Eva Gerdts

Intensive lipid lowering with simvastatin and ezetimibe in aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND Hyperlipidemia has been suggested as a risk factor for stenosis of the aortic valve, but lipid-lowering studies have had conflicting results. METHODS We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial involving 1873 patients with mild-to-moderate, asymptomatic aortic stenosis. The patients received either 40 mg of simvastatin plus 10 mg of ezetimibe or placebo daily. The primary outcome was a composite of major cardiovascular events, including death from cardiovascular causes, aortic-valve replacement, nonfatal myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina pectoris, heart failure, coronary-artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and nonhemorrhagic stroke. Secondary outcomes were events related to aortic-valve stenosis and ischemic cardiovascular events. RESULTS During a median follow-up of 52.2 months, the primary outcome occurred in 333 patients (35.3%) in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group and in 355 patients (38.2%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.12; P=0.59). Aortic-valve replacement was performed in 267 patients (28.3%) in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group and in 278 patients (29.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.18; P=0.97). Fewer patients had ischemic cardiovascular events in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group (148 patients) than in the placebo group (187 patients) (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.97; P=0.02), mainly because of the smaller number of patients who underwent coronary-artery bypass grafting. Cancer occurred more frequently in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group (105 vs. 70, P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS Simvastatin and ezetimibe did not reduce the composite outcome of combined aortic-valve events and ischemic events in patients with aortic stenosis. Such therapy reduced the incidence of ischemic cardiovascular events but not events related to aortic-valve stenosis. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00092677.)

Regression of Hypertensive Left Ventricular Hypertrophy by Losartan Compared With Atenolol The Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) Trial

Background—An echocardiographic substudy of the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) trial was designed to test the ability of losartan to reduce left ventricular (LV) mass more than atenolol. Methods and Results—A total of 960 patients with essential hypertension and LV hypertrophy (LVH) on screening ECG were enrolled at centers in 7 countries and studied by echocardiography at baseline and after 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years’ randomized therapy. Clinical examination and blinded readings of echocardiograms in 457 losartan-treated and 459 atenolol-treated participants with ≥1 follow-up measurement of LV mass index (LVMI) were used in an intention-to-treat analysis. Losartan-based therapy induced greater reduction in LVMI from baseline to the last available study than atenolol with adjustment for baseline LVMI and blood pressure and in-treatment pressure (−21.7±21.8 versus −17.7±19.6 g/m2; P=0.021). Greater LVMI reduction with losartan was observed in women and men, participants >65 or <65 years of age, and with mild or more severe baseline hypertrophy. The difference between treatment arms in LVH regression was due mainly to reduced concentricity of LV geometry in both groups and lesser increase in LV internal diameter in losartan-treated patients. Conclusions—Antihypertensive treatment with losartan, plus hydrochlorothiazide and other medications when needed for pressure control, resulted in greater LVH regression in patients with ECG LVH than conventional atenolol-based treatment. Thus, angiotensin receptor antagonism by losartan has superior efficacy for reversing LVH, a cardinal manifestation of hypertensive target organ damage.

Impact of Different Partition Values on Prevalences of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy and Concentric Geometry in a Large Hypertensive Population: The LIFE Study

Left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy and concentric remodeling have been defined by using a variety of indexation methods and partition values (PVs) for LV mass and relative wall thickness (RWT). The effects of these methods on the distribution of LV geometric patterns in hypertensive subjects remain unclear. Echocardiograms were obtained in 941 patients with stage I to III hypertension and LV hypertrophy by ECG. LV mass was calculated by using different methods of indexation for body size and different PVs to identify hypertrophy: LV mass/body surface area (g/m(2)) PV for men/women 116/104, 125/110, or 125/125; LV mass/height (g/m) PV 143/102 or 126/105; and LV mass/height(2.7) (g/m(2.7)) PV 51/51 or 49.2/46.7. RWT was calculated by either 2xend-diastolic posterior wall thickness (PWT)/end-diastolic LV internal dimension (LVID) or end-diastolic interventricular septum dimension+end-diastolic PWT/end-diastolic LVID. LV hypertrophy or remodeling was present in 63% to 86% of subjects, and LV hypertrophy was present in 42% to 77%. By any index, eccentric hypertrophy was the common LV geometric pattern. Use of interventricular septum dimension+PWT/LVID to calculate RWT slightly increased the prevalence of normal geometry and eccentric hypertrophy compared with the use of 2xPWT/LVID. Subjects with LV hypertrophy identified by only LV mass/height(2.7) PV 49.2/46.7 were more obese, whereas those identified by only LV mass/body surface area PV 116/104 were taller and thinner than those in the 2 concordant groups with or without LV hypertrophy by both criteria. By either criterion, there were no significant differences between different LV geometric patterns in clinical cardiovascular disease. Hypertensive patients with LV hypertrophy by ECG have a high prevalence of geometric abnormalities, especially eccentric hypertrophy, irrespective of method of indexation or PV. LV mass indexation by body surface area or height(2.7) identifies lean and obese subjects, respectively. We found no difference in prevalent cardiovascular disease in subjects identified by either criterion, suggesting a similar high risk.

Outcome of Patients With Low-Gradient “Severe” Aortic Stenosis and Preserved Ejection Fraction

Background— Retrospective studies have suggested that patients with a low transvalvular gradient in the presence of an aortic valve area <1.0 cm2 and normal ejection fraction may represent a subgroup with an advanced stage of aortic valve disease, reduced stroke volume, and poor prognosis requiring early surgery. We therefore evaluated the outcome of patients with low-gradient “severe” stenosis (defined as aortic valve area <1.0 cm2 and mean gradient ⩽40 mm Hg) in the prospective Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) study. Methods and Results— Outcome in patients with low-gradient “severe” aortic stenosis was compared with outcome in patients with moderate stenosis (aortic valve area 1.0 to 1.5 cm2; mean gradient 25 to 40 mm Hg). The primary end point of aortic valve events included death from cardiovascular causes, aortic valve replacement, and heart failure due to aortic stenosis. Secondary end points were major cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death. In 1525 asymptomatic patients (mean age, 67±10 years; ejection fraction, ≥55%), baseline echocardiography revealed low-gradient severe stenosis in 435 patients (29%) and moderate stenosis in 184 (12%). Left ventricular mass was lower in patients with low-gradient severe stenosis than in those with moderate stenosis (182±64 versus 212±68 g; P<0.01). During 46 months of follow-up, aortic valve events occurred in 48.5% versus 44.6%, respectively (P=0.37; major cardiovascular events, 50.9% versus 48.5%, P=0.58; cardiovascular death, 7.8% versus 4.9%, P=0.19). Low-gradient severe stenosis patients with reduced stroke volume index (⩽35 mL/m2; n=223) had aortic valve events comparable to those in patients with normal stroke volume index (46.2% versus 50.9%; P=0.53). Conclusions— Patients with low-gradient “severe” aortic stenosis and normal ejection fraction have an outcome similar to that in patients with moderate stenosis.

Outcome of Patients With Low-Gradient “Severe” Aortic Stenosis and Preserved Ejection Fraction The Heart Strategies Concentrating on Risk Evaluation (Heart SCORE) Study

Background— Retrospective studies have suggested that patients with a low transvalvular gradient in the presence of an aortic valve area <1.0 cm2 and normal ejection fraction may represent a subgroup with an advanced stage of aortic valve disease, reduced stroke volume, and poor prognosis requiring early surgery. We therefore evaluated the outcome of patients with low-gradient “severe” stenosis (defined as aortic valve area <1.0 cm2 and mean gradient ⩽40 mm Hg) in the prospective Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) study. Methods and Results— Outcome in patients with low-gradient “severe” aortic stenosis was compared with outcome in patients with moderate stenosis (aortic valve area 1.0 to 1.5 cm2; mean gradient 25 to 40 mm Hg). The primary end point of aortic valve events included death from cardiovascular causes, aortic valve replacement, and heart failure due to aortic stenosis. Secondary end points were major cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death. In 1525 asymptomatic patients (mean age, 67±10 years; ejection fraction, ≥55%), baseline echocardiography revealed low-gradient severe stenosis in 435 patients (29%) and moderate stenosis in 184 (12%). Left ventricular mass was lower in patients with low-gradient severe stenosis than in those with moderate stenosis (182±64 versus 212±68 g; P<0.01). During 46 months of follow-up, aortic valve events occurred in 48.5% versus 44.6%, respectively (P=0.37; major cardiovascular events, 50.9% versus 48.5%, P=0.58; cardiovascular death, 7.8% versus 4.9%, P=0.19). Low-gradient severe stenosis patients with reduced stroke volume index (⩽35 mL/m2; n=223) had aortic valve events comparable to those in patients with normal stroke volume index (46.2% versus 50.9%; P=0.53). Conclusions— Patients with low-gradient “severe” aortic stenosis and normal ejection fraction have an outcome similar to that in patients with moderate stenosis.

Low-Flow Aortic Stenosis in Asymptomatic Patients: Valvular–Arterial Impedance and Systolic Function From the SEAS Substudy

OBJECTIVES This study sought to assess the impact of valvuloarterial impedance on left ventricular (LV) myocardial systolic function in asymptomatic aortic valve stenosis (AS). BACKGROUND In atherosclerotic AS, LV global load consists of combined valvular and arterial resistance to LV ejection. Global load significantly impacts LV ejection fraction (EF) in symptomatic AS, but less is known about its effect on LV myocardial function in asymptomatic AS. METHODS Echocardiograms in 1,591 patients with asymptomatic AS (67 +/- 10 years, 51% hypertensive) at baseline in the SEAS (Simvastatin Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis) study evaluating placebo-controlled combined simvastatin and ezetimibe treatment in AS were used to assess LV global load as valvuloarterial impedance and LV myocardial function as stress-corrected midwall shortening. The study population was divided into tertiles of global load. Stress-corrected midwall shortening was considered low if <87% in men and <90% in women. Low-flow AS was defined as stroke volume index <22 ml/m(2.04). RESULTS Energy loss index decreased (0.85 cm(2)/m(2) vs. 0.77 and 0.75 cm(2)/m(2)) and the prevalence of low stress-corrected midwall shortening increased (10% vs. 26% and 63%) with increasing LV global load (all p < 0.001). The EF was low in only 2% of patients. Patients with low-flow AS had higher LV global load and more often low midwall shortening than those with normal-flow AS (9.66 +/- 2.23 mm Hg/ml.m(2.04) and 77%, vs. 6.38 +/- 2.04 mm Hg/ml.m(2.04) and 30%, respectively, p < 0.001). In logistic regression analysis, LV global load was a main predictor of low stress-corrected midwall shortening independent of male sex, concentric LV geometry, LV hypertrophy (all p < 0.001), concomitant hypertension, and aortic regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS LV global load impacts LV myocardial function in asymptomatic AS independent of other main covariates of LV systolic function. LV myocardial systolic dysfunction is common in asymptomatic AS in particular in patients with low-flow AS and increased valvuloarterial afterload, whereas EF is generally preserved. (An Investigational Drug on Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Aortic Stenosis [Narrowing of the Major Blood Vessel of the Heart]; NCT00092677).

Left Atrial Size and Risk of Major Cardiovascular Events During Antihypertensive Treatment: Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension Trial

The influence of left atrial size on cardiovascular events during antihypertensive treatment has not been reported previously from a long-term, prospective, randomized hypertension treatment trial. We recorded left atrial diameter by annual echocardiography and cardiovascular events in 881 hypertensive patients (41% women) with electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy aged 55 to 80 (mean: 66) years during a mean of 4.8 years of randomized losartan- or atenolol-based treatment in the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension Study. During follow-up, a total of 88 primary end points (combined cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) occurred. In Cox regression, baseline left atrial diameter/height predicted incidence of cardiovascular events (hazard ratio: 1.98 per cm/m [95% CI: 1.02 to 3.83 per cm/m]; P=0.042) adjusted for significant effects of Framingham risk score and history of atrial fibrillation. Greater left atrial diameter reduction during follow-up was associated with greater reduction in left ventricular hypertrophy, absence of new-onset atrial fibrillation or mitral regurgitation during follow-up, and losartan-based treatment (B=−0.13±0.03 cm/m; P<0.001) in multiple linear regression, adjusting for baseline left atrial diameter/height. However, in time-varying Cox regression analysis, left atrial diameter reduction was not independent of left ventricular hypertrophy regression in predicting cardiovascular events during follow-up. In conclusion, left atrial diameter/height predicts risk of cardiovascular events independent of other clinical risk factors in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy and may be useful in pretreatment clinical assessment of cardiovascular risk in these patients.

Change in diastolic left ventricular filling after one year of antihypertensive treatment: The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) Study.

Background—It is well established that hypertensive patients with left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy have impaired diastolic filling. However, the impact of antihypertensive treatment and LV mass reduction on LV diastolic filling remains unclear. Methods and Results—Echocardiograms were recorded in 728 hypertensive patients with ECG-verified LV hypertrophy (Cornell voltage-duration or Sokolow-Lyon) at baseline and after 1 year of blinded treatment with either losartan or atenolol-based regimen. Systolic and diastolic blood pressures (BP) were reduced on average 23/11 mm Hg; isovolumic relaxation time and E/A ratio became more normal, and LV inflow deceleration time prolonged (all P <0.001). Directionally opposite changes in isovolumic relaxation time (IVRT) and deceleration time indicate improvement in active LV relaxation and passive chamber stiffness during early diastole. Prevalences of normal LV filling increased, abnormal relaxation and pseudonormalization decreased, and restrictive filling pattern remained unchanged (P <0.05). Patients with reduction in LV mass had smaller left atrial diameter, shortened IVRT, increased E/A ratio, and prolonged LV inflow deceleration time (all P <0.001). Patients without LV mass reduction had no change in diastolic filling parameters (P =NS). IVRT shortening was independently associated with reduction in LV mass. Increase in E/A ratio was independently associated with reduction in diastolic BP, and increase in the deceleration time was independently associated with reduced end-systolic relative wall thickness. Conclusions—Antihypertensive therapy resulting in LV mass or relative wall thickness regression is associated with significant improvement of diastolic filling parameters related to active relaxation and passive chamber stiffness compared with patients without regression, independent of BP reduction; however, abnormalities of diastolic LV filling remain common.

Prognostic effect of inappropriately high left ventricular mass in asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis

Objectives In patients with aortic stenosis (AS) left ventricular (LV) myocardial growth may exceed individual needs to compensate LV haemodynamic load leading to inappropriately high LV mass (iLVM), a condition at high risk of adverse cardiovascular events. The prognostic impact of iLVM was determined in 218 patients with asymptomatic severe AS. Methods iLVM was recognised when the measured LV mass exceeded 10% of the expected value predicted from height, sex and stroke work (prognostic cut-off assessed by a specific ROC analysis). For assessment of outcome, the endpoint was defined as death from all causes, aortic valve replacement or hospital admission for non-fatal myocardial infarction and/or congestive heart failure. Results At the end of follow-up (22+13 months) complete clinical data were available for 209 participants (mean age 75+11 years). A clinical event occurred in 81 of 121 patients (67%) with iLVM and in 26 of 88 patients (30%) with appropriate LV mass (aLVM) (p<0.001). Event-free survival in patients with aLVM and iLVM was 78% vs 56% at 1-year, 68% vs 29% at 3-year and 56% vs 10% at 5-year follow-up, respectively (all p<0.01). Cox analysis identified iLVM as a strong predictor of adverse outcome (Exp β 3.08; CI 1.65 to 5.73) independent of diabetes, transaortic valve peak gradient and extent of valvular calcification. Among patients with LV hypertrophy, those with iLVM had a risk of adverse events 4.5-fold higher than counterparts with aLVM. Conclusions iLVM is common in patients with asymptomatic severe AS and is associated with an increased rate of cardiovascular events independent of other prognostic covariates.

Echocardiographic left ventricular geometry in hypertensive patients with electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy: The LIFE Study.

Aim: To assess the prevalence of echocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and concentric remodeling in hypertensive patients with electrocardiographic (ECG)-LVH and to estimate the costeffectiveness of echocardiography and ECG for detection of LVH.Design: Echocardiographic LV measurements and the prevalence of abnormal LV geometric patterns were compared between 964 hypertensive patients with ECG-LVH (Cornell voltage-duration product > 2440 and/or SV1