Katherine E. Harris

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.

Regression of Electrocardiographic Left Ventricular Hypertrophy by Losartan Versus Atenolol The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) Study

Background—Electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) predicts cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and regression of ECG LVH may predict improved prognosis in hypertensive patients. However, uncertainty persists as to how best to regress ECG LVH. Methods and Results—Regression of ECG LVH with losartan versus atenolol therapy was assessed in 9193 hypertensive patients with ECG LVH by Sokolow-Lyon voltage or Cornell voltage-duration product criteria enrolled in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) Study. Patients had ECGs at study baseline and after 6 months, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years of blinded losartan-based or atenolol-based therapy. After 6 months’ follow-up, adjusting for baseline ECG LVH levels, baseline and in-treatment systolic and diastolic pressures, and for diuretic therapy, losartan-based therapy was associated with greater regression of both Cornell product (adjusted means, −200 versus −69 mm · ms, P <0.001) and Sokolow-Lyon voltage (−2.5 versus −0.7 mm, P <0.001) than was atenolol-based therapy. Greater regression of ECG LVH persisted at each subsequent annual evaluation in the losartan-treated group, with between 140 and 164 mm · ms greater mean reductions in Cornell product and from 1.7 to 2.2 mm greater mean reductions in Sokolow-Lyon voltage (all P <0.001). The effect of losartan was consistent across subgroups defined by gender, age, ethnicity, and diabetes. Conclusions—After adjusting for baseline and in-treatment blood pressure and baseline severity of ECG LVH, losartan-based antihypertensive therapy resulted in greater regression of ECG LVH by Cornell voltage-duration product and Sokolow-Lyon voltage criteria than did atenolol-based therapy. These findings support the value of angiotensin receptor blockade with losartan for reversing ECG LVH.

Six-month angiographic and clinical follow-up of patients prospectively randomized to receive either tirofiban or placebo during angioplasty in the RESTORE trial

OBJECTIVES This study sought to investigate the effects of tirofiban versus placebo on the incidence of adverse cardiac outcomes and coronary artery restenosis at 6 months. BACKGROUND Tirofiban is a highly selective, short-acting inhibitor of fibrinogen binding to platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa. In a recent clinical study, tirofiban reduced the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events at both 2 and 7 days after coronary angioplasty or directional coronary atherectomy. This reduction persisted but was no longer statistically significant at 30 days. METHODS The Randomized Efficacy Study of Tirofiban for Outcomes and Restenosis (RESTORE) trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of tirofiban in patients undergoing balloon angioplasty or directional atherectomy within 72 h of presentation with either unstable angina pectoris or acute myocardial infarction. All patients received an initial bolus (10 microg/kg body weight over 3 min), followed by a 36-h infusion (0.15 microg/kg per min) of either tirofiban or placebo. RESULTS At 6 months the composite end point (either death from any cause, new myocardial infarction, bypass surgery for angioplasty failure or recurrent ischemia, repeat target vessel angioplasty or stent insertion for actual or threatened abrupt closure) occurred in 1,070 placebo group patients (27.1%) and 1,071 tirofiban group patients (24.1%, p = 0.11). Analysis of 6-month coronary arteriograms by means of quantitative coronary arteriography showed no significant difference between placebo- and tirofiban-treated patients in either the incidence of a > or =50% diameter stenosis (57% vs. 51%, p = NS), a loss of > or =50% of lumen diameter gained (50% vs. 50%, p = NS) or a loss of > or =0.72 mm of lumen diameter (44% vs. 42%, p = NS). CONCLUSIONS The 3% absolute reduction in the incidence of the composite end point at 6 months (27.1% placebo vs. 24.1% tirofiban) was similar to that previously reported at 2 days (8.7% vs. 5.4%, p < 0.005), and there does not appear to be any late effect of tirofiban on clinical end points between day 2 and 6 months. Tirofiban did not reduce the incidence of restenosis at 6 months when defined in a number of ways.

Impact of Different Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Receptor Inhibitors Among Diabetic Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Do Tirofiban and ReoPro Give Similar Efficacy Outcomes Trial (TARGET) 1-Year Follow-Up

Background—The platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor abciximab, a monoclonal antibody, has been shown to improve early and late outcomes among diabetic patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). It is unknown whether small-molecule agents confer similar benefits. Methods and Results—In 18 countries, 4809 patients undergoing PCI with stent implantation were randomized to tirofiban or abciximab. At the time of enrollment, patients were stratified according to diabetes status. As compared with non-diabetic patients, patients with diabetes (n=1117) showed similar 30-day ischemic outcomes, an increased incidence of any target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 6 months (10.3% versus 7.8%;P = 0.008), and a trend toward higher 1-year mortality (2.5% versus 1.6%;P =0.056). Among diabetic patients randomized to tirofiban (n=560), the incidence of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or urgent TVR at 30 days was 6.2%, and among those randomized to abciximab (n=557) it was 5.4% (hazard ratio [HR] 1.16;P =0.540). At 6 months, the composite of death, MI, or any TVR occurred in 15.7% and in 16.9% of tirofiban and abciximab patients, respectively (HR 0.93;P =0.610). Any TVR occurred in 9.5% and 11.1%, respectively (HR 0.84;P = 0.366). The 1-year mortality was 2.1% in the tirofiban group and 2.9% in the abciximab group (HR 0.74;P = 0.436). Conclusions—Among diabetic patients undergoing PCI, tirofiban and abciximab were associated with comparable event rates, including similar rates of 6-month TVR and 1-year mortality. These findings suggest that the non-glycoprotein IIb/IIIa properties of abciximab do not translate into a discernible long-term clinical benefit among diabetic patients.

Impact of Diabetes Mellitus on Regression of Electrocardiographic Left Ventricular Hypertrophy and the Prediction of Outcome During Antihypertensive Therapy The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint (LIFE) Reduction in Hypertension Study

Background— Diabetes mellitus is associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality and with greater ECG left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH); however, it is unclear whether diabetes attenuates regression of hypertensive LVH and whether regression of ECG LVH has similar prognostic value in diabetic and nondiabetic hypertensive individuals. Methods and Results— A total of 9193 hypertensive patients (1195 with diabetes) in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint (LIFE) Reduction in Hypertension Study were treated with losartan- or atenolol-based regimens and followed up with serial ECG and blood pressure determinations at baseline and 6 months and then yearly until death or study end. ECG LVH was defined with gender-adjusted Cornell voltage-duration product (CP) criteria >2440 mm · ms. After a mean follow-up of 4.8±0.9 years, patients with diabetes had less regression of CP LVH (−138±866 versus −204±854 mm · ms, P<0.001), remained more likely to have LVH by CP (56.0% versus 48.1%, P<0.001), and had higher rates of CV death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality and of the LIFE composite end point of CV death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. In multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, in-treatment regression or absence of ECG LVH by CP was associated with between 17% and 35% reductions in event rates in patients without diabetes but did not significantly predict outcome in patients with diabetes. Conclusions— Hypertensive patients with diabetes have less regression of CP LVH in response to antihypertensive therapy than patients without diabetes, and regression of ECG LVH is less useful as a surrogate marker of outcomes in hypertensive patients with diabetes. These findings may in part explain the higher CV morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients with diabetes, and the absence of a demonstrable improvement in prognosis in diabetic patients in response to regression of ECG LVH suggests a more complex interrelation between underlying LV structural and functional abnormalities and outcome in these patients.

In-Treatment Resolution or Absence of Electrocardiographic Left Ventricular Hypertrophy Is Associated With Decreased Incidence of New-Onset Diabetes Mellitus in Hypertensive Patients The Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) Study

Treatment of hypertensive patients with electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy with losartan-based therapy is associated with lower incidence of diabetes mellitus and greater regression of hypertrophy than atenolol-based therapy. However, whether in-treatment resolution or continued absence of electrocardiographic hypertrophy is independently associated with decreased incidence of diabetes is unclear. Electrocardiographic hypertrophy was evaluated over time in 7998 hypertensive patients without diabetes at baseline in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study who were treated with losartan- or atenolol-based regimens and followed with serial electrocardiograms and blood pressure determinations. Electrocardiographic hypertrophy was defined using gender-adjusted Cornell voltage-duration product criteria >2440 mm·ms. During mean follow-up of 4.6±1.2 years, diabetes developed in 562 patients (7.0%). In a Cox model adjusting for treatment assignment, in-treatment resolution or continued absence of Cornell product hypertrophy was associated with a 38% lower risk of new diabetes (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.78). After adjusting for the association of new diabetes with prior antihypertensive treatment, baseline glucose, and Framingham risk score, baseline and in-treatment systolic and diastolic pressure, HDL, uric acid, and body mass index, and the decreased incidence associated with losartan-based therapy, in-treatment continued absence, or resolution of Cornell product hypertrophy remained associated with a 26% lower risk of new diabetes (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.93). Thus, compared with presence of hypertrophy by Cornell product criteria during antihypertensive treatment, resolution or continued absence of Cornell product hypertrophy is associated with a lower incidence of diabetes, even after adjusting for the impact of treatment with losartan and other risk factors for diabetes.

The effects of losartan compared to atenolol on stroke in patients with isolated systolic hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy. The LIFE study.

The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study reported that a losartan‐based antihypertensive regimen reduced cardiovascular morbidity and mortality (composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, and myocardial infarction) more than therapy based on atenolol in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy and isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). Patients aged 55–80 years with blood pressures 160–200/<90 mm Hg were followed for a mean of 4.7 years. Blood pressure was similarly reduced in the losartan (n=660) and atenolol (n=666) ISH groups. There were 88 (6.6%) patients who experienced a stroke, 18 of which were fatal. Of patients experiencing strokes, 72.7% had an ischemic stroke. ISH patients in LIFE compared to the non‐ISH group had a higher incidence of any stroke and embolic stroke, and similar incidences of fatal, atherosclerotic, and hemorrhagiclother strokes. The incidence of any stroke (40% risk reduction [RR], p=0.02), fatal stroke (70% RR, p=0.035), and atherothrombotic stroke (45% RR, p=0.022) was significantly lower in losartan‐treated compared to the atenolol‐treated patients. The 36% RR for embolic strokes in the losartan group was not statistically significantly (p=0.33) different from the atenolol group. These data suggest that losartan‐based treatment is more effective than an atenolol‐based treatment for patients with ISH and a high risk for stroke.

Blood pressure reduction and antihypertensive medication use in the losartan intervention for endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy.

ABSTRACT Objective: To compare blood pressure response and antihypertensive medication use visit-by-visit from baseline in patients receiving losartan-based or atenolol-based therapy in the LIFE study. Research design: LIFE was a randomized, double-blind trial comparing losartan-based and atenolol-based treatment regimens on the primary composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke in 9193 patients aged 55–80 years with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy. Systolic and diastolic, pulse, and mean arterial pressures, blood pressure responder rates, distribution of open-label antihypertensive agents utilized, and the proportion of patients on randomized treatment were determined for each group at each clinic visit over a follow-up period of at least 4 years. Results: Overall blood pressure reductions were comparable in the losartan-based and atenolol-based treatment groups. The mean reductions in sitting trough systolic and diastolic blood pressures from baseline to the end of follow-up (or last visit before a primary endpoint event) were 30.2/16.6 mmHg in the losartan group and 29.1/16.8 mmHg in the atenolol group. The time-averaged difference in overall mean arterial pressure was similar between groups. The proportion of patients on individual dose combinations varied visit by visit but was generally comparable between groups. During the entire study, 56% (2579/4605) of losartan-treated patients received at least one dose of the combination of losartan 100 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg and 51% of atenolol-treated patients received 100 mg of atenolol plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg at some time during the study. Conclusions: Differences in blood pressure or distribution of add-on medications between treatment groups were not evident in the LIFE trial and, thus, cannot account for the observed outcome difference in the primary endpoint of risk reduction of the composite of cardiovascular death, stroke and MI favoring losartan.