Search

Competing Interests: Disclosures R.D. Brook is a consultant for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals. The other authors report no conflicts.

Background: Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are rapidly increasing in low-middle income countries (LMICs). Accurate risk assessment is essential to reduce premature CVD by targeting primary prevention and risk factor treatment among high-risk groups. Available CVD risk prediction models are built on predominantly Caucasian risk profiles from high-income country populations, and have not been evaluated in LMIC populations. We aimed to compare six existing models for predicted 10-year risk of CVD and identify high-risk groups for targeted prevention and treatment in Haiti., Methods: We used cross-sectional data within the Haiti CVD Cohort Study, including 1345 adults ≥ 40 years without known history of CVD and with complete data. Six CVD risk prediction models were compared: pooled cohort equations (PCE), adjusted PCE with updated cohorts, Framingham CVD Lipids, Framingham CVD Body Mass Index (BMI), WHO Lipids, and WHO BMI. Risk factors were measured during clinical exams. Primary outcome was continuous and categorical predicted 10-year CVD risk. Secondary outcome was statin eligibility., Results: Sixty percent were female, 66.8% lived on a daily income of ≤ 1 USD, 52.9% had hypertension, 14.9% had hypercholesterolemia, 7.8% had diabetes mellitus, 4.0% were current smokers, and 2.5% had HIV. Predicted 10-year CVD risk ranged from 3.6% in adjusted PCE (IQR 1.7-8.2) to 9.6% in Framingham-BMI (IQR 4.9-18.0), and Spearman rank correlation coefficients ranged from 0.86 to 0.98. The percent of the cohort categorized as high risk using model specific thresholds ranged from 1.8% using the WHO-BMI model to 41.4% in the PCE model (χ 2  = 1416, p value < 0.001). Statin eligibility also varied widely., Conclusions: In the Haiti CVD Cohort, there was substantial variation in the proportion identified as high-risk and statin eligible using existing models, leading to very different treatment recommendations and public health implications depending on which prediction model is chosen. There is a need to design and validate CVD risk prediction tools for low-middle income countries that include locally relevant risk factors., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03892265 ., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common sustained arrhythmia in CKD, is associated with poor clinical outcomes in both patients without CKD and patients with dialysis-treated ESRD. However, less is known about AF-associated outcomes in patients with CKD who do not require dialysis., Methods: To prospectively examine the association of new-onset AF with subsequent risks of cardiovascular disease events and death among adults with CKD, we studied participants enrolled in the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort Study who did not have AF at baseline. Outcomes included heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and death occurring after diagnosis of AF. We used Cox regression models and marginal structural models to examine the association of incident AF with subsequent risk of cardiovascular disease events and death, adjusting for patient characteristics, laboratory values, and medication use., Results: Among 3080 participants, 323 (10.5%) developed incident AF during a mean 6.1 years of follow-up. Compared with participants who did not develop AF, those who did had higher adjusted rates of heart failure (hazard ratio [HR], 5.17; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 3.89 to 6.87), myocardial infarction (HR, 3.64; 95% CI, 2.50 to 5.31), stroke (HR, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.50 to 4.74), and death (HR, 3.30; 95% CI, 2.65 to 4.12). These associations remained robust with additional adjustment for biomarkers of inflammation, cardiac stress, and mineral metabolism; left ventricular mass; ejection fraction; and left atrial diameter., Conclusions: Incident AF is independently associated with two- to five-fold increased rates of developing subsequent heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, or death in adults with CKD. These findings have important implications for cardiovascular risk reduction., (Copyright © 2018 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Despite numerous advances in the prevention and treatment of atherosclerosis, cardiovascular disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Novel and inexpensive interventions that can contribute to the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease are of interest. Numerous studies have reported on the benefits of meditation. Meditation instruction and practice is widely accessible and inexpensive and may thus be a potential attractive cost-effective adjunct to more traditional medical therapies. Accordingly, this American Heart Association scientific statement systematically reviewed the data on the potential benefits of meditation on cardiovascular risk. Neurophysiological and neuroanatomical studies demonstrate that meditation can have long-standing effects on the brain, which provide some biological plausibility for beneficial consequences on the physiological basal state and on cardiovascular risk. Studies of the effects of meditation on cardiovascular risk have included those investigating physiological response to stress, smoking cessation, blood pressure reduction, insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome, endothelial function, inducible myocardial ischemia, and primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Overall, studies of meditation suggest a possible benefit on cardiovascular risk, although the overall quality and, in some cases, quantity of study data are modest. Given the low costs and low risks of this intervention, meditation may be considered as an adjunct to guideline-directed cardiovascular risk reduction by those interested in this lifestyle modification, with the understanding that the benefits of such intervention remain to be better established. Further research on meditation and cardiovascular risk is warranted. Such studies, to the degree possible, should utilize randomized study design, be adequately powered to meet the primary study outcome, strive to achieve low drop-out rates, include long-term follow-up, and be performed by those without inherent bias in outcome., (© 2017 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley.)

Cigarette smoking causes cardiovascular disease and is associated with poor kidney function in individuals with diabetes mellitus and primary kidney diseases. However, the association of smoking on patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis has not been studied. The current study utilized data from the Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions (CORAL, NCT00081731) clinical trial to evaluate the effects of smoking on the risk of cardio-renal events and kidney function in this population. Baseline data showed that smokers (n = 277 out of 931) were significantly younger at enrollment than non-smokers (63.3±9.1 years vs 72.4±7.8 years; p<0.001). In addition, patients who smoke were also more likely to have bilateral renal artery stenoses and peripheral vascular disease (PVD). Longitudinal analysis showed that smokers experienced composite endpoint events (defined as first occurrence of: stroke; cardiovascular or renal death; myocardial infarction; hospitalization for congestive heart failure; permanent renal replacement; and progressive renal insufficiency defined as 30% reduction of GFR from baseline sustained for ≥ 60 days) at a substantially younger age compared to non-smokers (67.1±9.0 versus 76.1±7.9, p<0.001). Using linear regression and generalized linear modeling analysis controlled by age, sex, and ethnicity, smokers had significantly higher cystatin C levels (1.3±0.7 vs 1.2±0.9, p<0.01) whereas creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were not different from non-smokers. From these data we conclude that smoking has a significant association with deleterious cardio-renal outcomes in patients with renovascular hypertension.

Background and Objectives: Atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis may cause kidney function loss, but effects of stenting on eGFR and clinical events associated with CKD are uncertain. Our study objectives were to determine effects of stenting on eGFR and predictors of clinical events., Design, Setting, Participants, & Measurements: Participants (n=931) in the Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Artery Stenosis Trial (from May of 2005 to September of 2012) had >60% atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis and systolic hypertension on two or more antihypertensive drugs and/or stage ≥3 CKD. The intervention was stenting versus no stenting on a background of risk factor management: renin-angiotensin system inhibition, statin, antiplatelet therapy, and smoking cessation education. The effect of stenting on eGFR by the serum creatinine-cystatin C Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation was the prespecified analysis of kidney function. Predictors of eGFR and CKD outcomes (≥30% eGFR loss, ESRD, and death) and cardiovascular disease outcomes (stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and death) controlling for eGFR and albuminuria were also determined., Results: eGFR was 59±24 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) (mean±SD) at baseline. Over 3 years, eGFR change, assessed by generalized estimating equations, was -1.5±7.0 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) per year in the stent group versus -2.3±6.3 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) per year in the medical therapy only group (P=0.18). eGFR predictors (multiple variable generalized estimating equations) were age, albuminuria, systolic BP, and diabetes (inverse associations) as well as men, total cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol (positive associations). CKD outcomes events occurred in 19% (175 of 931), and predictors (Cox proportional hazards models) included albuminuria (positive association), systolic BP (positive association), and HDL cholesterol (inverse association). Cardiovascular disease outcomes events occurred in 22% (207 of 931), and predictors included age, albuminuria, total cholesterol, prior cardiovascular disease, and bilateral atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (positive associations)., Conclusions: Stenting did not influence eGFR in participants with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis receiving renin-angiotensin system inhibition-based therapy. Predictors of clinical events were traditional risk factors for CKD and cardiovascular disease., (Copyright © 2016 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Objective: Randomized controlled trials in hypertension demonstrate cardiovascular benefits when systolic blood pressures are reduced from higher values to<160 mm Hg. The value of lower targets has not been fully defined, although major guidelines recommend achieving systolic blood pressures of<140 mm Hg. This study was conducted to explore cardiovascular outcomes at differing on-treatment blood pressure levels., Methods: On the basis of a prespecified plan to explore relationships between clinical outcomes and systolic blood pressures, the pooled cohort of high-risk hypertensive patients (N=10,705) in the Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension trial were divided into 4 strata of systolic blood pressure levels: >140 mm Hg, 130 to <140 mm Hg, 120 to <130 mm Hg, and 110 to <120 mm Hg. The primary end point was cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke. Outcomes comparisons between the blood pressure groups were by Cox regression., Results: The mean patient age was 68 years, and the study duration was 35.7 months. The primary end point occurred in 171 of 3429 patients (5.0%) with systolic blood pressure in the 10 mm Hg range<140 and in 179 of 2354 patients (7.6%) with systolic blood pressure≥140 mm Hg (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.50-0.77; P=.0001). Likewise, cardiovascular death decreased by 36% (P=.0147), total myocardial infarction (fatal+nonfatal) decreased by 37% (P=.0028), and stroke decreased by 47% (P=.0002). Cardiovascular event rates in those with systolic blood pressure<130 mm Hg were not different from those with systolic blood pressure<140 mm Hg. However, compared with systolic blood pressure<130 mm Hg, stroke incidence in those with systolic blood pressure<120 mm Hg was lower (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.35-1.01; P=.0529), but myocardial function was higher (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.00-2.29; P=.0437), as were composite coronary events (myocardial infarction, hospitalized angina, or sudden death) (HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.18-2.24; P=.0023). The renal end point of a sustained>50% increase in serum creatinine was significantly lower in those with systolic blood pressure<140 mm Hg than in any of the other higher or lower blood pressure ranges., Conclusions: In high-risk hypertensive patients, major cardiovascular events are significantly lower in those with systolic blood pressures<140 mm Hg and<130 mm Hg than in those with levels>140 mm Hg. There are stroke benefits at levels<120 mm Hg, but they are offset by increased coronary events. Renal function is best protected in the 130 to 139 mm Hg range., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In previous clinical trials in high-risk hypertensive patients, paradoxically higher cardiovascular event rates have been reported in patients of normal weight compared with obese individuals. As a prespecified analysis of the Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial, we aimed to investigate whether the type of hypertension treatment affects patients' cardiovascular outcomes according to their body size., Methods: On the basis of body-mass index (BMI), we divided the full ACCOMPLISH cohort into obese (BMI ≥30, n=5709), overweight (≥25 to <30, n=4157), or normal weight (<25, n=1616) categories. The ACCOMPLISH cohort had already been randomised to treatment with single-pill combinations of either benazepril and hydrochlorothiazide or benazepril and amlodipine. We compared event rates (adjusted for age, sex, diabetes, previous cardiovascular events, stroke, or chronic kidney disease) for the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke. The analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00170950., Findings: In patients allocated benazepril and hydrochlorothiazide, the primary endpoint (per 1000 patient-years) was 30·7 in normal weight, 21·9 in overweight, and 18·2 in obese patients (overall p=0·0034). However, in those allocated benazepril and amlodipine, the primary endpoint did not differ between the three BMI groups (18·2, 16·9, and 16·5, respectively; overall p=0·9721). In obese individuals, primary event rates were similar with both benazepril and hydrochlorothiazide and benazepril and amlodipine, but rates were significantly lower with benazepril and amlodipine in overweight patients (hazard ratio 0·76, 95% CI 0·59-0·94; p=0·0369) and those of normal weight (0·57, 0·39-0·84; p=0·0037)., Interpretation: Hypertension in normal weight and obese patients might be mediated by different mechanisms. Thiazide-based treatment gives less cardiovascular protection in normal weight than obese patients, but amlodipine-based therapy is equally effective across BMI subgroups and thus offers superior cardiovascular protection in non-obese hypertension., Funding: Novartis Pharmaceuticals., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The ACCOMPLISH trial (Avoiding Cardiovascular events through Combination therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension) was a 3-year multicenter, event-driven trial involving patients with high cardiovascular risk who were randomized in a double-blinded manner to benazepril plus either hydrochlorothiazide or amlodipine and titrated in parallel to reach recommended blood pressure goals. Of the 8125 participants in the United States, 1414 were of self-described Black ethnicity. The composite kidney disease end point, defined as a doubling in serum creatinine, end-stage renal disease, or death was not different between Black and non-Black patients, although the Blacks were significantly more likely to develop a greater than 50% increase in serum creatinine to a level above 2.6 mg/dl. We found important early differences in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) due to acute hemodynamic effects, indicating that benazepril plus amlodipine was more effective in stabilizing eGFR compared to benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide in non-Blacks. There was no difference in the mean eGFR loss in Blacks between therapies. Thus, benazepril coupled to amlodipine was a more effective antihypertensive treatment than when coupled to hydrochlorothiazide in non-Black patients to reduced kidney disease progression. Blacks have a modestly higher increased risk for more advanced increases in serum creatinine than non-Blacks.

Background: The Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial showed that initial antihypertensive therapy with benazepril plus amlodipine was superior to benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. We assessed the effects of these drug combinations on progression of chronic kidney disease., Methods: ACCOMPLISH was a double-blind, randomised trial undertaken in five countries (USA, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland). 11 506 patients with hypertension who were at high risk for cardiovascular events were randomly assigned via a central, telephone-based interactive voice response system in a 1:1 ratio to receive benazepril (20 mg) plus amlodipine (5 mg; n=5744) or benazepril (20 mg) plus hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg; n=5762), orally once daily. Drug doses were force-titrated for patients to attain recommended blood pressure goals. Progression of chronic kidney disease, a prespecified endpoint, was defined as doubling of serum creatinine concentration or end-stage renal disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/1.73 m(2) or need for dialysis). Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00170950., Findings: The trial was terminated early (mean follow-up 2.9 years [SD 0.4]) because of superior efficacy of benazepril plus amlodipine compared with benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide. At trial completion, vital status was not known for 143 (1%) patients who were lost to follow-up (benazepril plus amlodipine, n=70; benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide, n=73). All randomised patients were included in the ITT analysis. There were 113 (2.0%) events of chronic kidney disease progression in the benazepril plus amlodipine group compared with 215 (3.7%) in the benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide group (HR 0.52, 0.41-0.65, p<0.0001). The most frequent adverse event in patients with chronic kidney disease was peripheral oedema (benazepril plus amlodipine, 189 of 561, 33.7%; benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide, 85 of 532, 16.0%). In patients with chronic kidney disease, angio-oedema was more frequent in the benazepril plus amlodipine group than in the benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide group. In patients without chronic kidney disease, dizziness, hypokalaemia, and hypotension were more frequent in the benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide group than in the benazepril plus amlodipine group., Interpretation: Initial antihypertensive treatment with benazepril plus amlodipine should be considered in preference to benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide since it slows progression of nephropathy to a greater extent., Funding: Novartis., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The optimal combination drug therapy for hypertension is not established, although current U.S. guidelines recommend inclusion of a diuretic. We hypothesized that treatment with the combination of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and a dihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker would be more effective in reducing the rate of cardiovascular events than treatment with an ACE inhibitor plus a thiazide diuretic., Methods: In a randomized, double-blind trial, we assigned 11,506 patients with hypertension who were at high risk for cardiovascular events to receive treatment with either benazepril plus amlodipine or benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide. The primary end point was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for angina, resuscitation after sudden cardiac arrest, and coronary revascularization., Results: The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. The trial was terminated early after a mean follow-up of 36 months, when the boundary of the prespecified stopping rule was exceeded. Mean blood pressures after dose adjustment were 131.6/73.3 mm Hg in the benazepril-amlodipine group and 132.5/74.4 mm Hg in the benazepril-hydrochlorothiazide group. There were 552 primary-outcome events in the benazepril-amlodipine group (9.6%) and 679 in the benazepril-hydrochlorothiazide group (11.8%), representing an absolute risk reduction with benazepril-amlodipine therapy of 2.2% and a relative risk reduction of 19.6% (hazard ratio, 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 0.90; P<0.001). For the secondary end point of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke, the hazard ratio was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.92; P=0.002). Rates of adverse events were consistent with those observed from clinical experience with the study drugs., Conclusions: The benazepril-amlodipine combination was superior to the benazepril-hydrochlorothiazide combination in reducing cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension who were at high risk for such events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00170950.), (2008 Massachusetts Medical Society)

Background: Atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis is a problem with no consensus on diagnosis or therapy. The consequences of renal ischemia are neuroendocrine activation, hypertension, and renal insufficiency that can potentially result in acceleration of atherosclerosis, further renal dysfunction, myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, and death. Whether revascularization improves clinical outcomes when compared with optimum medical therapy is unknown., Methods: CORAL is a randomized clinical trial contrasting optimum medical therapy alone to stenting with optimum medical therapy on a composite cardiovascular and renal end point: cardiovascular or renal death, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for congestive heart failure, stroke, doubling of serum creatinine, and need for renal replacement therapy. The secondary end points evaluate the effectiveness of revascularization in important subgroups of patients and with respect to all-cause mortality, kidney function, renal artery patency, microvascular renal function, and blood pressure control. We will also correlate stenosis severity with longitudinal renal function and determine the value of stenting from the perspectives of quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The primary entry criteria are (1) an atherosclerotic renal stenosis of > or = 60% with a 20 mm Hg systolic pressure gradient or > or = 80% with no gradient necessary and (2) systolic hypertension of > or = 155 mm Hg on > or = 2 antihypertensive medications. Randomization will occur in 1080 subjects. The study has 90% power to detect a 28% reduction in primary end point hazard rate., Conclusions: CORAL represents a unique opportunity to determine the incremental value of stent revascularization, in addition to optimal medical therapy, for the treatment of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis.

Elevated blood pressure is the most common chronic illness in the United States, affecting more than 50 million people. Hypertension is an even greater problem in the African American community. Traditionally, management of hypertension and cardiovascular risk reduction has focused on drug therapy; however, several studies have shown the benefits of therapeutic lifestyle changes for blood pressure lowering and cardiovascular risk reduction. Therapeutic lifestyle changes to reduce blood pressure have enormous potential as a means for preventing and controlling hypertension and thereby reducing the risk of coronary heart disease. Although the reductions in blood pressure are relatively modest with these approaches, they could potentially have a beneficial impact on overall cardiovascular morbidity and mortality when applied to the whole population. Because of their high prevalence of certain cardiovascular risk factors (e.g., obesity, diabetes mellitus) and greater salt sensitivity, therapeutic lifestyle changes have particular relevance for African Americans., (Copyright 2003 Le Jacq Communications, Inc.)

It is interesting to note that there is evidence to suggest that controlling blood pressure (BP) will reduce more cardiovascular disease (CVD) events than glycemic control alone.[1],[2] The ACCORD trial (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) assessed the effects of optimal glycemic and BP targets, and lipid management in 10 000 patients with DM. Instead, the 6-month SBP reduction was correlated with the increase in urinary sodium excretion, suggesting that the BP-lowering effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors at 6 months derives mainly from plasma volume reduction because of a natriuretic effect. Editorials, blood pressure, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, empagliflozin, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. [Extracted from the article]

Pulse pressure (PP), a marker of arterial system properties, has been linked to cardiovascular (CV) complications. We examined (a) association between unit changes of PP and (i) composite CV outcomes and (ii) development of left-ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and (b) effect of mean arterial pressure (MAP) control on rate of change in PP. We studied 1094 nondiabetics with nephrosclerosis in the African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension. Subjects were randomly assigned to usual MAP goal (102-107mmHg) or a lower MAP goal (≤92mmHg) and randomized to beta-blocker, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, or calcium channel blocker. After covariate adjustment, a higher PP was associated with increased risk of CV outcome (RR = 1.28, CI = 1.11-1.47, P < 0.01) and new LVH (RR = 1.26, CI = 1.04-1.54, P = 0.02). PP increased at a greater rate in the usual than in lower MAP groups (slope ± SE: 1.08 ± 0.15 versus 0.42 ± 0.15 mmHg/year, P = 0.002), but not by the antihypertensive treatment assignment. Observations indicate that control to a lower MAP slows the progression of PP, a correlate of cardiovascular remodeling and complications, and may be beneficial to CV health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ACCOMPLISH is the first trial designed to compare the effects on major fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular endpoints of two forms of antihypertensive combination therapy: benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine plus benazepril in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk. Enrollment for this trial is now complete and this report describes the clinical characteristics of the study cohort. Patients with hypertension and a previous history of cardiovascular events, strokes or diabetes mellitus were randomized to double-blind treatment with either of the two combination regimens. The data in this report detail the clinical history and demographic characteristics in patients immediately prior to randomization to study drugs. A total of 11,454 patients were randomized. Mean age (±SD) was 68. 4±6. 9 years, 60% were men, and 1360 (12%) were African American. Mean body mass index (BMI) was 31. 0±6. 3 kg/m2. At study entry, 46% of patients had a history of acute coronary syndromes, coronary artery bypass grafts or percutaneous coronary interventions; 13% had a history of stroke. A history of diabetes mellitus was reported in 6928 (60%) of patients. Mean blood pressure at baseline (on prior hypertension therapy) was 145. 4/80. 0 mmHg; only 38% of patients had a BP less than 140/90mmHg. Overall, 97% of patients had received previous antihypertensive treatment (74% on at least two drugs); 53% were on oral diabetes therapy or insulin, 68% on anti-lipid therapy and 63% on anti-platelet agents. In summary, the ACCOMPLISH trial has recruited hypertensive patients at high risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. It is noteworthy that the mean BMI of 31 in this cohort is clearly above the accepted diagnostic criterion of obesity and that 60% of patients are diabetic, possibly reflecting secular trends in clinical disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Analyzes the relationship of borderline hypertension with changes in the heart and blood vessels and risk for cardiovascular disease. Overview on borderline hypertension; Subjects and methods; Results of the study.

Millions of Americans have high cholesterol and are at increased risk for cardiovascular diseases. Patients and healthcare providers desire plans to help combat high cholesterol. Common diets include the Atkins and the Therapeutic Lifestyle Changes (TLC) diets. We hypothesized that the TLC diet should be better in lowering low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels than the Atkins diet. The TLC diet was designed for restricted fat and cholesterol whereas the Atkins diet contains high saturated fat that should place subjects at a greater risk for high cholesterol. The investigator conducted a literature search through PubMed MEDLINE using the search terms: hypercholesterolemia/dh (diet therapy), dietary carbohydrates, and dietary fats. Two of the twenty-seven eligible articles directly compared cholesterol levels of low-carbohydrate and low-fat dieters at six and twelve months. We found: 1) at both 6- and 12-month periods LDL levels were lowered slightly in both diet categories; 2) subjects on the Atkins diet had an 11% increase in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels and a 49% drop in triglyceride levels whereas on the TLC diet, the HDL levels were unchanged and triglyceride levels only dropped 22%; and 3) After 12 months, users of the Atkins diet lost an average of 11.2 pounds while users of the TLC diet lost 6.8 pounds. The hypothesis of this research study was proven false. While these studies point to certain trends favoring the Atkins diet, further research is needed to understand the long-term benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the meantime, using a generic ACEI (or angiotensin receptor blocker) plus chlorthalidone requires 2 separate pills and undermines the benefits of single-pill combination medications.[1] Arguments have also been made that Black patients often need diuretics for hypertension control. Keywords: calcium channel blockers; diuretics; hypertension EN calcium channel blockers diuretics hypertension 1932 1934 3 05/20/21 20210518 NES 210518 In 2017, the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults made many new recommendations for the management of hypertension.[1] One key feature was an emphasis on using combination drug therapy, even for milder hypertension (stage 2; >=140/90 mm Hg). Therefore, the only viable argument that a chlorthalidone-based regimen might prove equally protective at the same BP level must invoke speculative pleiotropic drug properties of thiazide-like diuretics (eg, carbonic anhydrase inhibition) of unproven clinical relevance. [Extracted from the article]

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine which combination therapy in patients with hypertension and diabetes most effectively decreases cardiovascular events. Background: The ACCOMPLISH (Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through COMbination Therapy in Patients Living With Systolic Hypertension) trial compared the outcomes effects of a renin-angiotensin system blocker, benazepril, combined with amlodipine (B+A) or hydrochlorothiazide (B+H). A separate analysis in diabetic patients was pre-specified. Methods: A total of 6,946 patients with diabetes were randomized to treatment with B+A or B+H. A subgroup of 2,842 diabetic patients at very high risk (previous cardiovascular or stroke events) was also analyzed, as were 4,559 patients without diabetes. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for angina, resuscitated arrest, and coronary revascularization. Results: In the full diabetes group, the mean achieved blood pressures in the B+A and B+H groups were 131.5/72.6 and 132.7/73.7 mm Hg; during 30 months, there were 307 (8.8%) and 383 (11.0%) primary events (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68 to 0.92, p = 0.003). For the diabetic patients at very high risk, there were 195 (13.6%) and 244 (17.3%) primary events (HR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.93, p = 0.007). In the nondiabetic patients, there were 245 (10.8%) and 296 (12.9%) primary events (HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.97, p = 0.020). In the diabetic patients, there were clear coronary benefits with B+A, including both acute clinical events (p = 0.013) and revascularizations (p = 0.024). There were no unexpected adverse events. Conclusions: In patients with diabetes and hypertension, combining a renin-angiotensin system blocker with amlodipine, compared with hydrochlorothiazide, was superior in reducing cardiovascular events and could influence future management of hypertension in patients with diabetes. (Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through COMbination Therapy in Patients Living With Systolic Hypertension [ACCOMPLISH]; NCT00170950) [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study that investigated the usefulness of stenting for the prevention of major adverse renal and cardiovascular events. People with atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis and hypertension or chronic kidney disease were examined. Findings found no significant benefit from renal-artery stenting with respect to the prevention of clinical events when added to comprehensive, multifactorial medical therapy.

A high heart rate (HR) predicts future cardiovascular events. We explored the predictive value of HR in patients with high-risk hypertension and examined whether blood pressure reduction modifies this association. The participants were 15,193 patients with hypertension enrolled in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial and followed up for 5 years. The HR was assessed from electrocardiographic recordings obtained annually throughout the study period. The primary end point was the interval to cardiac events. After adjustment for confounders, the hazard ratio of the composite cardiac primary end point for a 10-beats/min of the baseline HR increment was 1.16 (95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.20). Compared to the lowest HR quintile, the adjusted hazard ratio in the highest quintile was 1.73 (95% confidence interval 1.46 to 2.04). Compared to the pooled lower quintiles of baseline HR, the annual incidence of primary end point in the top baseline quintile was greater in each of the 5 study years (all p <0.05). The adjusted hazard ratio for the primary end point in the highest in-trial HR heart rate quintile versus the lowest quintile was 1.53 (95% confidence interval 1.26 to 1.85). The incidence of primary end points in the highest in-trial HR group compared to the pooled 4 lower quintiles was 53% greater in patients with well-controlled blood pressure (p <0.001) and 34% greater in those with uncontrolled blood pressure (p = 0.002). In conclusion, an increased HR is a long-term predictor of cardiovascular events in patients with high-risk hypertension. This effect was not modified by good blood pressure control. It is not yet known whether a therapeutic reduction of HR would improve cardiovascular prognosis. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]