Evaluation of the Switch From Amiodarone to Dronedarone in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Results of the ARTEMIS AF Studies.

BACKGROUND: Switching between antiarrhythmic drugs is timed to minimize arrhythmia recurrence and adverse reactions. Dronedarone and amiodarone have similar electrophysiological profiles; however, little is known about the optimal timing of switching, given the long half-life of amiodarone. METHODS: The ARTEMIS atrial fibrillation (AF) Loading and Long-term studies evaluated switching patients with paroxysmal/persistent AF from amiodarone to dronedarone. Patients were randomized based on the timing of the switch: immediate, after a 2-week, or after a 4-week washout of amiodarone. Patients who did not convert to sinus rhythm after amiodarone loading underwent electrical cardioversion. The primary objectives were, for the Loading study, to evaluate recurrence of AF ≤60 days; and for the Long-term study, to profile the pharmacokinetics of dronedarone and its metabolite according to different timings of dronedarone initiation. RESULTS: In ARTEMIS AF Loading, 176 were randomized (planned 768) after a 28 ± 2 days load of oral amiodarone. Atrial fibrillation recurrence trended less in the immediate switch versus 4-week washout group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.65 [97.5% CI: 0.34-1.23]; P = .14) and in the 2-week washout versus the 4-week washout group (HR = 0.75 [97.5% CI: 0.41-1.37]; P = .32). In ARTEMIS AF Long-term, 108 patients were randomized (planned 105). Pharmacokinetic analyses (n = 97) showed no significant differences for dronedarone/SR35021 exposures in the 3 groups. CONCLUSION: The trial was terminated early due to poor recruitment and so our findings are limited by low numbers. However, immediate switching from amiodarone to dronedarone appeared to be well tolerated and safe.

Regional Lack of Consistency in the Management of Atrial Fibrillation (from the RECORD-AF Trial).

American and European society guidelines for atrial fibrillation management mostly agree on the utilization of rate and rhythm control strategies and the indications for oral anticoagulant (OAC) use. However, the level of adherence to guidelines in clinical practice may vary by region. In this study, data analysis from The Registry on Cardiac rhythm disorders assessing the control of Atrial Fibrillation (RECORD-AF) registry, an international registry in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation of <1 year, shows that differences in practice exist between 3 regions, namely Western Europe, Eastern Europe, and North America. Data analyzed included major cardiovascular outcomes at 12 months, choice of rhythm versus rate control strategy and the use of OAC according to CHADS2 score between regions, and the cost incurred according to management strategy. In conclusion, there is preference for rhythm control strategy in Europe compared to North America without a significant impact on major cardiovascular outcomes; there is significant discrepancy in the use of OAC in Eastern Europe compared to the 2 other regions; and rate control was found to be more costly in all regions.

Atrial Fibrillation Management Strategies in Routine Clinical Practice: Insights from the International RealiseAF Survey.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) can be managed with rhythm- or rate-control strategies. There are few data from routine clinical practice on the frequency with which each strategy is used and their correlates in terms of patients' clinical characteristics, AF control, and symptom burden. METHODS: RealiseAF was an international, cross-sectional, observational survey of 11,198 patients with AF. The aim of this analysis was to describe patient profiles and symptoms according to the AF management strategy used. A multivariate logistic regression identified factors associated with AF management strategy at the end of the visit. RESULTS: Among 10,497 eligible patients, 53.7% used a rate-control strategy, compared with 34.5% who used a rhythm-control strategy. In 11.8% of patients, no clear strategy was stated. The proportion of patients with AF-related symptoms (EHRA Class > = II) was 78.1% (n = 4396/5630) for those using a rate-control strategy vs. 67.8% for those using a rhythm-control strategy (p<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that age <75 years or the paroxysmal or persistent form of AF favored the choice of a rhythm-control strategy. A change in strategy was infrequent, even in patients with European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) Class > = II. CONCLUSIONS: In the RealiseAF routine clinical practice survey, rate control was more commonly used than rhythm control, and a change in strategy was uncommon, even in symptomatic patients. In almost 12% of patients, no clear strategy was stated. Physician awareness regarding optimal management strategies for AF may be improved.

Evaluation of atrial fibrillation (AF) management and cardiovascular risk profile in AF patients: data from Turkish patients in the international observational cross-sectional REALISE AF trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess control of atrial fibrillation (AF) and cardiovascular (CV) risk profile of AF patients with previously established AF therapies. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 510 patients (mean (SD) age, 67.1 (12.3) years, 55.1% females) enrolled from 40 centers across Turkey were evaluated on a single-visit basis in terms of patient demographics, characteristics of underlying AF, the frequency and scoring of symptoms according to European Heart Rhythm Association AF cardiac symptoms classification, control of AF, cardiovascular (CV) risk profile, AF treatment and the consistency of current therapeutic practice with evidence-based guidelines. RESULTS: AF was controlled in 39.4% of patients based on sinus rhythm on the day of visit (10.2%) and AF with HR ≤80 bpm (29.2%). Permanent AF was the most commonly identified type of AF (56.0%). Symptoms were evident in 89.2% of patients either before V0 (78.8%) or at V0 (56.5%). Age (72.4%) and hypertension (70.0%) were the leading CV risk factors. Rate-control and rhythm-control strategies were chosen in 76.5 and 19.2% of patients at the enrollment visit. Mean (SD) of EQ-5D scores for VAS and for single index utility were 63.1 (19.8) and 0.62 (0.4), respectively. CONCLUSION: In this real life survey of AF patients from Turkey participating in the global contemporary, international, observational, cross-sectional REALISE AF survey, AF was determined to be not optimally controlled, leading patients to experience frequent symptoms, functional impairment and altered QoL,as well as frequent hospital admissions for cardiovascular events and a high requirement for procedures.

Health-related quality of life in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with rhythm control versus rate control: insights from a prospective international registry (Registry on Cardiac Rhythm Disorders Assessing the Control of Atrial Fibrillation: RECORD-AF).

BACKGROUND: Improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important treatment goal in the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Uncertainty exists as to whether patients' HRQoL differ when treated with medical rhythm control or rate control. We compared HRQoL between patients treated with rhythm control or rate control in a large observational registry of patients with recent-onset AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the Registry on Cardiac Rhythm Disorders Assessing the Control of Atrial Fibrillation (RECORD-AF), 2439 patients with recent onset (<1 year) AF completed an AF-specific HRQoL questionnaire, the University of Toronto Atrial Fibrillation Severity Scale. HRQoL was assessed by the AF symptom severity score (0-35, with higher scores reflecting more severe AF-related symptoms) at baseline and 1 year. The minimal clinically important difference was defined as a change of ≥3 points. The primary analysis was based on a propensity score-adjusted longitudinal regression analysis which compared the change in AF symptom severity scores between the 2 groups. Over an average follow-up of 1 year, the AF symptom severity scores improved in both groups (rhythm control: -2.82 point [95% confidence interval, -3.22 to -2.41]; rate control: -2.11 point [95% confidence interval, -2.54 to -1.67]; P<0.01 for both groups). The magnitude of improvement was higher in the rhythm control group than the rate control group (unadjusted difference: -0.75 point; 95% confidence interval, -1.31 to -0.19; P=0.01; propensity score-adjusted difference: -0.71 point; 95% confidence interval, -1.31 to -0.11; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational cohort of recent-onset AF patients, treatment with medical rhythm- or rate control over 1 year was associated with an improvement in HRQoL. The magnitude of HRQoL improvement was minimally higher in patients treated with rhythm control than rate control. However, the overall degree of improvement was not large, and its clinical significance was uncertain.

Complexity of atrial fibrillation patients and management in Chinese ethnicity in routine daily practice: insights from the RealiseAF Taiwanese cohort.

BACKGROUND: Most atrial fibrillation (AF) epidemiology described Western populations; there is a paucity of data from Chinese ethnicity. This study presented differences in patient characteristics and management strategies, and assessed the quality of life (QoL) and AF control in Taiwanese patients from RealiseAF. METHODS: RealiseAF enrolled 10,523 patients internationally, in which Taiwanese cohort accounts for 7.1%. Physicians were randomly selected from a global list. Patient characteristics, management and therapeutic strategies of AF, QoL measured by the EQ-5D questionnaire, and the control of AF (in sinus rhythm, or AF with a ventricular rate ≤80 beats per minute) evaluated by electrocardiography were assessed. RESULTS: Taiwanese patients were mostly outpatients (93.9%), older (70.2±11.8 years), accompanied by more comorbidities, more frequently (51.7%) in permanent AF, and symptomatic (European Heart Rhythm Association score ≥II: 81.5%) compared with the non-Taiwanese cohort. A rhythm-control strategy was less preferable to rate-control than in non-Taiwanese cohort as well as the use of class I and III antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs); 85.2% of Taiwanese patients received AADs, among which beta-blockers were the most common (46.9%). QoL was compromised (Visual Analogue Scale: 70.3±14.4; single index utility score: 0.81±0.25) and only 48.6% of the Taiwanese patients had AF controlled. CONCLUSIONS: AF complexity in the Taiwanese cohort was similar to or even greater than that in the non-Taiwanese cohort. The Taiwanese patients were highly symptomatic; QoL was impaired despite the widespread use of medications and AF control was unsatisfactory. There is an apparent unmet need in AF treatment in Chinese ethnicity.

Use of antithrombotics in atrial fibrillation in Africa, Europe, Asia and South America: insights from the International RealiseAF Survey.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of international guidelines for antithrombotic use in atrial fibrillation (AF) in routine practice is not well known, particularly, in some parts of the world, such as the Middle East and Africa. AIM: To describe and analyse the use of antithrombotics in patients with AF in routine practice. METHODS: The RealiseAF international cross-sectional survey enrolled 10,523 patients (with at least one documented AF episode in the preceding 12 months) from 831 sites. Participating physicians were randomly selected from physician list forms. RESULTS: Mean age was 66.6 ± 12.2 years. In 47.4% of the patients with a CHADS2 score ≥ 2, oral anticoagulants were not prescribed. Patients who had a CHADS2 score ≥ 2, permanent or persistent AF, valvular heart disease, a stroke leading to hospitalization in the previous year or treatment by a cardiologist (rather than an internist) were most likely to receive oral anticoagulants. Patients aged ≥ 75 years and those with coronary heart disease; major bleeding leading to hospitalization in the previous year or a rhythm control strategy was least likely to receive oral anticoagulants. Appropriate antithrombotic treatment was prescribed in 66.7% of the patients with a CHADS2 score ≥ 2 in the Middle East/Africa, 55.3% in Europe, 43.9% in Latin America and 31.7% in Asia. CONCLUSION: There is substantial deviation from international guidelines in antithrombotic use for AF in routine clinical practice, with overuse and underuse of antithrombotics in about 50% of the cases and important geographical differences. These findings emphasize the need for improved medical education worldwide and a better understanding of geographical disparities in the implementation of guidelines.

Clinical characteristics, management, and control of permanent vs. nonpermanent atrial fibrillation: insights from the RealiseAF survey.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation can be categorized into nonpermanent and permanent atrial fibrillation. There is less information on permanent than on nonpermanent atrial fibrillation patients. This analysis aimed to describe the characteristics and current management, including the proportion of patients with successful atrial fibrillation control, of these atrial fibrillation subsets in a large, geographically diverse contemporary sample. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from RealiseAF, an international, observational, cross-sectional survey of 10,491 patients with atrial fibrillation, were used to characterize permanent atrial fibrillation (N = 4869) and nonpermanent atrial fibrillation (N = 5622) patients. Permanent atrial fibrillation patients were older, had a longer time since atrial fibrillation diagnosis, a higher symptom burden, and were more likely to be physically inactive. They also had a higher mean (SD) CHADS2 score (2.2 [1.3] vs. 1.7 [1.3], p<0.001), and a higher frequency of CHADS2 score ≥2 (67.3% vs. 53.0%, p<0.001) and comorbidities, most notably heart failure. Physicians indicated using a rate-control strategy in 84.2% of permanent atrial fibrillation patients (vs. 27.5% in nonpermanent atrial fibrillation). Only 50.2% (N = 2262/4508) of permanent atrial fibrillation patients were controlled. These patients had a longer time since atrial fibrillation diagnosis, a lower symptom burden, less obesity and physical inactivity, less severe heart failure, and fewer hospitalizations for acute heart failure than uncontrolled permanent atrial fibrillation patients, but with more arrhythmic events. The most frequent causes of hospitalization in the last 12 months were acute heart failure and stroke. CONCLUSION: Permanent atrial fibrillation is a high-risk subset of atrial fibrillation, representing half of all atrial fibrillation patients, yet rate control is only achieved in around half. Since control is associated with lower symptom burden and heart failure, adequate rate control is an important target for improving the management of permanent atrial fibrillation patients.

Effect of dronedarone on clinical end points in patients with atrial fibrillation and coronary heart disease: insights from the ATHENA trial.

AIMS: This study aimed to assess safety and cardiovascular outcomes of dronedarone in patients with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) with coronary heart disease (CHD). Coronary heart disease is prevalent among AF patients and limits antiarrhythmic drug use because of their potentially life-threatening ventricular proarrhythmic effects. METHODS AND RESULTS: This post hoc analysis evaluated 1405 patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF and CHD from the ATHENA trial. Follow-up lasted 2.5 years, during which patients received either dronedarone (400 mg twice daily) or a double-blind matching placebo. Primary outcome was time to first cardiovascular hospitalization or death due to any cause. Secondary end points included first hospitalization due to cardiovascular events. The primary outcome occurred in 350 of 737 (47%) placebo patients vs. 252 of 668 (38%) dronedarone patients [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.62-0.86; P = 0.0002] without a significant increase in number of adverse events. In addition, 42 of 668 patients receiving dronedarone suffered from a first acute coronary syndrome compared with 67 of 737 patients from the placebo group (HR = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.46-0.99; P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: In this post hoc analysis, dronedarone on top of standard care in AF patients with CHD reduced cardiovascular hospitalization or death similar to that in the overall ATHENA population, and reduced a first acute coronary syndrome. Importantly, the safety profile in this subpopulation was also similar to that of the overall ATHENA population, with no excess in proarrhythmias. The mechanism of the cardiovascular protective effects is unclear and warrants further investigation.

Heart failure in patients with atrial fibrillation is associated with a high symptom and hospitalization burden: the RealiseAF survey.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) often coexist; the consequences of such coexistence are unclear. HYPOTHESIS: HF in patients with AF is associated with poor outcomes. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of RealiseAF, a survey of AF patients, compared symptoms, hospitalizations, management, and AF control in patients with vs without HF. A total of 10,523 AF patients were analyzed according to presence/absence of HF. RESULTS: History of HF was present in 45.8%, and in more patients with permanent vs persistent, paroxysmal, or first-episode AF (55.6%, 44.3%, 32.9%, and 29.8%, respectively; P < 0.0001). Patients with vs those without history of HF, and patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF) vs those with HF and a preserved ejection fraction (HF-PEF), had more frequent cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and more severe symptoms. Presence vs absence of HF, and HF-REF vs HF-PEF, were associated with lower rates of AF control (54.6% vs 62.8% and 49.3% vs 60.3%, respectively; both P < 0.0001). The rate-control strategy was used more frequently in HF patients, particularly those with HF-REF, than the rhythm-control strategy. CV hospitalizations occurred more frequently in patients with HF than those without (41.8% vs 17.5%; P < 0.001) and more frequently in patients with HF-REF than in those with HF-PEF (51.6% vs 35.6%; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: AF patients with HF, particularly HF-REF, experience heavy symptom and hospitalization burdens, and have relatively low rates of AF control. Further studies are needed to identify ways to improve the management and treatment outcomes of this very high-risk patient population.

Inappropriate use of antiarrhythmic drugs in paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation in a large contemporary international survey: insights from RealiseAF.

AIMS: International atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines have defined optimal drugs for patients with various underlying diseases, but the extent to which real-life practice complies with these guidelines is unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the appropriate use of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in patients with paroxysmal and persistent AF from the RealiseAF survey, according to the 2006 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/European Society of Cardiology AF guidelines. METHODS AND RESULTS: RealiseAF was an international cross-sectional, observational survey of 10 523 eligible patients from 26 countries on 4 continents, with ≥1 AF episode documented by standard electrocardiogram or by Holter monitoring in the last 12 months. Participating physicians were randomly selected during 2009-10 from lists of office-based or hospital-based cardiologists and internists. Overall, 4947 patients with paroxysmal (n = 2606) or persistent AF (n = 2341) were included; mean (standard deviation) age was 64.7 (12.4) and 66.0 (11.8) years, respectively. Class Ic drugs were prescribed in 589 patients (11.9%); however, in 20.0% of these patients, the indication was not consistent with published guidelines. Similarly, for the 219 patients prescribed sotalol (4.4%), 16.0% received treatment for an indication that deviated from the published guidelines. Amiodarone was prescribed as first-line therapy in 1268 patients (25.6%), but 49.9% of these did not have heart failure or hypertension with significant left ventricular hypertrophy. CONCLUSION: The use of AADs for persistent or paroxysmal AF in this large contemporary international survey showed some deviations from international guidelines. The highest discordance came with the use of amiodarone in first line. Clearly, there is a large discrepancy between published guidelines and current practice.

Distribution and risk profile of paroxysmal, persistent, and permanent atrial fibrillation in routine clinical practice: insight from the real-life global survey evaluating patients with atrial fibrillation international registry.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of international data on the various types of atrial fibrillation (AF) outside the highly selected populations from randomized trials. This study aimed to describe patient characteristics, risk factors, comorbidities, symptoms, management strategy, and control of different types of AF in real-life practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: Real-life global survey evaluating patients with atrial fibrillation (RealiseAF) was a contemporary, large-scale, cross-sectional international survey of patients with AF who had ≥1 episode in the past 12 months. Investigators were randomly selected to avoid bias. Among 9816 eligible patients from 831 sites in 26 countries, 2606 (26.5%) had paroxysmal, 2341 (23.8%) had persistent, and 4869 (49.6%) had permanent AF. As AF progressed from paroxysmal to persistent and permanent forms, the prevalence of comorbidities, such as heart failure (32.9%, 44.3%, and 55.6%), coronary artery disease (30.0%, 32.9%, and 34.3%), cerebrovascular disease (11.7%, 10.8%, and 17.6%), and valvular disease (16.7%, 21.2%, and 35.8%), increased, and the prevalence of lone AF decreased. Similarly, there was an increase in mean CHADS(2) [cardiac failure, hypertension, age, diabetes, stroke (doubled)] score (1.7, 1.8, and 2.2), and more than half of patients (51.0%, 56.7%, and 67.3%) qualified for oral anticoagulants. Almost 90% of patients received ≥1 antiarrhythmic drug, but >60% had European Heart Rhythm Association symptom scores from II to IV. Furthermore, 40.7% of persistent and 49.8% of permanent AF patients were still in AF with a heart rate >80 beats per minute. CONCLUSIONS: This survey disclosed high cardiovascular risks and an unmet need in daily practice for patients with any type of AF, especially those with the permanent form.

Progression of atrial fibrillation in the REgistry on Cardiac rhythm disORDers assessing the control of Atrial Fibrillation cohort: clinical correlates and the effect of rhythm-control therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) may progress to persistent AF. We studied the clinical correlates and the effect of rhythm-control strategy on AF progression. METHODS: RecordAF was a worldwide prospective survey of AF management. Consecutive eligible patients with recent-onset AF were included and allocated to rate or rhythm control according to patient/physician choice. A total of 2,137 patients were followed up for 12 months. Atrial fibrillation progression was defined as a change from paroxysmal to persistent/permanent AF. RESULTS: Progression of AF occurred in 318 patients (15%) after 1 year. Patients with AF progression were older; had a higher diastolic blood pressure; and more often had a history of coronary artery disease, stroke or transient ischemic attack, hypertension, or heart failure. Patients treated with rhythm control were less likely to show progression than those treated only with rate control (164/1542 [11%] vs 154/595 [26%], P < .001). Multivariable analysis showed that history of heart failure (odds ratio [OR] 2.2, 95% CI 1.7-2.9, P < .0001), history of hypertension (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.0, P = .01), and rate control rather than rhythm control (OR 3.2, 95% CI 2.5-4.1, P < .0001) were independent predictors of AF progression. The propensity score-adjusted OR of AF progression in patients with rate rather than rhythm control was 3.3 (95% CI 2.4-4.6, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Although heart failure and hypertension are associated with AF progression, rhythm control is associated with lower risk of AF progression.

Symptoms, functional status and quality of life in patients with controlled and uncontrolled atrial fibrillation: data from the RealiseAF cross-sectional international registry.

BACKGROUND: Rate control and rhythm control are accepted management strategies for atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVE: RealiseAF aimed to describe the success of either strategy and the impact of control on symptomatic status of patients with AF. METHODS: This international, observational, cross-sectional survey of patients with any history of AF in the previous year, recorded AF characteristics, management and frequency of control (defined as sinus rhythm or AF with resting heart rate ≤80 bpm). RESULTS: Overall, 9665 patients were evaluable for AF control, with 59.0% controlled (sinus rhythm 26.5%, AF ≤80 bpm 32.5%) and 41.0% uncontrolled. Symptom prevalence in the previous week was lower in controlled than uncontrolled AF (55.7% vs 68.4%; p<0.001) and similar for patients in sinus rhythm versus AF ≤80 bpm (54.8% vs 56.4%; p=0.23). At the visit, AF-related functional impairment (EHRA class >I) was seen in 67.4% of patients with controlled AF and 82.1% of patients with uncontrolled AF (p<0.001). Quality-of-life (QoL, measured using EQ-5D) was better for patients with controlled versus uncontrolled AF using the Visual Analogue Scale (mean (SD) score 67.1 (18.4) vs 63.2 (18.9); p<0.001), single index utility score (median 0.78 vs 0.73; p<0.001), or five dimensions of well-being (all p<0.001). Irrespective of AF control, cardiovascular events had led to hospitalisation in the past year in 28.1%. CONCLUSION: AF control is not optimal. Control appears to be associated with fewer symptoms and better QoL, but even patients with controlled AF have frequent symptoms, functional impairment, altered QoL and cardiovascular events. New treatments are needed to improve control and minimise the functional and QoL burden of AF.

Blood pressure control and components of the metabolic syndrome: the GOOD survey.

BACKGROUND: The GOOD (Global Cardiometabolic Risk Profile in Patients with Hypertension Disease) survey showed that blood pressure control was significantly worse in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome and/or diabetes mellitus than in those with essential hypertension only. This analysis aimed to investigate which components of the metabolic syndrome are primarily associated with poor blood pressure control. METHODS: The GOOD survey was designed as an observational cross-sectional survey in 12 European countries to assess the cardiometabolic risk profile in patients with essential hypertension. Investigators were randomly selected from a list of general practitioners (70% of investigators) and a list of specialists such as internists, cardiologists and hypertension specialists (30% of investigators). Data from 3,280 outpatients with hypertension, aged at least 30 years who were receiving antihypertensive treatment or had newly diagnosed hypertension according to the European Society of Hypertension and the European Society of Cardiology criteria, were included in the analyses. Blood pressure control, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, serum triglycerides, total and high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol measurements were compared in patients with diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome, with diabetes mellitus only, with metabolic syndrome only, and with neither metabolic syndrome nor diabetes mellitus. RESULTS: The highest blood pressure values were found in patients with metabolic syndrome with or without diabetes mellitus. Blood pressure was significantly lower in patients with diabetes mellitus only. The highest BMI, waist circumference and serum triglycerides, and the lowest HDL cholesterol levels among the groups studied occurred in patients with metabolic syndrome, either with or without diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSION: Among the components of the metabolic syndrome, it is not impaired glucose tolerance which is associated with the poor response to antihypertensive treatment. Instead, visceral obesity and dyslipidemia components of the metabolic syndrome, i.e. hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL cholesterol levels, are associated with resistance to antihypertensive treatment.

Where are we with the management of hypertension? From science to clinical practice.

The management of elevated blood pressure in patients at high cardiovascular risk is still a subject of debate. The authors review current international guidelines and results of large clinical trials and recent meta-analyses to discuss the different approaches in patients at high risk for cardiovascular events. The different treatment options are considered in view of the modern approach and of the different classes of drugs (diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, beta-blockers, and angiotensin II receptor blockers) currently in use. A case report is presented as an illustration of the difficulties related to the management of high blood pressure in patients at increased risk. The benefits of the use of 2 medications that include an inhibitor of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and a calcium channel blocker or a diuretic are discussed. Choosing the proper drugs and correct doses are important considerations for the long-term management of hypertension.

Increased prevalence of metabolic syndrome in uncontrolled hypertension across Europe: the Global Cardiometabolic Risk Profile in Patients with hypertension disease survey.

OBJECTIVES: The Global Cardiometabolic Risk Profile in Patients with hypertension disease survey investigated the cardiometabolic risk profile in adult outpatients with hypertension in Europe according to the control of blood pressure (BP) as defined in the European Society of Hypertension and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESH/ESC) guidelines. METHODS: Data on BP control and cardiometabolic risk factors were collected for 3370 patients with hypertension in 12 European countries. Prevalence was analyzed according to BP status and ATP III criteria for metabolic syndrome. RESULTS: BP was controlled (BP < 140/90 mmHg for nondiabetic patients; BP < 130/80 mmHg for diabetic patients) in 28.1% of patients. Patients with uncontrolled BP had significantly higher mean weight, BMI, waist circumference, fasting blood glucose, total cholesterol and triglycerides and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were significantly lower (women only) compared with patients with controlled BP (P < 0.05). The prevalence of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes was also significantly higher in patients with uncontrolled BP compared with controlled BP (P < 0.001) (metabolic syndrome: 66.5 versus 35.5%; diabetes 41.1 versus 9.8%, respectively). 95.3% of patients with both metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes had uncontrolled BP. In a multivariate analysis, diabetes and metabolic syndrome were found to be associated with a high risk of poor BP control: odds ratio, 2.56 (metabolic syndrome); 5.16 (diabetes). CONCLUSION: In this European study, fewer than one third of treated hypertensive patients had controlled BP. Metabolic syndrome and diabetes were important characteristics associated with poor BP control. Thus, more focus is needed on controlling hypertension in people with high cardiometabolic risk and diabetes.