Microaxial Flow Pump or Standard Care in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: The effects of temporary mechanical circulatory support with a microaxial flow pump on mortality among patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock remains unclear. METHODS: In an international, multicenter, randomized trial, we assigned patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock to receive a microaxial flow pump (Impella CP) plus standard care or standard care alone. The primary end point was death from any cause at 180 days. A composite safety end point was severe bleeding, limb ischemia, hemolysis, device failure, or worsening aortic regurgitation. RESULTS: A total of 360 patients underwent randomization, of whom 355 were included in the final analysis (179 in the microaxial-flow-pump group and 176 in the standard-care group). The median age of the patients was 67 years, and 79.2% were men. Death from any cause occurred in 82 of 179 patients (45.8%) in the microaxial-flow-pump group and in 103 of 176 patients (58.5%) in the standard-care group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 0.99; P = 0.04). A composite safety end-point event occurred in 43 patients (24.0%) in the microaxial-flow-pump group and in 11 (6.2%) in the standard-care group (relative risk, 4.74; 95% CI, 2.36 to 9.55). Renal-replacement therapy was administered to 75 patients (41.9%) in the microaxial-flow-pump group and to 47 patients (26.7%) in the standard-care group (relative risk, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.27 to 3.09). CONCLUSIONS: The routine use of a microaxial flow pump with standard care in the treatment of patients with STEMI-related cardiogenic shock led to a lower risk of death from any cause at 180 days than standard care alone. The incidence of a composite of adverse events was higher with the use of the microaxial flow pump. (Funded by the Danish Heart Foundation and Abiomed; DanGer Shock ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01633502.).

Development and validation of the ASGARD risk score for safe monitoring in asymptomatic nonsevere aortic stenosis.

AIMS: Current guidelines recommend serial echocardiography at minimum 1-2 year intervals for monitoring patients with nonsevere aortic valve stenosis (AS), which is costly and often clinically inconsequential.We aimed to develop and test whether the biomarker-based ASGARD risk score (Aortic Valve Stenosis Guarded by Amplified Risk Determination) can guide the timing of echocardiograms in asymptomatic patients with nonsevere AS. METHODS: The development cohort comprised 1,093 of 1,589 (69%) asymptomatic patients with mild-to-moderate AS who remained event-free one year after inclusion into the SEAS trial. Cox regression landmark analyses with a 2-year follow-up identified the model (ASGARD) with the lowest Akaike information criterion for association to AS-related composite outcome (heart failure hospitalization, aortic valve replacement, or cardiovascular death). Fine-Gray analyses provided cumulative event rates by ASGARD score quartiles. The ASGARD score was internally validated in the remaining 496 patients (31%) from the SEAS-cohort and externally in 71 asymptomatic outpatients with nonsevere AS from six Copenhagen hospitals. RESULTS: The ASGARD score comprises updated measurements of heart rate and age- and sex-adjusted N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide upon transaortic maximal velocity (Vmax) from the previous year. The ASGARD score had high predictive accuracy across all cohorts (external validation: area under the curve: 0.74 [95% CI, 0.62-0.86]), and similar to an updated Vmax measurement. An ASGARD score ≤50% was associated with AS-related event rates ≤5% for a minimum of 15 months. CONCLUSION: The ASGARD score could provide a personalized and safe surveillance alternative to routinely planned echocardiograms, so physicians can prioritize echocardiograms for high-risk patients.

In this study, we developed and examined the potential of the novel ASGARD risk score to tailor personalized follow-up intervals for diagnostic heart scans, incorporating updated heart rate and blood marker measurements along with the heart scan data from the previous year. Patients with the ASGARD risk score within the lowest 50% had a low annual risk of aortic valve-related events (less than 5%) for a minimum of 15 months.In clinical settings, the ASGARD score could provide a personalized and safe monitoring alternative to routine heart scans, prioritizing the diagnostic heart scans for high-risk patients.

What Is the Current Best Drug Treatment for Hypertensive Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction? Review of the Totality of Evidence.

BACKGROUND: More than 90% of patients developing heart failure (HF) have an epidemiological background of hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease, all disorders/diseases closely related to hypertension. METHODS: HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. RESULTS: For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, subsequently, they have been investigated and, as we see it, documented as beneficial in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) and mostly hypertensive etiology, with effect estimates assessed partly on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated.

The current best drug treatment for hypertensive heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

More than 90 % of patients developing heart failure (HF) have hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type-2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease. HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Subsequently, they have been investigated in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) of mostly hypertensive etiology, and with modest benefits largely assessed on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications. Patients with HFpEF may have diastolic dysfunction but also systolic dysfunction visualized by lack of longitudinal shortening. Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated.

Sex-Specific Effects of Blood Pressure Lowering Pharmacotherapy for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: An Individual Participant-Level Data Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Whether the relative effects of blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment on cardiovascular outcomes differ by sex, particularly when BP is not substantially elevated, has been uncertain. METHODS: We conducted an individual participant-level data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of pharmacological BP lowering. We pooled the data and categorized participants by sex, systolic BP categories in 10-mm Hg increments from <120 to ≥170 mm Hg, and age categories spanning from <55 to ≥85 years. We used fixed-effect one-stage individual participant-level data meta-analyses and applied Cox proportional hazard models, stratified by trial, to analyze the data. RESULTS: We included data from 51 randomized controlled trials involving 358 636 (42% women) participants. Over 4.2 years of median follow-up, a 5-mm Hg reduction in systolic BP decreased the risk of major cardiovascular events both in women and men (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.92 [0.89-0.95] for women and 0.90 [0.88-0.93] for men; P for interaction, 1). There was no evidence for heterogeneity of relative treatment effects by sex for the major cardiovascular disease, its components, or across the different baseline BP categories (all P for interaction, ≥0.57). The effects in women and men were consistent across age categories and the types of antihypertensive medications (all P for interaction, ≥0.14). CONCLUSIONS: The effects of BP reduction were similar in women and men across all BP and age categories at randomization and with no evidence to suggest that drug classes had differing effects by sex. This study does not substantiate sex-based differences in BP-lowering treatment.

Sex Differences in Atrial Fibrillation and Associated Complications in Hypertensive Patients with Left Ventricular Hypertrophy: The LIFE Study.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on whether biological differences account for the higher risk of stroke seen in females compared to males with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: Capitalizing on The Losartan Intervention for Endpoint study, a multicenter randomized clinical trial randomizing 9,193 patients and followed for at least four years, we aimed to identify sex differences in the risk of stroke in the presence of AF in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). RESULTS: 342 Patients had a history of AF, and 669 developed new-onset AF. History of AF and new-onset AF were more prevalent among males (5.0% vs. 2.9% and 3.0% vs. 0.9%) in patients aged 55-63 years, but the relative difference decreased with age. Females with new-onset AF tended to have a higher risk of stroke than males (HR 1.52 [95% CI 0.95-2.43]). However, females with a history of AF did not have a higher risk than males (HR 0.88 [95% CI 0.5-1.6]). In patients with new-onset AF, the relative higher stroke risk in females increased with age. Among patients with a history of AF, stroke risk was comparable and increased with age in both sexes. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with hypertension and LVH, females with new-onset AF had a higher risk of stroke than males, especially in patients above 64 years. However, the risk did not differ between the sexes among patients with a history of AF.

Middle-Aged and Older Patients With Left Ventricular Hypertrophy: Higher Mortality With Drug Treated Systolic Blood Pressure Below 130 mm Hg.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 40% of people with hypertension have left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) detected by ECG or echocardiography. Because patients with LVH have poor myocardial microcirculation, they may be too sensitive to lowering systolic blood pressure (SBP) too much due to a lack of myocardial perfusion pressure. We aimed to investigate whether the average achieved SBP <130 mm Hg may cause harm in patients with LVH in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation trial (VALUE). METHODS: Of the 15 245 VALUE participants, we identified 13 803 patients without cardiovascular events during the first 6 months after randomization. Of these, 2458 patients had electrocardiographic LVH (ECG-LVH). Cox analyses adjusted for age, gender, and baseline variables compared cardiac and all-cause mortality and other prespecified end points for patients who achieved average SBP 130 to 139 mm Hg (No-LVH group n=4863; ECG-LVH group n=929) and <130 mm Hg (No-LVH group n=2107; ECG-LVH group n=305). Reference groups were patients who achieved average SBP ≥140 mm Hg following the first excluded 6 months (No-LVH group n=4375; ECG-LVH group n=1224). RESULTS: The No-LVH group achieving average SBP <130 mm Hg had a significantly lower incidence of several cardiovascular end points. The ECG-LVH group achieving average SBP <130 mm Hg had higher cardiac mortality (hazard ratio, 1.98 [95% CIs, 1.06-3.70]; P=0.032) and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.74 [95% CIs, 1.17-2.60]; P=0.007), and SBP <130 mm Hg was not associated with a reduction in any end point. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings may be seen as a signal that caution is warranted when treating middle-aged and older patients with electrocardiographic or echocardiographic LVH to SBP <130 mm Hg.

Association of high-sensitivity troponin T with outcomes in asymptomatic non-severe aortic stenosis: a post-hoc substudy of the SEAS trial.

Background: High-sensitivity Troponin T (hsTnT), a biomarker of cardiomyocyte overload and injury, relates to aortic valve replacement (AVR) and mortality in severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, its prognostic value remains unknown in asymptomatic patients with AS. We aimed to investigate if an hsTnT level >14 pg/mL (above upper limit of normal 99th percentile) is associated with echocardiographic AS-severity, subsequent AVR, ischaemic coronary events (ICE), and mortality in asymptomatic patients with non-severe AS. Methods: In this post-hoc sub-analysis of the multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled SEAS trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00092677), we included asymptomatic patients with mild to moderate-severe AS. We ascertained baseline and 1-year hsTnT concentrations and examined the association between baseline levels and the risk of the primary composite endpoint, defined as the first event of all-cause mortality, isolated AVR (without coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)), or ICE. Multivariable regressions and competing risk analyses examined associations of hsTnT level >14 pg/mL with clinical correlates and 5-year risk of the primary endpoint. Findings: Between January 6, 2003, and March 4, 2004, a total of 1873 patients were enrolled in the SEAS trial, and 1739 patients were included in this post-hoc sub-analysis. Patients had a mean (SD) age of 67.5 (9.7) years, 61.0% (1061) were men, 17.4% (302) had moderate-severe AS, and 26.0% (453) had hsTnT level >14 pg/mL. The median hsTnT difference from baseline to 1-year was 0.8 pg/mL (IQR, -0.4 to 2.3). In adjusted linear regression, log(hsTnT) did not correlate with echocardiographic AS severity (p = 0.36). In multivariable Cox regression, a hsTnT level >14 pg/mL vs. hsTnT ≤14 pg/mL was associated with an increased risk of the primary composite endpoint (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.18-1.70; p = 0.0002). In a competing risk model of first of the individual components of the primary endpoint, a hsTnT level >14 pg/mL was associated with ICE risk (HR 1.71; 95% CI, 1.23-2.38; p = 0.0013), but not with isolated AVR (p = 0.064) or all-cause mortality (p = 0.49) as the first event. Interpretation: hsTnT level is within the reference range (≤14 pg/mL) in 3 out of 4 non-ischaemic patients with asymptomatic mild-to-moderate AS and remains stable during a 1-year follow-up regardless of AS-severity. An hsTnT level >14 pg/mL was mainly associated with subsequent ICE, which suggest that hsTnT concentration is primarily a risk marker of subclinical coronary atherosclerotic disease. Funding: Merck & Co., Inc., the Schering-Plough Corporation, the Interreg IVA program, Roche Diagnostics Ltd., and Gangstedfonden. Open access publication fee funding provided by prof. Olav W. Nielsen and Department of Cardiology, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Denmark.

Exercise-induced change in circulating NT-proBNP could not distinguish between patients with and without coronary artery disease: the CADENCE study.

Objective. In patients with chest pain, exercise stress test has a moderate accuracy for coronary artery disease (CAD). Adding a reliable cardiac biomarker to the exercise test could potentially improve the precision of the test. We investigated circulating NT-proBNP levels before and during exercise stress test in patients with and without angiographically verified CAD. We hypothesized that NT-proBNP would give an additive diagnostic value to the exercise stress test. Methods. In patients presenting with symptoms of stable CAD, venous blood samples were taken at rest and within 5 min of termination of a maximal stress test on a bicycle ergometer. All study participants underwent coronary angiography. Significant CAD was defined as ≥75% stenosis in one or more segments of the coronary arteries. Results. Of the 297 participants, significant CAD was found in 111 (37%) patients. Resting levels of NT-proBNP were significantly higher in patients with CAD compared with patients without CAD (74.18 vs. 56.03 ng/L), p = .005. During exercise, NT-proBNP levels increased in the total population (p < .001). The rise was, however, not significantly different between the two groups (8.24 vs. 8.51 ng/L), p = .700. Combining resting NT-proBNP with positive exercise stress test was superior to exercise test alone in predicting CAD, AUC = 0.68 vs. 0.64. Conclusion. Exercise-induced change in circulating NT-proBNP could not distinguish between patients with or without CAD. However, resting levels of NT-proBNP were significantly higher in patients with CAD than those without CAD.

Aortic Root Dilatation in Hypertensive Patients with Left Ventricular Hypertrophy-Application of A New Multivariate Predictive Model. The Life Study.

BACKGROUND: Available nomograms to predict aortic root (AoR) diameter for body surface area have limitations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of a new multivariate predictive model to identify AoR dilatation in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy. METHODS: 943 of 961 patients in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) echocardiographic sub-study had the necessary baseline characteristics and echocardiographic 2D measurements of AoR size to be included. RESULTS: Predicted AoR (Sinus of Valsalva) diameter was 1.519 + (age [years] × 0.010) + (height [cm] × 0.010) - (gender [1 = M, 2 = F] × 0.247), and a measured AoR diameter exceeding the 97.5-percentile of this estimate was considered dilated. Measured AoR diameter was larger in men than in women (3.75 vs. 3.48 cm, p < 0.001) and AoR diameter predicted by the model was larger than predicted by nomogram (3.52 vs. 3.28 cm, p < 0.001). Using the multivariate model to identify patients with AoR dilatation, the prevalence was 13.7% in men and 12.3% in women (p = 0.537). There was consensus of AoR phenotype (normal/dilated) between model and nomogram in 92.8% of the patients. In multivariate logistic regression, AoR dilatation by model definition was predicted by presence of aortic regurgitation (OR 2.67, p < 0.001) and SD increase in age (OR 0.75, p = 0.023), pulse pressure (OR 0.64, p < 0.001), left ventricular mass index (OR 1.36, p = 0.08) and stroke volume (OR 1.45, p = 0.002), but not by body weight. CONCLUSIONS: Using the proposed model the prevalence of AoR dilatation was equal in men and women and the model seems to address the effects of gender, age and body size on AoR size. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT00338260.

Association of Annual N-Terminal Pro-Brain Natriuretic Peptide Measurements With Clinical Events in Patients With Asymptomatic Nonsevere Aortic Stenosis: A Post Hoc Substudy of the SEAS Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Recent studies have questioned the presumed low-risk status of patients with asymptomatic nonsevere aortic stenosis (AS). Whether annual N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) measurements are useful for risk assessment is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of annual NT-proBNP measurements with clinical outcomes in patients with nonsevere AS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Analysis of annual NT-proBNP concentrations in the multicenter, double-blind Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) randomized clinical trial was performed. SEAS was conducted from January 6, 2003, to April 1, 2008. Blood samples were analyzed in 2016, and data analysis was performed from February 10 to October 10, 2021. SEAS included 1873 patients with asymptomatic AS not requiring statin therapy with transaortic maximal flow velocity from 2.5 to 4.0 m/s and preserved ejection fraction. This substudy included 1644 patients (87.8%) with available blood samples at baseline and year 1. EXPOSURES: Increased age- and sex-adjusted NT-proBNP concentrations at year 1 and a 1.5-fold or greater relative NT-proBNP concentration change from baseline to year 1. Moderate AS was defined as baseline maximal flow velocity greater than or equal to 3.0 m/s. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Aortic valve events (AVEs), which are a composite of aortic valve replacement, cardiovascular death, or incident heart failure due to AS progression, were noted. Landmark analyses from year 1 examined the association of NT-proBNP concentrations with outcomes. RESULTS: Among 1644 patients, 996 were men (60.6%); mean (SD) age was 67.5 (9.7) years. Adjusted NT-proBNP concentrations were within the reference range (normal) in 1228 of 1594 patients (77.0%) with NT-proBNP values available at baseline and in 1164 of 1644 patients (70.8%) at year 1. During the next 2 years of follow-up, the AVE rates per 100 patient-years for normal vs increased adjusted NT-proBNP levels at year 1 were 1.39 (95% CI, 0.86-2.23) vs 7.05 (95% CI, 4.60-10.81) for patients with mild AS (P < .01), and 10.38 (95% CI, 8.56-12.59) vs 26.20 (95% CI, 22.03-31.15) for those with moderate AS (P < .01). Corresponding all-cause mortality rates were 1.05 (95% CI, 0.61-1.81) vs 4.17 (95% CI, 2.42-7.19) for patients with mild AS (P < .01), and 1.60 (95% CI, 0.99-2.57) vs 4.78 (95% CI, 3.32-6.87) for those with moderate AS (P < .01). In multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models, the combination of a 1-year increased adjusted NT-proBNP level and 1.5-fold or greater NT-proBNP level change from baseline was associated with the highest AVE rates in both patients with mild AS (hazard ratio, 8.12; 95% CI, 3.53-18.66; P < .001) and those with moderate AS (hazard ratio, 4.05; 95% CI, 2.84-5.77; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this study suggest that normal NT-proBNP concentrations at 1-year follow-up are associated with low AVE and all-cause mortality rates in patients with asymptomatic nonsevere AS. Conversely, an increased 1-year NT-proBNP level combined with a 50% or greater increase from baseline may be associated with high AVE rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00092677.

Hypertension and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: position paper by the European Society of Hypertension.

Hypertension constitutes a major risk factor for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). HFpEF is a prevalent clinical syndrome with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Specific guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for HFpEF is not established due to lack of positive outcome data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and limitations of available studies. Although available evidence is limited, control of blood pressure (BP) is widely regarded as central to the prevention and clinical care in HFpEF. Thus, in current guidelines including the 2018 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Society of Hypertension (ESH) Guidelines, blockade of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) with either angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers provides the backbone of BP-lowering therapy in hypertensive patients. Although superiority of RAS blockers has not been clearly shown in dedicated RCTs designed for HFpEF, we propose that this core drug treatment strategy is also applicable for hypertensive patients with HFpEF with the addition of some modifications. The latter apply to the use of spironolactone apart from the treatment of resistant hypertension and the use of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor. In addition, novel agents such as sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors, currently already indicated for high-risk patients with diabetes to reduce heart failure hospitalizations, and finerenone represent promising therapies and results from ongoing RCTs are eagerly awaited. The development of an effective and practical classification of HFpEF phenotypes and GDMT through dedicated high-quality RCTs are major unmet needs in hypertension research and calls for action.

Do ß-Blockers Cause Depression?: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Psychiatric Adverse Events During ß-Blocker Therapy.

[Figure: see text].

Frequency and Impact of Hyponatremia on All-Cause Mortality in Patients With Aortic Stenosis.

Asymptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) is a frequent condition that may cause hyponatremia due to neurohumoral activation. We examined if hyponatremia heralds poor prognosis in patients with asymptomatic AS, and whether AS in itself is associated with increased risk of hyponatremia. The study question was investigated in 1,677 individuals that had and annual plasma sodium measurements in the SEAS (Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in AS) trial; 1,873 asymptomatic patients with mild-moderate AS (maximal transaortic velocity 2.5 to 4.0 m/s) randomized to simvastatin/ezetimibe combination versus placebo. All-cause mortality was the primary endpoint and incident hyponatremia (P-Na+ <137 mmol/L) a secondary outcome. At baseline, 4% (n = 67) had hyponatremia. After a median follow-up of 4.3 (interquartile range 4.1 to 4.6) years, 140 (9%) of those with initial normonatremia had developed hyponatremia, and 174 (10%) had died. In multiple regression Cox models, both baseline hyponatremia (hazard ratio [HR] 2.1, [95% confidence interval 1.1 to 3.8]) and incident hyponatremia (HR 1.9, [95% confidence interval 1.0 to 3.4], both p ≤ .03) was associated with higher all-cause mortality as compared with normonatremia. This association persisted after adjustment for diuretics as a time-varying covariate. Higher N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide levels and lower sodium levels at baseline was associated with higher risk of incident hyponatremia. Conversely, assignment to simvastatin/ezetimibe protected against incident hyponatremia. In conclusion, both prevalent and incident hyponatremia associate with increased mortality in patients with AS. The prevalence of hyponatremia is around 4% and the incidence about 2% per year, which is comparable to that of older adults without AS.

Sudden cardiac death in asymptomatic patients with aortic stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: We retrospectively analysed outcome data from the Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) study to assess the incidence and potential risk factors of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in this prospectively followed cohort of asymptomatic patients with aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS: Of the 1873 patients included in SEAS, 1849 (99%) with mild to moderate AS (jet velocity 2.5-4.0 m/s at baseline) and available clinical, echocardiographic and follow-up data were analysed. Patients undergoing aortic valve replacement were censored at the time of operation. RESULTS: During an overall follow-up of 46.1±14.6 months, SCD occurred in 27 asymptomatic patients (1.5%) after a mean of 28.3±16.6 months. The annualised event rate was 0.39%/year. The last follow-up echocardiography prior to the event showed mild to moderate stenosis in 22 and severe stenosis (jet velocity >4 m/s) in 5 victims of SCD. The annualised event rate after the diagnosis of severe stenosis was 0.60%/year compared with 0.46%/year in patients who did not progress to severe stenosis (p=0.79). Patients with SCD were older (p=0.01), had a higher left ventricular mass index (LVMI, p=0.001) and had a lower body mass index (BMI, p=0.02) compared with patients surviving follow-up. Cox regression analysis identified age (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.11 per year, p=0.02), increased LVMI (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.32 per 10 g/m2, p<0.001) and lower BMI (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.97 per kg/m2, p=0.01) as independent risk factors of SCD. CONCLUSION: SCD in patients with asymptomatic mild to moderate AS is rare and strongly related to left ventricular hypertrophy but not stenosis severity.

On-treatment HDL cholesterol predicts incident atrial fibrillation in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy.

Purpose: Hypertensive patients are at increased risk of atrial fibrillation (AF). Although low baseline high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol has been associated with a higher risk of AF, this has not been verified in recent population-based studies. Whether changing levels of HDL over time are more strongly related to the risk of new AF in hypertensive patients has not been examined.Material and methods: Incident AF was examined in relation to baseline and on-treatment HDL levels in 8267 hypertensive patients with no history of AF, in sinus rhythm on their baseline electrocardiogram, randomly assigned to losartan- or atenolol-based treatment. HDL levels at baseline and each year of testing were categorised into quartiles according to baseline HDL levels.Results: During 4.7 ± 1.10 years of follow-up, 645 patients (7.8%) developed new AF. In univariate Cox analyses, compared with the highest quartile of HDL levels (>1.78 mmol/l), patients with on-treatment HDL in the lowest quartile (≤ 1.21 mmol/l) had a 53% greater risk of new AF. Patients with on-treatment HDL in the second and third quartiles had intermediate increased risks of AF. Baseline HDL in the lowest quartile was not a significant predictor of new AF (hazard ratio (HR): 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.90-1.43). In multivariable Cox analyses adjusting for multiple baseline and time-varying covariates, the lowest quartile of on-treatment HDL remained associated with a nearly 54% increased risk of new AF (HR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.16-2.05) whereas a baseline HDL≤ ⩽1.21 mmol/l was not predictive of new AF (HR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.78-1.31).Conclusion: Lower on-treatment HDL is strongly associated with risk of new AF. These findings suggest that serial assessment of HDL can estimate AF risk better than baseline HDL in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy. Future studies may investigate whether therapies that increase HDL can lower risk of developing AF.Clinical Trials Registration: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00338260?order=1.

Medical Therapies for Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Current cardiovascular pharmacotherapy targets maladaptive overactivation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), which occurs throughout the continuum of cardiovascular disease spanning from hypertension to heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Over the past 16 years, 4 prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials using candesartan, perindopril, irbesartan, and spironolactone in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) failed to demonstrate increased efficacy of RAAS blockade added to guideline-directed medical therapy. We reappraise these trials and their weaknesses, which precluded statistically significant findings. Recently, dual-acting RAAS blockade with sacubitril-valsartan relative to stand-alone valsartan failed to improve outcome in the PARAGON-HF trial (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared with Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction). The majority of patients with HFpEF experience hypertension, frequently with subclinical left ventricular dysfunction, contributed to by comorbidities such as coronary disease, diabetes mellitus, overweight, and atrial fibrillation. Contrasting the findings in HFpEF, trials evaluating RAAS blockade on either side of HFpEF on the cardiovascular continuum in patients with high-risk hypertension and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, respectively, showed positive outcomes. We do not have a biologically plausible explanation for such divergent efficacy of RAAS blockade. Based on considerations of well-established clinical efficacy in hypertension and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and the shortcomings of aforementioned clinical trials in HFpEF, we argue that RAAS blockers including MRAs (mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists; aldosterone antagonists) should be used in the treatment of patients with HFpEF.

Relation of Lipid-Lowering Therapy to Need for Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Asymptomatic Mild to Moderate Aortic Stenosis.

In this study, we aimed to determine if pretreatment low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels and aortic stenosis (AS) severity alter the efficacy of lipid-lowering therapy on reducing aortic valve replacement (AVR). We used 1,687 patients with asymptomatic mild-to-moderate AS, who were randomly assigned (1:1) to 40/10 mg simvastatin/ezetimibe combination versus. placebo in the simvastatin and ezetimibe in aortic stenosis (SEAS) trial. Pretreatment LDL levels (>4 mmol/L) and peak aortic jet velocity (3 m/s) were used to partition study participants into 4 groups, which were followed for a primary endpoint of AVR. Cox regression with tests for interaction was used to study the effect of randomized treatment in each subgroup. During a median follow-up of 4.3 years (IQR 4.2 to 4.7 years; total 7,396 patient-years of follow-up), 478 (28%) patients underwent AVR and 146 (9%) died. A significant risk dependency was detected between simvastatin/ezetimibe combination, LDL levels and mild versus moderate AS on rates of AVR (p = 0.01 for interaction). In stratified analyses, randomized treatment, therefore, reduced the rate of AVR in patients with LDL levels >4 mmol and mild AS at baseline (HR 0.4; 95% CI: 0.2 to 0.9). There was no detectable effect of randomized treatment on the need for AVR in the 3 other participants subgroups. We conclude, that in a secondary analysis from a prospective randomized clinical trial, treatment with simvastatin/ezetimibe combination reduced the need for AVR in a subset of patients with mild AS and high pretreatment LDL levels (Unique identifier on clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00092677).