Cardiovascular Outcomes in Hypertension-Treated Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease: The VALUE Trial.

BACKGROUND: Systolic blood pressure (BP) is a key predictor of cardiovascular events, but patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) are rarely included in hypertension trials. The VALUE trial (Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation) investigated the long-term effects of valsartan- or amlodipine-based treatments on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with hypertension with a high cardiovascular risk. The aim of this subanalysis was to clarify the relationship between achieved BP on treatment and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with hypertension with PAD. METHODS: Patients were followed for 4 to 6 years, and BP was measured regularly. The primary end point was time to the first major adverse cardiovascular event, including myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular death, and heart failure requiring hospitalization. Statistical analyses were performed using Cox regression, adjusting for various baseline covariates. RESULTS: Of the 13 803 participants, 1898 (13.8%) had PAD. During a median follow-up of 4.5 years, patients with PAD had a 23% increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with patients without PAD. Patients with an achieved systolic BP <130 mm Hg and 130 to 139 mm Hg, compared with those with systolic BP ≥140 mm Hg, were associated with a decreased risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event (hazard ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.43-0.97]; P=0.037; 0.85 [95% CI, 0.74-0.97]; P=0.016, respectively). Additionally, systolic BP <130 mm Hg was associated with a decreased risk of cardiovascular death (hazard ratio, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.12-0.92]; P=0.034). The incidence of the primary outcome did not differ between antihypertensive treatment regimens (P=0.365). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that more intensive BP control is associated with a reduction in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with hypertensive PAD.

What Is the Current Best Drug Treatment for Hypertensive Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction? Review of the Totality of Evidence.

BACKGROUND: More than 90% of patients developing heart failure (HF) have an epidemiological background of hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease, all disorders/diseases closely related to hypertension. METHODS: HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. RESULTS: For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, subsequently, they have been investigated and, as we see it, documented as beneficial in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) and mostly hypertensive etiology, with effect estimates assessed partly on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated.

The current best drug treatment for hypertensive heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

More than 90 % of patients developing heart failure (HF) have hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type-2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease. HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Subsequently, they have been investigated in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) of mostly hypertensive etiology, and with modest benefits largely assessed on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications. Patients with HFpEF may have diastolic dysfunction but also systolic dysfunction visualized by lack of longitudinal shortening. Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated.

Middle-Aged and Older Patients With Left Ventricular Hypertrophy: Higher Mortality With Drug Treated Systolic Blood Pressure Below 130 mm Hg.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 40% of people with hypertension have left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) detected by ECG or echocardiography. Because patients with LVH have poor myocardial microcirculation, they may be too sensitive to lowering systolic blood pressure (SBP) too much due to a lack of myocardial perfusion pressure. We aimed to investigate whether the average achieved SBP <130 mm Hg may cause harm in patients with LVH in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation trial (VALUE). METHODS: Of the 15 245 VALUE participants, we identified 13 803 patients without cardiovascular events during the first 6 months after randomization. Of these, 2458 patients had electrocardiographic LVH (ECG-LVH). Cox analyses adjusted for age, gender, and baseline variables compared cardiac and all-cause mortality and other prespecified end points for patients who achieved average SBP 130 to 139 mm Hg (No-LVH group n=4863; ECG-LVH group n=929) and <130 mm Hg (No-LVH group n=2107; ECG-LVH group n=305). Reference groups were patients who achieved average SBP ≥140 mm Hg following the first excluded 6 months (No-LVH group n=4375; ECG-LVH group n=1224). RESULTS: The No-LVH group achieving average SBP <130 mm Hg had a significantly lower incidence of several cardiovascular end points. The ECG-LVH group achieving average SBP <130 mm Hg had higher cardiac mortality (hazard ratio, 1.98 [95% CIs, 1.06-3.70]; P=0.032) and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.74 [95% CIs, 1.17-2.60]; P=0.007), and SBP <130 mm Hg was not associated with a reduction in any end point. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings may be seen as a signal that caution is warranted when treating middle-aged and older patients with electrocardiographic or echocardiographic LVH to SBP <130 mm Hg.

Aortic Root Dilatation in Hypertensive Patients with Left Ventricular Hypertrophy-Application of A New Multivariate Predictive Model. The Life Study.

BACKGROUND: Available nomograms to predict aortic root (AoR) diameter for body surface area have limitations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of a new multivariate predictive model to identify AoR dilatation in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy. METHODS: 943 of 961 patients in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) echocardiographic sub-study had the necessary baseline characteristics and echocardiographic 2D measurements of AoR size to be included. RESULTS: Predicted AoR (Sinus of Valsalva) diameter was 1.519 + (age [years] × 0.010) + (height [cm] × 0.010) - (gender [1 = M, 2 = F] × 0.247), and a measured AoR diameter exceeding the 97.5-percentile of this estimate was considered dilated. Measured AoR diameter was larger in men than in women (3.75 vs. 3.48 cm, p < 0.001) and AoR diameter predicted by the model was larger than predicted by nomogram (3.52 vs. 3.28 cm, p < 0.001). Using the multivariate model to identify patients with AoR dilatation, the prevalence was 13.7% in men and 12.3% in women (p = 0.537). There was consensus of AoR phenotype (normal/dilated) between model and nomogram in 92.8% of the patients. In multivariate logistic regression, AoR dilatation by model definition was predicted by presence of aortic regurgitation (OR 2.67, p < 0.001) and SD increase in age (OR 0.75, p = 0.023), pulse pressure (OR 0.64, p < 0.001), left ventricular mass index (OR 1.36, p = 0.08) and stroke volume (OR 1.45, p = 0.002), but not by body weight. CONCLUSIONS: Using the proposed model the prevalence of AoR dilatation was equal in men and women and the model seems to address the effects of gender, age and body size on AoR size. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT00338260.

Cardiovascular outcomes at recommended blood pressure targets in middle-aged and elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension.

PURPOSE: Available data of event-based clinical outcomes trials show that little evidence supports the guidelines recommendations to lower blood pressure (BP) to <130/80 mmHg in middle-aged and elderly people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. We addressed this issue by post-hoc analysing the risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in mostly elderly high-risk hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus participating in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients (n = 5250) were divided into 4 groups according to the proportion of on-treatment visits before the occurrence of an event (<25% to ≥ 75%) in which BP was reduced to <140/90 or <130/80 mmHg. RESULTS: After adjustment for baseline demographic differences between groups, a reduction in the proportion of visits in which BP achieved <140/90 mmHg accompanied a progressive increase in the risk of CV mortality and morbidity as well as of cause-specific events such as stroke, myocardial infarction and heart failure. A progressive reduction in the proportion of visits in which BP was reduced <130/80 mmHg did not have any effect on CV risks. CONCLUSION: In mostly elderly high-risk hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus participating in the VALUE trial, achieving more frequently BP <140/90 mmHg showed a marked protective effect on overall and all cause-specific cardiovascular outcomes. This was not the case for a more frequent achievement of the more intensive BP target, i.e. <130/80 mmHg.

Cardiovascular outcomes at recommended blood pressure targets in middle-aged and elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus compared to all middle-aged and elderly hypertensive study patients with high cardiovascular risk.

PURPOSE: Event-based clinical outcome trials have shown limited evidence to support guidelines recommendations to lower blood pressure (BP) to <130/80 mmHg in middle-aged and elderly hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus or with general high cardiovascular (CV) risk. We addressed this issue by post-hoc analysing the risk of CV events in patients who participated in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial and compared the hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with all high-risk hypertensive patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were divided into 4 groups according to the proportion of on-treatment visits before the occurrence of an event (<25% to ≥75%) in which BP was reduced to <140/90 or <130/80 mmHg. Patients with diabetes mellitus (n = 5250) were compared with the entire VALUE population with high CV risk (n = 15,245). RESULTS: After adjustments for baseline differences between groups, a reduction in the proportion of visits in which BP was reduced to <140/90 mmHg, but not to <130/80 mmHg, was accompanied by a progressive increase in the risk of CV morbidity and mortality as well as stroke, myocardial infarction and heart failure in both diabetes mellitus and in all high-risk patients. Target BP <130/80 mmHg reduced stroke risk in the main population but not in the diabetes mellitus patients. Patients with diabetes mellitus had higher event rates for the primary cardiac endpoint and all-cause mortality driven by a higher rate of heart failure. CONCLUSION: In the high-risk hypertensive patients of the VALUE trial achieving more frequently BP <140/90 mmHg, but not <130/80 mmHg, showed principally the same protective effect on overall and cause-specific cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus and in the general high-risk hypertensive population.

Smoking and overweight associated with masked uncontrolled hypertension: a Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) Sub-Study.

PURPOSE: The Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) Study investigated the relationship between target office diastolic blood pressure (BP) ≤80, ≤85 or ≤90 mmHg and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in 18,790 patients aged 50-80 years. The home BP sub-study enrolled 926 patients and the aim was to clarify whether the separation into the BP target groups in the office prevailed in the out-of-office setting. The present study aimed to identify variables that characterised masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) and white coat uncontrolled hypertension (WUCH). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The sub-study participants took their home BP when office BP had been up titrated. The cut-off for normal or high BP was set to ≥135/85 mmHg at home and ≥140/90 mmHg in the office. We analysed data by using multivariate and stepwise multivariate logistic regression with home and office BP combinations as the dependent variables. RESULTS: WUCH was associated with lower body mass index (BMI) (odds ratio (OR) 0.92, 95% confident intervals (CIs) 0.88-0.96, p < 0.001). MUCH was associated with smoking (OR 1.89, 95% CIs 1.25-2.86, p = 0.0025) and with lower baseline heart rate (OR 0.98, 95% CIs 0.97-0.99, p = 0.03) and higher BMI (OR 1.03, CIs 1.00-1.06, p = 0.04). MUCH remained associated with smoking (OR 2.76, 95% CIs 1.76-4.35, p < 0.0001) also when using ≥140/90 mmHg as the cut-off for both home and office BP. MUCH was also associated with higher BMI (OR 1.05, 95% CIs 1.01-1.09, p = 0.009) while WUCH was associated with lower BMI (OR 0.93, 95% CIs 0.90-0.97, p = 0.0005) when using ≥140/90 mmHg as a cut-off. CONCLUSION: Our data support that 'reversed or masked' treated but uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) is common and constitutes about 25% of treated hypertensive patients. This entity (MUCH) is rather strongly associated with current smoking and overweight while uncontrolled white coat (office) hypertension (WUCH) is associated with lower BMI.

On-treatment HDL cholesterol predicts incident atrial fibrillation in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy.

Purpose: Hypertensive patients are at increased risk of atrial fibrillation (AF). Although low baseline high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol has been associated with a higher risk of AF, this has not been verified in recent population-based studies. Whether changing levels of HDL over time are more strongly related to the risk of new AF in hypertensive patients has not been examined.Material and methods: Incident AF was examined in relation to baseline and on-treatment HDL levels in 8267 hypertensive patients with no history of AF, in sinus rhythm on their baseline electrocardiogram, randomly assigned to losartan- or atenolol-based treatment. HDL levels at baseline and each year of testing were categorised into quartiles according to baseline HDL levels.Results: During 4.7 ± 1.10 years of follow-up, 645 patients (7.8%) developed new AF. In univariate Cox analyses, compared with the highest quartile of HDL levels (>1.78 mmol/l), patients with on-treatment HDL in the lowest quartile (≤ 1.21 mmol/l) had a 53% greater risk of new AF. Patients with on-treatment HDL in the second and third quartiles had intermediate increased risks of AF. Baseline HDL in the lowest quartile was not a significant predictor of new AF (hazard ratio (HR): 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.90-1.43). In multivariable Cox analyses adjusting for multiple baseline and time-varying covariates, the lowest quartile of on-treatment HDL remained associated with a nearly 54% increased risk of new AF (HR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.16-2.05) whereas a baseline HDL≤ ⩽1.21 mmol/l was not predictive of new AF (HR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.78-1.31).Conclusion: Lower on-treatment HDL is strongly associated with risk of new AF. These findings suggest that serial assessment of HDL can estimate AF risk better than baseline HDL in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy. Future studies may investigate whether therapies that increase HDL can lower risk of developing AF.Clinical Trials Registration: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00338260?order=1.

Blood Pressure-Lowering Profiles and Clinical Effects of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Versus Calcium Channel Blockers.

Blood pressure-lowering drugs have different blood pressure-lowering profiles. We studied if differences in blood pressure mean and variability can explain the differences in risks of cardiovascular events and death among 15 245 high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to valsartan or amlodipine and followed for 4.2 years in the VALUE trial (Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation). We selected patients with ≥3 visits and performed Cox regression analyses, defining mean blood pressure as a time-dependent covariate and visit-to-visit and within-visit blood pressure variability as the SD. Of 14 996 eligible patients, participants in the valsartan group had higher systolic mean blood pressure by 2.2 mm Hg, higher visit-to-visit systolic variability by 1.4 mm Hg, and higher within-visit systolic variability by 0.2 mm Hg (P values <0.0001). The higher risks of myocardial infarction and stroke in the valsartan group was attenuated after adjustment for mean and variability of systolic blood pressure, from HR 1.19 (95% CI, 1.02-1.39) to 1.11 (0.96-1.30) and from HR 1.13 (0.96-1.33) to 1.00 (0.85-1.18), respectively. The lower risk of congestive heart failure in the valsartan group was accentuated after adjustment, from HR 0.86 (0.74-1.00) to 0.76 (0.65-0.89). A smaller effect was seen on risk of death, from 1.01 (0.92-1.12) to 0.94 (0.85-1.04). In conclusion, the higher risks of myocardial infarction and stroke in patients randomized to valsartan versus amlodipine were related to the drugs' different blood pressure modulating profiles. The risk of congestive heart failure with valsartan was lower, independent of the less favorable blood pressure modulating profile.

Medical Therapies for Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Current cardiovascular pharmacotherapy targets maladaptive overactivation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), which occurs throughout the continuum of cardiovascular disease spanning from hypertension to heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Over the past 16 years, 4 prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials using candesartan, perindopril, irbesartan, and spironolactone in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) failed to demonstrate increased efficacy of RAAS blockade added to guideline-directed medical therapy. We reappraise these trials and their weaknesses, which precluded statistically significant findings. Recently, dual-acting RAAS blockade with sacubitril-valsartan relative to stand-alone valsartan failed to improve outcome in the PARAGON-HF trial (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared with Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction). The majority of patients with HFpEF experience hypertension, frequently with subclinical left ventricular dysfunction, contributed to by comorbidities such as coronary disease, diabetes mellitus, overweight, and atrial fibrillation. Contrasting the findings in HFpEF, trials evaluating RAAS blockade on either side of HFpEF on the cardiovascular continuum in patients with high-risk hypertension and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, respectively, showed positive outcomes. We do not have a biologically plausible explanation for such divergent efficacy of RAAS blockade. Based on considerations of well-established clinical efficacy in hypertension and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and the shortcomings of aforementioned clinical trials in HFpEF, we argue that RAAS blockers including MRAs (mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists; aldosterone antagonists) should be used in the treatment of patients with HFpEF.

Consequences of the evolutionary cardiovascular challenge of human bipedalism: orthostatic intolerance syndromes, orthostatic hypertension.

: In quadrupeds, the arterial baroreflex has dominance in the reflex homeostatic responses, which protect against haemorrhage. In humans, it is the low pressure cardiopulmonary reflex, which protects against the analogous cardiovascular challenge of gravity-dependent venous pooling with standing. To preserve orthostatic cardiovascular homeostasis with the emergence of bipedalism in humans the low pressure reflex, a minor, subsidiary reflex in quadripeds, was co-opted. Mirroring the imperfect skeletal evolution to bipedalism, this cardiovascular development has been problematic, with dysregulation manifesting as disabling orthostatic intolerance syndromes and, paradoxically, an orthostatic hypertensive response that appears to play a role in the development of essential hypertension in some people. Improved understanding of these evolutionary faults provides new options for postural and pharmacological treatments.

Isolated systolic hypertension in the young: a position paper endorsed by the European Society of Hypertension.

: Whether isolated systolic hypertension in the young (ISHY) implies a worse outcome and needs antihypertensive treatment is still a matter for dispute. ISHY is thought to have different mechanisms than systolic hypertension in the elderly. However, findings from previous studies have provided inconsistent results. From the analysis of the literature, two main lines of research and conceptualization have emerged. Simultaneous assessment of peripheral and central blood pressure led to the identification of a condition called pseudo or spurious hypertension, which was considered an innocent condition. However, an increase in pulse wave velocity has been found by some authors in about 20% of the individuals with ISHY. In addition, obesity and metabolic disturbances have often been documented to be associated with ISHY both in children and young adults. The first aspect to consider whenever evaluating a person with ISHY is the possible presence of white-coat hypertension, which has been frequently found in this condition. In addition, assessment of central blood pressure is useful for identifying ISHY patients whose central blood pressure is normal. ISHY is infrequently mentioned in the guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. According to the 2013 European Guidelines on the management of hypertension, people with ISHY should be followed carefully, modifying risk factors by lifestyle changes and avoiding antihypertensive drugs. Only future clinical trials will elucidate if a benefit can be achieved with pharmacological treatment in some subgroups of ISHY patients with associated risk factors and/or high central blood pressure.

Blood pressure variability and risk of cardiovascular events and death in patients with hypertension and different baseline risks.

Aims: Blood pressure variability is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events, particularly in high-risk patients. We assessed if variability was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events and death in hypertensive patients at different risk levels. Methods and results: The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation trial was a randomized controlled trial of valsartan vs. amlodipine in patients with hypertension and different risks of cardiovascular events, followed for a mean of 4.2 years. We calculated standard deviation (SD) of mean systolic blood pressure from visits from 6 months onward in patients with ≥3 visits and no events during the first 6 months. We compared the risk of cardiovascular events in the highest and lowest quintile of visit-to-visit blood pressure variability, using Cox regression. For analysis of death, variability was analysed as a continuous variable. Of 13 803 patients included, 1557 (11.3%) had a cardiovascular event and 1089 (7.9%) died. Patients in the highest quintile of SD had an increased risk of cardiovascular events [hazard ratio (HR) 2.1, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.7-2.4; P < 0.0001], and a 5 mmHg increase in SD of systolic blood pressure was associated with a 10% increase in the risk of death (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.04-1.17; P = 0.002). Associations were stronger among younger patients and patients with lower systolic blood pressure, and similar between patients with different baseline risks, except for higher risk of death among patients with established cardiovascular disease. Conclusion: Higher visit-to-visit systolic blood pressure variability is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension, irrespective of baseline risk of cardiovascular events. Associations were stronger in younger patients and in those with lower mean systolic blood pressure.

Management of the hypertensive patient with elevated heart rate: Statement of the Second Consensus Conference endorsed by the European Society of Hypertension.

In June 2015, a panel of experts gathered in a consensus conference to plan updating recommendations on the management of the hypertensive patient with elevated heart rate (HR), previously released in 2006. The issues examined during that meeting and further discussed by the participants during the following months involved the assessment of HR, the relevance of HR as a cardiovascular risk factor, the definition of tachycardia and the treatment of the hypertensive patient with high HR. For the measurement of resting HR the panel experts recommended that scientific investigations focusing on HR should report information on length of resting period before measurement, information about temperature and environment, method of measurement, duration of measurement, number of readings, time interval between measurements, body position and type of observer. According to the panellists there is convincing evidence that HR is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease and they suggest to routinely include HR measurement in the assessment of the hypertensive patient. Regarding the definition of tachycardia, the panellists acknowledged that in the absence of convincing data any threshold used to define tachycardia is arbitrary. Similarly, as there are no outcome studies of HR lowering in tachycardia hypertension, the panellists could not make practical therapeutic suggestions for the management of such patients. However, the experts remarked that absence of evidence does not mean evidence against the importance of tachycardia as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and that long-term exposure to a potentially important risk factor may impair the patient's prognosis. The main aims of the present document are to alert researchers and physicians about the importance of measuring HR in hypertensive patients, and to stimulate research to clarify unresolved issues.

Predictors of cardiac morbidity in diabetic, new-onset diabetic and non-diabetic high-risk hypertensive patients: The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial.

Diabetic and new-onset diabetic patients with hypertension have higher cardiac morbidity than patients without diabetes. We aimed to investigate whether baseline predictors of cardiac morbidity, the major constituent of the primary endpoint in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial, were different in patients with diabetes and new-onset diabetes compared to patients without diabetes. In total, 15,245 high-risk hypertensive patients in the VALUE trial were followed for an average of 4.2 years. At baseline, 5250 patients were diabetic by the 1999 World Health Organization criteria, 1298 patients developed new-onset diabetes and 8697 patients stayed non-diabetic during follow-up. Cardiac morbidity was defined as a composite of myocardial infarction and heart failure requiring hospitalization, and baseline predictors were identified by univariate and multivariate stepwise Cox regression analyses. History of coronary heart disease (CHD) and age were the most important predictors of cardiac morbidity in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients. History of CHD, history of stroke and age were the only significant predictors of cardiac morbidity in patients with new-onset diabetes. Predictors of cardiac morbidity, in particular history of CHD and age, were essentially the same in high-risk hypertensive patients with diabetes, new-onset diabetes and without diabetes who participated in the VALUE trial.

No evidence for a J-shaped curve in treated hypertensive patients with increased cardiovascular risk: The VALUE trial.

Previous studies have debated the notion that low blood pressure (BP) during treatment, particularly diastolic (DBP), is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. We evaluated the impact of low BP on cardiovascular outcomes in a high-risk population of 15,244 hypertensive patients, almost half of whom had a history of coronary artery disease (CAD). In the prospective Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial, patients were randomized to valsartan or amlodipine regimens and followed for 4.2 years (mean) with no difference in the primary cardiovascular endpoint. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relationship between average on-treatment BP and clinical outcomes. The relationship between BP and cardiovascular events was adjusted for age, gender and body mass index, and baseline qualifying risk factors and diseases (smoking, high total cholesterol, diabetes mellitus, proteinuria, CAD, previous stroke and left ventricular hypertrophy). DBP ≥ 90 mmHg, compared with < 90 mmHg, was associated with increased incidence of the primary cardiovascular endpoint (all cardiac events); however, DBP < 70 mmHg, compared with ≥ 70 mmHg, was not associated with increased incidence after covariate adjustment (no J-shaped curve). Similar results were observed for death, myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure and stroke, considered separately. Nadir for MI was at DBP of 76 mmHg and for stroke 60 mmHg. The ratio of MI to stroke increased with lower DBP. In CAD patients the MI to stroke ratio was more pronounced than in patients without CAD but there was no significant J-curve in either group. Systolic BP ≥ 150 but not < 130 mmHg, compared with 130-149 mmHg, similarly was associated with increased risk for primary outcome. In conclusion, patients in BP strata ≥ 150/90 mmHg, but not patients in BP strata < 130/70 mmHg, were at increased risk for adverse outcomes in this hypertensive, high-risk population. Although benefit in preventing MI in relation to preventing stroke levels off for the lowest BPs, these data provide no support for a J-curve in the treatment of high-risk hypertensive patients . The increase in the ratio of MI to stroke with lower DBP indicates target organ heterogeneity in that the optimal on-treatment DBP for cerebroprotection is below that for cardioprotection.

Cardiovascular outcomes at different on-treatment blood pressures in the hypertensive patients of the VALUE trial.

AIMS: Recent hypertension guidelines recommend that also in high cardiovascular (CV) risk, hypertensive patients blood pressure (BP) is lowered to <140/90 mmHg as no evidence is available supporting the lower target of <130/80 mmHg recommended in previous guidelines. Whether this represents the optimal treatment strategy is debated, however. METHODS AND RESULTS: The high CV risk hypertensive patients of the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term use Evaluation (VALUE) trial were divided into subgroups according to (i) the percentage of on-treatment visits in which BP was reduced to <140/90 or <130/80 mmHg or (ii) the mean systolic or diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) values achieved during the entire treatment period or up to the occurrence of an event. A progressive increase from <25 to ≥75% of the visits in which BP was <140/90 mmHg was accompanied by a significant, progressive marked decrease in the covariate adjusted risk of CV morbidity and mortality, cause specific CV events (myocardial infarction, heart failure, and stroke), and all-cause mortality. Except for a persistent progressive decrease in stroke, no significant trend to a risk decrease occurred for a similar progressive increment of the proportion of visits with BP <130/80 mmHg. Increasing the proportion of visits with a BP <140/90 mmHg (but not <130/80 mmHg) was accompanied by a decreased risk of events also when differences in baseline risk were adjusted using a propensity score. Finally, compared with patients remaining at a mean on-treatment SBP ≥140 or DBP ≥90 mmHg, the risk of all events was markedly reduced when on-treatment mean SBP was lowered to a mean SBP of 130-139 mmHg or a mean DBP of 80-89 mmHg, whereas at on-treatment mean SBP <130 mmHg or DBP <80 mmHg, an additional risk reduction was found for stroke but for any other type of event, the risk of which remained similar or only slightly greater than that seen at the higher BP target. CONCLUSIONS: In the high CV risk, hypertensives of the VALUE trial reducing BP consistently to <140/90 mmHg had marked beneficial effects both when data were calculated as proportion of visits at BP target or as on-treatment mean BP. Reducing BP to <130/80 mmHg led only to some possible further benefit on stroke, whereas the risk of other outcomes remained substantially similar to or slightly greater than that seen at the higher target. Thus, aggressive BP reductions when CV risk is high may not offer substantial advantages, except perhaps in patients or conditions in which stroke risk is particularly common.

Physician (investigator) inertia in apparent treatment-resistant hypertension - insights from large randomized clinical trials. Lennart Hansson Memorial Lecture.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of resistant hypertension has attained much attention during the past few years and naturally so has the prevalence of resistant hypertension. In the search for sources of such documentation, the lack of blood pressure (BP) control in randomized clinical outcome trials in hypertension has been used as indication of treatment-resistant hypertension. In the present study, we aimed at using previously unpublished information from monitoring of clinical trials in investigating the mechanism explaining why large fractions of patients in the trials remained uncontrolled for their high BP. METHODS: We report insight information from LIFE (n = 9193), VALUE (n = 15,245), ASCOT (n = 19,257) and ACCOMPLISH (n = 11,506). Data stored during the course of the trials for monitoring purposes were scrutinized for fractions of patients with BP control, which was BP < 140/90 mmHg in all trials, and we identified monitoring data showing fractions of patients who had been uptitrated to the various dosing levels or combinations of study drugs in the trials. Fractions of patients who had not been uptitrated on drugs and who remained without BP control identified the level of physician (investigator) inertia in these trials. RESULTS: In the LIFE Study the majority of patients remained with systolic BP > 140 mmHg throughout. Approximately 1500 patients remained on the first dose titration step despite not having reached target BP. In the VALUE Trial 59.5% had reached systolic BP target 2 years into the study; 23.9% of patients remained on the lowest study dose and only 15.1% had been uptitrated to the highest study dose. In the ASCOT Trial, as many as 28% of participants had not reached target diastolic BP at year 4 in the study, and of these patients 37% still remained on the first drug dose titration step. In the ACCOMPLISH Trial approximately 80% had achieved the systolic BP target at study end; however, during the course of the trial approximately 25% of participants remained uncontrolled and at 6 months almost 60% of these patients had not been titrated to the highest drug dose level. CONCLUSION: These data, taken from the monitoring phases of large outcome trials in hypertension, show that inertia, the lack of titration of study drugs to higher dosing levels or drug combinations according to the study protocols, is a major cause of not reaching BP targets in the trials. Thus, fractions of patients not reaching BP targets in outcome trials cannot be taken as evidence of treatment-resistant hypertension.