Biomedical subjects

Per Omvik

Publications and source records attributed to Per Omvik.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Left atrial size and risk of major cardiovascular events during antihypertensive treatment: losartan intervention for endpoint reduction in hypertension trial.

The influence of left atrial size on cardiovascular events during antihypertensive treatment has not been reported previously from a long-term, prospective, randomized hypertension treatment trial. We recorded left atrial diameter by annual echocardiography and cardiovascular events in 881 hypertensive patients (41% women) with electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy aged 55 to 80 (mean: 66) years during a mean of 4.8 years of randomized losartan- or atenolol-based treatment in the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension Study. During follow-up, a total of 88 primary end points (combined cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) occurred. In Cox regression, baseline left atrial diameter/height predicted incidence of cardiovascular events (hazard ratio: 1.98 per cm/m [95% CI: 1.02 to 3.83 per cm/m]; P=0.042) adjusted for significant effects of Framingham risk score and history of atrial fibrillation. Greater left atrial diameter reduction during follow-up was associated with greater reduction in left ventricular hypertrophy, absence of new-onset atrial fibrillation or mitral regurgitation during follow-up, and losartan-based treatment (B=-0.13+/-0.03 cm/m; P<0.001) in multiple linear regression, adjusting for baseline left atrial diameter/height. However, in time-varying Cox regression analysis, left atrial diameter reduction was not independent of left ventricular hypertrophy regression in predicting cardiovascular events during follow-up. In conclusion, left atrial diameter/height predicts risk of cardiovascular events independent of other clinical risk factors in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy and may be useful in pretreatment clinical assessment of cardiovascular risk in these patients.

Aged↗

PubMed2006

Exercise performance during losartan- or atenolol-based treatment in hypertensive patients with electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy (a LIFE substudy).

The objective of the study was to assess the influence of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy regression on exercise capacity in hypertensive patients. Doppler echocardiography was performed at rest and during exercise in 51 patients with electrocardiographic LV hypertrophy before and after 1 year of randomized blinded losartan- or atenolol-based antihypertensive treatment. After 1 year, blood pressure was comparably reduced by 32/14 and 27/13 mmHg, respectively, in the losartan and atenolol groups, but the atenolol group had higher mean LV mass index (118 vs 103 g/m2) and lower LV ejection fraction (61% vs 67%) and midwall shortening (15.8% vs 16.8%) (all p<0.05). Resting diastolic Doppler indices remained unchanged and did not differ between the groups. Peak oxygen uptake during exercise was virtually unchanged after 1 year and did not differ between the groups in spite of a lower peak exercise heart rate in atenolol-treated patients. In multivariate analysis, higher peak oxygen uptake at 1 year was associated with lower body mass index, and higher systolic blood pressure and shorter isovolumic relaxation time at peak exercise (multiple R2 = 0.51, p<0.01), while age, gender, heart rate increase during exercise, reduction in LV mass and study treatment did not enter. In conclusion, reduction in blood pressure and LV mass induced by losartan or atenolol treatment was not accompanied by improved exercise capacity after 1 year. The results may be explained by persistent impairment of myocardial relaxation influencing exercise capacity.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗

PubMed2005

The effect of losartan versus atenolol on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with hypertension taking aspirin: the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a subgroup analysis in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study to determine whether aspirin interacted with the properties of losartan, an angiotensin-II receptor antagonist. BACKGROUND: Negative interactions between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and aspirin have been reported. There are no data reported from clinical trials about possible interactions between angiotensin-II receptor antagonists and aspirin. METHODS: The LIFE study assigned 9,193 patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) to losartan- or atenolol-based therapy for a mean of 4.7 years, with 1,970 (21.4%) taking aspirin at baseline. The primary composite end point (CEP) included cardiovascular death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI). The present cohort was stratified by aspirin use at baseline. RESULTS: Blood pressures were reduced similarly in the losartan with aspirin (n = 1,004) and atenolol with aspirin (n = 966) groups. The CEP was reduced by 32% (95% confidence interval 0.55 to 0.86, p = 0.001) with losartan with aspirin compared to atenolol with aspirin, adjusted for Framingham risk score and LVH. The test for treatment versus aspirin interaction, excluding other covariates, was significant for the CEP (p = 0.016) and MI (p = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: There was a statistical interaction between treatment and aspirin in the LIFE study, with significantly greater reductions for the CEP and MI with losartan in patients using aspirin than in patients not using aspirin at baseline. Further studies are needed to clarify whether this represents a pharmacologic interaction or a selection by aspirin use of patients more likely to respond to losartan treatment.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗

PubMed2005

Body build and risk of cardiovascular events in hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy: the LIFE (Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension) study.

BACKGROUND: Obesity may independently increase the risk of adverse events in hypertension with target-organ damage. We investigated whether body build was independently associated with higher cardiovascular risk and whether treatment with losartan relative to atenolol influenced the impact of body build on the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, stroke, and myocardial infarction and on cardiovascular death in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study. METHODS AND RESULTS: The population of 9079 patients was divided as follows: thin (body mass index [BMI] <20 kg/m2, 2%), normal weight (BMI 20 to 24.9, 24%), overweight (BMI 25 to 29.9, 45%), and obese (class I: BMI 30 to 34.9, 21%; class II: BMI 35 to 39.9, 6%; class III: BMI > or =40, 2%). Incident diabetes increased progressively with BMI and was somewhat higher in the atenolol arm. Differences in gender and race were detected among the body build groups. Rates (Cox proportional hazard analysis) of the primary composite end point did not differ among body build groups after adjustment for age, gender, race, smoking habit, prevalent cardiovascular disease, and left ventricular hypertrophy. Cardiovascular death was more frequent among thin (P<0.05) and pooled class II-III obesity (both P<0.04) than normal-weight groups. Risk was not attenuated significantly by losartan treatment, nor did it interfere with the greater benefit of losartan- as opposed to atenolol-based treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In the LIFE study, stratification for classes of body build identified increased risk of cardiovascular mortality in both thin and moderately-to-severely obese individuals. This risk was not attenuated significantly by losartan treatment, nor did it interfere with the greater benefit of losartan-based treatment as opposed to atenolol-based treatment.

Aged↗

PubMed2005

Reduction in albuminuria translates to reduction in cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients: losartan intervention for endpoint reduction in hypertension study.

Few data are available to clarify whether changes in albuminuria over time translate to changes in cardiovascular risk. The aim of the present study was to examine whether changes in albuminuria during 4.8 years of antihypertensive treatment were related to changes in risk in 8206 patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study. Urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR) was measured at baseline and annually. Time-varying albuminuria was closely related to risk for the primary composite end point (ie, when UACR decreased during treatment, risk was reduced accordingly). When the population was divided according to median baseline value (1.21 mg/mmol) and median year 1 UACR (0.67 mg/mmol), risk increased stepwise and significantly for the primary composite end point from those with low baseline/low year 1 (5.5%), to low baseline/high year 1 (8.6%), to high baseline/low year 1 (9.4%), and to high baseline/high year 1 (13.5%) values. Similar significant, stepwise increases in risk were seen for the components of the primary composite end point (cardiovascular mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction). The observation that changes in UACR during antihypertensive treatment over time translated to changes in risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality was not explained by in-treatment level of blood pressure. We propose that monitoring of albuminuria should be an integrated part of the management of hypertension. If albuminuria is not decreased by the patient's current antihypertensive and other treatment, further intervention directed toward blood pressure control and other modifiable risks should be considered.

Aged↗

PubMed2005

The effects of losartan compared to atenolol on stroke in patients with isolated systolic hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy. The LIFE study.

The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study reported that a losartan-based antihypertensive regimen reduced cardiovascular morbidity and mortality (composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, and myocardial infarction) more than therapy based on atenolol in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy and isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). Patients aged 55-80 years with blood pressures 160-200/<90 mm Hg were followed for a mean of 4.7 years. Blood pressure was similarly reduced in the losartan (n=660) and atenolol (n=666) ISH groups. There were 88 (6.6%) patients who experienced a stroke, 18 of which were fatal. Of patients experiencing strokes, 72.7% had an ischemic stroke. ISH patients in LIFE compared to the non-ISH group had a higher incidence of any stroke and embolic stroke, and similar incidences of fatal, atherosclerotic, and hemorrhagic/other strokes. The incidence of any stroke (40% risk reduction [RR], p=0.02), fatal stroke (70% RR, p=0.035), and atherothrombotic stroke (45% RR, p=0.022) was significantly lower in losartan-treated compared to the atenolol-treated patients. The 36% RR for embolic strokes in the losartan group was not statistically significantly (p=0.33) different from the atenolol group. These data suggest that losartan-based treatment is more effective than an atenolol-based treatment for patients with ISH and a high risk for stroke.

Aged↗

PubMed2005

Pulse pressure and effects of losartan or atenolol in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy.

In the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study, the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, stroke, and myocardial infarction was reduced by losartan versus atenolol in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy. The objective of this post hoc analysis was to determine the influence of pulse pressure on outcome. Patients were divided into quartiles of baseline pulse pressure. Cox regression, including baseline Framingham risk score as a covariate, was used to compare risk in the quartiles. In the atenolol group, there were significantly higher risks in the highest versus lowest quartile for the composite end point 28% (confidence interval [CI], 2% to 62%; P=0.035), stroke 84% (CI, 32% to 157%; P<0.001), and total mortality 41% (CI, 7% to 84%; P=0.013). Risk for myocardial infarction was 44% higher (CI, -5% to 120%; P=0.089). The risks in the losartan group also increased with increasing quartile, but were lower than in the atenolol group, and differences between the highest and lowest quartiles were not significant: composite end point 12% (CI, -13% to 44%; P>0.2), stroke -5% (CI, -34% to 37%; P>0.2), myocardial infarction 30% (CI, -13% to 94%; P>0.2), and total mortality 32% (CI, -1% to 76%; P=0.062). In patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy in the LIFE study, there were significantly higher risks, adjusted for the Framingham risk score, for the primary composite end point, stroke, and total mortality in the highest versus lowest quartile of pulse pressure with atenolol-based treatment. The risks in the losartan group also increased with increasing pulse pressure quartile, but were lower than those in the atenolol group, and were not significant.

Aged↗

PubMed2005

Targeting the renin-angiotensin system for the reduction of cardiovascular outcomes in hypertension: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers.

Agents that counteract the negative impact of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) are effective antihypertensives and reduce the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. Contrary to common perception, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors do not share the apparent benefit of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in reducing risk of cardiovascular-disease outcomes, particularly stroke, in randomised clinical trials. RAAS agents, especially ARBs, are well tolerated. Use of ARBs alone or in combination with other classes of antihypertensive agents to lower blood pressure and/or medications to control other conditions (e.g., insulin sensitivity) reduces risk of cardiovascular disease outcomes and Type 2 diabetes with excellent tolerability. Selected issues related to use of RAAS agents as antihypertensive therapies (e.g., Type 2 diabetes, global risk management, multiple drug therapy and coronary heart disease) are addressed.

Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists↗

PubMed2004

Stroke reduction in hypertensive adults with cardiac hypertrophy randomized to losartan versus atenolol: the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study.

The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study showed that treatment with the angiotensin II type-1 receptor antagonist losartan reduces overall stroke risk compared with conventional therapy with the beta-blocker atenolol. We conducted secondary analyses in LIFE to determine the extent to which the cerebrovascular benefits of losartan apply to different clinical subgroups and stroke subtypes and to assess the dependence of these benefits on baseline and time-varying covariates. Among 9193 hypertensive patients with electrocardiographic evidence of left ventricular hypertrophy, random allocation to losartan-based treatment lowered the risk of fatal (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 0.96; P=0.032) and atherothrombotic stroke (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.88; P=0.001) compared with atenolol-based therapy. Although comparable risk reductions occurred for hemorrhagic and embolic stroke, these were not statistically significant. The number of neurological deficits per stroke was similar, but there were fewer strokes in the losartan group for nearly every level of stroke severity. Effects were consistent in all clinical subgroups except for those defined by age and ethnicity. The benefits of losartan on all strokes were independent of baseline and time-varying risk factors, including blood pressure. The number needed to treat for 5 years to prevent 1 stroke was 54 for the average participant, declining to 25, 24, and 9 for patients with cerebrovascular disease, isolated systolic hypertension, and atrial fibrillation, respectively. In conclusion, substantial cerebrovascular benefit could be realized with the institution of losartan-based therapy over conventional therapy among hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy across the spectrum of cardiovascular risk.

Aged↗

PubMed2004

[Why not always diuretics?].

BACKGROUND: New guidelines adopted in Norway for antihypertensive medication implies prescription of a thiazide diuretic as the drug of first choice. The background for the change in the rules for prescription drugs paid for by the National Insurance system with a capped co-payment is a resolution of the Norwegian parliament as part of a budget compromise for 2004. The resolution was supported by results from the ALLHAT study (antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment to prevent heart attack trial). METHODS: ALLHAT was carried out in a group of elderly, high-risk patients with a large proportion of Afro-Americans. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION: ALLHAT has important shortcomings with regard to design, results, analysis and interpretation. The trial is considered unfit as a basis for general guidelines on antihypertensive treatment in Norway.

Antihypertensive Agents↗

PubMed2004

[Treatment of hypertension in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy].

BACKGROUND: The LIFE study (Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension) is a randomized, double-blind comparison of losartan and atenolol-based treatment. The study hypothesis was that losartan would reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality more than traditional antihypertensive treatment with atenolol. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study included 9193 patients in seven countries. RESULTS: By the end of the study, the mean dose was losartan 82 mg and atenonol 79 mg, whereas 94% of patients in both groups received additional hydrochlorothiazide. Blood pressure was reduced 30/17 mmHg by losartan and 29/17 mm Hg by atenolol. Despite the same reduction in blood pressure, the primary combined endpoint (cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal stroke and myocardial infarction) was reduced by 13.0% (p = 0.021) in the losartan group. Non-fatal and fatal strokes were reduced by 24.9% (p = 0.001). In two pre-specified subgroup analyses, cardiovascular mortality was reduced by 46% (p = 0.01) in patients with isolated systolic hypertension (n = 1326), and total mortality was reduced by 39% (p = 0.002) in patients with diabetes (n = 1159). INTERPRETATION: Losartan prevented more cardiovascular complications than atenolol for the same reduction in blood pressure and have positive additional effects beyond blood pressure control in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy.

Aged↗

PubMed2004

[Hypertension and heart disease].

Hypertension commonly leads to heart disease, in particular left ventricular hypertrophy, heart failure and coronary artery disease. Left ventricular hypertrophy and coronary artery disease are both often subclinical diseases in hypertensives. Symptomatic coronary artery disease in hypertension may be due to atherosclerosis in epicardial arteries, microvascular dysfunction, reduced fibrinolytic capacity, or left ventricular hypertrophy; the latter is present in 20-50% of patients with mild to moderate and in up to 90% of patients with severe hypertension. Left ventricular hypertrophy in hypertension is associated with a twofold increase in risk of myocardial infarction, sudden death and stroke, and a fourfold increase in risk of heart failure. While coronary artery disease is the most common cause of heart failure in men, hypertension and in particular untreated isolated systolic hypertension is the most common cause in women. Heart failure symptoms may be subtle in hypertension, like tiredness or reduced physical capacity. Echocardiography can reveal subclinical heart disease as well as serve as a guide to correct diagnosis and treatment.

Coronary Disease↗

PubMed2004

Losartan benefits over atenolol in non-smoking hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy: the LIFE study.

We studied the impact of smoking in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study, which showed superiority of losartan over atenolol for reduction of composite risk of cardiovascular death, stroke and myocardial infarction in hypertensives with left ventricular hypertrophy. We compared hazard ratios in 4656 never-smokers, and 3033 previous and 1499 current smokers, adjusting for gender, age, alcohol intake, exercise and race. Composite endpoint rate was higher in previous (28/1000 years), as well as current (39/1000 years) smokers than in never-smokers (21/1000 years). Composite (hazard ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.65-0.94, p < 0.01) and stroke (hazard ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.47-0.80], p < 0.001) risks were lower with losartan than atenolol in never-smokers, but not significantly in previous smokers. Drug regimens did not differ in current smokers (composite hazard ratio 0.99, stroke hazard ratio 0.94). Smoking-treatment interactions were non-significant, but a borderline significant trend (p = 0.05) suggested decreasing benefit of losartan vs atenolol for stroke prevention from never- to previous to current smoking status. Smoking increased cardiovascular risk markedly in the LIFE study. The benefit of losartan vs atenolol is consistent with the overall conclusion of the LIFE study, although the treatment effect appeared largest in non-smokers.

Aged↗

PubMed2004

Does albuminuria predict cardiovascular outcome on treatment with losartan versus atenolol in hypertension with left ventricular hypertrophy? A LIFE substudy.

OBJECTIVES: To examine a possible relationship between baseline albuminuria and effect of losartan versus atenolol on cardiovascular (CV) events in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy, the effect of losartan versus atenolol on albuminuria, and whether the benefits of losartan versus atenolol could be explained by influence of losartan on albuminuria. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, controlled trial of 4.8 years. SETTING: Out-patient setting. PATIENTS: A total of 8206 with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy. INTERVENTIONS: Losartan or atenolol, supplemented with diuretics and/or calcium antagonists to reach blood pressure < 140/90 mmHg MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The urine albumin/creatinine ratio, and the primary composite endpoint (CEP) of CV death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. RESULTS: The blood pressure was reduced similarly on losartan (30.2/16.6 mmHg) versus atenolol (29.1/16.8 mmHg). The risk of a primary CEP increased linearly from the lowest to the highest decile of baseline albuminuria. The benefits of losartan versus atenolol for the primary CEP and for stroke tended to be more pronounced among patients above the median value for baseline albuminuria (urine albumin/creatinine ratio, 1.28 mg/mmol). The decrease in albuminuria was significantly greater with losartan versus atenolol throughout the study (a decrease from baseline to year 2 of 33% losartan versus 25% atenolol). One-fifth of the difference in favor of losartan on the primary CEP was explained by the greater reduction in albuminuria on losartan. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline albuminuria is a powerful risk factor for CV events. Baseline albuminuria did not identify the group of patients with greatest benefit on losartan versus atenolol in LIFE. Reduction in albuminuria explained one-fifth of the benefits of losartan versus atenolol.

Aged↗

PubMed2004

Blood pressure measurements by the Keito machine. Evaluation versus office blood pressure by physicians.

BACKGROUND: The Keito machine offers automatic measurements of blood pressure (BP), height and weight on insertion of coins and has been introduced in pharmacies. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study comparing automatic BP measurements by the Keito machine to office BP measurements by physicians. METHODS: Patients scheduled for pre-catheterisation screening participated in the study. Their BP was first measured using the Keito machine, then by physicians. Office BP was recorded as the last of three consecutive BP measurements recorded with one-min intervals after a five-min rest in the sitting position. In a sub-study BP was measured simultaneously during the Keito measurement by a physician. RESULTS: In 390 consecutive patients average BP was significantly lower with the Keito machine compared to office BP measurements made by the physicians (136/75+/-19/8 mmHg versus 141/79+/-21/10 mmHg, both p<0.001). The correlation coefficient (r) was 0.56 (p<0.001) for systolic BP (SBP) and 0.53 (p<0.001) for diastolic BP (DBP). Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean difference (+/-2 SD) for SBP and DBP of -5 (+/-37) and -4 (+/-17) mmHg, respectively. When defining hypertension (HT) as office SBP> or =140 and/or DBP> or =90 mmHg, the Keito method diagnosed 83% of the systolic and 62% of the diastolic hypertensive population correctly. The classification of systolic and diastolic normotensive was correct in 61% and 86%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Agreement between office and Keito BP is poor. The Keito machine underestimates SBP on average by 5 mmHg and DBP by 4 mmHg, which may be of significance for diagnosing HT and starting anti-hypertensive therapy. However, the difference can be much larger in individual patients. Therefore, the Keito machine cannot be recommended for medical screening of HT or as a replacement for follow-up by physicians.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

The impact of serum uric acid on cardiovascular outcomes in the LIFE study.

BACKGROUND: The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study demonstrated the superiority of a losartan-based regimen over atenolol-based regimen for reduction of cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality. It has been suggested that the LIFE study results may be related to the effects of losartan on serum uric acid (SUA). SUA has been proposed as an independent risk factor for CV morbidity and death. METHODS: Cox regression analysis was used to assess relationship of SUA and treatment regimens with the LIFE primary composite outcome (CV death, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke). RESULTS: Baseline SUA was significantly associated with increased CV events [hazard ratio (HR) 1.024 (95% CI 1.017-1.032) per 10 micromol/L, P < 0.0001] in the entire study population. The association was significant in women [HR = 1.025 (1.013-1.037), P < 0.0001], but not in men [HR = 1.009 (0.998-1.019), P= 0.108]. After adjustment for Framingham risk score (FRS), SUA was no longer significant in the entire study population [HR = 1.006 (0.998-1.014), P= 0.122] or in men [HR = 1.006 (0.995-1.017), P= 0.291], but was significant in women [HR = 1.013 (1-1.025), P= 0.0457]. The baseline-to-end-of-study increase in SUA (standard deviation, SD) was greater (P < 0.0001) in atenolol-treated subjects (44.4 +/- 72.5 micromol/L) than in losartan-treated subjects (17.0 +/- 69.8 micromol/L). SUA as a time-varying covariate was strongly associated with events (P < 0.0001) in the entire population. The contribution of SUA to the treatment effect of losartan on the primary composite end point was 29% (14%-107%), P= 0.004. The association between time-varying SUA and increased CV risk tended to be stronger in women (P < 0.0001) than in men (P= 0.0658), although the gender-outcome interaction was not significant (P= 0.079). CONCLUSION: The increase in SUA over 4.8 years in the LIFE study was attenuated by losartan compared with atenolol treatment, appearing to explain 29% of the treatment effect on the primary composite end point. The association between SUA and events was stronger in women than in men with or without adjustment of FRS.

Aged↗

PubMed2003

Albuminuria and cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy: the LIFE study.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have shown that albuminuria is associated with increased risk for fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events, independent of conventional risk factors. The partition values for urine albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) used to identify microalbuminuria have been based on studies that predicted risk in diabetic patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the relation between albuminuria and cardiovascular risk can be used to predict cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients. DESIGN: Multicenter cohort study derived from a randomized, controlled trial. PATIENTS: 8206 patients with stage II or III hypertension randomly assigned to double-blind therapy with losartan or atenolol. Follow-up was 39 122 patient-years. MEASUREMENTS: Renal glomerular permeability evaluated by UACR. RESULTS: In nondiabetic hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy, the risk for the composite cardiovascular end point increased continuously as albuminuria increased (P < 0.001 for trend). There was no specific threshold for increased risk. For every 10-fold increase in UACR, hazard ratios in nondiabetic patients increased as follows: composite end point, by 57% (95% CI, 40.6% to 75.0%); cardiovascular mortality, by 97.7% (CI, 66.5% to 235%); all-cause mortality, by 75.2% (CI, 54.0% to 99.4%); stroke, by 51.0% (CI, 28.8% to 76.9%); and myocardial infarction, by 45% (CI, 19.9% to 75.4%) (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). Values were similar in diabetic patients, although for myocardial infarction the trend was weaker and not significant. CONCLUSION: Increased UACR resulted in increasing risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy. We found no thresholds or plateaus. Risk increases at much lower UACR values than has been reported among diabetic patients.

Aged↗

PubMed2003

Effects of losartan or atenolol in hypertensive patients without clinically evident vascular disease: a substudy of the LIFE randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are reduced by treatment with the angiotensin II AT(1)-receptor antagonist losartan compared with conventional treatment with the beta-blocker atenolol in patients with hypertension and electrocardiogram-defined left ventricular hypertrophy, many of whom had known vascular disease. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether losartan reduces cardiovascular event rates in lower-risk hypertensive patients without clinically evident vascular disease. DESIGN: Subgroup analysis of a randomized trial. SETTING: The Losartan Intervention for Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study. PATIENTS: 6886 men and women (57% women) 55 to 80 years of age (average, 66 years) with essential hypertension (sitting blood pressure, 160 to 200/95 to 115 mm Hg [average, 174/98 mm Hg]) and electrocardiogram-defined left ventricular hypertrophy who did not have clinically evident vascular disease. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to once-daily double-blind treatment with losartan or atenolol. MEASUREMENTS: An end point committee ascertained end points (cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction). RESULTS: Blood pressure was reduced similarly by losartan and atenolol. The primary composite end point occurred in 282 losartan-treated patients (17.5 per 1000 patient-years) and 355 atenolol-treated patients (21.8 per 1000 patient-years; relative risk, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.95]; P = 0.008). Cardiovascular death occurred in 103 losartan-treated patients and 132 atenolol-treated patients (relative risk, 0.80 [CI, 0.62 to 1.04]; P = 0.092), stroke (nonfatal and fatal) occurred in 125 losartan-treated patients and 193 atenolol-treated patients (relative risk, 0.66 [CI, 0.53 to 0.82]; P < 0.001), and myocardial infarction (nonfatal and fatal) occurred in 110 losartan-treated patients and 100 atenolol-treated patients (relative risk, 1.14 [CI, 0.87 to 1.49]; P > 0.2). New-onset diabetes occurred less often in patients treated with losartan (n = 173) than in patients treated with atenolol (n = 254) (relative risk, 0.69 [CI, 0.57 to 0.84]; P < 0.001). Benefits of losartan treatment were numerically smaller, but not significantly so, in patients with preexisting vascular disease. CONCLUSION: In hypertensive patients without clinically evident vascular disease, losartan was more effective than atenolol in preventing cardiovascular morbidity and death, predominantly stroke, independent of blood pressure reduction.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗