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.

Safety and efficacy of defibrillator charging during ongoing chest compressions: a multi-center study.

BACKGROUND: Pauses in chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation have been shown to correlate with poor outcomes. In an attempt to minimize these pauses, the American Heart Association recommends charging the defibrillator during chest compressions. While simulation work suggests decreased pause times using this technique, little is known about its use in clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted a multi-center, retrospective study of defibrillator charging at three US academic teaching hospitals between April 2006 and April 2009. Data were abstracted from CPR-sensing defibrillator transcripts. Pre-shock pauses and total hands-off time preceding the defibrillation attempts were compared among techniques. RESULTS: A total of 680 charge-cycles from 244 cardiac arrests were analyzed. The defibrillator was charged during ongoing chest compressions in 448 (65.9%) instances with wide variability across the three sites. Charging during compressions correlated with a decrease in median pre-shock pause [2.6s (IQR 1.9-3.8) vs 13.3s (IQR 8.6-19.5); p < 0.001] and total hands-off time in the 30s preceding defibrillation [10.3s (IQR 6.4-13.8) vs 14.8s (IQR 11.0-19.6); p < 0.001]. The improvement in hands-off time was most pronounced when rescuers charged the defibrillator in anticipation of the pause, prior to any rhythm analysis. There was no difference in inappropriate shocks when charging during chest compressions (20.0% vs 20.1%; p = 0.97) and there was only one instance noted of inadvertent shock administration during compressions, which went unnoticed by the compressor. CONCLUSIONS: Charging during compressions is underutilized in clinical practice. The technique is associated with decreased hands-off time preceding defibrillation, with minimal risk to patients or rescuers.