Effect of Irbesartan Versus Atenolol on Left Ventricular Mass and Voltage

Integrating Measures of Myocardial Fibrosis in the Transition from Hypertensive Heart Disease to Heart Failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to summarize recent developments in identifying and quantifying both the presence and amount of myocardial fibrosis by imaging and biomarkers. Further, this review seeks to describe in general ways how this information may be used to identify hypertension and the transition to heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging highlight the progressive nature of fibrosis from normal individuals to those with hypertension to those with clinical heart failure. However, separating hypertensive patients from those with heart failure remains challenging. Recent studies involving echocardiography show the subclinical myocardial strain changes between hypertensive heart disease and heart failure. Lastly, recent studies highlight the potential use of biomarkers to identify those with hypertension at the greatest risk of developing heart failure. In light of the heterogeneous nature between hypertension and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, an integrated approach with cardiac imaging and biomarker analysis may enable clinicians and investigators to more accurately characterize, prevent, and treat heart failure in those with hypertension.

Comparative efficacy of different types of antihypertensive drugs in reversing left ventricular hypertrophy as determined with echocardiography in hypertensive patients: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Reversing left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) can reduce the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events. However, there is no clear superiority-inferiority differentiation between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), beta-blockers (BB), calcium channel blockers (CCB), and diuretics in reversing LVH in hypertensive patients. To provide further evidence for choosing the optimal antihypertensive drug for improving LVH, we performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) based on the Cochrane library database, Embase, and Pubmed, and identified 49 studies involving 5402 patients that were eligible for inclusion. It was found that ARB could improve LVH in hypertensive patients more effectively than CCB (MD -4.07, 95%CI -8.03 to -0.24) and BB (MD -4.57, 95%CI -8.07 to -1.12). Matched comparison of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) showed that the effect of ACEI in reducing left ventricular mass index (LVMi) was not effective as that of ARB (MD -3.72, 95%CI -7.52 to -0.11). The surface under the cumulative ranking for each intervention indicated that the use of ARB was more effective among the different types of antihypertensive drugs (97%). This network meta-analysis revealed that the use of ARB in antihypertensive therapy could achieve better efficacy in reversing LVH in hypertensive patients.

Diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy using convolutional neural network

BACKGROUND

Clinically, doctors obtain the left ventricular posterior wall thickness (LVPWT) mainly by observing ultrasonic echocardiographic video stream to capture a single frame of images with diagnostic significance, and then mark two key points on both sides of the posterior wall of the left ventricle with their own experience for computer measurement. In the actual measurement, the doctor's selection point is subjective, and difficult to accurately locate the edge, which will bring errors to the measurement results.

METHODS

In this paper, a convolutional neural network model of left ventricular posterior wall positioning was built under the TensorFlow framework, and the target region images were obtained after the positioning results were processed by non-local mean filtering and opening operation. Then the edge detection algorithm based on threshold segmentation is used. After the contour was extracted by adjusting the segmentation threshold through prior analysis and the OTSU algorithm, the design algorithm completed the computer selection point measurement of the thickness of the posterior wall of the left ventricle.

RESULTS

The proposed method can effectively extract the left ventricular posterior wall contour and measure its thickness. The experimental results show that the relative error between the measurement result and the hospital measurement value is less than 15%, which is less than 20% of the acceptable repeatability error in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Therefore, the measurement method proposed in this paper has the advantages of less manual intervention, and the processing method is reasonable and has practical value.

First-line drugs inhibiting the renin angiotensin system versus other first-line antihypertensive drug classes for hypertension

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015. Renin angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors include angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and renin inhibitors. They are widely prescribed for treatment of hypertension, especially for people with diabetes because of postulated advantages for reducing diabetic nephropathy and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite widespread use for hypertension, the efficacy and safety of RAS inhibitors compared to other antihypertensive drug classes remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of first-line RAS inhibitors compared to other first-line antihypertensive drugs in people with hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Group Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to November 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded studies (RCTs) with at least six months follow-up in people with elevated blood pressure (≥ 130/85 mmHg), which compared first-line RAS inhibitors with other first-line antihypertensive drug classes and reported morbidity and mortality or blood pressure outcomes. We excluded people with proven secondary hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risks of bias and entered the data for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes three new RCTs, totaling 45 in all, involving 66,625 participants, with a mean age of 66 years. Much of the evidence for our key outcomes is dominated by a small number of large RCTs at low risk for most sources of bias. Imbalances in the added second-line antihypertensive drugs in some of the studies were important enough for us to downgrade the quality of the evidence.Primary outcomes were all-cause death, fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal and non-fatal congestive heart failure (CHF) requiring hospitalizations, total cardiovascular (CV) events (fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal MI and fatal and non-fatal CHF requiring hospitalization), and end-stage renal failure (ESRF). Secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate (HR).Compared with first-line calcium channel blockers (CCBs), we found moderate-certainty evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased heart failure (HF) (35,143 participants in 5 RCTs, risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.90, absolute risk reduction (ARR) 1.2%), and that they increased stroke (34,673 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32, absolute risk increase (ARI) 0.7%). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line CCBs did not differ for all-cause death (35,226 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09); total CV events (35,223 participants in 6 RCTs, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02); and total MI (35,043 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09). Low-certainty evidence suggests they did not differ for ESRF (19,551 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05).Compared with first-line thiazides, we found moderate-certainty evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors increased HF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.31, ARI 1.0%), and increased stroke (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.28, ARI 0.6%). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line thiazides did not differ for all-cause death (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07); total CV events (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11); and total MI (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01). Low-certainty evidence suggests they did not differ for ESRF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.37).Compared with first-line beta-blockers, low-certainty evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased total CV events (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98, ARR 1.7%), and decreased stroke (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88, ARR 1.7% ). Low-certainty evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line beta-blockers did not differ for all-cause death (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01); HF (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18); and total MI (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27).Blood pressure comparisons between first-line RAS inhibitors and other first-line classes showed either no differences or small differences that did not necessarily correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.There is no information about non-fatal serious adverse events, as none of the trials reported this outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All-cause death is similar for first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line CCBs, thiazides and beta-blockers. There are, however, differences for some morbidity outcomes. First-line thiazides caused less HF and stroke than first-line RAS inhibitors. First-line CCBs increased HF but decreased stroke compared to first-line RAS inhibitors. The magnitude of the increase in HF exceeded the decrease in stroke. Low-quality evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors reduced stroke and total CV events compared to first-line beta-blockers. The small differences in effect on blood pressure between the different classes of drugs did not correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.

Regression of left ventricular hypertrophy by a candesartan-based regimen in clinical practice The VIPE study

The VIPE study was a prospective, non-comparative, open-label clinical evaluation of 97 hypertensive patients (69.1% female; 68.9±9.5 years; mean blood pressure (BP) 160±12/90±9 mmHg) with echocardiographic evidence of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). Patients were treated for six months with a candesartan-based regimen (8 mg/16 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg + additional drugs to lower BP < 140/90 mmHg). After six months, systolic/diastolic BP was decreased by 19.3±8/9.4±5 mmHg (p<0.001 for both), and left ventricular mass index (LVMI) decreased 17.01 g/m2 (95%CI: -13.2 to -20.99; p<0.001). During treatment with the candesartan-based regimen all echocardiographic parameters related to LVMI were significantly reduced and 28% achieved a target LVMI [< 134 g/m2 (men) and < 110 g/m2 (women) ]. No significant changes were observed in ejection fraction, shortening fraction or LV diastolic function. Univariate analysis showed that both age (p=0.03) and diabetes (p=0.029) were predictive of LVH regression.

Thus, a candesartan-based regimen for six months significantly reduced echocardiographic LVH in hypertensive patients in general practice. The drug was very well tolerated and no serious adverse events were reported.

First-line drugs inhibiting the renin angiotensin system versus other first-line antihypertensive drug classes for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors are widely prescribed for treatment of hypertension, especially for diabetic patients on the basis of postulated advantages for the reduction of diabetic nephropathy and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite widespread use of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for hypertension in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients, the efficacy and safety of RAS inhibitors compared to other antihypertensive drug classes remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of first-line RAS inhibitors compared to other first-line antihypertensive drugs in patients with hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials up to November 19, 2014 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to October 19, 2014. The WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) is searched for inclusion in the Cochrane Hypertension Group's Specialised Register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded studies with at least six months follow-up in people with primary elevated blood pressure (≥130/85 mmHg), which compared first-line RAS inhibitors with other first-line antihypertensive drug classes and reported morbidity and mortality or blood pressure outcomes. Patients with proven secondary hypertension were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risk of bias and entered the data for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 42 studies, involving 65,733 participants, with a mean age of 66 years. Much of the evidence for our key outcomes is dominated by a small number of large studies at a low risk of bias for most sources of bias. Imbalances in the added second-line antihypertensive drugs in some of the studies were important enough for us to downgrade the quality of the evidence.Primary outcomes were all-cause death, fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal and non-fatal congestive heart failure (CHF) requiring hospitalization, total cardiovascular (CV) events (consisted of fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal MI and fatal and non-fatal CHF requiring hospitalizations), and ESRF. Secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate (HR).Compared with first-line calcium channel blockers (CCBs), we found moderate quality evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased heart failure (HF) (35,143 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.90, ARR 1.2%), and moderate quality evidence that they increased stroke (34,673 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32, ARI 0.7%). They had similar effects on all-cause death (35,226 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09; moderate quality evidence), total CV events (35,223 participants in 6 RCTs, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02; moderate quality evidence), total MI (35,043 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09; moderate quality evidence). The results for ESRF do not exclude potentially important differences (19,551 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05; low quality evidence).Compared with first-line thiazides, we found moderate quality evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors increased HF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.31, ARI 1.0%), and increased stroke (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.28, ARI 0.6%). They had similar effects on all-cause death (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; moderate quality evidence), total CV events (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11; moderate quality evidence), and total MI (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01; moderate quality evidence). Results for ESRF do not exclude potentially important differences (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.37; low quality evidence).Compared with first-line beta-blockers, we found low quality evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased total CV events (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98, ARR 1.7%), and low quality evidence that they decreased stroke (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88, ARR 1.7% ). Our analyses do not exclude potentially important differences between first-line RAS inhibitors and beta-blockers on all-cause death (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; low quality evidence), HF (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18; low quality evidence), and total MI (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; low quality evidence).Blood pressure comparisons between RAS inhibitors and other classes showed either no differences or small differences that did not necessarily correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.In the protocol, we identified non-fatal serious adverse events (SAE) as a primary outcome. However, when we extracted the data from included studies, none of them reported total SAE in a manner that could be used in the review. Therefore, there is no information about SAE in the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found predominantly moderate quality evidence that all-cause mortality is similar when first-line RAS inhibitors are compared to other first-line antihypertensive agents. First-line thiazides caused less HF and stroke than first-line RAS inhibitors. The quality of the evidence comparing first-line beta-blockers and first-line RAS inhibitors was low and the lower risk of total CV events and stroke seen with RAS inhibitors may change with the publication of additional trials. Compared with first-line CCBs, first-line RAS inhibitors reduced HF but increased stroke. The magnitude of the reduction in HF exceeded the increase in stroke. The small differences in effect on blood pressure between the different classes of drugs did not correlate with the differences in the primary outcomes.

Prevalence of electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy in human hypertension: an updated review

AIM

Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is a strong predictor of cardiovascular events in different clinical settings. We reviewed recent studies on the prevalence of hypertensive LVH, as assessed by ECG, in order to update our knowledge about this marker of cardiac organ damage in human hypertension.

DESIGN

A MEDLINE search using the key words ' LVH ', 'hypertension', 'ECG', 'cardiac organ damage' and 'cardiac hypertrophy' was performed in order to identify relevant articles. Full articles published in English language in the last decade (1 January 2000 to 31 December 2010) reporting studies in adult or elderly individuals, were considered.

RESULTS

A total of 26 studies, including 40 444 untreated and treated individuals (85% whites, 47% men, 32% obese, 28% diabetics and 22% patients with cardiovascular disease) were considered. LVH was defined by 15 criteria (seven studies used two or more criteria, range 2-7); LVH prevalence consistently varied among studies (0.6-40.0%) with an average of 18% in the pooled population. A sex-based analysis in five out of 26 studies (12 084 patients) showed an average prevalence of LVH of 24% in men and 16% in women (odds ratio 1.38, 95% CI 0.91-2.09, P  =  0.11).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis shows that LVH, as assessed by ECG, is present in a relevant fraction of the hypertensive population; these data highlight the role of ECG as a first-line examination for identifying subclinical organ damage and optimizing blood pressure control in hypertensive patients.

Combined effects of irbesartan and carvedilol on expression of tissue factor and tissue factor pathway inhibitor in rats after myocardial infarction

The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of irbesartan, carvedilol, and irbesartan plus carvedilol on the expression of tissue factor (TF) and tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI) mRNA and protein in rat myocardium after myocardial infarction (MI). MI was induced in male Wistar rats by ligation of the anterior descending branch of the left coronary artery. Irbesartan at 50 mg/kg/day, carvedilol at 1 mg/kg/day, irbesartan plus carvedilol, or placebo was administered intragastrically; expression of TF and TFPI mRNA and protein was determined by RT-PCR and Western blot analysis. The relative left ventricle weights were lower in all three treatment groups than in the placebo group, with the lowest relative weight in the irbesartan plus carvedilol group (P < 0.001). The size of the infarcted area was lower in the carvedilol and the combined groups than in the placebo group (P < 0.001). The levels of expression of TF and TFPI mRNA and protein were lower in the combined group than in the placebo group or the carvedilol group (P < 0.001). Treatment with irbesartan plus carvedilol reduced the expression of TF and TFPI mRNA and protein after MI in rats, and combined treatment with both agents had greater effects than the single agents alone. These findings suggest that the beneficial effects of these drugs may include anticoagulation and that combined therapy with both agents is an option that should be evaluated further.

Greater regression of electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy during hydrochlorothiazide therapy in hypertensive patients

BACKGROUND

Treatment of hypertensive patients with a losartan-based regimen was associated with greater regression of electrocardiographic (ECG) left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) than atenolol-based therapy in the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) study, independent of blood pressure (BP) changes. However, whether concomitant hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) therapy in >70% of LIFE patients was associated with greater regression of LVH independent of BP changes and whether this effect differed between treatment arms has not been examined.

METHODS

Changes in Cornell product and Sokolow-Lyon voltage LVH were assessed in 9,193 hypertensive patients randomly assigned to treatment with losartan or atenolol, with additional HCTZ therapy added as necessary to achieve target BP goal per study protocol.

RESULTS

After controlling for baseline and change in systolic and diastolic pressure, age, sex, race, prior antihypertensive treatment, baseline and year-4 body mass index and baseline LVH by either Cornell product or Sokolow-Lyon voltage, at year-4 follow-up HCTZ therapy was associated with greater regression of Cornell product LVH (-244 +/- 788 vs. -172 +/- 771 mm.msec, P < 0.05) and Sokolow-Lyon voltage (-4.2 +/- 6.7 vs. -3.0 +/- 7.0 mm, P < 0.001) and this effect was significantly greater in patients on losartan (-341 +/- 743 vs. -189 +/- 775 mm.msec and -5.2 +/- 6.6 vs. -3.3 +/- 6.6 mm) than in patients on atenolol (-142 +/- 822 vs. -158 +/- 765 mm.msec and -3.1 +/- 6.6 vs. -2.7 +/- 7.4 mm; both P < 0.001 for interaction of HCTZ with losartan vs. atenolol therapy).

CONCLUSIONS

HCTZ use was associated with greater regression of ECG LVH and this effect was greater in patients on losartan- than atenolol-based therapy, independent of baseline severity of ECG LVH and hypertension and changes in BP.

Comparing angiotensin II receptor blockers on benefits beyond blood pressure

The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) is one of the main regulators of blood pressure, renal hemodynamics, and volume homeostasis in normal physiology, and contributes to the development of renal and cardiovascular (CV) diseases. Therefore, pharmacologic blockade of RAAS constitutes an attractive strategy in preventing the progression of renal and CV diseases. This concept has been supported by clinical trials involving patients with hypertension, diabetic nephropathy, and heart failure, and those after myocardial infarction. The use of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in clinical practice has increased over the last decade. Since their introduction in 1995, seven ARBs have been made available, with approved indications for hypertension and some with additional indications beyond blood pressure reduction. Considering that ARBs share a similar mechanism of action and exhibit similar tolerability profiles, it is assumed that a class effect exists and that they can be used interchangeably. However, pharmacologic and dosing differences exist among the various ARBs, and these differences can potentially influence their individual effectiveness. Understanding these differences has important implications when choosing an ARB for any particular condition in an individual patient, such as heart failure, stroke, and CV risk reduction (prevention of myocardial infarction). A review of the literature for existing randomized controlled trials across various ARBs clearly indicates differences within this class of agents. Ongoing clinical trials are evaluating the role of ARBs in the prevention and reduction of CV rates of morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients.

Regression of Left Ventricular Mass by Antihypertensive Treatment

Blood pressure–lowering therapy reduces left ventricular mass, but the question of whether differences exist among drug classes has not been fully resolved. Our aim was to compare the effects of diuretics, β-blockers, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and angiotensin receptor blockers on left ventricular mass regression in patients with hypertension on the basis of prospective, randomized comparative studies. We performed meta-analyses, involving pooled pairwise comparisons of the drug classes and of each class versus other classes statistically combined, and meta-regression analyses to identify the determinants of the regression. The 75 relevant publications involved 84 pairwise comparisons and 6001 patients. Regression of left ventricular mass was significantly less ( P =0.01) with β-blockers (9.8%) than with angiotensin receptor blockers (12.5%), but none of the other analyzable pairwise comparisons between drug classes revealed significant differences ( P >0.10). In addition, β-blockers showed less regression than the other 4 classes statistically combined ( P <0.01), and regression was more pronounced with angiotensin receptor blockers versus the others ( P <0.01). In multivariable meta-regression analysis on all of the treatment arms, β-blocker treatment was a significant and negative predictor of the regression (−3.6%; P <0.01), but this was not the case for the other drug classes, including angiotensin receptor blockers. In conclusion, β-blockers show less regression of left ventricular mass, whereas angiotensin receptor blockers may induce larger regression. The inferiority of β-blockers appears to be more convincing than the superiority of angiotensin receptor blockers.

Exploiting cGMP-based therapies for the prevention of left ventricular hypertrophy: NO* and beyond

Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), an increased left ventricular (LV) mass, is common to many cardiovascular disorders, initially developing as an adaptive response to maintain myocardial function. In the longer term, this LV remodelling becomes maladaptive, with progressive decline in LV contractility and diastolic function. Indeed LVH is recognised as an important blood-pressure independent predictor of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The clinical efficacy of current treatments for LVH is reduced, however, by their tendency to slow disease progression rather than induce its reversal, and thus the development of new therapies for LVH is paramount. The signalling molecule cyclic guanosine-3',5'-monophosphate (cGMP), well-recognised for its role in regulating vascular tone, is now being increasingly identified as an important anti-hypertrophic mediator. This review is focused on the various means by which cGMP can be stimulated in the heart, such as via the natriuretic peptides, to exert anti-hypertrophic actions. In particular we address the limitations of traditional nitric oxide (NO*) donors in the face of the potential therapeutic advantages offered by novel alternatives; NO* siblings, ligands of the cGMP-generating enzymes, soluble (sGC) and particulate guanylyl cyclases (pGC), and phosphodiesterase inhibitors. Further impact of cGMP within the cardiovascular system is also discussed with a view to representing cGMP-based therapies as innovative pharmacotherapy, alone or concurrent with standard care, for the management of LVH.

Different role of wave reflection magnitude and timing on left ventricular mass reduction during antihypertensive treatment

OBJECTIVE

Regression of left ventricular (LV) mass during antihypertensive treatment has been associated with reduction in aortic augmentation index, a composite measure of peripheral wave reflection. The aim of this study was to clarify which of the two reflection factors, that is magnitude or timing, plays the dominant role in this regression.

METHODS

We evaluated the reflection magnitude (RM; the reflected-to-forward pressure wave amplitude ratio), the round-trip travel time of the pressure wave (a parameter for reflection timing), and the aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) with echocardiographic LV mass in 61 hypertensive patients before and after 1-year standard medical treatment.

RESULTS

Antihypertensive therapy significantly (P < 0.01) decreased brachial and aortic blood pressures and aortic PWV, reduced LV mass, and increased travel time. Neither increase in travel time nor decrease in PWV, however, was related to the reduction in LV mass. By contrast, treatment-induced change in RM was significantly correlated with change in LV mass; the correlation was particularly close in patients with LV hypertrophy (r = 0.61, P < 0.001). Only a marginal correlation was observed between the changes in RM and travel time. The association between RM decrease and LV mass reduction was independent of age, sex, changes in travel time and blood pressure, and use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (beta = 0.41, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Decreased wave RM contributes to LV mass regression more strongly than, and independently of, delayed reflection timing. Peripheral muscular arteries (from which reflection arises) appear to be more important therapeutic targets in regressing LV mass than central elastic arteries.

Gender differences in regression of electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy during antihypertensive therapy

Although men and women differ in the magnitude of ECG left ventricular hypertrophy, whether gender differences exist in the degree of regression of ECG left ventricular hypertrophy during antihypertensive therapy is unclear. ECG left ventricular hypertrophy defined using gender-adjusted Cornell product and Sokolow-Lyon voltage criteria was assessed serially in 9193 hypertensive patients treated with losartan- or atenolol-based regimens. Changes in ECG left ventricular hypertrophy were measured from baseline to last in-study visit, and above-average regression of hypertrophy was identified by a >or=236-mm . ms reduction in Cornell product or >or=3.5-mm reduction in Sokolow-Lyon voltage. During mean follow-up of 4.8+/-0.9 years, women had less reduction in Cornell product (-149+/-823 versus -251+/-890 mm . ms) and Sokolow-Lyon voltage (-3.0+/-6.8 versus -4.8+/-7.7 mm) than men (both P<0.001). After adjusting for baseline ECG left ventricular hypertrophy levels, baseline and change in systolic and diastolic pressures, treatment group, age, and other baseline gender differences, women had significantly less reduction in both Cornell product (adjusted means: -137 versus -276 mm . ms; P<0.001) and Sokolow-Lyon voltage (-3.6 versus -4.1 mm; P=0.005) than men and were 32% less likely to have had greater than the median level of regression of Cornell product left ventricular hypertrophy (95% CI: 24% to 39%; P<0.001) and 15% less likely to have had regression of left ventricular hypertrophy by Sokolow-Lyon criteria (95% CI: 5% to 23%; P=0.003). Thus, women have less regression of ECG left ventricular hypertrophy than men in response to antihypertensive therapy, independent of baseline gender differences in the severity of ECG left ventricular hypertrophy and after taking into account treatment effects and blood pressure changes.

Studies on left ventricular hypertrophy regression in arterial hypertension: a clear message for the clinician?

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based medicine should provide clear and unbiased information to clinicians. We conducted an analysis on published randomized trials evaluating the effects of antihypertensive therapy on left ventricular (LV) morphology assessed by echocardiography to investigate (i) the consistency of criteria used for definition of LV hypertrophy (LVH) and (ii) the consistency of the way LVH regression and blood pressure (BP) control were reported.

METHODS

Studies identified by a PubMed search were eligible for inclusion in the analysis, if they fulfilled the following criteria: (i) publication in a peer-reviewed journal within the last 12 years; (ii) double blind, randomized, controlled, parallel-group design; (iii) numerosity of at least 50 adult hypertensive subjects; (iv) follow-up duration of at least 6 months; (v) comparison between single-drugs or association regimens; (vi) LV mass (LVM) or wall thickness measured by echocardiography.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine trials, including 9,162 hypertensive subjects of both genders in 78 active treatment arms or in 6 placebo arms were identified. Definition of LVH was provided by 34 studies (87.1%) according to 19 different criteria. All trials evaluated LVH regression as the absolute or relative changes of continuous variables such as LVM index (LVMI) or LV wall thickness. Data concerning prevalence rates of LVM normalization were reported in 12 studies (30.7%). The percentage of patients reaching BP target (<140/90 mm Hg) was reported in 11 studies (28.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that (i) definition of hypertensive LVH phenotype is extremely variable, and (ii) no precise information on LVH regression rates or changes in LV geometrical patterns, as well as on target BP, is provided by the majority of papers.

Angiotensin II receptor blockers and cardiovascular protection: focus on left ventricular hypertrophy regression and atrial fibrillation prevention

Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are strong predictors of cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality, independently of blood pressure levels and other modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors. The actions of circulating and tissue angiotensin II, mediated by AT1 receptors, play an important role in the development of a wide spectrum of cardiovascular alterations, including LVH, atrial enlargement and AF. Growing experimental and clinical evidence suggests that antihypertensive drugs may exert different effects on LVH regression and new onset AF in the setting of arterial hypertension. Since a number of large and adequately designed studies have found angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) to be more effective in reducing LVH than beta-blockers and data are also available showing their effectiveness in preventing new or recurrent AF, it is reasonable to consider this class of drugs among first line therapies in patients with hypertension and LVH (a very high risk phenotype predisposing to AF) and as adjunctive therapy to antiarrhythmic agents in patients undergoing pharmacological or electrical cardioversion of AF.

Candesartan: from left ventricular hypertrophy to heart failure, a global approach

Cardiovascular disease is a continuum, starting with risk factors resulting from physiological changes and extending to vascular pathology associated with adverse clinical outcomes. The overactivation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system has been related to the development and worsening of risk factors associated with cardiovascular diseases such as hypertension and heart failure. Treatment at each stage along the continuum may prevent, or at least delay, the next one, and so it is crucial to initiate therapy as early as possible in such patients so as to provide optimal care. Candesartan, a long-acting angiotensin receptor antagonist, has been shown to be an effective, and well-tolerated therapy, in both the early and late phases of cardiovascular disease (prehypertension, hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy and heart failure). This article reviews the data supporting the use of candesartan in cardiovascular medicine, with a focus on left ventricular hypertrophy and ultimately heart failure. Particular emphasis is given to the Candesartan in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity (CHARM) program, which has shown a positive impact of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure in terms of reducing the incidence of cardiovascular deaths and chronic heart failure hospitalizations.

Electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy regression induced by an angiotensin receptor blocker-based regimen in daily clinical practice: the SARA study

AIM

Clinical trials have proved that angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) are more effective than other antihypertensive agents in reducing left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH); however, information about the efficacy of ARB on LVH regression in daily medical practice is scarce. The aim of the SARA study was to investigate the effect of an ARB on electrocardiographic LVH (ECG-LVH) in a hypertensive outpatient population attending clinical practice.

METHODS

From 276 recruited patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension (245 uncontrolled, 31 newly diagnosed), 264 (age: 62.9+/-11.6 years; 51.2% women) completed the study and were valid for the analysis. The patients were treated for a 12-month period with a candesartan-based regimen [(8/16 mg+hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg+additional drugs to target BP<140/90 mmHg (<130/80 in diabetics)]. ECG changes were measured at a core laboratory and Cornell product (CorP), Sokolow-Lyon product (SokP) and QRS duration (QRSd) criteria were determined.

RESULTS

At baseline, 27.4% of patients fulfilled the criteria of LVH by CorP. The proportion of patients with ECG-LVH by CorP criteria decreased to 21.1% at the end of the study, relative risk reduction (RRR) was 22.9%, P<0.001. When using SokP the percentage of ECG-LVH reduced from 24.1 to 21.7% (RRR 9.6%, P=0.1). Quantitatively, CorP was reduced by 84.4 mmxms [95% confidence interval (CI): -8.14, -160.66; P=0.03]; a greater reduction was detected in obese patients (P<0.05), diabetics (P<0.07) and patients with baseline ECG-LVH (P<0.05). In the multivariate analysis, female gender, baseline systolic blood pressure, baseline CorP and QRSd values were the main predictive factors for ECG-LVH regression.

CONCLUSION

The SARA study demonstrates that a candesartan-based regimen reduces ECG-LVH in the hypertensive population attending daily in clinical practice.

Are we misunderstanding beta-blockers

In myocardial ischaemia and heart failure, beta-blockers with intrinsic sympathomimetic activity (ISA) e.g. pindolol, xamoterol, bucindolol, nebivolol, have performed poorly in reducing morbidity and mortality. In both indications beta-1 blockade is the vital active ingredient. Beta-1 blockade (bisoprolol) is now an alternative first-line choice to Ace-inhibition in the treatment of heart failure. The therapeutic role of beta-blockers in hypertension is less well understood, particularly since the new recommendations in the UK from the NICE committee stating that: 1. beta-blockers are no longer preferred as a routine initial therapy, 2. the combination with diuretics is discouraged due to the risk of induced diabetes, and 3. in younger patients first-choice initial therapy should be an ACE-inhibitor. Recent data from the Framingham Heart Study and other epidemiological studies have indicated that the development of diastolic hypertension in younger subjects is closely linked to weight-increase and an increase in peripheral resistance; such subjects have a high adrenergic drive and cardiac output. In contrast, elderly systolic hypertension mostly arises de novo via poor vascular compliance. Thus in younger, probably overweight, hypertensives (including diabetics) first-line beta-blockade has performed well in preventing myocardial infarction (a fact hidden by meta-analyses that do not take age into account). Conversely, in elderly hypertensives first-line beta-blockade (atenolol) has performed poorly in reducing cardiovascular risk (due to partial beta-2 blockade atenolol evokes metabolic disturbance and does not improve vascular compliance, or effectively lower central aortic pressure or reverse left ventricular hypertrophy). Thus beta-blockers like atenolol are ill-equipped for first-line therapy in elderly hypertension. Some beta-blockers, e.g. bisoprolol (up to 10 mg/day is highly beta-1 selective) and nebivolol (beta-2/3 intrinsic sympathomimetic activity), do improve vascular compliance and cause no metabolic disturbance. Beta-blockers as second-line to low-dose diuretics (which, by improving vascular compliance and increasing sympathetic nerve activity, create an optimal environment for beta-blockade) in elderly hypertension (including diabetics) have performed well in reducing cardiovascular events (this combination has the added bonus of reducing the risk of bone fracture by about 30%). Meta-analyses which include studies where it is unclear whether a diuretic or beta-blocker was a first-line therapy will dilute the benefit stemming from first-line diuretic/second-line beta-blockade. Hypertensives (of all ages) with ischaemia are well suited to beta-blockade.

Prospects for the prevention of stroke

We are currently fighting a battle against a stroke epidemic. Implementation of new treatment strategies could save many patients in the future. The control of blood pressure is a major objective; however, choosing specific antihypertensive therapy (e.g. an agent blocking the renin-angiotensin system) is also important. The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study demonstrates potential benefits beyond blood pressure reduction of prescribing an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) compared with more established therapy in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). Losartan-based therapy brought about regression of LVH and reduced incidences of fatal and non-fatal stroke by 25%, new-onset diabetes by 25% and atrial fibrillation by 30% more than atenolol-based therapy for a similar blood pressure control and better tolerability. The Study on COgnition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE) study, although difficult to interpret, does not contradict an ARB benefit beyond blood pressure lowering in primary prevention linked to targeting the angiotensin type 1 receptor. The findings of the MOrbidity and mortality after Stroke, Eprosartan compared with nitrendipine in Secondary prevention (MOSES) trial suggest clear-cut ARB benefits independent of blood pressure lowering in secondary stroke prevention. Experimental findings and other clinical evidence further support the benefits of ARBs in stroke prevention. Telmisartan is an ARB with a particularly interesting profile for stroke; given the 24-hour efficacy with more pronounced protection against the morning blood pressure surge and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma activity at clinical doses. The unique properties of telmisartan for secondary stroke prevention are being tested in the Prevention Regimen For Effectively avoiding Second Strokes (PRoFESS) study.

Early recognition and treatment of hypertensive heart disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hypertension leads to left ventricular hypertrophy, diastolic dysfunction, and eventually clinical heart failure (hypertensive heart disease). There is an important need for physicians to recognize this entity, understand its pathophysiology, and become fluent in treatment options available. This review of recent basic science and clinical data serves to accomplish this task.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the past year, a number of exciting concepts have come to the forefront. First, data on the use of brain natriuretic peptide as a screening biomarker has shown promise in patients with symptoms of heart failure. For the earliest detection of structural changes, serum propeptide of procollagen type I, a marker of the deposition of type I collagen in the cardiac interstitium provides a noninvasive way to quantify myocardial fibrosis. Treatment options in the past few years have focused heavily on the anti-fibrotic effects of inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, perhaps supplanting beta blockers as first-line agents to regress left ventricular hypertrophy. The concept of aldosterone escape is discussed, highlighting the importance of aldosterone inhibitors in these patients. Lastly, we provide a comprehensive review of all antihypertensive classes and their effects on hypertensive heart disease.

SUMMARY

The incidence of hypertensive heart disease is increasing. Earlier detection may be possible with newly studied serum biomarkers. All anti-hypertensive treatments have shown improvement in regressing left ventricular hypertrophy, but inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system possess the most potent anti-fibrotic effects. It is increasingly important for clinicians to identify and manage hypertensive heart disease to prevent increased morbidity and mortality.

Targeting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system in atrial fibrillation: a shift from electrical to structural therapy?

Despite its increasing incidence and prevalence, treatment options in atrial fibrillation (AF) are far from ideal and often limited. After decades of focus on the electrical aspects of AF with unsatisfactory results, recent research is focusing increasingly on the atrial structural remodelling that underlies the development of AF in different pathological conditions, such as hypertension, heart failure, diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the role of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system in AF and to highlight the clinical evidence on renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system blockade as a therapeutic option in AF.

Antihypertensive treatment: should it be titrated to blood pressure reduction or to target organ damage regression?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The success of an antihypertensive treatment is difficult to estimate by the extent of blood pressure reduction alone. Above and beyond blood pressure values in an individual patient, it is necessary to monitor the impact of antihypertensive treatment on the development or regression of hypertension-induced early end-organ damage. The intermediate objectives or surrogate endpoints may provide additional valuable information about the level of success of a given therapy in a particular patient. Moreover, monitoring intermediate objectives may provide scientific evidence for delineating the best antihypertensive treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

The importance of assessing left ventricular mass, microalbuminuria, carotid wall thickness and the development of new-onset diabetes during antihypertensive treatment has been stressed. Left ventricular hypertrophy during antihypertensive therapy is associated with a lower likelihood of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, independent of blood pressure lowering and treatment modalities in people with essential hypertension. Likewise, a reduction in urinary albumin excretion seems to be followed by a reduction in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Risk implications of reducing carotid wall thickness or of developing new-onset diabetes have been more controversial, although it seems to be that both can have a desirable effect.

SUMMARY

The available findings support the necessity to monitor intermediate objectives, aside from blood pressure measurement, during the follow-up of hypertensives.

Optimizing therapeutic strategies to achieve renal and cardiovascular risk reduction in diabetic patients with angiotensin receptor blockers

The major challenge for the treatment of hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes is to achieve the uniformly recommended blood pressure goal of 130/80 mmHg, and 120/75 mmHg in proteinuric patients. Such low target blood pressure levels require the administration of multiple drugs. Angiotensin receptor blockers and the combination of angiotensin receptor blockers with diuretics fulfil the criteria to lower blood pressure effectively with a placebo-like side-effect profile. Beyond pressure control, clinical prospective trials have documented that it does matter what kind of antihypertensive agent is used to control blood pressure. Large-scale follow-up trials have documented blood pressure independent effects of angiotensin receptor blocker on cardiac [left-ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), congestive heart failure] and renal protection (proteinuria, chronic renal failure). Of note, in these trials, angiotensin receptor blockers have been combined with diuretics, and most of the included patients have been on combination therapy comprising two to four antihypertensive agents. In addition to the combination of an angiotensin receptor blocker with a diuretic, the combination of an angiotensin receptor blocker with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor appeared to be most effective in reducing proteinuria, attenuating chronic renal failure and treating congestive heart failure.