Risk Factors Influencing Outcomes of Atrial Fibrillation in ALLHAT.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: ALLHAT, a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter clinical trial of high risk hypertensive participants, compared treatment with an ACE-inhibitor (lisinopril) or calcium channel blocker (amlodipine) with a diuretic (chlorthalidone). Primary outcome was the occurrence of fatal coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction. For this report, post-hoc analyses were conducted to determine the contribution of baseline characteristics of participants with or without baseline or incident atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFL) to stroke, heart failure (HF), coronary heart disease (CHD), and mortality outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Minnesota Coding of baseline and biennial in-trial ECGs was used to determine the 334 baseline and 537 incident AF/AFL cases, respectively participants with AF/AFL: Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios of presence versus absence of either baseline or incident AF/AFL (as time-dependent covariate) for occurrence of stroke, CHD, HF, or mortality, while adjusting for selected baseline characteristics. Adjusted Cox regression was used to obtain hazard ratios (HRs) for presence versus absence of selected baseline characteristics among those with and without either baseline or incident AF/AFL. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, baseline AF/AFL was associated with stroke, HF, and mortality (HRs [95% CIs] 3.18, [2.34-4.33]; 2.65 [2.02-3.49]; and 2.10 [CI, 1.73-2.55], respectively, P < 0.05). Incident AF/AFL was a significant risk factor for HF and mortality (HRs 2.80 and 2.06, respectively, P < 0.05). Risk factor profiles for clinical outcomes for those with and without baseline or incident AF/AFL were largely similar. CONCLUSIONS: AF/AFL is a significant risk factor for stroke, HF, and mortality. Additional risk factors for these outcomes were generally similar for participants with and without baseline or incident AF/AFL.

Pharmacologic Prevention of Incident Atrial Fibrillation: Long-Term Results From the ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial).

BACKGROUND: Although atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines indicate that pharmacological blockade of the renin-angiotensin system may be considered for primary AF prevention in hypertensive patients, previous studies have yielded conflicting results. We sought to determine whether randomization to lisinopril reduces incident AF or atrial flutter (AFL) compared with chlorthalidone in a large clinical trial cohort with extended post-trial surveillance. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a secondary analysis of the ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial), a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial that enrolled hypertensive individuals ≥55 years of age with at least one other cardiovascular risk factor. Participants were randomly assigned to receive amlodipine, lisinopril, or chlorthalidone. Individuals with elevated fasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were also randomized to pravastatin versus usual care. The primary outcome was the development of either AF or AFL as diagnosed by serial study ECGs or by Medicare claims data. Among 14 837 participants without prevalent AF or AFL, 2514 developed AF/AFL during a mean 7.5±3.2 years of follow-up. Compared with chlorthalidone, randomization to either lisinopril (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.15; P=0.46) or amlodipine (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.03; P=0.16) was not associated with a significant reduction in incident AF/AFL. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with chlorthalidone, treatment with lisinopril is not associated with a meaningful reduction in incident AF or AFL among older adults with a history of hypertension. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00000542.

Influence of Prevalent and Incident Atrial Fibrillation on Post-Trial Major Events in ALLHAT.

AIMS: Limited information is available on long-term antihypertensive and lipid-lowering therapy effects on hypertensive patients with atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF/AFL) compared to those without. AF/AFL at baseline or during the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) (mean follow-up 4.9 years) markedly increased risk of stroke, heart failure, CHD, and all-cause mortality. We aimed to determine if AF/AFL continued to impact outcomes during post-trial follow-up (mean 3.8 years). METHODS: Patients were randomized to chlorthalidone, amlodipine, or lisinopril, and to pravastatin vs. usual care in the lipid-lowering trial (LLT). Of 31,473 available subjects, AF/AFL occurred in 854; 383/14,371 chlorthalidone (2.7%), 247/8565 amlodipine (2.9%), and 224/8537 lisinopril (2.6%). Post-hoc analyses utilized administrative databases for post-trial data. Individuals with AF/AFL were compared to those without during post-trial. Outcomes were analyzed by treatment groups for the antihypertensive and LLT trials. RESULTS: Among 854 AF/AFL participants, 491 (57.5%) died: 220 in-trial, 271 post-trial. Ten-year all-cause mortality rates for those with in-trial AF/AFL were similar for chlorthalidone and lisinopril, but lower for amlodipine (68, 66, and 49 per 100 persons, respectively); adjusted HR for amlodipine vs. chlorthalidone was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.54-0.87). Ten-year all-cause mortality rates were 57 vs. 65 per 100 persons (pravastatin vs. usual care); non-CVD mortality rates, 18 vs. 39 per 100 persons (pravastatin vs. usual care) (adjusted HR = 0.46, 95% CI, 0.24-0.86). CONCLUSION: Post-trial follow-up revealed continued deleterious AF/AFL effects. The amlodipine (ALLHAT) and pravastatin (ALLHAT-LLT) treatment groups showed lower all-cause and non-CVD mortality compared to the chlorthalidone and usual-care groups, respectively.

Effect of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) on Conduction System Disease.

IMPORTANCE: Cardiac conduction abnormalities are associated with an increased risk for morbidity and mortality, and understanding factors that accelerate or delay conduction system disease could help to identify preventive and therapeutic strategies. Antifibrotic and anti-inflammatory properties of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and treatment for hyperlipidemia may reduce the risk for incident conduction system disease. OBJECTIVE: To identify the effect of pharmacologic therapy randomization and clinical risk factors on the incidence of conduction system disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This secondary analysis of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) investigation acquired data from 623 North American centers. A total of 21 004 ambulatory individuals 55 years or older with hypertension and at least 1 other cardiac risk factor were included in the analysis. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to receive amlodipine besylate, lisinopril, or chlorthalidone. Individuals with elevated fasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were also randomized to pravastatin sodium vs usual care. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: An electrocardiogram (ECG) was obtained at study enrollment and every 2 years of follow-up. The development of incident first-degree atrioventricular block, left anterior fascicular block, incomplete left bundle branch block (LBBB), LBBB, incomplete right bundle branch block (RBBB), RBBB, or intraventricular conduction delay was assessed by serial ECGs. RESULTS: The 21 004 participants (11 758 men [56.0%]; 9246 women [44.0%]; mean [SD] age, 66.5 [7.3] years) underwent a mean (SD) follow-up of 5.0 (1.2) years. Among the 1114 participants who developed any conduction defect, 389 developed LBBB, 570 developed RBBB, and 155 developed intraventricular conduction delay. Compared with chlorthalidone, randomization to lisinopril was associated with a significant 19% reduction in conduction abnormalities (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95; P = .01). Treatment with amlodipine, however, was not associated with a significant difference in conduction outcome events (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.81-1.09; P = .42). Similarly, pravastatin treatment was not associated with a reduced adjusted risk for incident disease compared with usual hyperlipidemia treatment (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.95-1.35; P = .18). Increased age (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.34-1.63; P < .001), male sex (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.50-0.73; P < .001), white race (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.50-0.70; P < .001), diabetes (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07-1.42; P = .003), and left ventricular hypertrophy (HR, 3.20; 95% CI, 2.61-3.94; P < .001) were also independently associated with increased risk for conduction system disease. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Incident conduction system disease is significantly reduced by lisinopril therapy and is independently associated with multiple clinical factors. Further studies are warranted to determine whether pharmacologic treatment affects conduction abnormality outcomes, including pacemaker implantation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000542.

Should Antihypertensive Treatment Recommendations Differ in Patients With and Without Coronary Heart Disease? (from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial [ALLHAT]).

Thiazide-type diuretics have been recommended for initial treatment of hypertension in most patients, but should this recommendation differ for patients with and without coronary heart disease (CHD)? The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) was a randomized, double-blind hypertension treatment trial in 42,418 participants with high risk of combined cardiovascular disease (CVD) (25% with preexisting CHD). This post hoc analysis compares long-term major clinical outcomes in those assigned amlodipine (n = 9048) or lisinopril (n = 9,054) with those assigned chlorthalidone (n = 15,255), stratified by CHD status. After 4 to 8 years, randomized treatment was discontinued. Total follow-up (active treatment + passive surveillance using national databases for deaths and hospitalizations) was 8 to 13 years. For most CVD outcomes, end-stage renal disease, and total mortality, there were no differences across randomized treatment arms regardless of baseline CHD status. In-trial rates of CVD were significantly higher for lisinopril compared with chlorthalidone, and rates of heart failure were significantly higher for amlodipine compared with chlorthalidone in those with and without CHD (overall hazard ratios [HRs] 1.10, p <0.001, and 1.38, p <0.001, respectively). During extended follow-up, significant outcomes according to CHD status interactions (p = 0.012) were noted in amlodipine versus chlorthalidone comparison for CVD and CHD mortality (HR 0.88, p = 0.04, and 0.84, p = 0.04, respectively) in those with CHD at baseline (HR 1.06, p = 0.15, and 1.08, p = 0.17) and in those without. The results of the overall increased stroke mortality in lisinopril compared with chlorthalidone (HR 1.2; p = 0.03) and hospitalized heart failure in amlodipine compared with chlorthalidone (HR 1.12; p = 0.01) during extended follow-up did not differ by baseline CHD status. In conclusion, these results provide no reason to alter our previous recommendation to include a properly dosed diuretic (such as chlorthalidone 12.5 to 25 mg/day) in the initial antihypertensive regimen for most hypertensive patients.

Abnormal Origin of the Right Pulmonary Artery From Ascending Aorta (Hemitruncus Arteriosus).

Hemitruncus arteriosus is a rare congenital deformity that results in early infant mortality. Persistence into adulthood is very unusual and is associated with pulmonary hypertension. We report a case in an adult male with the associated clinical issues.

Mortality and morbidity during and after Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial: results by sex.

To determine whether an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril) or calcium channel blocker (amlodipine) is superior to a diuretic (chlorthalidone) in reducing cardiovascular disease incidence in sex subgroups, we carried out a prespecified subgroup analysis of 15 638 women and 17 719 men in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). Total follow-up (active treatment + passive surveillance using national administrative databases to ascertain deaths and hospitalizations) was 8 to 13 years. The primary outcome was fatal coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, stroke, combined cardiovascular disease (coronary heart disease death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, angina, coronary revascularization, heart failure [HF], or peripheral vascular disease), and end-stage renal disease. In-trial rates of HF, stroke, and combined cardiovascular disease were significantly higher for lisinopril compared with chlorthalidone, and rates of HF were significantly higher for amlodipine compared with chlorthalidone in both men and women. There were no significant treatment sex interactions. These findings did not persist through the extension period with the exception of the HF result for amlodipine versus chlorthalidone, which did not differ significantly by sex. For both women and men, rates were not lower in the amlodipine or lisinopril groups than in the chlorthalidone group for either the primary coronary heart disease outcome or any other cardiovascular disease outcome, and chlorthalidone-based treatment resulted in the lowest risk of HF. Neither lisinopril nor amlodipine is superior to chlorthalidone for initial treatment of hypertension in either women or men. Clinical Trial Registration- clinicaltrials.gov; Identifier: NCT00000542.

Long-term renal and cardiovascular outcomes in Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) participants by baseline estimated GFR.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: CKD is common among older patients. This article assesses long-term renal and cardiovascular outcomes in older high-risk hypertensive patients, stratified by baseline estimated GFR (eGFR), and long-term outcome efficacy of 5-year first-step treatment with amlodipine or lisinopril, each compared with chlorthalidone. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This was a long-term post-trial follow-up of hypertensive participants (n=31,350), aged ≥55 years, randomized to receive chlorthalidone, amlodipine, or lisinopril for 4-8 years at 593 centers. Participants were stratified by baseline eGFR (ml/min per 1.73 m(2)) as follows: normal/increased (≥90; n=8027), mild reduction (60-89; n=17,778), and moderate/severe reduction (<60; n=5545). Outcomes were cardiovascular mortality (primary outcome), total mortality, coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease, stroke, heart failure, and ESRD. RESULTS: After an average 8.8-year follow-up, total mortality was significantly higher in participants with moderate/severe eGFR reduction compared with those with normal and mildly reduced eGFR (P<0.001). In participants with an eGFR <60, there was no significant difference in cardiovascular mortality between chlorthalidone and amlodipine (P=0.64), or chlorthalidone and lisinopril (P=0.56). Likewise, no significant differences were observed for total mortality, coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease, stroke, or ESRD. CONCLUSIONS: CKD is associated with significantly higher long-term risk of cardiovascular events and mortality in older hypertensive patients. By eGFR stratum, 5-year treatment with amlodipine or lisinopril was not superior to chlorthalidone in preventing cardiovascular events, mortality, or ESRD during 9-year follow-up. Because data on proteinuria were not available, these findings may not be extrapolated to proteinuric CKD.

Mortality and morbidity during and after the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial.

A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter trial assigned 32,804 participants aged 55 years and older with hypertension and ≥ 1 other coronary heart disease risk factors to receive chlorthalidone (n=15,002), amlodipine (n=8898), or lisinopril (n=8904) for 4 to 8 years, when double-blinded therapy was discontinued. Passive surveillance continued for a total follow-up of 8 to 13 years using national administrative databases to ascertain deaths and hospitalizations. During the post-trial period, fatal outcomes and nonfatal outcomes were available for 98% and 65% of participants, respectively, due to lack of access to administrative databases for the remainder. This paper assesses whether mortality and morbidity differences persisted or new differences developed during the extended follow-up. Primary outcome was cardiovascular mortality and secondary outcomes were mortality, stroke, coronary heart disease, heart failure, cardiovascular disease, and end-stage renal disease. For the post-trial period, data are not available on medications or blood pressure levels. No significant differences (P<.05) appeared in cardiovascular mortality for amlodipine (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.06) or lisinopril (HR, 0.97; CI, 0.90-1.03), each compared with chlorthalidone. The only significant differences in secondary outcomes were for heart failure, which was higher with amlodipine (HR, 1.12; CI, 1.02-1.22), and stroke mortality, which was higher with lisinopril (HR, 1.20; CI, 1.01-1.41), each compared with chlorthalidone. Similar to the previously reported in-trial result, there was a significant treatment-by-race interaction for cardiovascular disease for lisinopril vs chlorthalidone. Black participants had higher risk than non-black participants taking lisinopril compared with chlorthalidone. After accounting for multiple comparisons, none of these results were significant. These findings suggest that neither calcium channel blockers nor angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are superior to diuretics for the long-term prevention of major cardiovascular complications of hypertension.

Atrial fibrillation at baseline and during follow-up in ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial).

OBJECTIVES: The ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial) determined that treatment with amlodipine, lisinopril, or doxazosin was not superior to thiazide-like diuretic (chlorthalidone) in preventing coronary heart disease (CHD) or other cardiovascular events. This subanalysis examines baseline prevalence and in-trial incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter (AFL) and their influence on clinical outcomes. BACKGROUND: Limited information is available on whether atrial fibrillation incidence is affected differentially by different classes of antihypertensive medications or treatment with statins. METHODS: AF/AFL was identified from baseline and follow-up electrocardiograms performed biannually. Analyses were performed to identify characteristics associated with baseline AF/AFL and its subsequent incidence. RESULTS: AF/AFL was present at baseline in 423 participants (1.1%), more frequent in men (odds ratio: 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.37 to 2.17) and nonblacks (odds ratio: 2.09; 95% CI: 1.58 to 2.75). Its prevalence increased with age (p < 0.001) and was associated with CHD, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol <35 mg/dl. New-onset AF/AFL was associated with the same baseline risk factors plus electrocardiogram left ventricular hypertrophy. It occurred in 641 participants (2.0%) and, excluding doxazosin, did not differ by antihypertensive treatment group or, in a subset of participants, by pravastatin versus usual care. Baseline AF/AFL was associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.82; 95% CI: 2.36 to 3.37; p < 0.001), stroke (HR: 3.63; 95% CI: 2.72 to 4.86; p < 0.001), heart failure (HR: 3.17; 95% CI: 2.38 to 4.25; p < 0.001), and fatal CHD or nonfatal myocardial infarction (HR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.22 to 2.21; p < 0.01). There was a nearly 2.5-fold increase in mortality risk when AF/AFL was present at baseline or developed during the trial (HR: 2.42; 95% CI: 2.11 to 2.77; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this high-risk hypertensive population, pre-existing and new-onset AF/AFL were associated with increased mortality. Excluding doxazosin, treatment assignment to either antihypertensive drugs or pravastatin versus usual care did not affect AF/AFL incidence. (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial [ALLHAT]; NCT00000542).

ALLHAT findings revisited in the context of subsequent analyses, other trials, and meta-analyses.

The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) is reevaluated considering information from new clinical trials, meta-analyses, and recent subgroup and explanatory analyses from ALLHAT, especially those regarding heart failure (HF) and the association of drug treatment with new-onset diabetes mellitus (DM) and its cardiovascular disease (CVD) consequences. Chlorthalidone was superior to (1) doxazosin mesylate in preventing combined CVD (CCVD) (risk ratio [RR], 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-1.27), especially HF (RR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.40-2.22) and stroke (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.10-1.46); (2) lisinopril in preventing CCVD (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.16), including stroke (in black persons only) and HF (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.09-1.34); and (3) amlodipine besylate in preventing HF, overall (by 28%) and in hospitalized or fatal cases (by 26%). Central independent blinded reassessment of HF hospitalizations confirmed each comparison. Results were consistent by age, sex, race (except for stroke and CCVD), DM status, metabolic syndrome status, and renal function level. Neither amlodipine nor lisinopril was superior to chlorthalidone in preventing end-stage renal disease overall, by DM status, or by renal function level. In the chlorthalidone arm, new-onset DM was not significantly associated with CCVD (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88-2.42). Evidence from subsequent analyses of ALLHAT and other clinical outcome trials confirm that neither alpha-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, nor calcium channel blockers surpass thiazide-type diuretics (at appropriate dosage) as initial therapy for reduction of cardiovascular or renal risk. Thiazides are superior in preventing HF, and new-onset DM associated with thiazides does not increase CVD outcomes.

Cardiovascular function and dysfunction in sickle cell anemia.

The 100th anniversary of the discovery of sickle cell anemia (SCA) as a distinct clinical entity by James B. Herrick in 1910 will soon be a reality. SCA continues to present opportunities for elemental observations of basic science and pathophysiologic clinical mechanisms-in particular, those associated with cardiopulmonary and circulatory disorders. Data indicate that cardiomegaly results from increased work caused by the anemia and that myocardial ischemia may result from the combined effects of severe anemia, microthrombi, and increased blood viscosity producing myocardial dysfunction, scarring, and elevated filling pressures. Sudden death has resulted from frank myocardial infarction and ischemia-induced rhythm disturbances. Myocardial injury may also be associated with bone marrow embolism. Mortality risk factors include systemic hypertension, pulmonary hypertension, and possibly subclinical electrical instability.

Clinical assessment of the risk for sudden cardiac death in patients with sickle cell anemia.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggest that patients with sickle cell anemia (SCA) have an increased risk of sudden cardiac death; however, its etiology and mechanism are not well defined. Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), ventricular tachycardia (VT) and poor left ventricular systolic function are known risk factors for sudden cardiac death. An abnormal microvolt T-wave alternans (TWA) test is also a predictor of sudden cardiac death risk, but it has not been applied to this patient population. METHODS: We performed a 12-lead electrocardiogram, 24-hour Holter monitor, two-dimensional echocardiogram, nuclear stress test and microvolt TWA test to determine whether markers of sudden cardiac death could be identified. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were evaluated with a mean age of 40 +/- 12 years. The two-dimensional echocardiogram revealed a normal ejection fraction in 23 patients and LVH in 17 (65%), whereas hypertension was noted in only five (19%). Microvolt TWA testing was abnormal in six of 22 patients (27%). Holter monitor revealed VT in two patients. Among the clinical variables tested, only LVH was predictive of an abnormal TWA test. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of LVH for and abnormal TWA test was 100, 56, 46 and 100%. CONCLUSION: LVH was common in patients with SCA and disproportional to the number of patients with hypertension. Microvolt TWA tests were abnormal in 27% of patients; however, LVH was the only clinical variable that predicted an abnormal TWA test. Risk stratification of SCA patients may require echocardiographic detection of LVH and an abnormal TWA test due to the high negative predictive value. The significance of an abnormal TWA test should be further evaluated in a large study, with a longer follow-up period.

Clinical outcomes by race in hypertensive patients with and without the metabolic syndrome: Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

BACKGROUND: Antihypertensive drugs with favorable metabolic effects are advocated for first-line therapy in hypertensive patients with metabolic/cardiometabolic syndrome (MetS). We compared outcomes by race in hypertensive individuals with and without MetS treated with a thiazide-type diuretic (chlorthalidone), a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine besylate), an alpha-blocker (doxazosin mesylate), or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril). METHODS: A subgroup analysis of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT), a randomized, double-blind hypertension treatment trial of 42 418 participants. We defined MetS as hypertension plus at least 2 of the following: fasting serum glucose level of at least 100 mg/dL, body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of at least 30, fasting triglyceride levels of at least 150 mg/dL, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels of less than 40 mg/dL in men or less than 50 mg/dL in women. RESULTS: Significantly higher rates of heart failure were consistent across all treatment comparisons in those with MetS. Relative risks (RRs) were 1.50 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.90), 1.49 (1.17-1.90), and 1.88 (1.42-2.47) in black participants and 1.25 (1.06-1.47), 1.20 (1.01-1.41), and 1.82 (1.51-2.19) in nonblack participants for amlodipine, lisinopril, and doxazosin comparisons with chlorthalidone, respectively. Higher rates for combined cardiovascular disease were observed with lisinopril-chlorthalidone (RRs, 1.24 [1.09-1.40] and 1.10 [1.02-1.19], respectively) and doxazosin-chlorthalidone comparisons (RRs, 1.37 [1.19-1.58] and 1.18 [1.08-1.30], respectively) in black and nonblack participants with MetS. Higher rates of stroke were seen in black participants only (RR, 1.37 [1.07-1.76] for the lisinopril-chlorthalidone comparison, and RR, 1.49 [1.09-2.03] for the doxazosin-chlorthalidone comparison). Black patients with MetS also had higher rates of end-stage renal disease (RR, 1.70 [1.13-2.55]) with lisinopril compared with chlorthalidone. CONCLUSIONS: The ALLHAT findings fail to support the preference for calcium channel blockers, alpha-blockers, or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors compared with thiazide-type diuretics in patients with the MetS, despite their more favorable metabolic profiles. This was particularly true for black participants.

Clinical events in high-risk hypertensive patients randomly assigned to calcium channel blocker versus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor in the antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment to prevent heart attack trial.

The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering treatment to prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) provides a unique opportunity to compare the long-term relative safety and efficacy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and calcium channel blocker-initiated therapy in older hypertensive individuals. Patients were randomized to amlodipine (n=9048) or lisinopril (n=9054). The primary outcome was combined fatal coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction, analyzed by intention-to-treat. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, stroke, combined cardiovascular disease (CVD), end-stage renal disease (ESRD), cancer, and gastrointestinal bleeding. Mean follow-up was 4.9 years. Blood pressure control was similar in nonblacks, but not in blacks. No significant differences were found between treatment groups for the primary outcome, all-cause mortality, ESRD, or cancer. Stroke rates were higher on lisinopril in blacks (RR=1.51, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.86) but not in nonblacks (RR=1.07, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.28), and in women (RR=1.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.79), but not in men (RR=1.10, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.31). Rates of combined CVD were higher (RR=1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12) because of higher rates for strokes, peripheral arterial disease, and angina, which were partly offset by lower rates for heart failure (RR=0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.96) on lisinopril compared with amlodipine. Gastrointestinal bleeds and angioedema were higher on lisinopril. Patients with and without baseline coronary heart disease showed similar outcome patterns. We conclude that in hypertensive patients, the risks for coronary events are similar, but for stroke, combined CVD, gastrointestinal bleeding, and angioedema are higher and for heart failure are lower for lisinopril-based compared with amlodipine-based therapy. Some, but not all, of these differences may be explained by less effective blood pressure control in the lisinopril arm.

Atrial fibrillation among African Americans, Hispanics and Caucasians: clinical features and outcomes from the AFFIRM trial.

UNLABELLED: The Atrial Fibrillation Follow-Up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) study concluded that rate control with anticoagulation was equivalent overall to rhythm control with cardioversion for long-term survival and that anticoagulation reduced the risk of stroke. We compared baseline and follow-up data for three ethnic groups: Caucasians (n=3,599), African Americans (n=265) and Hispanics (n=132). Caucasians were older and more likely male, African Americans were more likely female and hypertensive, and Hispanics had higher prevalence of cardiomyopathy. Survival was better for rate control than rhythm control in Caucasians, equivalent in African Americans and better for rhythm control in Hispanics. Outcomes may be influenced by differential baseline characteristics, but low numbers of African Americans and Hispanics warrant caution in data interpretation. BACKGROUND: The AFFIRM study compared a rate-control strategy to a rhythm-control strategy for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients at high risk for stroke or death. It concluded that the rhythm-control strategy offered no survival advantage, and it also confirmed the value of anticoagulation to prevent complications of AF. Data have not previously been available for specific racial ethnic populations. METHODS: We compared baseline and follow-up data for the patients randomized to rate-control versus rhythm-control in three population groups-Caucasian, African-American and Hispanic. RESULTS: Among 4,060 total patients, 3,599 were Caucasian, 265 were African-American and 132 were Hispanic. At baseline, Caucasians were older and had a higher percentage of males, normal ejection fractions, AF as their only cardiac diagnosis, a prior antiarrhythmic drug failure and less congestive heart failure. African Americans were more likely to be female, had more hypertension and qualified for the study with a first episode of AF, compared to Caucasians. Hispanics had more cardiomyopathy at baseline than Caucasians. Overall survival in Caucasians at five years for the rate-control and rhythm-control groups was 78.9% vs. 76.4%, respectively (p=0.04); for African Americans, 79.0% vs. 69.4% (p=0.22); and for Hispanics, 66.5% vs. 83.9% (p=0.01). Overall, survival was not different between the three populations. However, lower rates of event-free survival were recorded for Hispanics and for African Americans (p=0.0182). CONCLUSIONS: Different survival rates were found for rate-control versus rhythm-control in African-American and Hispanic patients, compared to Caucasian. These findings may be influenced by differences in baseline characteristics, but must be interpreted with caution because of the small sample sizes for African-American and Hispanic participants.