| 1. |
- Devereux, Richard B., et al.
(författare)
-
Left Ventricular Wall Stress-Mass-Heart Rate Product and Cardiovascular Events in Treated Hypertensive Patients LIFE Study
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Hypertension. - 0194-911X .- 1524-4563. ; 66:5, s. 945-953
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In the Losartan Intervention for End Point Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) study, 4.8 years' losartan- versus atenolol-based antihypertensive treatment reduced left ventricular hypertrophy and cardiovascular end points, including cardiovascular death and stroke. However, there was no difference in myocardial infarction (MI), possibly related to greater reduction in myocardial oxygen demand by atenolol-based treatment. Myocardial oxygen demand was assessed indirectly by the left ventricular massxwall stressxheart rate (triple product) in 905 LIFE participants. The triple product was included as time-varying covariate in Cox models assessing predictors of the LIFE primary composite end point (cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke), its individual components, and all-cause mortality. At baseline, the triple product in both treatment groups was, compared with normal adults, elevated in 70% of patients. During randomized treatment, the triple product was reduced more by atenolol, with prevalences of elevated triple product of 39% versus 51% on losartan (both P0.001). In Cox regression analyses adjusting for age, smoking, diabetes mellitus, and prior stroke, MI, and heart failure, 1 SD lower triple product was associated with 23% (95% confidence interval 13%-32%) fewer composite end points, 31% (18%-41%) less cardiovascular mortality, 30% (15%-41%) lower MI, and 22% (11%-33%) lower all-cause mortality (all P0.001), without association with stroke (P=0.34). Although losartan-based therapy reduced ventricular mass more, greater heart rate reduction with atenolol resulted in larger reduction of the triple product. Lower triple product during antihypertensive treatment was strongly, independently associated with lower rates of the LIFE primary composite end point, cardiovascular death, and MI, but not stroke.
|
|
| 2. |
- Greve, Anders M., et al.
(författare)
-
Contrasting Hemodynamic Mechanisms of Losartan- vs. Atenolol-Based Antihypertensive Treatment : A LIFE Study
- 2012
-
Ingår i: American Journal of Hypertension. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0895-7061 .- 1941-7225. ; 25:9, s. 1017-1023
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND Pharmaceutical differences in central hemodynamics might influence cardiac response to antihypertensive treatment despite similar lowering of brachial blood pressure (BP). METHODS Data from all patients with at least two echocardiographic examinations in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) echocardiographic substudy (n = 801); high-risk patients on losartan- vs. atenolol-based antihypertensive therapy. Echocardiography was performed annually for 4 years to measure stroke index (SI), heart rate, cardiac index (CI), conduit artery stiffness assessed as pulse pressure/stroke index (PP/SI) and total peripheral resistance index (TPRI). RESULTS Atenolol- and losartan-based therapy reduced BP similarly (cumulative difference in mean brachial blood pressure 0.3 mm Hg, P = 0.65). After 4 years the cumulative means of SI and heart rate were 1.8 ml/m(2) higher and 5.7 beats/min lower on atenolol-based treatment, respectively (both P < 0.001). This kept CI below baseline in atenolol-treated patients, whereas in the losartan group CI was unchanged from baseline throughout the study. TPRI was decreased more and remained lower in the losartan group (cumulative difference in mean TPRI 287 dynes/sec(-5)/cm/m(2), P < 0.001). These findings partly explained univariate differences in systolic- and diastolic function indices between the two treatments; fully adjusted losartan was only associated with a smaller left atrial diameter (cumulative mean difference 0.07 cm; 95% confidence intervals, -0.13 to -0.01, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS Contrasting hemodynamics impacted cardiac response to similar reductions in brachial BP on losartan- vs. atenolol-based therapy. The similar reduction of PP/SI suggests that the antihypertensive regimens used in the LIFE study had comparable effects on arterial stiffness (LIFE study; NCT00338260)
|
|
| 3. |
- Olsen, Michael H., et al.
(författare)
-
Changes in subclinical organ damage vs. in Framingham risk score for assessing cardiovascular risk reduction during continued antihypertensive treatment : a LIFE substudy
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Journal of Hypertension. - 0263-6352 .- 1473-5598. ; 29:5, s. 997-1004
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aim: To investigate whether in-treatment measurements of subclinical organ damage (SOD) assessed by elevated urine albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR) or electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy improved the prediction of the composite cardiovascular endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke beyond in-treatment Framingham risk score (FRS).Methods: Excluding patients with a composite cardiovascular endpoint within the first year of treatment, 598 endpoints occurred in 6460 patients from the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study with baseline and 1 year values for UACR, left ventricular hypertrophy by electrocardiography and FRS available.Results: Using Cox-regression analyses, FRS1year [hazard ratio = 1.006 (0.98-1.04)] did not predict the endpoint independently of history of cardiovascular disease [hazard ratio = 1.76 (1.49-2.08)], FRSbaseline [hazard ratio = 1.07 (1.04-1.11)], UACR(baseline) [hazard ratio = 1.15 (1.07-1.23), all three P < 0.001], Sokolow-Lyon(baseline) [hazard ratio = 1.01 (1.006-1.02), P < 0.01] and treatment allocation, whereas Cornell product(1yea)r [hazard ratio = 1.01 (1.006-1.02), P < 0.001] and to some degree UACR(1year) [hazard ratio = 1.05 (0.99-1.10), P = 0.09] predicted the endpoint independently of history of cardiovascular disease [hazard ratio = 1.71 (1.44-2.02)], FRSbaseline [hazard ratio = 1.08 (1.06-1.10)], Sokolow-Lyon(baseline) [hazard ratio = 1.01 (1.007-1.02), both P < 0.001], UACR(baseline) [hazard ratio = 1.11 (1.03-1.20), P < 0.01] and treatment allocation decreasing -2 Log likelihood significantly (P < 0.01).Presence of left ventricular hypertrophy by Cornell product1year or UACR(1year) at least 1 mmol/l [hazard ratio = 1.40 (1.15-1.70), P = 0.001] but not FRS1year above the median baseline value of 20 [hazard ratio = 1.22 (0.94-1.57), not significant] was associated with higher risk of subsequent endpoint after adjustment for history of cardiovascular disease [hazard ratio = 1.82 (1.54-2.15)], FRSbaseline at least 20 [hazard ratio = 1.67 (1.30-2.16)], left ventricular hypertrophy by Sokolow-Lyonbaseline or UACR(baseline) at least 1 mmol/l [hazard ratio = 1.61 (1.33-1.94), all P < 0.001] and treatment allocation [hazard ratio = 0.93 (0.79-1.09), not significant]. In contrast to FRS1year at least 20 decreased, SOD1year decreased -2Log likelihood significantly (P < 0.01).Conclusion: Cornell product(1year) and UACR(1year) improved in contrast to FRS1year risk prediction based on FRSbaseline, Sokolow-Lyon(baseline) and UACR(baseline) significantly in LIFE patients during antihypertensive treatment.
|
|
| 4. |
- 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.
|
|
