| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Okin, Peter M., et al.
(författare)
-
Digoxin use and risk of mortality in hypertensive patients with atrial fibrillation
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of Hypertension. - 0263-6352 .- 1473-5598. ; 33:7, s. 1480-1486
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Digoxin is widely used for rate control of atrial fibrillation. However, recent studies have reported conflicting results on the association of digoxin with mortality when used in patients with atrial fibrillation. Moreover, the relationship of digoxin use to mortality in hypertensive patients with atrial fibrillation has not been examined.Methods and results: All-cause mortality was examined in relation to in-treatment digoxin use in 937 hypertensive patients with ECG left ventricular hypertrophy in atrial fibrillation at baseline (n = 134) or who developed atrial fibrillation during follow-up (n = 803), randomly assigned to losartan or atenolol-based treatment, in post-hoc analysis of a substudy of the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint Reduction in hypertension (LIFE) trial. During 4.7 ± 1.1 years of mean follow-up, 167 patients died (17.8%) and 372 (39.7%) were treated with digoxin. In univariate Cox analyses, in-treatment digoxin use, entered as a time-varying covariate, was associated with a 61% higher risk of dying (hazard ratio 1.61, 95% confidence interval 1.18–2.19, P = 0.003). After adjusting for other univariate predictors of death in this population, including age, diabetes, history of ischemic heart disease, stroke, or heart failure, baseline Cornell product, QRS duration, heart rate, serum glucose, creatinine and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and a propensity score for digoxin use entered as standard covariates, and for in-treatment heart rate, pulse pressure, and Sokolow–Lyon voltage treated as time-varying covariates, digoxin use was no longer a significant predictor of mortality (hazard ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.73–1.48, P = 0.839).Conclusion: In hypertensive patients with ECG left ventricular hypertrophy with existing or new atrial fibrillation, digoxin use is not associated with a significantly increased risk of all-cause mortality after adjusting for other independent predictors of death and for the factors associated with the propensity to use digoxin in this population. These findings suggest that factors other than digoxin use may account for the increased mortality found with digoxin use in some studies.
|
|
| 6. |
- Okin, Peter M, et al.
(författare)
-
Incidence of atrial fibrillation in relation to changing heart rate over time in hypertensive patients : the LIFE study
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Circulation - Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. - 1941-3149. ; 1:5, s. 337-343
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background— Onset of atrial fibrillation (AF) has been linked to changes in autonomic tone, with increasing heart rate (HR) immediately before AF onset in some patients suggesting a possible role of acute increases in sympathetic activity in AF onset. Although losartan therapy and decreasing ECG left ventricular hypertrophy are associated with decreased AF incidence, the relationship of HR changes over time to development of AF has not been examined. Methods and Results— HR was evaluated in 8828 hypertensive patients without AF by history or on baseline ECG in the Losartan Intervention for End Point Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) study. Patients were treated with losartan- or atenolol-based regimens and followed with serial ECGs annually which were used to determine HR and ECG left ventricular hypertrophy by Cornell product and Sokolow-Lyon voltage criteria. During mean follow-up of 4.7±1.1 years, new-onset AF occurred in 701 patients (7.9%). Patients with new AF had smaller decreases in HR to last in-treatment ECG or last ECG before AF (−2.7±13.5 versus −5.2±12.5 bpm), whether on losartan- (−0.4±13.5 versus −2.2±11.7 bpm) or atenolol-based treatment (−5.3±12.8 versus −8.3±12.6 bpm, all P<0.001). In univariate Cox analyses, higher HR on in-treatment ECGs was associated with an increased risk of new-onset AF, with a 15% greater risk of AF for every 10 bpm higher HR (95% CI 8% to 22%). In alternative analyses, persistence or development of a HR≥84 (upper quintile of baseline HR) was associated with a 46% greater risk of developing AF (95% CI 19% to 80%). After adjusting for treatment with losartan versus atenolol, baseline risk factors for AF, baseline and in-treatment systolic and diastolic pressure and the known predictive value of baseline and in-treatment ECG left ventricular hypertrophy for new AF, higher in-treatment HR remained strongly associated with new AF with a 19% higher risk for every 10 bpm higher HR (95% CI 10% to 28%) or a 61% increased rate of AF in patients with persistence or development of a HR≥84 (95% CI 27% to 104%, all P<0.001). Conclusion— Higher in-treatment HR on serial ECGs is associated with an increased likelihood of new-onset AF, independent of treatment modality, blood pressure lowering, and regression of ECG left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with essential hypertension.
|
|
| 7. |
- 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.
|
|
| 8. |
- Olsen, Michael Hecht, et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of losartan compared with atenolol on lipids in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy : the losartan intervention for endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Journal of Hypertension. - 0263-6352 .- 1473-5598. ; 27:3, s. 567-574
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: Beta-blockers and angiotensin II receptor blockers have different effects on lipids. Methods: We examined lipid levels in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study and their impact on the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. We measured total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol at baseline and annually during 4.8 years of losartan-based compared with atenolol-based treatment in 8611 patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy. Results: Patients randomized to losartan-based or atenolol-based treatment had similar baseline total (6.04 ± 1.12 vs. 6.05 ± 1.13 mmol/l, NS) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (1.50 ± 0.44 vs. 1.49 ± 0.44 mmol/l, NS). Total cholesterol decreased significantly but equally (-0.37 ± 1.05 vs. -0.34 ± 1.09 mmol/l, NS), whereas HDL cholesterol decreased less during the first 2 years in patients randomized to losartan compared with atenolol (-0.13 ± 0.24 vs. -0.19 ± 0.25 mmol/l) and remained higher each year (1.38, 1.37, 1.42, 1.47, and 1.48 mmol/l vs. 1.32, 1.30, 1.36, 1.40, and 1.42 mmol/l, all P < 0.001) independent of hydrochlorothiazide or statin treatment. In Cox regression analysis, baseline total cholesterol [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.08 (1.02–1.14) per mmol/l, P < 0.01], HDL cholesterol [HR = 0.56 (0.48–0.66) per mmol/l, P < 0.001], and treatment allocation [HR = 0.86 (0.76–0.98), P < 0.05] predicted composite endpoint independently. Using time-varying analyses, the predictive strength of HDL cholesterol was increased [HR = 0.36 (0.30–0.44) per mmol/l, P < 0.001], whereas that of total cholesterol [HR = 1.03 (0.97–1.09) per mmol/l, NS] and treatment allocation [HR = 0.91 (0.80–1.03), NS] were reduced. Conclusion: Losartan blunted the decrease in HDL cholesterol during antihypertensive treatment in the LIFE study. Higher intreatment HDL cholesterol was associated with fewer composite endpoints and may partly explain the better outcome of losartan-based treatment.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- 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.
|
|
