Search

Importance: Although early trials of endovascular renal denervation (RDN) for patients with resistant hypertension (RHTN) reported inconsistent results, ultrasound RDN (uRDN) was found to decrease blood pressure (BP) vs sham at 2 months in patients with RHTN taking stable background medications in the Study of the ReCor Medical Paradise System in Clinical Hypertension (RADIANCE-HTN TRIO) trial., Objectives: To report the prespecified analysis of the persistence of the BP effects and safety of uRDN vs sham at 6 months in conjunction with escalating antihypertensive medications., Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized, sham-controlled, clinical trial with outcome assessors and patients blinded to treatment assignment, enrolled patients from March 11, 2016, to March 13, 2020. This was an international, multicenter study conducted in the US and Europe. Participants with daytime ambulatory BP of 135/85 mm Hg or higher after 4 weeks of single-pill triple-combination treatment (angiotensin-receptor blocker, calcium channel blocker, and thiazide diuretic) with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 40 mL/min/1.73 m2 or greater were randomly assigned to uRDN or sham with medications unchanged through 2 months. From 2 to 5 months, if monthly home BP was 135/85 mm Hg or higher, standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment starting with aldosterone antagonists was initiated under blinding to treatment assignment., Interventions: uRDN vs sham procedure in conjunction with added medications to target BP control., Main Outcomes and Measures: Six-month change in medications, change in daytime ambulatory systolic BP, change in home systolic BP adjusted for baseline BP and medications, and safety., Results: A total of 65 of 69 participants in the uRDN group and 64 of 67 participants in the sham group (mean [SD] age, 52.4 [8.3] years; 104 male [80.6%]) with a mean (SD) eGFR of 81.5 (22.8) mL/min/1.73 m2 had 6-month daytime ambulatory BP measurements. Fewer medications were added in the uRDN group (mean [SD], 0.7 [1.0] medications) vs sham (mean [SD], 1.1 [1.1] medications; P = .045) and fewer patients in the uRDN group received aldosterone antagonists at 6 months (26 of 65 [40.0%] vs 39 of 64 [60.9%]; P = .02). Despite less intensive standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment, mean (SD) daytime ambulatory BP at 6 months was 138.3 (15.1) mm Hg with uRDN vs 139.0 (14.3) mm Hg with sham (additional decreases of -2.4 [16.6] vs -7.0 [16.7] mm Hg from month 2, respectively), whereas home SBP was lowered to a greater extent with uRDN by 4.3 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.5-8.1 mm Hg; P = .03) in a mixed model adjusting for baseline and number of medications. Adverse events were infrequent and similar between groups., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, in patients with RHTN initially randomly assigned to uRDN or a sham procedure and who had persistent elevation of BP at 2 months after the procedure, standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment escalation resulted in similar BP reduction in both groups at 6 months, with fewer additional medications required in the uRDN group., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02649426.

: Malignant hypertension (MHT) still remains a severe condition that requires early recognition and treatment. Over the years, the prevention and treatment of MHT have significantly advanced through the introduction of modern antihypertensive agents. However, in the absence of robust clinical trials, there remain no formal guidelines on the treatment of MHT. This review summarizes the historical background and pathophysiological evidence of MHT, which has led to common practices in its pharmacological management but can also introduce challenges. The current consensus for treatment involves early intravenous infusion of antihypertensive agents, but oral blockers of the renin-angiotensin system may improve the management of MHT, and it offers a suitable treatment option in low-income countries where the condition remains relatively prevalent.

Background: Malignant hypertension, the most severe form of hypertension, is defined by high blood pressure and acute ischemic organ damage. It has a worse prognosis than other forms of hypertension, especially in black patients. New tools to assess organ damage, especially that of the heart and brain, are now available and may contribute to a better evaluation of these patients. This report improves knowledge of the characteristics of involved organs to facilitate diagnosis and to evaluate the effectiveness of our treatment protocol., Method: The Bordeaux registry, started in 1995, recruited 168 patients. In addition to evaluations of their eyes and kidneys, these patients had a systematic evaluation of their hearts with ECG and echocardiography and, since 2007, a systematic brain MRI. Blood pressure was lowered with a protocol based on blockers of the renin-angiotensin system started at a very low-dose with forced titration over 48 h. Only an oral route was used for antihypertensive medication., Results: Systematic MRIs found significant brain damage in 93% of patients. Heart involvement was highly prevalent: 82% had left ventricular mass more than 60 g/m, and 56% had systolic dysfunction (estimated by global longitudinal strain). Renal involvement and thrombotic microangiopathy were respectively present in 55 and 15% of patients. Median follow-up was 48 months. Renal survival at 5 years was 90.8%, similar to other studies., Conclusion: Malignant hypertension is a systemic disease causing severe damage to the brain, heart, kidneys and eyes, even in absence of symptoms. Renin-angiotensin system blockers seem to be the cornerstone of treatment.

Hypertensive emergencies are those situations where very high blood pressure (BP) values are associated with acute organ damage, and therefore, require immediate, but careful, BP reduction. The type of acute organ damage is the principal determinant of: (i) the drug of choice, (ii) the target BP, and (iii) the timeframe in which BP should be lowered. Key target organs are the heart, retina, brain, kidneys, and large arteries. Patients who lack acute hypertension-mediated end organ damage do not have a hypertensive emergency and can usually be treated with oral BP-lowering agents and usually discharged after a brief period of observation.

The DENERHTN trial (Renal Denervation for Hypertension) confirmed the blood pressure (BP) lowering efficacy of renal denervation added to a standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment for resistant hypertension at 6 months. We report here the effect of denervation on 24-hour BP and its variability and look for parameters that predicted the BP response. Patients with resistant hypertension were randomly assigned to denervation plus stepped-care treatment or treatment alone (control). Average and standard deviation of 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime BP and the smoothness index were calculated on recordings performed at randomization and 6 months. Responders were defined as a 6-month 24-hour systolic BP reduction ≥20 mm Hg. Analyses were performed on the per-protocol population. The significantly greater BP reduction in the denervation group was associated with a higher smoothness index ( P =0.02). Variability of 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime BP did not change significantly from baseline to 6 months in both groups. The number of responders was greater in the denervation (20/44, 44.5%) than in the control group (11/53, 20.8%; P =0.01). In the discriminant analysis, baseline average nighttime systolic BP and standard deviation were significant predictors of the systolic BP response in the denervation group only, allowing adequate responder classification of 70% of the patients. Our results show that denervation lowers ambulatory BP homogeneously over 24 hours in patients with resistant hypertension and suggest that nighttime systolic BP and variability are predictors of the BP response to denervation., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01570777., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: The DENERHTN trial (Renal Denervation for Hypertension) confirmed the blood pressure-lowering efficacy of renal denervation added to a standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment for resistant hypertension at 6 months. We report the influence of adherence to antihypertensive treatment on blood pressure control., Methods: One hundred six patients with hypertension resistant to 4 weeks of treatment with indapamide 1.5 mg/d, ramipril 10 mg/d (or irbesartan 300 mg/d), and amlodipine 10 mg/d were randomly assigned to renal denervation plus standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment, or the same antihypertensive treatment alone. For standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment, spironolactone 25 mg/d, bisoprolol 10 mg/d, prazosin 5 mg/d, and rilmenidine 1 mg/d were sequentially added at monthly visits if home blood pressure was ≥135/85 mm Hg after randomization. We assessed adherence to antihypertensive treatment at 6 months by drug screening in urine/plasma samples from 85 patients., Results: The numbers of fully adherent (20/40 versus 21/45), partially nonadherent (13/40 versus 20/45), or completely nonadherent patients (7/40 versus 4/45) to antihypertensive treatment were not different in the renal denervation and the control groups, respectively (P=0.3605). The difference in the change in daytime ambulatory systolic blood pressure from baseline to 6 months between the 2 groups was -6.7 mm Hg (P=0.0461) in fully adherent and -7.8 mm Hg (P=0.0996) in nonadherent (partially nonadherent plus completely nonadherent) patients. The between-patient variability of daytime ambulatory systolic blood pressure was greater for nonadherent than for fully adherent patients., Conclusions: In the DENERHTN trial, the prevalence of nonadherence to antihypertensive drugs at 6 months was high (≈50%) but not different in the renal denervation and control groups. Regardless of adherence to treatment, renal denervation plus standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment resulted in a greater decrease in blood pressure than standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment alone., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01570777., (© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.)

The prevalence of malignant hypertension has clearly fallen with the advent of anti-hypertensive medication but has remained stable over the past 30-40 years in spite of progress in diagnosis and management of hypertension. A diagnosis of malignant hypertension is usually based on the association of severely elevated blood pressure with a Keith and Wagener stage III or IV retinopathy. We believe that this definition can be reconsidered for several reasons. Although simple and pragmatic, this definition corresponds to a time when there were few techniques for assessment of hypertensive target organ involvement, and does not take into account involvement of kidney, brain and heart; whereas the overall prognosis largely depends on how much they are affected. On the contrary, the acute blood pressure level and especially diastolic should not be a hard diagnostic criterion as it does not itself constitute the prognosis of the condition. We propose to consider that malignant hypertension with retinopathy is only one of a number of possible presentation(s) of acute hypertension with multi organ damage (hypertension multi organ damage (MOD)) and that the recognition of these hypertensive emergencies, when retinopathy is lacking, be based on acute elevation of BP associated with impairment of at least three different target organs. The objective of a new and expanded definition is to facilitate recognition of these true emergencies. The condition is more common than usually perceived and would have a much worse prognosis than the usual forms of hypertension. Early recognition and management of hypertension-MOD are fundamental to any improvement in prognosis.

Background: Conflicting blood pressure-lowering effects of catheter-based renal artery denervation have been reported in patients with resistant hypertension. We compared the ambulatory blood pressure-lowering efficacy and safety of radiofrequency-based renal denervation added to a standardised stepped-care antihypertensive treatment (SSAHT) with the same SSAHT alone in patients with resistant hypertension., Methods: The Renal Denervation for Hypertension (DENERHTN) trial was a prospective, open-label randomised controlled trial with blinded endpoint evaluation in patients with resistant hypertension, done in 15 French tertiary care centres specialised in hypertension management. Eligible patients aged 18-75 years received indapamide 1·5 mg, ramipril 10 mg (or irbesartan 300 mg), and amlodipine 10 mg daily for 4 weeks to confirm treatment resistance by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring before randomisation. Patients were then randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either renal denervation plus an SSAHT regimen (renal denervation group) or the same SSAHT alone (control group). The randomisation sequence was generated by computer, and stratified by centres. For SSAHT, after randomisation, spironolactone 25 mg per day, bisoprolol 10 mg per day, prazosin 5 mg per day, and rilmenidine 1 mg per day were sequentially added from months two to five in both groups if home blood pressure was more than or equal to 135/85 mm Hg. The primary endpoint was the mean change in daytime systolic blood pressure from baseline to 6 months as assessed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. The primary endpoint was analysed blindly. The safety outcomes were the incidence of acute adverse events of the renal denervation procedure and the change in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline to 6 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01570777., Findings: Between May 22, 2012, and Oct 14, 2013, 1416 patients were screened for eligibility, 106 of those were randomly assigned to treatment (53 patients in each group, intention-to-treat population) and 101 analysed because of patients with missing endpoints (48 in the renal denervation group, 53 in the control group, modified intention-to-treat population). The mean change in daytime ambulatory systolic blood pressure at 6 months was -15·8 mm Hg (95% CI -19·7 to -11·9) in the renal denervation group and -9·9 mm Hg (-13·6 to -6·2) in the group receiving SSAHT alone, a baseline-adjusted difference of -5·9 mm Hg (-11·3 to -0·5; p=0·0329). The number of antihypertensive drugs and drug-adherence at 6 months were similar between the two groups. Three minor renal denervation-related adverse events were noted (lumbar pain in two patients and mild groin haematoma in one patient). A mild and similar decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline to 6 months was observed in both groups., Interpretation: In patients with well defined resistant hypertension, renal denervation plus an SSAHT decreases ambulatory blood pressure more than the same SSAHT alone at 6 months. This additional blood pressure lowering effect may contribute to a reduction in cardiovascular morbidity if maintained in the long term after renal denervation., Funding: French Ministry of Health., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

A retrospective pooled analysis of the 'Prospective, Randomized Investigation of the Safety and Efficacy of MICARDIS vs. Ramipril Using ABPM' studies conducted in Europe and South Africa (PRISMA I) and in the United States of America and Canada (PRISMA II) was carried out to investigate the effects of telmisartan and ramipril on dipper status (extreme dippers, dippers, non-dippers, risers/reverse dippers), and blood pressure (BP) variability in 1279 patients (with normal sleeping patterns and valid 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring recordings at baseline and end point). After 14 weeks' treatment, telmisartan had a greater systolic BP (SBP) reduction and higher smoothness index in all four dipper groups compared with ramipril. In addition, the tendency toward dipping was significantly higher in patients treated with) telmisartan than ramipril (P=0.032; odds ratio for telmisartan vs. ramipril: 1.27 (95% confidence interval: 1.102-1.58)). In patients with an early morning SBP surge 35 mm Hg, telmisartan treatment was associated with significantly greater reductions from baseline in the night-time low mean, early morning mean and early morning SBP surge compared with ramipril (P=0.026, P<0.0001 and P=0.0006, respectively). In this retrospective analysis, telmisartan was shown to normalize the circadian BP pattern to a dipper profile in a larger proportion of patients than ramipril, and reduce early-morning SBP surge in high-risk patients, indicative of a cardioprotective effect. These findings need to be confirmed in long-term prospective trials and observational studies.

Objectives: This study compared the effects of morning and evening dosing of amlodipine/valsartan combination on 24-h blood pressure (BP) in patients uncontrolled by amlodipine (5 mg)., Methods: This was a multicenter study that used a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint design. Patients with essential hypertension, who's ambulatory BP was uncontrolled after 4 weeks on amlodipine (5 mg) were randomized to receive amlodipine/valsartan (5/160 mg) for 8 weeks in the morning or evening (n=231, 232, respectively), with optional uptitration up to 10/160 mg after 4 weeks if the office BP was uncontrolled. A 30-h ambulatory BP measurement was taken at randomization and at the end of the study., Results: Morning and evening dosing with amlodipine/valsartan had equivalent effects on systolic BP (mean 24 h, daytime, night-time, and 24-30 h) and diastolic BP (mean 24 h, daytime, night-time, and 24-30 h). There was a small difference in the night-time diastolic BP (-4.92 vs.-6.20 mmHg; P=0.02) and a slight but nonsignificant trend for higher BP reduction during daytime for morning intake and during night-time for evening intake. BP control rates based on 24-h ambulatory BP measurement values (<120/80 mmHg) were similar between morning and evening dosing (47 vs. 45%)., Conclusion: These results indicate that, in patients with BP uncontrolled by amlodipine (5 mg), morning and evening treatment with amlodipine/valsartan combination have similar effects on circadian BP, especially when 24-h mean values are considered.

An increase in arterial stiffness is an important risk factor for cardiovascular events. However, there are few data on the long-term evolution of arterial stiffness in treated hypertensives. We evaluated the progression of arterial stiffness in 120 initially untreated hypertensive patients whose arterial stiffness was assessed by the ambulatory monitoring of the QKD interval measured at baseline and then more than 1 year later. The ambulatory method produced an isobaric index of arterial stiffness, the QKD(100-60). Out of these patients, 30 with white coat hypertension did not receive any treatment, and over a mean follow-up period of 5 years their QKD(100-60) was unchanged. The 90 other patients received antihypertensive treatment (average of 2.5 classes of drug) over a mean period of 6 years. In this population, the mean 24 h blood pressure (BP) was significantly reduced (-9 mm Hg for systolic BP, -6 mm Hg for diastolic BP) and the QKD(100-60) was prolonged (+3.5 ms, P<0.05). The presence of type 2 diabetes in 17 of these patients was the sole factor negatively correlated with the improvement in QKD(100-60). An initial reduction in QKD(100-60) appeared to be a factor of resistance to the BP-lowering action of the medication. Antihypertensive treatment has a long-term action on arterial stiffness. The existence of diabetes appeared to have a negative influence on this improvement. Furthermore, an increase in arterial stiffness may be a factor of resistance to the action of antihypertensive medication.

Objectives: The period of early morning blood pressure surge is associated with a higher incidence of cardiovascular events than at other times of the day. Antihypertensive medication given once daily in the morning may not protect against this surge if its duration of action is too short. We compared telmisartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker with a trough-to-peak ratio >90%, with ramipril, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor with a trough-to-peak ratio of around 50%., Methods: Data from two prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint studies comparing telmisartan force titrated to 80 mg once daily and ramipril 10 mg once daily were pooled. Patients had mild-to-moderate hypertension and were assessed using 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring at baseline and endpoint. Early morning blood pressure surge was defined as the difference between mean blood pressure within 2 h after arising and night-time low. Patients were grouped into quartiles according to their baseline systolic surge., Results: Data from 1279 patients were analyzed. Telmisartan changed the overall mean (SE) systolic surge by -1.5 (0.47) mmHg, and ramipril by +0.3 (0.47) mmHg (P=0.0049). The magnitude of surge reduction was greatest in the quartile with highest baseline systolic surge: telmisartan -12.7 (0.91), ramipril -7.8 (1.02) mmHg (P=0.0004). Telmisartan also reduced the surge compared with ramipril in dippers, but there were no differences between the two groups in nondippers., Conclusions: Telmisartan significantly reduced the early morning systolic blood pressure surge compared with ramipril. A reduction in this surge may help to reduce cardiovascular events in the morning period.

Background: Ambulatory blood pressure (BP) is more sensitive than office BP and is highly correlated with the left ventricular mass (LVM) of hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH)., Methods: In this prospectively designed ancillary study of the PICXEL trial, the effects of first-line combination perindopril/indapamide on ambulatory BP were compared with those of monotherapy with enalapril in 127 patients. Hypertensive patients with LVH received once daily either perindopril 2 mg/indapamide 0.625 mg (n = 65) or enalapril 10 mg (n = 62) for 52 weeks. Dose adjustments were allowed for uncontrolled BP. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory BP and echocardiographic parameters were measured at baseline, week 24, and week 52., Results: At study end, both treatments significantly improved ambulatory BP compared with baseline (p < or = 0.01). Perindopril/indapamide treatment reduced 24-hour and daytime systolic BP (SBP) and pulse pressure (PP) significantly more than enalapril treatment (p < 0.01). No significant between-group differences were noted for diastolic BP (DBP) or for night-time measurements. Trough/peak ratios were higher with perindopril/indapamide than with enalapril (88.5 vs 65.8 for SBP and 86.7 vs 63.9 for DBP, respectively). The global smoothness index was higher with perindopril/indapamide than with enalapril (6.6 vs 5.2 for SBP and 5.6 vs 4.9 for DBP, respectively). With perindopril/indapamide treatment, LVM index was significantly reduced (-9.1 g/m2 from baseline; p vs baseline <0.001). More patients required dose increases with enalapril (87%) than with perindopril/indapamide (71%). No unusual safety elements were noted., Conclusions: First-line perindopril/indapamide combination decreased ambulatory SBP and PP, and LVM more effectively than enalapril.

This article examines evidence-based findings in the literature on the efficacy of perindopril 2 mg/indapamide 0.625 mg, a first-line, low-dose antihypertensive drug combination. In regulatory Phase II and III trials, perindopril/indapamide significantly lowered blood pressure compared with other first-line therapies (atenolol, losartan and irbesartan). This was also the case in STRAtegies of Treatment in Hypertension: Evaluation, a postregistration study versus current monotherapies and stepped-care therapy with different classes of antihypertensive agents. The efficacy/safety ratio (both clinical and with regard to laboratory parameters) of perindopril/indapamide was good. Perindopril/indapamide provides additional antihypertensive efficacy compared with each component used alone and with current monotherapies, with major efficacy on systolic blood pressure, an important predictor of cardiovascular risk. It also reduces pulse pressure, an independent cardiovascular risk factor, large-vessel arterial stiffness and microcirculatory alterations. The fixed dosage of a once-daily tablet, ensures optimal ease of use and enhances patient compliance. Perindopril/indapamide also reduces target organ damage in patients at high cardiovascular risk, such as patients with cardiac hypertrophy and Type 2 diabetics with albuminuria. These benefits, together with the good efficacy/tolerability ratio, fulfill the requirements of the European Society of Hypertension and of the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure guidelines for low-dose, first-line combination therapy in hypertension.

Objective: Few data are available comparing the effects of monotherapy and combination therapy on target organ damage. The PICXEL study compared the efficacy of a strategy based on first-line combination with perindopril/indapamide versus monotherapy with enalapril in reducing left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in hypertensive patients., Methods: In this 1-year multicentre randomized double-blind study, patients received an increasing dosage of perindopril/indapamide (n = 284) or enalapril (n = 272). Changes in blood pressure and echocardiographic measures of LVH were assessed from baseline to the end of treatment. Reading of the echocardiograms was central and blinded for therapy, patient and sequence., Results: Systolic and diastolic blood pressure decreased significantly more in the perindopril/indapamide than in the enalapril group (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.003). The left ventricular mass index decreased by 13.6 +/- 23.9 g/m(2) (mean +/- SD) with perindopril/indapamide (P < 0.0001) and 3.9 +/- 23.9 g/m(2) with enalapril (P < 0.005); these decreases were significantly different (P < 0.0001). The left ventricular internal diameter, posterior and interventricular septal wall thickness decreased significantly with perindopril/indapamide (P < or = 0.0001); the interventricular septal wall thickness decreased significantly with enalapril (P < 0.001). Both treatments were well tolerated., Conclusion: A strategy based on first-line combination with perindopril/indapamide achieved better blood pressure decrease with a significantly greater degree of LVH reduction than a strategy based on monotherapy with enalapril in hypertensive patients with LVH.

Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), which describes pathological changes in cardiac structure, is a powerful and reversible predictor of cardiovascular risk. There is a continuous relationship between left ventricular mass (LVM) and the likelihood of cardiovascular events, with no cut-off between the absence of such events and heightened risk. A correlation between LVH and blood pressure is well established. There is a paradox, however, that the structural changes to the heart as a result of increased workload due to high blood pressure appear to promote cardiovascular disease. This may be partially explained by the fact that ambulatory blood pressure measurements correlate more closely with LVH than resting blood pressure. Blood pressure variation throughout the day is also emerging as an important correlate of LVH, and a strong association has been identified between an early morning rise in blood pressure and increased LVM. Use of anti-hypertensive agents not only lowers blood pressure, but can also bring about LVH regression. The pathological role of angiotensin II in LVH and target-organ damage within the cardiovascular continuum suggest that agents targeting the renin angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), such as the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers, may prove particularly effective and may confer beneficial effects in addition to the lowering of blood pressure. The angiotensin II receptor blockers may be very appropriate treatment options because of their placebo-like tolerability and the possibility of more complete blockade of the RAAS. Within this class of anti-hypertensive agents, pharmacological differences may mean that some agents afford greater cardioprotection than others.

Objective: Large trials on left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) regression are indispensable to allow accurate evaluation of the different classes of treatments. Such a trial, the LIVE study, gave us the opportunity to examine the influence of the mode of reading of the echo tracings on results and to underline the value of two initial recordings performed at entry., Methods: The LIVE study was designed to compare 1.5 mg indapamide SR with 20 mg enalapril on the regression of LVH evaluated echocardiographically. M-mode tracings of the left ventricle were performed at selection and after a 2 week placebo run-in. Recordings were read by investigators and by three experts all through the study, and finally read again by the three experts blind to treatment and sequence., Results: The two initial examinations produced an estimate of the reproducibility of the measurement of the left ventricular mass (LVM) that can be proposed as an indicator of overall quality provided no patients are excluded. The standard deviation of the differences between these two estimates of LVM was 52 g. These two examinations may also help quantify regression to the mean, which was not significant for the whole group. Knowledge of the sequence of examinations overestimates the change in LVM with treatment, as shown by comparison of measurements carried out during quality control with the measurements made blind (-19 +/- 52 versus -6 +/- 53 g, P <0.01)., Conclusions: The comparison of two initial echoes at entry allow one to define a quality criteria for such trials and to quantify a possible regression to the mean. The reading of recordings with knowledge of sequence significantly overestimates LVM variations on treatment.

The PICXEL study is designed to evaluate the effects of long-term administration of very low-dose combination perindopril 2 mg/indapamide 0.625 mg (Per/Ind) vs enalapril in reducing left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in hypertensive patients. This multicentre, controlled, randomised, double-blind, parallel group study is carried-out to assess the variation of left ventricular mass index (LVMI) after treatment, using a centralised control of M-mode echocardiography determinations, and a dedicated software for semi-automatic measurement. Following a 4-week placebo run-in period, hypertensive outpatients aged >/=18 years, with LVH (LVMI >120 and 100 g/m(2) for men and women, respectively), are randomised to receive once daily, over 52 weeks, either Per/Ind or enalapril. According to blood pressure levels, the dose may be adjusted. In addition to clinical examinations, ECG, blood pressure, heart rate and laboratory assessments echocardiographic determinations are performed for selection, at baseline, after 24 weeks and at the end of the study. The main outcome criteria is the change from baseline in LVMI which is considered the primary efficacy criterion; changes in blood pressure and echo-Doppler parameters constitute secondary criteria. Two-sided Student's t-test for independent samples will be used to differentiate the effects of the treatment between groups with alpha = 5%, and the inter-group difference of LVMI variation will be analysed with a power of 90%. A sample size of 500 patients is required making it necessary to randomise at least 550 patients, based on a 10% proportion of potentially non-assessable patients. The results of this study, obtained after applying strict methodological procedures and requirements, are expected to provide valuable and reliable information on the effects of long-term administration of Per/Ind on LVH, and on its potential superiority over enalapril.

Objective: To compare the efficacy of indapamide sustained release (SR) 1.5 mg and enalapril 20 mg at reducing left ventricular mass index (LVMI) in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH)., Design: The LIVE study (left ventricular hypertrophy regression, indapamide versus enalapril) was a 1 year, prospective, randomized, double-blind study. For the first time, a committee validated LVH before inclusion, provided on-going quality control during the study, and performed an end-study reading of all echocardiograms blinded to sequence., Setting: European hospitals, general practitioners and cardiologists., Patients: Hypertensive patients aged > or = 20 years with LVH (LVMI in men > 120 g/m2; LVMI in women > 100 g/m2). Data were obtained from 411 of 505 randomized patients., Interventions: Indapamide SR 1.5 mg, or enalapril 20 mg, daily for 48 weeks., Main Outcome Measures: LVMI variation in the perprotocol population., Results: Indapamide SR 1.5 mg significantly reduced LVMI (-8.4 +/- 30.5 g/m2 from baseline; P< 0.001), but enalapril 20 mg did not (-1.9 +/- 28.3 g/m2). Indapamide SR 1.5 mg reduced LVMI significantly more than enalapril 20 mg: -6.5 g/m2, P = 0.013 (-4.3 g/m2 when adjusted for baseline values; P = 0.049). Both drugs equally and significantly reduced blood pressures (P< 0.001), without correlation with LVMI changes. Indapamide SR progressively reduced wall thicknesses throughout the 1-year treatment period. In contrast, the effect of enalapril observed at 6 months was not maintained at 12 months., Conclusions: Indapamide SR 1.5 mg was significantly more effective than enalapril 20 mg at reducing LVMI in hypertensive patients with LVH.

Valsartan, an angiotensin II antagonist with a potent and highly selective effect on AT1 receptors, has been found effective and safe in several randomized, controlled studies versus a placebo, other antihypertensive agents, or other angiotensin II antagonists. An eight-week, open-label, multicenter, prospective, pragmatic, phase IV trial was conducted by office-based cardiologists to evaluate the clinical safety and efficacy of valsartan 80 mg in everyday practice. The efficacy analysis included 3084 patients given valsartan alone for four weeks then, during the next four weeks, either valsartan alone or, if the diastolic blood pressure was still > or = 90 mmHg, valsartan in combination with another antihypertensive agent. The valsartan dosage was 80 mg/day. On day 28, 64% of patients were controlled and 78% were responders. The safety analysis included 3,108 patients. Of the 239 medical adverse events ascribed by the investigators to the study treatment, 72 led to premature study discontinuation. This figure translated into a 2.68% rate among treated patients, which is similar to the 2.3% rate recorded during the placebo-controlled trials performed as part of the valsartan clinical development program. These results confirm the outstanding safety profile of valsartan.

The objective of this study was to test the influence of bisoprolol and verapamil on left ventricular filling in hypertensive patients in a 6 month randomized, double-blind trial in 54 hypertensive patients not previously treated with beta-blockers or calcium inhibitors. After administration of placebo for 14 days, an M echocardiogram of the left ventricle was recorded to determine left ventricular mass. Blood flow was evaluated by pulsed Doppler sonography. After randomization into two groups, one group received 10 mg of bisoprolol and the other 240 mg of verapamil LP in a single dose in the morning. After 2 months' treatment, the patients whose blood pressure was not well controlled were given a diuretic. Echo-Doppler was performed again by the same operator after 4-10 days on active treatment, after 6 months and after a subsequent 2 weeks of placebo for the patients treated with a single drug. The reduction in blood pressure was comparable in the two treated groups, but there was no significant decrease in left ventricular mass. Left ventricular filling was improved only in the patients receiving bisoprolol. The effect was observed immediately after the first administration and throughout the 6 months' treatment period declining slowly during the placebo wash-out. This effect appeared to be independent of any alteration in heart rate and was thought to be a specific action of this drug.

The SILVER (Study of Irbesartan in Left VEntricular hypertrophy Regression) trial is designed to test the hypothesis that the newly developed angiontensin-II receptor antagonist, irbesartan, will produce a greater reduction in left ventricular (LV) mass than felodipine ER, in a population of hypertensive patients defined by seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) in the range 95-115 mmHg or seated systolic blood pressure (SeSBP) in the range 160-200 mm Hg. A population of 360 men and women of non-childbearing potential, >18 years of age, with hypertension, newly diagnosed or after a 3-week washout from previous anti-hypertensive or vasodilator therapies, will be randomised at approximately 80-90 European sites. Add-on therapy with hydrochlorothiazide and atenolol will be allowed for blood pressure control. Patients will be studied by two-dimensional and M-mode echocardiography at baseline (central validation of LV hypertrophy), on randomisation day, and after 6 and 12 months randomised therapy. Blinded analysis of echocardiograms will be performed at a central laboratory, which will provide measurements of the LV mass index (LVMI), determined by M-mode readings according to Devereux formula and using the Penn convention. The primary end-point of the study will be the change in LVMI from baseline to 12 months. The study power is 90% to detect differences between groups from baseline of approximately 8 g/m2.

Objective: To assess whether regression of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) can be used as a surrogate end-point for morbid events in hypertension treatment trials., Design and Methods: Statistical, epidemiologic and treatment trial literature was reviewed to identify the criteria that should be met by a surrogate end-point and to determine whether these criteria are met by existing data on the regression of LVH., Results: Relevant criteria include: (1) a consistent relationship between LVH and subsequent morbid events; (2) prediction of lower or higher complication rates by LVH regression or progression; (3) evidence that the relationship between LVH regression/progression and morbidity/mortality is consistent in different populations and with different treatments; and (4) demonstration of a quantitative relationship that allows prediction of a change in clinical risk from a measured change in LVH. The results of seven electrocardiographic and 10 echocardiographic studies with a total of about 20000 subjects have shown consistently higher risks of morbid events in subjects with than without LVH (odds ratios 1.4-5.4). The available data (four studies, 1145 subjects) suggest that morbid events will occur in a higher proportion of subjects in whom LVH progresses (13-59%) rather than regresses (7-12%). However, the latter data are derived almost entirely from white subjects, predominantly male, with incomplete knowledge of interim treatment and blood pressure in most instances; no information on the mathematical relationship between change in LVH and subsequent morbidity and mortality is yet available., Conclusions: A strict definition of the information required to establish a fully adequate surrogate end-point for morbid events in antihypertensive has been partially but not completely satisfied. The consistent relationship between baseline LVH and subsequent morbid events and the initial evidence of a parallelism between LVH change and prognosis need to be supplemented by additional studies that examine the latter relationship in diverse populations under varied treatments, and which examine the quantitative relationship between measured change in LVH and the subsequent rates of morbid events. Additional data will come from ongoing treatment trials (approximately 12 000 subjects) and observational studies (approximately 8000 subjects) with serial assessments of LVH.

The efficacy and safety of trandolapril alone and in combination with a calcium channel blocker were evaluated in 13,147 hypertensive patients over 60 years old. Two patient groups were constituted. After a 2-week wash-out period, the patients in group I received monotherapy with trandolapril 2 mg/day for 4 weeks. Trandolapril was continued for another 4 weeks in responding patient, otherwise the dosage of trandolapril was doubled or another antihypertensive was added. Group 2, composed of patients previously treated with a calcium channel blocker with insufficient efficacy, was treated according to the same treatment regimen, but the calcium channel blocker was maintained throughout the study. 13,147 patients (group 1: 11,329 patients, group 2: 1,818 patients) with a mean age of 68 +/- 7 years were followed. After 4 weeks of treatment, the blood pressure measured by mercury sphygmomanometer decreased from 176 + 11/99 +/- 8 mmHg to 164 +/- 12/87 +/- 7 mmHg (p < 0.0001). This blood pressure fall was similar in group 1 (-22 +/- 12/-12 +/- 8 mmHg) and in group 2 (-21 +/- 11/-12 +/- 8 mmHg). In the pure systolic HT subgroup treated by trandolapril monotherapy, the antihypertensive effect predominantly affected the SBP (-23 +/- 12/- 4 +/- 6 mmHg). The antihypertensive effect was correlated with the initial blood pressure. In group 1, in the case of insufficient response to trandolapril monotherapy, the addition of a calcium channel blocker was the strategy which achieved the most marked antihypertensive effect (ANOVA, p < 0.0001). This bitherapy was more effective than the trandolapril+diuretic combination (-18 +/- 11/- 11 +/- 8 mmHg and -15 +/- 10/- 9 +/- 7 mmHg, respectively (p < 0.001). A total of 1,270 adverse events were reported by 996 patients (7.6%), leading to discontinuation of treatment in 372 patients (2.8%). The most frequent adverse effects were cough (2.8%), headache (0.8%), vertigo (0.8%) and nausea (0.5%). Only one minor equivalent of angioneurotic oedema was reported. In conclusion, trandolapril is effective and well tolerated in elderly hypertensive patients. In the case of pure systolic HTA, its action is essentially exerted on SBP. The combination of trandolapril+calcium channel blocker appears to be the most effective strategy in the case of incomplete blood pressure control by trandolapril alone.

After 4 weeks on placebo, 90 hypertensive patients (37 men, 53 women, mean age 55 years) with systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressures of 162/99 and 165/100 mmHg respectively received double-blind treatment with either rilmenidine 1 mg/day or atenolol 50 mg/day. This treatment was given alone for 8 weeks, with possible DBP greater than or equal to 90 mmHg, hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg/day was added between the 9th and 12th weeks of treatment. At week 13 all treatments were replaced by placebo. Both groups were similar at randomisation, and both treatments were similarly effective: after 8 weeks of monotherapy with rilmenidine or atenolol, the SBP/DBP had decreased by -18/-13 mmHg and by -21/-15 mmHg respectively, and the proportion of patients with normalised blood pressure (SBP/DBP less than or equal to 160/90 mmHg) was 66 percent and 65 percent. Effectiveness was maintained at 12 weeks, when less than 20 percent of the patients had taken hydrochlorothiazide. Both drugs were well tolerated clinically and electrocardiographically. There was a significantly greater decrease in heart rate on atenolol than on rilmenidine. Eleven patients (5 on rilmenidine, 6 on atenolol) dropped out of the trial, 2 and 3 patients in the respective groups on account of side-effects. Laboratory tests showed that the HDL-cholesterol level significantly decreased on atenolol and remained stable on rilmenidine (P less than 0.01), whereas the LDL-cholesterol level was stable on atenolol and decreased on rilmenidine (P less than 0.05). No rebound in blood pressure was observed on discontinuation of both treatments. This study shows that rilmenidine administered as first-line treatment is as effective as atenolol in lowering blood pressure, and it confirms that this drug is clinically and biochemically well tolerated.

We investigate the effect of a new angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor: Perindopril (IRIS) on regression of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), coronary blood flow and mechanical performance of isolated papillary muscle in renovascular hypertensive (Goldblatt 2 kidneys-1 clip) Sprague-Dawley male rats. Sham operated rats (G1) and half of hypertensive rats (G2) were studied after 8 weeks. The other half of 8 weeks long hypertensive rats (G3) were treated during 8 weeks with Perindopril in drinking water at a dosage adjusted to maintain blood pressure (BP) measured with tail cuff method under 140 mmHg. The study of each rat included 1) coronary blood flow and resistance measurements under resting conditions and after coronary dilation by carbochrome infusion (9 mg/kg) using left atrial injection of radioactive microspheres (method of Wicker and Tarazi) 2) the study of mechanical performance of the isolated papillary muscle 3) weight of left ventricle after separation of septum and free wall whose subendocardial and subepicardial layers were counted separately. Results (mean +/- SD): (table; see text) MAP: mean pressure. LV/BW: left ventricular mass (mg) per gram of body weight; CR (C): minimal coronary resistance after carbochrome (mmHg/ml/min/100 mg); DL/Dt: peak velocity of shortening at L max preload; Vrelax: peak velocity of relaxation; THR: time of half relaxation; p less than 0.05; p less than 0.01 compared to SHAM. In this model, hypertension induced a 50 p. 100 LVH whose regression was nearly complete after 8 weeks of treatment with Perindopril. Minimal coronary resistance after carbochrome were higher in hypertensive rats compared to sham and return to normal after regression of LVH.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)