect of losartan versus atenolol-based antihypertensive treatment in the group of patients older than 67 years compared to the group of patients younger than 67 years. This difference was not explained by a more pronounced effect of losartan-based treatment on any of the cardiovascular risk factors demonstrated to have independent prognostic importance.
|
|
| 3. |
- Teo, Koon K., et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of telmisartan, irbesartan, valsartan, candesartan, and losartan on cancers in 15 trials enrolling 138 769 individuals The ARB Trialists Collaboration
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Journal of Hypertension. - 0263-6352 .- 1473-5598. ; 29:4, s. 623-635
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, but a recent meta-analysis of selected studies suggested that ARBs may increase cancer risks.Objective Candesartan, irbesartan, telmisartan, valsartan, and losartan were assessed for incident cancers in 15 large parallel long-term multicenter double-blind clinical trials of these agents involving 138 769 participants.Patients and methods Individuals at high CVD risk were randomized to telmisartan (three trials, n=51 878), irbesartan (three trials, n=14 859), valsartan (four trials, n=44 264), candesartan (four trials, n=18 566), and losartan (one trial, n=9193) and followed for 23-60 months. Incident cancer cases were compared in patients randomized to ARBs versus controls. In five trials (n=42 403), the ARBs were compared to ACEi and in 11 trials (n=63 313) to controls without ACEi. In addition, in seven trials (n=47 020), the effect of ARBs with ACEi was compared to ACEi alone and in two trials ARBs with ACEi versus ARB alone (n=25 712).Results Overall, there was no excess of cancer incidence with ARB therapy compared to controls in the 15 trials [ 4549 (6.16%) cases of 73 808 allocated to ARB versus 3856 (6.31%) of 61 106 assigned to non-ARB controls; odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95-1.04] overall or when individual ARBs were examined. ORs comparing combination therapy with ARB along with ACEi versus ACEi was 1.01 (95% CI 0.94-1.10), combination versus ARB alone 1.02 (95% CI 0.91-1.13), ARB alone versus ACEi alone 1.06 (95% CI 0.97-1.16) and ARB versus placebo/control without ACEi 0.97 (95% CI 0.91-1.04). There was no excess of lung, prostate or breast cancer, or overall cancer deaths associated with ARB treatment.Conclusion There was no significant increase in the overall or site-specific cancer risk from ARBs compared to controls.
|
|
