Prevalence and covariates of electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy in the Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial

Pharmacotherapy for hypertension-induced left ventricular hypertrophy

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is the leading preventable risk factor for cardiovascular disease and premature death worldwide. One of the clinical effects of hypertension is left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), a process of cardiac remodelling. It is estimated that over 30% of people with hypertension also suffer from LVH, although the prevalence rates vary according to the LVH diagnostic criteria. Severity of LVH is associated with a higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease and an increased risk of death. The role of antihypertensives in the regression of left ventricular mass has been extensively studied. However, uncertainty exists regarding the role of antihypertensive therapy compared to placebo in the morbidity and mortality of individuals with hypertension-induced LVH.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of antihypertensive pharmacotherapy compared to placebo or no treatment on morbidity and mortality of adults with hypertension-induced LVH.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Hypertension's Information Specialist searched the following databases for studies: Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register (to 26 September 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library; 2020, Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 22 September 2020), and Ovid Embase (1974 to 22 September 2020). We searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials. We also searched Epistemonikos (to 19 February 2021), LILACS BIREME (to 19 February 2021), and Clarivate Web of Science (to 26 February 2021), and contacted authors and funders of the identified trials to obtain additional information and individual participant data. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least 12 months' follow-up comparing antihypertensive pharmacological therapy (monotherapy or in combination) with placebo or no treatment in adults (18 years of age or older) with hypertension-induced LVH were eligible for inclusion. The trials must have analysed at least one primary outcome (all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, or total serious adverse events) to be considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened the search results, with any disagreements resolved by consensus amongst all review authors. Two review authors carried out the data extraction and analyses. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies following Cochrane methodology. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three multicentre RCTs. We selected 930 participants from the included studies for the analyses, with a mean follow-up of 3.8 years (range 3.5 to 4.3 years). All of the included trials performed an intention-to-treat analysis. We obtained evidence for the review by identifying the population of interest from the trials' total samples. None of the trials provided information on the cause of LVH. The intervention varied amongst the included trials: hydrochlorothiazide plus triamterene with the possibility of adding alpha methyldopa, spironolactone, or olmesartan. Placebo was administered to participants in the control arm in two trials, whereas participants in the control arm of the remaining trial did not receive any add-on treatment. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of additional antihypertensive pharmacological therapy compared to placebo or no treatment on mortality (14.3% intervention versus 13.6% control; risk ratio (RR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.40; 3 studies; 930 participants; very low-certainty evidence); cardiovascular events (12.6% intervention versus 11.5% control; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.55; 3 studies; 930 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and hospitalisation for heart failure (10.7% intervention versus 12.5% control; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; 2 studies; 915 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Although both arms yielded similar results for total serious adverse events (48.9% intervention versus 48.1% control; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.16; 3 studies; 930 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and total adverse events (68.3% intervention versus 67.2% control; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.34; 2 studies; 915 participants), the incidence of withdrawal due to adverse events may be significantly higher with antihypertensive drug therapy (15.2% intervention versus 4.9% control; RR 3.09, 95% CI 1.69 to 5.66; 1 study; 522 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analyses limited to blinded trials, trials with low risk of bias in core domains, and trials with no funding from the pharmaceutical industry did not change the results of the main analyses. Limited evidence on the change in left ventricular mass index prevented us from drawing any firm conclusions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain about the effects of adding additional antihypertensive drug therapy on the morbidity and mortality of participants with LVH and hypertension compared to placebo. Although the incidence of serious adverse events was similar between study arms, additional antihypertensive therapy may be associated with more withdrawals due to adverse events. Limited and low-certainty evidence requires that caution be used when interpreting the findings. High-quality clinical trials addressing the effect of antihypertensives on clinically relevant variables and carried out specifically in individuals with hypertension-induced LVH are warranted.

Are classic predictors of voltage valid in cardiac amyloidosis? A contemporary analysis of electrocardiographic findings

BACKGROUND

Low voltage electrocardiography (ECG) coupled with increased ventricular wall thickness is the hallmark of cardiac amyloidosis. However, patient characteristics influencing voltage in the general population, including bundle branch block, have not been evaluated in amyloid heart disease.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of patients with newly diagnosed cardiac amyloidosis from 2002 to 2014. ECG voltage was calculated using limb (sum of QRS complex in leads I, II and III) and precordial (Sokolow: S in V1 plus R in V5-V6) criteria. The associations between voltage and clinical variables were tested using multivariable linear regression. A Cox model assessed the association of voltage with mortality.

RESULTS

In 389 subjects (transthyretin ATTR 186, light chain AL 203), 30% had conduction delay (QRS >120ms). In those with narrow QRS, 68% met low limb, 72% low Sokolow and 57% both criteria, with lower voltages found in AL vs ATTR. LV mass index as well as other typical factors that impact voltage (age, sex, race, hypertension, BSA, and smoking) in the general population were not associated with voltage in this cardiac amyloidosis cohort. Patients with LBBB and IVCD had similar voltages when compared to those with narrow QRS. Voltage was significantly associated with mortality (p<0.001 for both criteria) after multivariable adjustment.

CONCLUSION

Classic predictors of ECG voltage in the general population are not valid in cardiac amyloidosis. In this cohort, the prevalence estimates of ventricular conduction delay and low voltage are higher than previously reported. Voltage predicts mortality after multivariable adjustment.