| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- 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)
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- 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.
|
|
| 7. |
- 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.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
