Orthostatic Hypotension, Hypertension Treatment, and Cardiovascular Disease: An Individual Participant Meta-Analysis.

Importance: There are ongoing concerns about the benefits of intensive vs standard blood pressure (BP) treatment among adults with orthostatic hypotension or standing hypotension. Objective: To determine the effect of a lower BP treatment goal or active therapy vs a standard BP treatment goal or placebo on cardiovascular disease (CVD) or all-cause mortality in strata of baseline orthostatic hypotension or baseline standing hypotension. Data Sources: Individual participant data meta-analysis based on a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases through May 13, 2022. Study Selection: Randomized trials of BP pharmacologic treatment (more intensive BP goal or active agent) with orthostatic hypotension assessments. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Individual participant data meta-analysis extracted following PRISMA guidelines. Effects were determined using Cox proportional hazard models using a single-stage approach. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were CVD or all-cause mortality. Orthostatic hypotension was defined as a decrease in systolic BP of at least 20 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP of at least 10 mm Hg after changing position from sitting to standing. Standing hypotension was defined as a standing systolic BP of 110 mm Hg or less or standing diastolic BP of 60 mm Hg or less. Results: The 9 trials included 29 235 participants followed up for a median of 4 years (mean age, 69.0 [SD, 10.9] years; 48% women). There were 9% with orthostatic hypotension and 5% with standing hypotension at baseline. More intensive BP treatment or active therapy lowered risk of CVD or all-cause mortality among those without baseline orthostatic hypotension (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.76-0.86) similarly to those with baseline orthostatic hypotension (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-1.00; P = .68 for interaction of treatment with baseline orthostatic hypotension). More intensive BP treatment or active therapy lowered risk of CVD or all-cause mortality among those without baseline standing hypotension (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.85), and nonsignificantly among those with baseline standing hypotension (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.75-1.18). Effects did not differ by baseline standing hypotension (P = .16 for interaction of treatment with baseline standing hypotension). Conclusions and Relevance: In this population of hypertension trial participants, intensive therapy reduced risk of CVD or all-cause mortality regardless of orthostatic hypotension without evidence for different effects among those with standing hypotension.

Left ventricular hypertrophy and incident cognitive decline in older adults with hypertension.

The association between raised blood pressure and increased risk of subsequent cognitive decline is well known. Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), as a marker of hypertensive target organ damage, may help identify those at risk of cognitive decline. We assessed whether LVH was associated with subsequent cognitive decline or dementia in hypertensive participants aged ≥80 years in the randomized, placebo-controlled Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial. LVH was assessed using 12-lead electrocardiography (ECG) based on the Cornell Product (CP-LVH), Sokolow-Lyon (SL-LVH), and Cornell Voltage (CV-LVH) criteria. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) was used to assess cognitive function at baseline and annually. A fall in MMSE to <24 or an annual fall of >3 points were defined as cognitive decline and triggered dementia screening (Diagnostic Statistical Manual IV). Death was defined as a competing event. Fine-Gray regression models were used to examine the relationship between baseline LVH and cognitive outcomes. There were 2645 in the analytical sample, including 201 (7.6%) with CP-LVH, 225 (8.5%) SL-LVH and 251 (9.5%) CV-LVH. CP-LVH was associated with increased risk of cognitive decline, subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR)1.3 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.67) in multivariate analyses. SL-LVH and CV-LVH were not associated with cognitive decline (sHR1.06 (95% CI 0.82-1.37) and sHR1.13 (95% CI 0.89-1.43), respectively). LVH was not associated with dementia. LVH may be related to subsequent cognitive decline, but evidence was inconsistent depending on ECG criterion and there were no associations with incident dementia. Additional work is needed to understand the relationships between blood pressure, LVH assessment and cognition.

Effects of Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment on Orthostatic Hypotension : A Systematic Review and Individual Participant-based Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although intensive blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment reduces risk for cardiovascular disease, there are concerns that it might cause orthostatic hypotension (OH). PURPOSE: To examine the effects of intensive BP-lowering treatment on OH in hypertensive adults. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception through 7 October 2019, without language restrictions. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials of BP pharmacologic treatment (more intensive BP goal or active agent) that involved more than 500 adults with hypertension or elevated BP and that were 6 months or longer in duration. Trial comparisons were groups assigned to either less intensive BP goals or placebo, and the outcome was measured OH, defined as a decrease of 20 mm Hg or more in systolic BP or 10 mm Hg or more in diastolic BP after changing position from seated to standing. DATA EXTRACTION: 2 investigators independently abstracted articles and rated risk of bias. DATA SYNTHESIS: 5 trials examined BP treatment goals, and 4 examined active agents versus placebo. Trials examining BP treatment goals included 18 466 participants with 127 882 follow-up visits. Trials were open-label, with minimal heterogeneity of effects across trials. Intensive BP treatment lowered risk for OH (odds ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.86 to 0.99]). Effects did not differ by prerandomization OH (P for interaction = 0.80). In sensitivity analyses that included 4 additional placebo-controlled trials, overall and subgroup findings were unchanged. LIMITATIONS: Assessments of OH were done while participants were seated (not supine) and did not include the first minute after standing. Data on falls and syncope were not available. CONCLUSION: Intensive BP-lowering treatment decreases risk for OH. Orthostatic hypotension, before or in the setting of more intensive BP treatment, should not be viewed as a reason to avoid or de-escalate treatment for hypertension. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health. (PROSPERO: CRD42020153753).

Atrial fibrillation and the risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality in the Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prognostic value of electrocardiographic atrial fibrillation in older hypertensive people in the randomized, placebo-controlled Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial. METHODS: Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial randomized 3845 hypertensive people aged 80 years and over, 3273 with electrographic data on the presence or absence of atrial fibrillation at baseline and without established cardiovascular disease. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all-cause mortality, incident fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events, all-stroke and all-heart failure. The mean follow-up time was 2.1 years. RESULTS: Baseline prevalence of atrial fibrillation was 5.8%. Compared with people without atrial fibrillation at baseline, after adjustments the presence of atrial fibrillation was associated with increased risk of mortality (hazard ratio = 2.49, 95% CI = 1.80-3.44, P < 0.001), of nonfatal and fatal cardiovascular events (hazard ratio = 2.47, 95% CI = 1.71-3.55, P < 0.001), all-stroke (hazard ratio = 2.47, 95% CI = 1.34-4.56, P = 0.004) and all-heart failure (hazard ratio 2.33, 95% CI = 1.10-4.93, P = 0.027). CONCLUSION: Atrial fibrillation is an important risk factor to consider when assessing older hypertensive adults as it is associated with increased risk of mortality, nonfatal and fatal cardiovascular events, stroke and heart failure.

Left ventricular hypertrophy is a predictor of cardiovascular events in elderly hypertensive patients: Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the prognostic value of ECG left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) using Sokolow-Lyon (SL-LVH), Cornell voltage (CV-LVH) or Cornell product (CP-LVH) criteria in 3043 hypertensive people aged 80 years and over enrolled in the Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial. METHODS: Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular diseases, stroke and heart failure in participants with and without LVH at baseline. The mean follow-up was 2.1 years. RESULTS: LVH identified by CV-LVH or CP-LVH criteria was associated with a 1.6-1.9-fold risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke. The presence of CP-LVH was associated with an increased risk of heart failure (hazard ratio 2.38, 95% CI 1.16-4.86). In sex-specific analyses, CV-LVH (hazard ratio 1.94, 95% CI 1.06-3.55) and CP-LVH (hazard ratio 2.36, 95% CI 1.25-4.45) were associated with an increased risk of stroke in women and of heart failure in men, CV-LVH (hazard ratio 6.47, 95% CI 1.41-29.79) and CP-LVH (10.63, 95% CI 3.58-31.57), respectively. There was no significant increase in the risk of any outcomes associated with Sokolow-Lyon-LVH. LVH identified by these three methods was not a significant predictor of all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: Use of Cornell voltage and Cornell product criteria for LVH predicted the risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke. Only Cornell product was associated with an increased risk of heart failure. This was particularly the case in men. The identification of ECG LVH proved to be important in very elderly hypertensive people.

Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years of age or older.

BACKGROUND: Whether the treatment of patients with hypertension who are 80 years of age or older is beneficial is unclear. It has been suggested that antihypertensive therapy may reduce the risk of stroke, despite possibly increasing the risk of death. METHODS: We randomly assigned 3845 patients from Europe, China, Australasia, and Tunisia who were 80 years of age or older and had a sustained systolic blood pressure of 160 mm Hg or more to receive either the diuretic indapamide (sustained release, 1.5 mg) or matching placebo. The angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor perindopril (2 or 4 mg), or matching placebo, was added if necessary to achieve the target blood pressure of 150/80 mm Hg. The primary end point was fatal or nonfatal stroke. RESULTS: The active-treatment group (1933 patients) and the placebo group (1912 patients) were well matched (mean age, 83.6 years; mean blood pressure while sitting, 173.0/90.8 mm Hg); 11.8% had a history of cardiovascular disease. Median follow-up was 1.8 years. At 2 years, the mean blood pressure while sitting was 15.0/6.1 mm Hg lower in the active-treatment group than in the placebo group. In an intention-to-treat analysis, active treatment was associated with a 30% reduction in the rate of fatal or nonfatal stroke (95% confidence interval [CI], -1 to 51; P=0.06), a 39% reduction in the rate of death from stroke (95% CI, 1 to 62; P=0.05), a 21% reduction in the rate of death from any cause (95% CI, 4 to 35; P=0.02), a 23% reduction in the rate of death from cardiovascular causes (95% CI, -1 to 40; P=0.06), and a 64% reduction in the rate of heart failure (95% CI, 42 to 78; P<0.001). Fewer serious adverse events were reported in the active-treatment group (358, vs. 448 in the placebo group; P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results provide evidence that antihypertensive treatment with indapamide (sustained release), with or without perindopril, in persons 80 years of age or older is beneficial. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00122811 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Fracture risk and the use of a diuretic (indapamide SR) +/- perindopril: a substudy of the Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial (HYVET).

BACKGROUND: The Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial (HYVET) is a placebo controlled double blind trial of treating hypertension with indapamide Slow Release (SR) +/- perindopril in subjects over the age of 80 years. The primary endpoints are stroke (fatal and non fatal). In view of the fact that thiazide diuretics and indapamide reduce urinary calcium and may increase bone mineral density, a fracture sub study was designed to investigate whether or not the trial anti-hypertensive treatment will reduce the fracture rate in very elderly hypertensive subjects. METHODS: In the trial considerable care is taken to ascertain any fractures and to identify risk factors for fracture, such as falls, co-morbidity, drug treatment, smoking and drinking habits, levels of activity, biochemical abnormalities, cardiac irregularities, impaired cognitive function and symptoms of orthostatic hypotension. POTENTIAL RESULTS: The trial is expected to provide 10,500 patient years of follow-up. Given a fracture rate of 40/1000 patient years and a 20% difference in fracture rate, the power of the sub study is 58% to detect this difference at the 5% level of significance. The corresponding power for a reduction of 25% is 78%. CONCLUSION: The trial is well under way, expected to complete in 2009, and on target to detect, if present, the above differences in fracture rate.

Results of the pilot study for the Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial.

BACKGROUND: The risks and benefits of treating hypertension in individuals older than 80 years are uncertain. A meta-analysis has suggested that a reduction in stroke events of 36% may have to be balanced against a 14% increase in total mortality. OBJECTIVES: To report the results of the pilot study of the Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial (HYVET), which is in progress to address these issues. METHODS: The HYVET-Pilot was a multicentre international open pilot trial. In 10 European countries, 1283 patients older than 80 years and with a sustained blood pressure of 160-219/90-109 mmHg were allocated randomly to one of three treatments: a diuretic-based regimen (usually bendroflumethiazide; n = 426), an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor regimen (usually lisinopril; n = 431) or no treatment (n = 426). The procedure permitted doses of the drug to be titrated and diltiazem slow-release to be added to active treatment. Target blood pressure was < 150/80 mmHg and mean follow-up was 13 months. RESULTS: In the combined actively treated groups, the reduction in stroke events relative hazard rate (RHR) was 0.47 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 0.93] and the reduction in stroke mortality RHR was 0.57 (95% CI 0.25 to 1.32). However, the estimate of total mortality supported the possibility of excess deaths with active treatment (RHR 1.23, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.01). CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary results support the need for the continuing main HYVET trial. It is possible that treatment of 1000 patients for 1 year may reduce stroke events by 19 (nine non-fatal), but may be associated with 20 extra non-stroke deaths.

Withdrawal from treatment in the Syst-Eur Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the reasons for withdrawal from double-blind randomized trials, and the reasons for changing treatment within a randomized therapeutic group. DESIGN: The Syst-Eur trial, in which 4695 older patients with systolic hypertension were randomized to active or placebo treatment. METHODS: The reasons for withdrawal from the trial were examined, both for patient-initiated and investigator-initiated withdrawals. In addition, the reasons for stopping the first-line treatment (nitrendipine), the second-line treatments (enalapril and hydrochlorothiazide) and the corresponding placebos, were determined. RESULTS: A total of 135 patients (6%) were withdrawn by the investigators from placebo treatment because their blood pressure was too high, and, similarly, 36 (1.6%) through patient initiation. The corresponding results for the actively treated patients were 14 (0.6%) and 7 (0.3%). Very few patients were withdrawn from the trial because of the adverse effects of treatment. However, 39 (4%) stopped taking active nitrendipine because of ankle oedema, compared with 4 (0.5%) on placebo. Similarly, 28 versus three stopped due to flushing. Forty-one (10%) stopped taking enalapril because of cough, against eight (2%) for enalapril placebo. In all, 15.0% stopped active nitrendipine, 20.2% enalapril and 6.3% hydrochlorothiazide, versus placebo 7.1, 9.1 and 5.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The numbers withdrawn from the trial for adverse treatment consequences were small in comparison to the cardiovascular benefits. Nevertheless the numbers stopping individual treatments were higher than expected.