Timing of Antihypertensive Drug Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: The timing of antihypertensive drugs administration is controversial. The aim was to compare the efficacy of dosing of antihypertensive drugs in the morning versus evening. METHODS: A PubMed, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases search for randomized clinical trials of antihypertensive therapies where patients were randomized to morning versus evening dosing. The outcomes were ambulatory blood pressure (BP) parameters (day-time, night-time, and 24/48-hour systolic blood pressure [SBP] and diastolic blood pressure [DBP]) and cardiovascular outcomes. RESULTS: Of 72 randomized controlled trials included, evening dosing significantly reduced ambulatory BP parameters: 24/48-hour SBP (mean difference [MD]=1.41 mm Hg; [95% CI, 0.48-2.34]), DBP (MD=0.60 mm Hg [95% CI, 0.12-1.08]), night-time SBP (MD=4.09 mm Hg [95% CI, 3.01-5.16]), DBP (MD, 2.57 mm Hg [95% CI, 1.92-3.22]), with a smaller reduction in day-time SBP (MD=0.94 mm Hg [95% CI, 0.01-1.87]), and DBP (MD=0.87 mm Hg [95% CI, 0.10-1.63]), and numerically lower cardiovascular events compared with morning dosing. However, when controversial data by Hermida (23 trials, 25 734 patients) were omitted (Pheterogeneity<0.05 for most outcomes), the above effect of evening dosing attenuated with no significant effect on 24/48-hour ambulatory blood pressure, day-time BP, and major adverse cardiac event and smaller reduction in night-time ambulatory SBP and DBP. CONCLUSIONS: Evening dosing of antihypertensive drugs significantly reduced ambulatory BP parameters and lowered cardiovascular events but the effect was mainly driven by trials by Hermida group. Unless the intention is to specifically lower night-time BP, antihypertensive drugs should be taken at a time of day that is convenient, optimizes adherence, and minimizes undesirable effects.

Eicosapentaenoic Acid for Cardiovascular Events Reduction- Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the impact of omega-3-fatty acid supplementation on cardiovascular events have largely shown no benefit. However, there is debate about the benign nature of the placebo in these trials. We aimed to conduct a network meta-analysis of RCTs to compare the outcomes of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation to various placebo oils. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through May, 2021 to identify RCTs investigating cardiovascular outcomes with omega-3-fatty acid formulations [eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), decosahexanoic acid (DHA), or the combination] versus placebo or standard of care controls. RESULTS: Our analysis included 17 RCTs that enrolled a total of 141,009 patients randomized to EPA (n=13,655), EPA+DHA (n=56,908), mineral oil placebo (n=5,338), corn oil placebo (n =8,876), olive oil placebo (n=41,009), and controls (no placebo oil; n=15,223). Rates of cardiovascular death [hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval, CI) =0.80 (0.65-0.98); p =0.033], myocardial infarction [HR (95% CI) =0.73 (0.55-0.97); p=0.029] and stroke [HR (95% CI) =0.74 (0.58-0.94); p=0.014] were significantly lower in those receiving EPA compared to those receiving mineral oil, but were not different from rates in those receiving other oils or controls. Rates of coronary revascularization were significantly lower in those receiving EPA than in those receiving either EPA+DHA, mineral oil, corn oil, or olive oil placebo, but not controls. All-cause death was similar among all groups, but combined EPA+DHA was associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular death compared to controls [HR (95%CI): 0.83 (0.71-0.98)]. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses demonstrate that although EPA supplementation lowers risk of coronary revascularization more than other oils, there may not be a benefit relative to standard of care. Further, EPA reduces the risk of cardiovascular events only in comparison to mineral oil and not when compared with other placebo oils or controls. In contrast, combined EPA+DHA was associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular death compared to controls.

Comparison of local versus general anesthesia in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is typically performed under general anesthesia (GA). However, there is increasing data supporting the safety of performing TAVR under local anesthesia/conscious sedation (LA). We performed a meta-analysis to gain better understanding of the safety and efficacy of LA versus GA in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR. METHODS AND RESULTS: We comprehensively searched EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science. Effect sizes were summarized using risk ratios (RRs) difference of the mean (DM), and 95% CIs (confidence intervals) for dichotomous and continuous variables respectively. Twenty-six studies and 10,572 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The use of LA for TAVR was associated with lower overall 30-day mortality (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.93; P = 0.01), use of inotropic/vasopressor drugs (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.28-0.72; P < 0.001), hospital length of stay (LOS) (DM, -2.09; 95% CI, -3.02 to -1.16; P < 0.001), intensive care unit LOS (DM, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.31 to -0.04; P = 0.01), procedure time (DM, -25.02; 95% CI, -32.70 to -17.35; P < 0.001); and fluoroscopy time (DM, -1.63; 95% CI, -3.02 to -0.24; P = 0.02). No differences were observed between LA and GA for stroke, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, permanent pacemaker implantation, acute kidney injury, paravalvular leak, vascular complications, major bleeding, procedural success, conduction abnormalities, and annular rupture. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis suggests that use of LA for TAVR is associated with a lower 30-day mortality, shorter procedure time, fluoroscopy time, ICU LOS, hospital length of stay, and reduced need for inotropic support.

Chelation Therapy as a Cardiovascular Therapeutic Strategy: the Rationale and the Data in Review.

Chelation therapy, typically used to remove heavy metal toxins, has also been controversially used as a treatment for coronary artery disease. The first Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) aimed to provide evidence on chelation therapy's potential for benefit or harm. Although TACT had some significant results, the trial does not provide enough evidence to recommend routine chelation therapy and has limitations. The second TACT was recently funded reigniting a discussion about the value of chelation therapy, its efficacy, and allocation of research resources. Despite limited evidence, patients continue to pursue chelation therapy as a treatment for coronary artery disease. As the medical community has a responsibility to understand all treatments patients pursue, it is important to comprehensively appraise chelation therapy for cardiovascular disease. Understanding the background of heavy metal toxicity, the putative target of chelation therapy, on the cardiovascular system is important to contextualize the role of chelation therapy in cardiovascular disease prevention. We review the clinical evidence of heavy metal toxicity and cardiovascular disease, and available clinical trial data on use of chelation therapy to minimize the cardiovascular burden of heavy metal toxicity.

Resistant hypertension: what the cardiologist needs to know.

Treatment-resistant hypertension (TRH) affects between 3 and 30% of hypertensive patients, and its presence is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Until recently, the interest on these patients has been limited, because providing care for them is difficult and often frustrating. However, the arrival of new treatment options [i.e. catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) and baroreceptor stimulation] has revitalized the interest in this topic. The very promising results of the initial uncontrolled studies on the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effect of RDN in TRH seemed to suggest that this intervention might represent an easy solution for a complex problem. However, subsequently, data from controlled studies have tempered the enthusiasm of the medical community (and the industry). Conversely, these new studies emphasized some seminal aspects on this topic: (i) the key role of 24 h ambulatory BP and arterial stiffness measurement to identify 'true' resistant patients; (ii) the high prevalence of secondary hypertension among this population; and (iii) the difficulty to identify those patients who may profit from device-based interventions. Accordingly, for those patients with documented TRH, the guidelines suggest to refer them to a hypertension specialist/centre in order to perform adequate work-up and treatment strategies. The aim of this review is to provide guidance for the cardiologist on how to identify patients with TRH and elucidate the prevailing underlying pathophysiological mechanism(s), to define a strategy for the identification of patients with TRH who may benefit from device-based interventions and discuss results and limitations of these interventions, and finally to briefly summarize the different drug-based treatment strategies.

Statin and the risk of renal-related serious adverse events: Analysis from the IDEAL, TNT, CARDS, ASPEN, SPARCL, and other placebo-controlled trials.

A recent study has shown an association between high-potency statins and risk of acute kidney injury. However, these data are from observational studies, and it is not clear if similar signal is seen from randomized controlled trials. We evaluated the risk of renal-associated serious adverse events (SAEs) using statins versus placebo trials and the high-dose versus low-dose statin trials that were available to us. The outcome of interest was renal-related SAEs. The incidence of adverse events relating to kidney injury was determined through review of the adverse event database. The following outcomes were evaluated: (1) renal-related SAEs within 120 days of randomization (primary outcome), (2) renal-related SAEs after 120 days of randomization (secondary), and (3) drug discontinuation due to renal-related SAEs (secondary). There was no difference in the incidence of renal-related SAEs at 120 days (0.04% vs 0.10%, p = 0.162) between atorvastatin and placebo in the 24 placebo-controlled trials (10,345 patients on atorvastatin (10 to 80 mg/day) versus 8,945 patients on placebo) or in the high-dose versus low-dose statin trials including the Incremental Decrease in End Points Through Aggressive Lipid Lowering (IDEAL) study (0.05% vs 0.02%, p = 0.625) or the Treating to New Targets (TNT) trial (0.0% vs 0.04%, p = 0.500) trial. Results were similar for renal-related SAEs after 120 days (placebo controlled trials [0.38% vs 0.36%, p = 0.905], IDEAL trial [0.56% vs 0.65%, p = 0.683], or the TNT trial [0.76% vs 1.04%, p = 0.168]) and for drug withdrawal due to renal-related SAE (placebo controlled trials [0.05% vs 0.04%, p = 1.00], IDEAL trial [0.02% vs 0.0%, p = 0.499], or the TNT trial [0.08% vs 0.12%, p = 0.754]). In conclusion, the results from clinical trials with data from 149,882 patient-years of follow-up fail to show any increase in renal-related SAEs with statins compared with controls.

Peripheral edema associated with calcium channel blockers: incidence and withdrawal rate--a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

OBJECTIVE: Peripheral edema is considered to be a common and annoying adverse effect of calcium channel blockers (CCBs). It has been thought to occur secondary to arteriolar dilatation causing intracapillary hypertension and fluid extravasation. We aimed to evaluate the incidence and withdrawal rate of peripheral edema with CCBs. METHODS: A systematic search was made in PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL from 1980 to January 2011 for randomized clinical trials reporting peripheral edema with CCBs in patients with hypertension. Trials enrolling at least 100 patients in the CCB arm and lasting at least 4 weeks were included in the analysis. Both the incidence and withdrawal rate due to edema were pooled by weighing each trial by the inverse of the variance. Head-to-head comparison was done to evaluate the risk of edema between newer lipophilic dihydropyridine (DHP) CCBs and older DHPs. RESULTS: One hundred and six studies with 99 469 participants, mean age 56 ± 6 years, satisfied our inclusion criteria and were included in this analysis. The weighted incidence of peripheral edema was significantly higher in the CCBs group when compared with controls/placebo (10.7 vs. 3.2%, P < 0.0001). Similarly, the withdrawal rate due to edema was higher in patients on CCBs compared with control/placebo (2.1 vs. 0.5%, P < 0.0001). Both the incidence of edema and patient withdrawal rate due to edema increased with the duration of therapy with CCBs reaching 24 and 5%, respectively, after 6 months. The risk of peripheral edema with lipophilic DHPs was 57% lower than with traditional DHPs (relative risk 0.43; 95% confidence interval 0.34-0.53; P < 0.0001). Incidence of peripheral edema in patients on DHPs was 12.3% compared with 3.1% with non-DHPs (P < 0.0001). Edema with high-dose CCBs (defined as more than half the usual maximal dose) was 2.8 times higher than that with low-dose CCBs (16.1 vs. 5.7%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The incidence of peripheral edema progressively increased with duration of CCB therapy up to 6 months. Over the long term, more than 5% of patients discontinued CCBs because of this adverse effect. Edema rates were lower with both non-DHPs and lipophilic DHPs.

A novel pathway for the management of hypertension for hospitalized patients.

About 65 million Americans, one fourth of the adult population in the United States, and over 1 billion people worldwide have hypertension (HTN). HTN therefore is present in 1 of every 4 patients admitted to any US hospital. Surprisingly, no guidelines are available for the management of inpatient HTN. Based on a comprehensive search of the literature we are proposing a pathway for the management of HTN in nonpregnant hospitalized patients. The pathway provides a definition and clinical assessment of HTN for patients admitted to the hospital. The assessment is followed by an organ/system based therapeutic approach specifying timing, blood pressure goals, recommended antihypertensive drug therapy and the sequence of add-on drugs. The pathway specifically discusses assessment and management of HTN in patients with (1) acute aortic syndrome, (2) acute neurologic syndrome, (3) acute coronary syndrome, (4) congestive heart failure, (5) renal failure, and (6) secondary forms. Finally, the pathway provides a step by step recommendation for the management of in hospital HTN and of hypertensive emergencies.