Serial measurement of cardiac troponin T using a highly sensitive assay in patients with chronic heart failure: data from 2 large randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac troponins are emerging as important prognostic markers in chronic cardiovascular conditions like stable coronary artery disease or chronic heart failure (HF). Less is known about the relation between serial measurements of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and future events in HF. We determined the association between changes over time in hs-cTnT and outcome in patients with chronic HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed 5284 patients with chronic HF from 2 independent randomized clinical trials, the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT) (n=4053) and the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Insufficienza Cardiaca-Heart Failure (GISSI-HF) trial (n=1231). hs-cTnT was measured at randomization and after 3 months (GISSI-HF) or 4 months of follow-up (Val-HeFT). The association between changes over time of hs-cTnT and various outcomes was tested in multivariable models. In both studies, increases in hs-cTnT levels over time were associated with age, diabetes mellitus, worsening of renal function (reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate), and baseline and increases in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide concentrations. Increases in hs-cTnT concentrations were associated with all-cause mortality (incidence rates, 8.19 [7.51-8.88] and 6.79 [5.98-7.61] per 100 person-years in Val-HeFT and GISSI-HF, respectively, with hazard ratios [95% confidence intervals] of 1.59 [1.39-1.82] and 1.88 [1.50-2.35]) after adjustment for conventional risk factors and baseline levels of hs-cTnT and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide. Changes in hs-cTnT concentration modestly improved prognostic discrimination beyond baseline values for fatal outcomes only. CONCLUSIONS: Despite very low circulating concentrations, changes in hs-cTnT concentrations over time are robust predictors of future cardiovascular events in patients with chronic HF but add limited prognostic discrimination. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00336336.

Left atrial remodeling and response to valsartan in the prevention of recurrent atrial fibrillation: the GISSI-AF echocardiographic substudy.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial (LA) dilation precedes or appears early after the onset of atrial fibrillation (AF) and factors in perpetuating the arrhythmia. Angiotensin receptor blockers were proposed for reversing LA remodeling. We evaluated the effect of valsartan on LA remodeling in patients with a recent episode of AF and the effect of LA size on AF recurrence (AFr). METHODS AND RESULTS: LA and left ventricular (LV) echocardiographic variables were measured at baseline and 6 and 12 months in 340 patients from GISSI-AF, a trial testing valsartan prevention of AFr. Reversal of remodeling was considered as a decrease in LA size over 12 months. Changes in patients with and without recurrence and the relationship to duration of AFr were analyzed. Patients were 68.4±8.8 years old, with history of hypertension (85.3%) and cardioversion in the previous 2 weeks (87.4%) or ≥2 AFr in the previous 6 months (40.4%). Baseline LA maximal volume (LAVmax) was severely increased (>40 mL/m(2)); LV dimensions and function were relatively normal. Over 12 months, 54.4% of patients had AFr. LAVmax was unchanged by rhythm, time, or randomized treatment. Higher baseline LAVmax and lower LA emptying fraction were linearly related to increasing AFr duration during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: GISSI-AF patients in sinus rhythm and history of AF showed severely increased LAVmax with mostly normal LV volume, mass, and systolic and diastolic function. Valsartan for 1 year did not reverse LA remodeling or prevent AFr. Half of the patients without AFr had severe LA dilation; therefore, mechanisms other than structural remodeling triggered recurrence.

Predicting atrial fibrillation recurrence with circulating inflammatory markers in patients in sinus rhythm at high risk for atrial fibrillation: data from the GISSI atrial fibrillation trial.

BACKGROUND: Inflammation may play a significant role in the pathogenesis of atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVES: To examine the roles of three systemic inflammatory markers in predicting recurrent AF. METHODS: The association between the plasma concentrations of high-sensitivity C reactive protein (hsCRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and pentraxin-3 (PTX3) with echocardiographic parameters and with the time to first recurrence of AF was tested in 382 patients with a history of AF but in sinus rhythm at randomisation, enrolled in the GISSI-AF biohumoral study. RESULTS: Baseline PTX3 was related to left atrial, but not to left ventricular chamber volume. During one year of follow-up, 204 patients (53.1%) had a recurrent AF. There were no significant differences in baseline median [Q1-Q3] plasma concentrations of IL-6, hsCRP and PTX3 among patients with (2.11 [1.47-3.74] pg/ml, 3.30 [1.40-6.80] mg/l and 4.66 [3.27-6.97] ng/ml, respectively) or without recurrent AF (2.09 [1.37-2.90] pg/ml, p=0.182; 3.00 [1.10-6.20] mg/l, p=0.333; 5.09 [3.22-7.98] ng/ml, p=0.637). At 6 and 12 months follow-up, AF patients had significantly higher concentrations of IL-6 and PTX3 than those in sinus rhythm, and those with most recent episodes of AF had higher hsCRP. Baseline levels of IL-6, hsCRP or PTX3 were not significantly associated with a higher risk of recurrence of AF. CONCLUSION: In patients with a history of AF, but without significant left ventricular dysfunction or heart failure, inflammatory biomarkers may be raised but are, at best, weak predictors of the risk for first recurrence of AF.

Ambulatory versus clinic blood pressure for the assessment of anti hypertensive efficacy in clinical trials: insights from the Val-Syst Study.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have found that measurement of blood pressure (BP) in the clinical setting may lead to overestimation of hypertension and may yield inaccurate assessments of the efficacy of antihypertensive treatment. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of clinic BP in the Valsartan and Amlodipine for the Treatment of Isolated Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly (Val-Syst) study accurately identified those elderly outpatients with systolic hypertension who had true 24-hour elevations in BP, as well as those who required dose increases in antihypertensive therapy during follow-up. METHODS: In Val-Syst, patients aged between 60 and 80 years with a clinic sitting systolic BP (SBP) of 160 to 220 mm Hg and a diastolic BP <90 mm Hg after a 2-week placebo washout period were randomized to receive valsartan 80 mg or amlodipine 5 mg once daily (level 1). In those with a trough SBP > or =140 mm Hg after 8 weeks of double-blind treatment, doses were titrated upward to valsartan 160 mg or amlodipine 10 mg once daily (level 2). If clinic SBP was > or =140 mm Hg after a further 8 weeks, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg was added for an additional 8 weeks (level 3). Clinical decisions during the active-treatment period were based on clinic BP measurements. Thirteen of the 35 participating centers assessed ambulatory BP as well as clinic BP at baseline and the end of the treatment, making it possible to compare the results of the 2 modes of measurement. The Student test was used to compare drug-induced changes in clinic and ambulatory BP in individual patients. Differences between the decreases in clinic and ambulatory BP at the 3 treatment levels were tested using repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with baseline as the covariate. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-four elderly patients (age range, 60-80 years; 85 men, 79 women) were included in the study (79 valsartan, 85 amlodipine), and valsartan and amlodipine were reported to have comparable effects on the level and rhythm of 24-hour BP In the present study, 22 of 164 patients had white-coat hypertension at baseline (clinic SBP > or =160 mm Hg and mean 24-hour SBP <130 mm Hg). For both treatments combined, the mean (SD) decreases in clinic SBP were inversely proportional to the treatment level (level 1 = -33.2 (7.9) mm Hg; level 2 = -31.6 (11.8) mm Hg; level 3 = -29.3 (11.6) mm Hg; P = 0.001, overall ANCOVA). In contrast, after adjusting for baseline values, the decreases in mean 24-hour SBP did not differ between treatment levels (level 1 = -10.8 [10.4] mm Hg; level 2 = -13.0 [11.2] mm Hg; level 3 = -16.4 [13.8] mm Hg). The decrease in clinic BP during therapy was similar in patients with white-coat hypertension and sustained hypertension (clinic SBP > or 160 mm Hg and mean 24-hour SBP > or =130 mm Hg), whereas 24-hour and 8- to 9-am SBP decreased significantly only in patients with sustained hypertension (P < 0.001). At the end of the study, mean 24-hour SBP continued to be uncontrolled (> or =130 mm Hg) in 16 of 53 patients (30.2%) at treatment level 1, 27 of 62 (43.5%) at level 2, and 19 of 49 (38.8%) at level 3 (P = NS). CONCLUSION: Based on the findings in this population of elderly patients with systolic hypertension, the management of hypertension may vary depending on whether decisions concerning the selection of patients for clinical trials and treatment adjustments during follow-up are made using clinic or ambulatory BP measurement.

Comparison of valsartan 160 mg with lisinopril 20 mg, given as monotherapy or in combination with a diuretic, for the treatment of hypertension: the Blood Pressure Reduction and Tolerability of Valsartan in Comparison with Lisinopril (PREVAIL) study.

BACKGROUND: The goal of antihypertensive therapy is to provide good blood pressure (BP) control without eliciting adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the risk-benefit profile of the angiotensin II receptor blocker valsartan with that of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor lisinopril in patients with mild to severe hypertension. The primary objective was to show that the equipotent BP-lowering effect of the valsartan-based treatment is accompanied by a better tolerability profile. METHODS: This 16-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study was conducted at 88 outpatient centers across Italy. After a 2-week placebo run-in period, patients aged > or = 18 years with mild to severe hypertension (systolic BP [SBP], 160-220 mm Hg; diastolic BP [DBP], 95-110 mm Hg) were eligible. Patients were randomized to receive once-daily, oral, self-administered treatment with valsartan 160-mg capsules or lisinopril 20-mg capsules under double-blind conditions for 4 weeks. Responders continued monotherapy, whereas nonresponders had hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg added for the final 12 weeks of the study. The 2 primary variables used to assess the equivalence of therapeutic efficacy of the 2 regimens were sitting SBP and sitting DBP, which were measured at weeks 0 (baseline), 4, 8, and 16. The rate of drug-related adverse events (AEs) was used to assess whether 1 treatment had a better tolerability profile than the other. Tolerability was assessed by collecting information about AEs by means of questioning the patient or physical examination at each visit. RESULTS: A total of 1213 patients were enrolled (635 men, 578 women; mean [SD] age, 54.5 [10.1] years [range, 28-78 years]). The study was completed by 1100 patients (553 receiving valsartan and 547 receiving lisinopril). Fifty-one patients (8.4%) treated with valsartan and 62 (10.2%) [corrected] treated with lisinopril withdrew, mainly because of AEs (9 [1.5%] and 23 patients [3.8%], respectively). The valsartan- and lisinopril-based treatments were similarly effective in reducing sitting BP, with mean SBP/DBP reductions of 31.2/15.9 mm Hg and 31.4/15.9 mm Hg, respectively. At the end of the study, BP was controlled in 82.6% [corrected] of the patients receiving valsartan and 81.6% of those receiving lisinopril. AEs were experienced by 5.1% of the patients treated with valsartan and 10.7% of those treated with lisinopril (P=.0001), with dry cough observed in 1.0% and 7.2% of patients, respectively (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Valsartan and lisinopril were both highly effective in controlling BP in these patients with mild to severe hypertension, but valsartan was associated with a significantly reduced risk for AEs, especially cough.

Comparison of the effect of valsartan and lisinopril on autonomic nervous system activity in chronic heart failure.

BACKGROUND: In chronic heart failure (CHF), the derangement of autonomic nervous system activity has a deep impact on the progression of the disease. It has been demonstrated that modulation of the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) increases autonomic control of heart rate and reduces adrenergic activity. We sought to evaluate, in CHF, the different effects of an ACE inhibitor (lisinopril) and of an AT1 receptor antagonist (valsartan) on heart rate variability, baroreflex sensitivity and norepinephrine plasma levels. METHODS: Ninety patients (61 +/- 10 years, 2.3 +/- 0.5, New York Heart Association class) with CHF and left ventricular ejection fraction <40% were randomly assigned in a double-blind fashion to receive lisinopril (uptitrated to 20 mg/d) or valsartan (uptitrated to 160 mg/d) therapy for 16 weeks. Heart rate variability (evaluated by measuring standard deviation of normal R-R intervals on 24-hour ECG recordings), spontaneous baroreflex sensitivity and aldosterone and norepinephrine plasma levels were assessed before and after drug therapy. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between valsartan and lisinopril in their effects on left ventricular function, arterial pressure, aldosterone plasma levels and autonomic control of heart rate. Both lisinopril and valsartan significantly reduced plasma norepinephrine levels, but the reduction induced by valsartan was significantly greater than that observed for lisinopril (27% vs 6%, P <.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows a comparable effect of ACE inhibition (lisinopril) and of AT1 receptor antagonism (valsartan) on cardiac vagal control of heart rate, whereas valsartan has shown a more effective modulation of sympathetic activity measured by plasma norepinephrine levels.

Coagulation activation and long-term outcome in acute coronary syndromes.

After an episode of unstable angina or myocardial infarction, a high proportion of patients show biochemical signs of coagulation activation, expressed as persistently elevated thrombin generation, in their blood. It is not known whether this has any influence on long-term outcome. In this prospective multicenter cohort study, we assessed the relation of persistently elevated thrombin generation to outcome in 319 consecutive patients with acute coronary syndromes enrolled in the Global Use of Strategies To Open occluded coronary arteries (GUSTO) IIb trial. Plasma prothrombin fragment 1 + 2 levels, an index of "in vivo" thrombin generation, was measured during the acute phase and after 1, 6, and 12 months, and its relation to outcome was assessed during a median 29-month follow-up period. The primary end point of cardiac death or myocardial (re)infarction occurred in 61 patients (19%). There was a U-shaped relationship between plasma prothrombin fragment 1 + 2 levels and the risk of developing the primary end point; intermediate levels (1.5-1.9 nM) were associated with the lowest risk, whereas both higher (> 1.9 nM) and lower (< 1.5 nM) values were associated with an increased risk (relative risk [RR] 1.56 and 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-2.28; RR, 1.35 and 95% CI, 1.11-1.86, respectively). After an episode of acute coronary syndrome, both high and low levels of thrombin generation are predictors of an increased risk of an unfavorable outcome.

Effects of combined ACE inhibitor and angiotensin II antagonist treatment in human chronic nephropathies.

BACKGROUND: Proteinuria predicts renal disease progression, and its reduction by angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin II receptor antagonists (ARA) is renoprotective. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, cross-over study of 24 patients with nondiabetic, chronic nephropathies, we compared the effects on proteinuria, renal hemodynamics, and glomerular permselectivity of 8 weeks with comparable blood pressure control achieved by benazepril (10 mg/day) and valsartan (80 mg/day) combined therapy with those achieved by benazepril (20 mg/day) or valsartan (160 mg/day) alone. RESULTS: Despite comparable changes in blood pressure and glomerular filtration rate (GFR), combined therapy decreased proteinuria more than benazepril (-56% vs. -45.9%, P=0.02) and valsartan (-41.5%, P=0.002). Changes in urinary protein to creatinine ratio followed the same trend. Filtration fraction and renal vascular resistances (RVR) decreased more with combined (-14.7%,-23.7%) or benazepril (-12.4%, -20.5%) than with valsartan (-2.7%, -12.5%, P < 0.05 vs. both). RVR changes, adjusted for GFR changes, were associated with those in proteinuria (P < 0.05). Changes in glomerular permeability were comparable and did not predict different changes in proteinuria in the three groups. CONCLUSION: At comparable blood pressure, combined ACEi and ARA decreased proteinuria better than ACEi and ARA. The greater antiproteinuric effect most likely depended on an ACEi-related hemodynamic effect, in addition to glomerular size selectivity amelioration. Long-term combined ACEi and ARA therapy may be more renoprotective than treatment with each agent alone.

Trough:peak ratio and smoothness index in the evaluation of 24-h blood pressure control in hypertension: a comparative study between valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination and amlodipine.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to measure the time-effect profiles of a once-daily administered valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination and amlodipine on blood pressure using various indices derived from 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring. METHODS: Of the 310 randomized outpatients with uncomplicated mild-to-moderate primary hypertension, 259 (133 on valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide, 126 on amlodipine) were eligible for analysis. After a 2-week placebo wash-out period, the patients were randomly allocated to treatment with either valsartan 80 mg once daily (o.d.) or amlodipine 5 mg o.d. for 4 weeks; in the case of an unsatisfactory blood pressure response, the treatments could be respectively changed to the fixed combination of valsartan 80 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg o.d. or amlodipine 10 mg o.d. for a further 8 weeks. The trough:peak ratio (global and individualized approaches) and smoothness index (i.e., the ratio between the average of the 24-hourly BP changes after treatment and the corresponding standard deviation) were calculated from 24-h ambulatory blood pressure recordings made after the placebo period and after 4 weeks and 12 weeks of active treatment. RESULTS: Both regimens effectively lowered systolic and diastolic ambulatory pressures after 4 weeks and 12 weeks (all P<0.001) but, among the responders, the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination had a greater antihypertensive effect during the night-time hours after 12 weeks (P=0.03/0.02). In the responders, the placebo-adjusted, mean trough:peak ratios were 0.76/0.74 in the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide group (n = 111) and 0.66/0.62 in the amlodipine group (n = 101). The corresponding global trough:peak ratios were 0.61/0.57 for the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination and 0.56/0.56 for amlodipine. However, the between-group differences in individual or global trough:peak ratios were not significant. The smoothness index was slightly, but insignificantly, greater for valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide than for amlodipine in the responders and the groups as a whole. CONCLUSION: Valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine were equally effective in reducing ambulatory BP, but the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination led to more homogeneous BP control during the inter-dosing interval. Trough:peak ratio and smoothness index did not reflect this finding accurately.