Contrasting hemodynamic mechanisms of losartan- vs. atenolol-based antihypertensive treatment: a LIFE study.

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)

Changes in subclinical organ damage vs. in Framingham risk score for assessing cardiovascular risk reduction during continued antihypertensive treatment: a LIFE substudy.

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, FRS(1year) [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)], FRS(baseline) [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(1year) [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)], FRS(baseline) [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 product(1year) or UACR(1year) at least 1 mmol/l [hazard ratio=1.40 (1.15-1.70), P=0.001] but not FRS(1year) 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)], FRS(baseline) at least 20 [hazard ratio=1.67 (1.30-2.16)], left ventricular hypertrophy by Sokolow-Lyon(baseline) 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 FRS(1year) at least 20 decreased, SOD(1year) decreased -2Log likelihood significantly (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Cornell product(1year) and UACR(1year) improved in contrast to FRS(1year) risk prediction based on FRS(baseline), Sokolow-Lyon(baseline) and UACR(baseline) significantly in LIFE patients during antihypertensive treatment.

Predictors of cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy: the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint reduction in hypertension study.

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.

Effects of losartan compared with atenolol on lipids in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy: the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study.

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.

Left ventricular long-axis function in treated haemochromatosis.

We recently demonstrated reduced exercise capacity in treated genetic haemochromatosis, in spite of normal radial left ventricular (LV) systolic function assessed by 2-dimensional echocardiography at rest. It remains unknown if haemochromatosis-related impairment of LV long-axis function can be demonstrated also at rest. LV long-axis function was assessed by echocardiography including spectral tissue Doppler of systolic (S') and early (E') diastolic velocities in 105 treated haemochromatosis patients and 50 controls. Patients had higher body mass index, systolic atrioventricular excursion, and smaller LV end-systolic diameter (all P < 0.05). Other conventional echocardiographic variables did not differ. S' was normal in both groups, though significantly higher among the patients (11.1 vs. 9.9 cm/s, P < 0.001). In multiple regression analysis, higher S' was associated with having haemochromatosis, independently of significant contributions from higher atrioventricular excursion and LV length, and lower body mass index and E/E'-ratio (multiple R(2) = 0.44, P < 0.001). E' did not differ between patients and controls. However, in multivariate analysis lower E' was associated with having haemochromatosis independently of significant contributions from higher age and diastolic blood pressure, and lower transmitral E and end-diastolic LV length (multiple R(2) = 0.57, P < 0.001). The long-axis function in the haemochromatosis group was normal. Still haemochromatosis, even in this group of patients treated with regular phlebotomy, influenced both systolic and early diastolic long-axis function, and was associated with higher atrioventricular excursion and S', and with lower E'.

Left ventricular diastolic function in patients with treated haemochromatosis.

OBJECTIVES: We recently demonstrated reduced exercise capacity in phlebotomy treated genetic haemochromatosis in spite of normal systolic function. The present objective was to investigate diastolic function at rest. DESIGN: Diastolic function was echocardiographically assessed in 132 phlebotomy treated genetic haemochromatosis patients and 50 controls. RESULTS: Patients had higher body mass index and heart rate, higher transmitral early (E) (11.2+/-2.6 versus 10.4+/-2.2 cm) and atrial (A) (5.7+/-1.6 versus 5.0+/-1.6) velocity time integrals, pulmonary venous systolic peak velocity (0.58+/-0.12 versus 0.54+/-0.13 m/s) and ratio of E to spectral tissue Doppler E' velocity (6.3+/-1.6 versus 5.6+/-1.4, all p <0.05). Independently of age, heart rate, systolic blood pressure and body weight, having haemochromatosis remained statistically significantly associated with higher E (beta=0.27) and A (beta =0.18) velocity time integrals, pulmonary venous systolic peak velocity (beta =0.21), and E/E'-ratio (beta=0.25) in separate multivariate analyses (all p <0.05). In the youngest age tertile, patients had longer isovolumic relaxation time and lower E' than controls. CONCLUSION: Our findings are compatible with mildly impaired diastolic function in treated haemochromatosis, with delayed relaxation in the younger tertile, and an elevated filling pressure and pseudonormalisation with increasing age.

Prognostic importance of hemoglobin in hypertensive patients with electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy: the Losartan Intervention For End point reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic importance of hemoglobin is controversial. We investigated the prognostic importance of baseline and in-treatment hemoglobin in the LIFE study. METHODS: Eight thousand one hundred ninety-four LIFE patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy with available baseline hemoglobin measurements were randomized to losartan- or atenolol-based treatment and followed for 4.8 years for end points of all-cause mortality and composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal stroke, or nonfatal myocardial infarction. RESULTS: U-shaped relations were observed between deciles of baseline hemoglobin and all-cause mortality and the composite end point. In univariate Cox models, baseline hemoglobin in the lowest gender-specific decile (women/men: <12.5/13.4 g/dL) was associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 2.01, 95% CI 1.64-2.64) and the composite end point (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.27-1.85, both P < .001), whereas hemoglobin in the highest gender-specific decile (women/men: > or =15.0/16.2 g/dL) was not. The decrease in hemoglobin was higher (P < .001) in patients allocated to losartan- (14.3-13.8 g/dL) versus atenolol-based treatment (14.3-14.0 g/dL). In Cox models with the same gender-specific definitions for high and low hemoglobin as time-varying covariates with adjustment for treatment allocation and established risk factors and diseases, hemoglobin in the lowest decile was associated with higher rates of all-cause mortality (HR 3.03, 95% CI 1.89-4.85, P < .001) and the composite end point (HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.08-1.71, P < .01), whereas hemoglobin in the highest decile was not. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for other risk factors, relatively low, but not high, hemoglobin during antihypertensive treatment was associated with higher incidence of all-cause mortality and the composite end point.

Impact of new-onset diabetes mellitus on cardiac outcomes in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial population.

There has been a lot of interest about new-onset diabetes mellitus in recent hypertension trials, but the implications of diabetes development on cardiac outcomes have not been known. In the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation trial, 15 245 high-risk patients were followed for an average of 4.2 years. At baseline, 5250 patients were diabetic by the 1999 World Health Organization criteria, and among the 9995 nondiabetic patients, 1298 patients developed diabetes during follow-up. We have investigated the influence of diabetes development on outcomes in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation trial. The patients with diabetes at baseline and new-onset diabetes were compared with patients who did not develop diabetes by a Cox regression model with adjustment for prespecified covariates (age, diabetes status, left ventricular hypertrophy, baseline coronary heart disease, and randomized study treatment). Patients with diabetes at baseline had the highest cardiac morbidity defined as myocardial infarction and heart failure with a hazard ratio of 2.20 (95% CI: 1.95 to 2.49). The patients with new-onset diabetes had significantly higher cardiac morbidity, especially more congestive heart failure, than those without diabetes, with a hazard ratio of 1.43 (95% CI: 1.16 to 1.77). This indicates that patients who develop diabetes during antihypertensive treatment have cardiac morbidity intermediate between diabetic subjects and those subjects who never had diabetes and that it is of importance to find these patients at risk of diabetes development and optimize lifestyle and medical treatment.

Reduced exercise capacity in genetic haemochromatosis.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with genetic haemochromatosis complain about fatigue and reduced physical capacity. Exercise capacity, however, has not been evaluated in larger series of haemochromatosis patients treated with repeated phlebotomy. DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed exercise echocardiography in 152 treated haemochromatosis patients (48+/-13 years, 26% women) and 50 healthy blood donors (49+/-13 years, 30% women), who served as controls. Echocardiography was performed at rest and during exercise in a semiupright position on a chair bicycle, starting from 20 W, increasing by 20 W/min. Transmitral early and atrial velocity and isovolumic relaxation time were measured at each step. Ventilatory gas exchange was measured by the breath-to-breath-technique. RESULTS: Compared with healthy controls, haemochromatosis patients were more obese and less trained. More of them smoked, and 17% had a history of cardiovascular or pulmonary disease. Adjusted for training, the left ventricular function and dimensions at rest did not differ between the groups. During exercise the haemochromatosis patients obtained a significantly lower peak oxygen (O2) uptake (28.1 vs. 34.4 ml/kg per min, P<0.001). In a multiple regression analysis haemochromatosis predicted lower peak O2 uptake independently of significant contributions of sex, age, and height, as well as of systolic blood pressure and log-transformed isovolumic relaxation time at peak exercise, whereas no independent association was found with weight or physical activity (multiple R=0.74, P<0.001). Adding genotype, s-ferritin, prevalence of smoking, or history of cardiopulmonary disease among the covariates in subsequent models did not change the results. CONCLUSION: Genetic haemochromatosis, even when treated with regular phlebotomy, is associated with lower exercise capacity independently of other covariates of exercise capacity.

Blood pressure reduction and antihypertensive medication use in the losartan intervention for endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare blood pressure response and antihypertensive medication use visit-by-visit from baseline in patients receiving losartan-based or atenolol-based therapy in the LIFE study. RESEARCH DESIGN: LIFE was a randomized, double-blind trial comparing losartan-based and atenolol-based treatment regimens on the primary composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke in 9193 patients aged 55-80 years with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy. Systolic and diastolic, pulse, and mean arterial pressures, blood pressure responder rates, distribution of open-label antihypertensive agents utilized, and the proportion of patients on randomized treatment were determined for each group at each clinic visit over a follow-up period of at least 4 years. RESULTS: Overall blood pressure reductions were comparable in the losartan-based and atenolol-based treatment groups. The mean reductions in sitting trough systolic and diastolic blood pressures from baseline to the end of follow-up (or last visit before a primary endpoint event) were 30.2/16.6 mmHg in the losartan group and 29.1/16.8 mmHg in the atenolol group. The time-averaged difference in overall mean arterial pressure was similar between groups. The proportion of patients on individual dose combinations varied visit by visit but was generally comparable between groups. During the entire study, 56% (2579/4605) of losartan-treated patients received at least one dose of the combination of losartan 100 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg and 51% of atenolol-treated patients received 100 mg of atenolol plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg at some time during the study. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in blood pressure or distribution of add-on medications between treatment groups were not evident in the LIFE trial and, thus, cannot account for the observed outcome difference in the primary endpoint of risk reduction of the composite of cardiovascular death, stroke and MI favoring losartan.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.