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.

Effect of seven different modalities of antihypertensive therapy on pulse pressure in patients with newly diagnosed stage I hypertension.

In this study, we investigated the effect of different antihypertensive agents on pulse pressure (PP). The study was designed in a prospective manner and patients were sequentially allocated to one of the seven different therapy groups, according to the order of enrollment (every first patient to group I, every second patient to group II, and etc). Patients in group I received 10 mg of lisinopril, in group II 10/6.25 mg of lisinopril/hydrochlorothiazide, in group III 80 mg of valsartan, in group IV 80/6.25 mg of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide, in group V 5 mg of amlodipine, in group VI 1.25 mg of indapamide, and finally those in group VII received 50 mg of atenolol. The reduction in PP was more significant in patients receiving lisinopril, lisinopril hydrochlorothiazide, valsartan, and valsartan hydrochlorothiazide, when compared with patients receiving indapamide, atenolol, and amlodipine (P < 0.05 for each group). Factors such as age, gender, and body mass index were not found to significantly influence the effectiveness of antihypertensive agents on PP. The reduction in PP was more apparent with lisinopril, lisinopril hydrochlorothiazide, valsartan, and valsartan hydrochlorothiazide in diabetic patients, when compared with those without diabetes (P < 0.001, P < 0.05). And also patients on therapy with 3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl-CoA (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors had a greater reduction in PP with lisinopril, lisinopril hydrochlorothiazide, valsartan, and valsartan hydrochlorothiazide (P < 0.001, P < 0.05).