| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- 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)
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Kjeldsen, Sverre E, et al.
(författare)
-
Predictors of cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy : the losartan inventervention for endpoint reduction in hypertension study
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Blood Pressure. - 0803-7051 .- 1651-1999. ; 18:6, s. 348-361
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective. We assessed readily available patient characteristics, including albuminuria (not included in traditional cardiovascular risk scores), as predictors of cardiovascular events in hypertension with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and developed risk algorithms/scores for outcomes. Methods. The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study compared effects of losartan-based versus atenolol-based therapy on cardiovascular events in 9193 patients with hypertension and LVH. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified baseline variables with significant impact on development of the primary composite endpoint (cardiovascular death, stroke and myocardial infarction) and its components. Multivariate analysis used a Cox regression model with stepwise selection process. Risk scores were developed from coefficients of risk factors from the multivariate analysis, validated internally using naïve and jack-knife procedures, checked for discrimination and calibration, and compared with Framingham coronary heart disease and other risk scores. Results. LIFE risk scores showed increasing endpoint rates with increasing quintile (first to fifth quintile, composite endpoint 2.8–26.7%, cardiovascular death 0.5–14.4%, stroke 1.2–11.3%, myocardial infarction 1.4–8.1%) and were confirmed with a jack-knife approach that adjusts for potentially optimistic bias. The Framingham coronary heart disease and other risk scores overestimated risk in lower risk patients and underestimated risk in higher risk patients, except for myocardial infarction. Conclusion. A number of patient characteristics predicted cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension and LVH. Risk scores developed from these patient characteristics, including albuminuria, strongly predicted outcomes and may improve risk assessment of patients with hypertension and LVH and planning of clinical trials.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- 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.
|
|
