Valsartan Amlodipine Randomized Trial (VART): design, methods, and preliminary results.

Antihypertensive therapy has been well established to reduce hypertension related morbidity and mortality, but the optimal therapy for Japanese patients remains unknown. The Valsartan Amlodipine Randomized Trial (VART), a prospective randomized open-label trial, was designed to determine whether treatment with an angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker (valsartan) or a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine) lowers cardiovascular disease events in essential hypertensives in Japan. Registration, randomization and data entry were performed over the Internet. The minimization method (to control for age, gender, blood pressure level and history) was used at random assignment to ensure that the background factors were equivalent between the groups at baseline. After the registration, patients were followed-up for cardiovascular events (primary endpoints), echocardiography, (123)I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) imaging, laboratory tests and blood pressure for 3 years. Currently, 797 patients have been enrolled and assigned to two groups: a valsartan (n=399) and an amlodipine (n=398) group. At baseline, controlled factors (age, gender, blood pressure level, and left ventricular hypertrophy) and the proportions of patients with diabetes and hyperlipidemia were equally allocated. At 12 months, both drugs evenly and significantly lowered blood pressure to the target level (valsartan: 133/79 mmHg; amlodipine: 132/79 mmHg). In conclusion, by combining the data on cardiovascular events with the results of echocardiographic, radionuclide imaging, and blood/urine studies, the VART study will provide mechanistic insights into the clinical outcomes and treatment effects of the trial.     

Evaluation of dosing time-related anti-hypertensive efficacy of valsartan in patients with type 2 diabetes

The aim of this study was to evaluate which administration timing of valsartan provides satisfactory blood pressure (BP) control, once daily in the morning, once daily in the evening, or twice daily in total 160 mg. Hypertensive patients with mild-to-moderate diabetic nephropathy were enrolled, but those with more than three anti-hypertensive agents, renal insufficiency (serum creatinine ≥ 3 mg/ dL), or hepatic insufficiency were excluded. They were randomized to receive valsartan 160mg once daily in the morning, valsartan 160 mg once daily in the evening, or valsartan 80 mg twice daily for 12 weeks according to a three-period crossover design. Office blood pressure (OBP), home blood pressure (HBP) self-measured by patients, and urinary albumin excretion adjusted by creatinine excretion (UAE) were measured every 12 weeks. In 34 patients, (male: 18, mean age: 57.5 ± 10.3), valsartan with ether all administration timing demonstrated significant reductions in OBP and HBP compared to baseline: valsartan 160 mg once daily in the morning: -12.2/-9.5 mmHg (p < 0.01); valsartan 160 mg once daily in the evening: -14.2/-10.3 mmHg (p < 0.01); valsartan 80 mg twice daily: -15.0/-10.2 mmHg (p < 0.01) There was no statistically significant differences in a decrease in OBP and HBP, and reduction of UAE among three administration timing. In conclusion, these data indicate that the efficacy on BP-lowering does not depend on administration timing of valsartan in patients with diabetic nephropathy.     

Morning rise in blood pressure is a predictor of left ventricular hypertrophy in treated hypertensive patients.

To assess the relationship between home blood pressure and left ventricular mass, we evaluated cardiac echocardiography in 297 hypertensive subjects (188 men and 109 women; mean age, 62.8+/-10.3 years) who were treated with amlodipine monotherapy over 1 year (mean dose, 5.5+/-2.3 mg/day). The morning hypertension group (n=57; 19.2%), who had a morning home systolic blood pressure (HSBP) > or =135 mmHg and an evening HSBP <135 mmHg, had a significantly greater left ventricular mass index (LVMI) concomitant with an increase in the homeostasis model assessment insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR) compared to the good control group (n=174; 58.6%), whose morning and evening HSBP were both <135 mmHg, and had a LVMI roughly equivalent to that of the poor control group (n=63; 21.2%), whose morning and evening HSBP were both > or =135 mmHg. By grouping of subjects according to the difference between morning and evening HSBP (delta HSBP), subjects with a delta HSBP> or =10 mmHg had a significantly greater LVMI than subjects with a delta HSBP <10 mmHg. Increases in LVMI in these patients were still significant after adjustment for age, gender, dose of amlodipine, alcohol consumption, body mass index, office systolic blood pressure, and morning and evening HSBP. In a stepwise multivariate regression analysis, delta HSBP (r2=36.2%, p <0.001), morning HSBP (r2=5.5%, p <0.001), HOMA-IR (r2=1.4%, p=0.016) and age (r2=1.0%, p=0.026) were determined to be significant contributing factors for LVMI. This regression model could explain 44.1% of LVMI variability. These results suggest that morning rise in blood pressure is a dominant predictor of left ventricular hypertrophy.     

Morning blood pressure predicts hypertensive organ damage in patients with renal diseases: effect of intensive antihypertensive therapy in patients with diabetic nephropathy

Blood pressure (BP) measured at home early in the morning (HBP) has been recognized as a useful predictor for organ damage and has been viewed as an important therapeutic target in patients with hypertension. The present study was aimed to determine whether this notion holds true in patients with progressive renal disease.The study enrolled patients with mild to moderate renal impairment. They were all directed to record self-measured HBP to evaluate the adequacy of BP control. In addition to the conventional antihypertensive therapy, intensive treatment to more efficiently reduce elevated morning HBP was applied, especially in patients with diabetic nephropathy. The results were as follows: 1) The status of BP control assessed using HBP and office/clinic BP (OBP) shows predominance of morning hypertension. The prevalence of patients with well-controlled systolic HBP was 38%, those with poorly-controlled HBP 30%, masked hypertension 20% and white coat hypertension 12%. 2) Early morning systolic HBP in diabetics was significantly higher than that in non-diabetics. However, when evaluated on systolic OBP, both groups were comparable.3)Logistic regression analysis showed that the predictive variables to explain morning hypertension (more than 130 mmHg and increased systolic HBP) were age, amount of daily urinary protein excretion and left ventricular mass index (LVMI).4)Following conventional therapy, intensive antihypertensive therapy consisting of calcium channel blockers (CCB) and/or diuretics given in the morning, and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) given in the evening, together with alpha1-blockers given at bedtime, efficaciously reduced elevated HBP in the morning. This result was associated with significant reduction in daily urinary protein excretion and in serum plasminogen-activator inhibitor (PAI-1) concentration.The present study indicates that, regardless of ongoing conventional antihypertensive therapy, the majority of patients with renal disease had morning hypertension, suggesting that these patients are at a higher risk for cardiovascular disease. For the purpose of improving morning hypertension, intensive treatments with combined CCB, ARB and alpha1-blockers could have substantial benefit on the morbidity and prognosis in patients with diabetic nephropathy.     

Comparison of valsartan and amlodipine on ambulatory and morning blood pressure in hypertensive patients

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular events occur most frequently in the morning. We aimed to study the effects of monotherapy with the long-acting angiotensin II receptor blocker valsartan compared with the long-acting calcium antagonist amlodipine on ambulatory and morning blood pressure (BP). METHODS: We performed ambulatory BP monitoring before and after once-daily dose of valsartan (valsartan group, n = 38) and amlodipine (amlodipine group, n = 38) therapy in 76 hypertensive patients. To achieve the target BP of < or =140/90 mm Hg, valsartan was titrated from 40 mg/day to 160 mg/day (mean dose 124 mg/day) and amlodipine was titrated from 2.5 mg/day to 10 mg/day (mean dose 6.4 mg/day). RESULTS: Both drugs significantly reduced clinic and 24-h systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) (P <.002). However, the antihypertensive effect of amlodipine was superior to that of valsartan in clinical SBP (-26 mm Hg v -13 mm Hg, P =.001) and 24-h SBP (-14 mm Hg v -7 mm Hg, P =.008). In addition, morning SBP was significantly reduced by amlodipine from 156 to 142 mm Hg (P <.001) but not by valsartan. Both agents reduced lowest night SBP to a similar extent (amlodipine 121 to 112 mm Hg, P <.001; valsartan 123 to 114 mm Hg, P <.002). Reduction in morning SBP surge (morning SBP minus lowest night SBP) was significantly greater in patients treated with amlodipine compared with those treated with valsartan (-6.1 mm Hg v +4.5 mm Hg, P <.02). CONCLUSIONS: Amlodipine monotherapy was more effective than valsartan monotherapy in controlling 24-h ambulatory BP and morning BP in hypertensive patients.     

Comparison between valsartan and amlodipine regarding cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients with glucose intolerance: NAGOYA HEART Study

It has not been fully examined whether angiotensin II receptor blocker is superior to calcium channel blocker to reduce cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients with glucose intolerance. A prospective, open-labeled, randomized, controlled trial was conducted for Japanese hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus or impaired glucose tolerance. A total of 1150 patients (women: 34%; mean age: 63 years; diabetes mellitus: 82%) were randomly assigned to receive either valsartan- or amlodipine-based antihypertensive treatment. Primary outcome was a composite of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, admission attributed to heart failure, or sudden cardiac death. Blood pressure was 145/82 and 144/81 mm Hg, and glycosylated hemoglobin was 7.0% and 6.9% at baseline in the valsartan group and the amlodipine group, respectively. Both of them were equally controlled between the 2 groups during the study. The median follow-up period was 3.2 years, and primary outcome had occurred in 54 patients in the valsartan group and 56 in the amlodipine group (hazard ratio: 0.97 [95% CI: 0.66-1.40]; P=0.85). Patients in the valsartan group had a significantly lower incidence of heart failure than in the amlodipine group (hazard ratio: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.06-0.69]; P=0.01). Other components and all-cause mortality were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Composite cardiovascular outcomes were comparable between the valsartan- and amlodipine-based treatments in Japanese hypertensive patients with glucose intolerance. Admission because of heart failure was significantly less in the valsartan group.     

Add-on effect of bedtime dosing of the alpha(1)-adrenergic receptor antagonist doxazosin on morning hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy in patients undergoing long-term amlodipine monotherapy.

High morning blood pressure is related to target organ damage and future cardiovascular events. Chronobiologic therapies focusing on the early morning period may be an important strategy for antihypertensive therapy. The aim of this study was to clarify the add-on effects of bedtime dosing of the alpha(1)-adrenergic receptor antagonist doxazosin on morning blood pressure in patients with essential hypertension who were under long-acting calcium channel blocker amlodipine monotherapy. The add-on effects of doxazosin at the maximum dose of 6 mg at bedtime on home blood pressure and left ventricular geometry for 1 year were investigated in 49 subjects (37 men and 12 women, aged 57.5+/-9.1 years) with morning hypertension who had been treated with amlodipine alone for more than 1 year. Doxazosin induced a significant decrease in morning blood pressure (145.6+/-5.6/91.5+/-5.4 to 132.4+/-3.7/83.6+/-5.6 mmHg, p相似文献   

mRNA levels of circadian clock components Bmal1 and Per2 alter independently from dosing time-dependent efficacy of combination treatment with valsartan and amlodipine in spontaneously hypertensive rats

Chronopharmacological effects of antihypertensives play a role in the outcome of hypertension therapy. However, studies produce contradictory findings when combination of valsartan plus amlodipine (VA) is applied. Here, we hypothesized different efficacy of morning versus evening dosing of VA in spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR) and the involvement of circadian clock genes Bmal1 and Per2. We tested the therapy outcome in short-term and also long-term settings. SHRs aged between 8 and 10 weeks were treated with 10 mg/kg of valsartan and 4 mg/kg of amlodipine, either in the morning or in the evening with treatment duration 1 or 6 weeks and compared with parallel placebo groups. After short-term treatment, only morning dosing resulted in significant blood pressure (BP) control (measured by tail-cuff method) when compared to placebo, while after long-term treatment, both dosing groups gained similar superior results in BP control against placebo. However, mRNA levels of Bmal1 and Per2 (measured by RT-PCR) exhibited an independent pattern, with similar alterations in left and right ventricle, kidney as well as in aorta predominantly in groups with evening dosing in both, short-term and also long-term settings. This was accompanied by increased cardiac mRNA expression of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1. In summary, morning dosing proved to be advantageous due to earlier onset of antihypertensive action; however, long-term treatment was demonstrated to be effective regardless of administration time. Our findings also suggest that combination of VA may serve as an independent modulator of circadian clock and might influence disease progression beyond the primary BP lowering effect.     

Effects of early statin treatment on symptomatic heart failure and ischemic events after acute myocardial infarction in Japanese

Statins have been shown to prevent coronary artery disease and to preserve left ventricular function in dilated cardiomyopathy. We hypothesized that early use of statins would decrease cardiovascular events, including heart failure in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). To examine the effect of statins in Japanese patients with AMI, a prospective, randomized, open-label trial was conducted in 486 patients with normal total cholesterol levels. Patients were randomly assigned to receive any available statin (n = 241) within 96 hours of AMI onset or no statin (n = 245) and were followed for up to 24 months. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal AMI, recurrent symptomatic myocardial ischemia, congestive heart failure, and stroke. Event rate for the primary end point was lower in the statin group than in the nonstatin group (6.1% vs 11.4%, p = 0.0433). The statin group had a lower risk of congestive heart failure and symptomatic myocardial ischemia (p = 0.0154 and 0.0264, respectively). In conclusion, early lipid-lowering therapy with statins decreases recurrent cardiovascular events, in particular, congestive heart failure.     

Beneficial cardiometabolic actions of telmisartan plus amlodipine therapy in elderly patients with poorly controlled hypertension

Background

There is a growing body of evidence that blood pressure (BP) level is one of the major determinants of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in individuals, including elderly people. However, to achieve a target BP level in the elderly is more difficult compared with patients aged <65 years. Current guidelines recommend combination drug therapy with different modes of action for the treatment of elderly patients with moderate hypertension (HT). However, the optimal combination regimen is not well established in elderly HT.

Hypothesis

We hypothesized that combination therapy of telmisartan plus amlodipine would exert favorable cardiometabolic actions in elderly HT.

Methods

Seventeen elderly patients with essential HT who failed to achieve a target home BP level with treatment of 5 mg amlodipine plus 80 mg valsartan or 8 mg candesartan for at least 2 months were enrolled. Then the patients were assigned to replace their valsartan or candesartan with 40 mg telmisartan. The subjects were instructed to measure their own BP at home every day during the study periods.

Results

Replacement of valsartan or candesartan by telmisartan in amlodipine‐treated elderly hypertensive patients showed a significant reduction in morning home systolic BP and evening home systolic and diastolic BP at 12 weeks. Switching to telmisartan significantly increased serum adiponectin level.

Conclusions

Our present study suggests that combination therapy with telmisartan plus amlodipine may exert more beneficial cardiometabolic effects in elderly patients with HT compared with valsartan or candesartan plus amlodipine treatment. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This work was supported in part by Grants of Collaboration with Venture Companies Project from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan (to S.Y.). The authors have no other funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to disclose.     

Blood pressure dependent and independent effects of antihypertensive treatment on clinical events in the VALUE Trial

The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial was designed to test whether, for the same achieved blood pressures, regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine would have differing effects on cardiovascular endpoints in high risk hypertension. But inequalities in blood pressure, favouring amlodipine, throughout the multiyear trial precluded comparison of outcomes. A technique of serial median matching, applied at 6 months when treatment adjustments intended to achieve control of blood pressure were complete, created 5006 valsartan-amlodipine patient pairs matched exactly for systolic blood pressure, age, sex, and the presence or absence of previous coronary disease, stroke, or diabetes. Subsequent combined cardiac events, myocardial infarction, stroke, and mortality were almost identical in the two cohorts, but admission to hospital for heart failure was significantly lower with valsartan. Reaching blood pressure control (systolic <140 mm Hg) by 6 months, independent of drug type, was associated with significant benefits for subsequent major outcomes; the blood pressure response after just 1 month of treatment predicted events and survival.     

沙库巴曲缬沙坦在AMI患者PCI术后应用的有效性及安全性

目的 探索沙库巴曲缬沙坦在急性心肌梗死患者（AMI）经皮冠状动脉介入术（PCI）后应用的临床有效性及安全性。 方法 选取空军军医大学第二附属医院（2019年09月～2020年10月）收治的急性心肌梗死患者76例为研究对象，术后采用随机化分组将其分为缬沙坦治疗组（对照组，n = 38）和沙库巴曲缬沙坦治疗组（观察组，n = 38），治疗3 个月后对主要终点（心脏超声指标及MACE事件发生率等）、次要终点和安全性指标进行对比。 结果 与治疗前相比，观察组的左心房内径（LAd）、左心室舒张末期容积（LVEDV）、左心室收缩末期容积（LVESV）、血压、NT-proBNP指标降低（P<0.05）；观察组LAd、LVEDV、LVESV的降低及抑制心室重构的效果优于对照组（P<0.05）；与治疗前相比，两组患者 6 min步行距离均显著性变长（P<0.05），观察组较对照组距离增长更明显且具有统计学差异（P<0.05）；两组患者用药的不良反应和主要不良心血管事件（MACE）发生率均无统计学差异。 结论 在急性心肌梗死患者术后抑制心室重构及预防心衰方面，沙库巴曲缬沙坦相比于缬沙坦表现更早且更有效，临床应用安全，为沙库巴曲缬沙坦在急性心肌梗死患者中的应用提供了临床依据。     

The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) Trial of Cardiovascular Events in Hypertension. Rationale and Design

Essential hypertension is a major Public Health issue. Although the number of treated hypertensive patients has increased, only 25% of treated patients have their blood pressure levels under control. The benefit of treating hypertension has been proven, but cardiovascular morbidity and mortality rates remain high. The ideal antihypertensive drug should not only normalize blood pressure levels, but also reduce the associated cardiovascular morbidity and mortality rates. The role of angiotensin II in systemic hypertension and its complications has been recently redefined. The potent trophic effects of angiotensin II on blood vessels and on cardiac cells have been well demonstrated, especially the role of angiotensin II in left ventricular hypertrophy, vascular hypertrophy, endothelial dysfunction, and congestive heart failure. Of all ongoing mortality and morbidity trials in systemic hypertension, VALUE (Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation) is the only one comparing an angiotensin II antagonist (valsartan) with a third-generation calcium channel blocker (amlodipine). The main hypothesis of the VALUE trial is that, for an equivalent decrease in blood pressure, valsartan will be more effective than amlodipine in decreasing cardiac mortality and morbidity. VALUE is a prospective, multinational, multicentre, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled, 2-arm parallel group comparison with a response-dependent dose titration scheme. VALUE involves 14 400 patients in over 30 countries, who will be followed for 4 years or until 1450 patients experience a primary endpoint. The population to be included in VALUE consists of hypertensive men and women, aged 50 years or older, and at a relatively high risk of sustaining a cardiovascular event. The high risk profile is defined taking into account age, gender, and a list of cardiovascular risk factors and disease factors. Risk factors are cigarette smoking, hypercholesterolaemia, diabetes mellitus, uncomplicated left ventricular hypertrophy, proteinuria, and high serum creatinine. Disease factors include documented history of myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, stroke or transient ischaemic attack, or the presence of left ventricular hypertrophy with strain on the ECG. A unique feature of VALUE is the assessment of the predictive power of this cardiovascular risk factor scale in a large population of treated hypertensive patients. The trial started on 10 September 1997.     

Weekly variation of home and ambulatory blood pressure and relation between arterial stiffness and blood pressure measurements in community-dwelling hypertensives

Although blood pressure (BP) is a major determinant of pulse wave velocity (PWV), some treatments have independent effects on BP and arterial stiffness. Although both ambulatory BP (ABP) and self-measured BP at home (HBP) have become important measures for the diagnosis and management of hypertension, single day recordings may be insufficient for a proper diagnosis of hypertension or the evaluation of treatment efficacy. To evaluate weekly variations in BP using 7-day HBP and 7-day ABP monitoring and to determine the relation between arterial stiffness and BP measurements in community-dwelling patients with hypertension. We enrolled 68 community-dwelling hypertensive subjects in this study. Significant weekly variations in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were found in the awake ABP data (p < .01, respectively), while no significant weekly variations in the asleep ABP or the morning and evening HBP data were observed. In untreated subjects, significant correlations were obtained between the brachial-ankle PWV and the average awake SBP, the average asleep SBP and the average SBP measured by HBP in the evening. In treated subjects, only the average SBP measured by HBP in the morning was significantly correlated with the baPWV. Differences in the weekly variations in BP were observed between HBP and ABP monitoring. In addition, the morning systolic HBP was not correlated with arterial stiffness in untreated subjects with hypertension but was correlated in treated subjects. Relations between the morning HBP and arterial stiffness might be attributed to morning surges in BP and/or trough levels of antihypertensive drugs.     

Weekly Variation of Home and Ambulatory Blood Pressure and Relation Between Arterial Stiffness and Blood Pressure Measurements in Community-Dwelling Hypertensives

Although blood pressure (BP) is a major determinant of pulse wave velocity (PWV), some treatments have independent effects on BP and arterial stiffness. Although both ambulatory BP (ABP) and self-measured BP at home (HBP) have become important measures for the diagnosis and management of hypertension, single day recordings may be insufficient for a proper diagnosis of hypertension or the evaluation of treatment efficacy. To evaluate weekly variations in BP using 7-day HBP and 7-day ABP monitoring and to determine the relation between arterial stiffness and BP measurements in community-dwelling patients with hypertension. We enrolled 68 community-dwelling hypertensive subjects in this study. Significant weekly variations in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were found in the awake ABP data (p < .01, respectively), while no significant weekly variations in the asleep ABP or the morning and evening HBP data were observed. In untreated subjects, significant correlations were obtained between the brachial-ankle PWV and the average awake SBP, the average asleep SBP and the average SBP measured by HBP in the evening. In treated subjects, only the average SBP measured by HBP in the morning was significantly correlated with the baPWV. Differences in the weekly variations in BP were observed between HBP and ABP monitoring. In addition, the morning systolic HBP was not correlated with arterial stiffness in untreated subjectswith hypertension but was correlated in treated subjects. Relations between the morning HBP and arterial stiffness might be attributed to morning surges in BP and/or trough levels of antihypertensive drugs.     

Effects of valsartan on morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure not receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors

OBJECTIVES: A subgroup analysis of the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT) was performed to evaluate the effects of the angiotensin II receptor blocker, valsartan, in the patients with chronic heart failure (HF) not receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. BACKGROUND: The ACE inhibitors reduce mortality and morbidity in patients with HF. Nonetheless, nearly 20% of potentially eligible patients may not be prescribed ACE inhibitors. RESULTS: Val-HeFT was an international, randomized, double-blinded trial that compared valsartan with placebo when added to the prescribed treatment of patients with HF. The two primary end points of the study were all-cause mortality and the composite of all-cause mortality and morbidity (sudden death with resuscitation, hospital admission for HF, or administration of intravenous inotropic or vasodilator drugs for >or=4 h without hospital admission). Of the 5,010 patients enrolled in the trial, 366 (7.3%) were not treated with ACE inhibitors at baseline. The effects of valsartan on the primary and secondary end points of the study were assessed in this subgroup of patients. RESULTS: Both all-cause mortality and combined mortality and morbidity for patients not treated with ACE inhibitors were significantly reduced in the valsartan treatment group compared with the placebo group (17.3% vs. 27.1%, p = 0.017 and 24.9% vs. 42.5%, p < 0.001, respectively). Consistent with the data on clinical events, patients randomized to valsartan showed improvements in physiologic variables, such as ejection fraction, left ventricular internal diameter in diastole, and plasma neurohormone levels. Permanent discontinuation of study treatment because of adverse experiences was comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Val-HeFT has provided the first placebo-controlled outcome data demonstrating a favorable effect of an angiotensin receptor blocker on mortality and morbidity in patients with HF not treated with ACE inhibitors. Based on these results, valsartan appears to be an effective therapy in ACE inhibitor-intolerant patients.     

Left atrial size and risk of major cardiovascular events during antihypertensive treatment: losartan intervention for endpoint reduction in hypertension trial

The influence of left atrial size on cardiovascular events during antihypertensive treatment has not been reported previously from a long-term, prospective, randomized hypertension treatment trial. We recorded left atrial diameter by annual echocardiography and cardiovascular events in 881 hypertensive patients (41% women) with electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy aged 55 to 80 (mean: 66) years during a mean of 4.8 years of randomized losartan- or atenolol-based treatment in the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension Study. During follow-up, a total of 88 primary end points (combined cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) occurred. In Cox regression, baseline left atrial diameter/height predicted incidence of cardiovascular events (hazard ratio: 1.98 per cm/m [95% CI: 1.02 to 3.83 per cm/m]; P=0.042) adjusted for significant effects of Framingham risk score and history of atrial fibrillation. Greater left atrial diameter reduction during follow-up was associated with greater reduction in left ventricular hypertrophy, absence of new-onset atrial fibrillation or mitral regurgitation during follow-up, and losartan-based treatment (B=-0.13+/-0.03 cm/m; P<0.001) in multiple linear regression, adjusting for baseline left atrial diameter/height. However, in time-varying Cox regression analysis, left atrial diameter reduction was not independent of left ventricular hypertrophy regression in predicting cardiovascular events during follow-up. In conclusion, left atrial diameter/height predicts risk of cardiovascular events independent of other clinical risk factors in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy and may be useful in pretreatment clinical assessment of cardiovascular risk in these patients.     

Reduced incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation with angiotensin II receptor blockade: the VALUE trial

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia and increases cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients. Therefore, in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) a prespecified objective was to compare the effects of valsartan and amlodipine on new-onset AF. METHODS: A total of 15 245 hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk received valsartan 80-160 mg/day or amlodipine 5-10 mg/day combined with additional antihypertensive agents. Electrocardiograms were obtained every year and analyzed centrally for evidence of left ventricular hypertrophy and new-onset AF. RESULTS: At baseline, AF was diagnosed in 2.6% of 7649 valsartan recipients and 2.6% of 7596 amlodipine recipients. During antihypertensive treatment the incidence of at least one documented occurrence of new-onset AF was 3.67% with valsartan and 4.34% with amlodipine [unadjusted hazard ratio 0.843, [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.713, 0.997], P = 0.0455]. The incidence of persistent AF was 1.35% with valsartan and 1.97% with amlodipine [unadjusted hazard ratio 0.683 (95% CI: 0.525, 0.889), P = 0.0046]. CONCLUSIONS: Valsartan-based treatment reduced the development of new-onset AF, particularly sustained AF in hypertensive patients, compared with amlodipine-based therapy. These findings suggest that angiotensin II receptor blockers may result in greater benefits than calcium antagonists in hypertensive patients at risk of new-onset AF.     

24-Hour ambulatory blood pressure control with triple-therapy amlodipine, valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide in patients with moderate to severe hypertension

To determine the effectiveness and safety of once-daily combination therapy with amlodipine, valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide for reducing ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in patients with moderate to severe hypertension, a multicenter, double-blind study was performed (N=2271) that included ABP monitoring in a 283-patient subset. After a single-blind, placebo run-in period, patients were randomized to receive amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (10/320/25?mg), valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (320/25?mg), amlodipine/valsartan (10/320?mg) or amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide (10/25?mg) each morning for 8 weeks. Efficacy assessments included change from baseline in 24-h, daytime and night time mean ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP). Statistically significant and clinically relevant reductions from baseline in all these parameters occurred in all treatment groups (P<0.0001, all comparisons versus baseline). At week 8, least squares mean reductions from baseline in 24-h, daytime and night time mean ambulatory SBP/DBP were 30.3/19.7, 31.2/20.5 and 28.0/17.8?mm?Hg, respectively, with amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide; corresponding reductions with dual therapies ranged from 18.8-24.1/11.7-15.5, 19.0-25.1/12.0-16.0 and 18.3-22.6/11.1-14.3?mm?Hg (P≤0.01, all comparisons of triple versus dual therapy). Treatment with amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide maintained full 24-h effectiveness, including during the morning hours; all hourly mean ambulatory SBP and mean ambulatory DBP measurements were ≤130/85?mm?Hg at end point. Amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy was well tolerated. Once-daily treatment with amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (10/320/25?mg) reduces ABP to a significantly greater extent than component-based dual therapy and maintains its effectiveness over the entire 24-h dosing period.     

不同时间作肠道准备的肠道清洁质量比较

背景：结肠镜检查前肠道准备的质量尚有待提高。目的：比较不同时间作结肠镜检查前肠道准备的肠道清洁质量。方法：收集2008年6-10月至上海仁济医院接受静脉麻醉结肠镜检查的320例患者。应用聚乙二醇作为清肠剂。患者随机分为晚上服药组和早晨服药组。内镜医师根据标准的肠道准备质量评估标准判断肠道清洁程度。包括右侧、中间和左侧结肠的清洁程度（评分越高,质量越差）,并记录结肠镜检查前晚患者的睡眠是否受影响。结果：共316例患者,包括160例晚上服药组和156例早晨服药组完成研究。晚上服药组患者肠道准备总体质量评分显著高于早晨服药组（5．2±1．2对4．5±0．9,P〈0．05）,且右侧结肠清洁度显著低于早晨服药组（P〈0．001）。晚上服药组因肠道准备而影响结肠镜检查前晚睡眠者占36.3％,显著高于早晨服药组（8．3％,P〈0．001）。结论：早晨作肠道准备者的肠道清洁质量,尤其是右侧结肠的清洁质量优于晚上作肠道准备者,且对结肠镜检查前晚睡眠的影响更小。