Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION: Decreased heart rate variability (HRV) and abnormal nonlinear HRV shortly after myocardial infarction (MI) are risk factors for mortality. Traditional HRV predicts mortality in patients with a range of times post-MI, but the association of nonlinear HRV and outcome in this population is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: HRV was determined from 740 tapes recorded before antiarrhythmic therapy in Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial patients with ventricular premature contractions (VPCs) suppressed on the first randomized treatment. Patients were 70 +/- 121 days post-MI. Follow up was 362 +/- 241 days (70 deaths). The association between traditional time and frequency-domain HRV and mortality and nonlinear HRV and mortality were compared for the entire population (ALL), those without coronary artery bypass graft post-MI (no CABG), and those without CABG or diabetes (no CABG, no DIAB) using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis. Strength of association was compared by P values and Wald Chi-square values. Nonlinear HRV included short-term fractal scaling exponent, power law slope, and SD12 (Poincare dimension). For ALL and for no CABG, increased daytime SD12 had the strongest association with mortality (P=0.002 ALL and P <0.001 no CABG). For no CABG, no DIAB increased 24-hour SD12 hours had the strongest association (P <0.001) with mortality. Upon multivariate analysis, increased SD12, decreased ln ULF (ultra low frequency), and history of prior MI and history of congestive heart failure each remained in the model. CONCLUSION: Nonlinear HRV is associated with mortality post-MI. However, as with traditional HRV, this is diluted by CABG surgery post-MI and by diabetes. Results suggest that decreased long-term HRV and increased randomness of heart rate are each independent risk factors for mortality post-MI

CONTEXT: Beta-blockers have been shown to decrease cardiovascular risk in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM); however, some components of the metabolic syndrome are worsened by some beta-blockers. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of beta-blockers with different pharmacological profiles on glycemic and metabolic control in participants with DM and hypertension receiving renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade, in the context of cardiovascular risk factors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial (The Glycemic Effects in Diabetes Mellitus: Carvedilol-Metoprolol Comparison in Hypertensives [GEMINI]) conducted between June 1, 2001, and April 6, 2004, at 205 US sites that compared the effects of carvedilol and metoprolol tartrate on glycemic control. The 1235 participants were aged 36 to 85 years with hypertension (>130/80 mm Hg) and type 2 DM (glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c], 6.5%-8.5%) and were receiving RAS blockers. Participants were followed up for 35 weeks. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to receive a 6.25- to 25-mg dose of carvedilol (n = 498) or 50- to 200-mg dose of metoprolol tartrate (n = 737), each twice daily. Open-label hydrochlorothiazide and a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist were added, if needed, to achieve blood pressure target. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Difference between groups in mean change from baseline HbA1c following 5 months of maintenance therapy. Additional prespecified comparisons included change from baseline HbA1c in individual treatment groups, treatment effect on insulin sensitivity, and microalbuminuria. RESULTS: The 2 groups differed in mean change in HbA1c from baseline (0.13%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.22% to -0.04%; P = .004; modified intention-to-treat analysis). The mean (SD) HbA1c increased with metoprolol (0.15% [0.04%]; P<.001) but not carvedilol (0.02% [0.04%]; P = .65). Insulin sensitivity improved with carvedilol (-9.1%; P = .004) but not metoprolol (-2.0%; P = .48); the between-group difference was -7.2% (95% CI, -13.8% to -0.2%; P = .004). Blood pressure was similar between groups. Progression to microalbuminuria was less frequent with carvedilol than with metoprolol (6.4% vs 10.3%; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-0.97; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Both beta-blockers were well tolerated; use of carvedilol in the presence of RAS blockade did not affect glycemic control and improved some components of the metabolic syndrome relative to metoprolol in participants with DM and hypertension. The effects of the 2 beta-blockers on clinical outcomes need to be compared in long-term clinical trials

The INternational VErapamil SR-Trandolapril study (INVEST) had 6400 of 22,576 (28.3%) participants with diabetes at entry. The objectives of this prespecified analysis were to compare antihypertensive treatment strategies in the diabetes cohort (verapamil SR-based [n=3169] versus atenolol-based [n=3231]) and identify predictors for the primary outcome (a composite of first occurrence of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke). During a mean follow-up of 2.7 years, 913 participants with diabetes experienced a primary outcome event, with no significant difference between treatment strategies (14.6%, verapamil SR versus 13.9%; atenolol hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.19). Risk for the primary outcome increased with presence of baseline heart failure, renal impairment, US residency, age, previous stroke/transient ischemic attack, previous myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, or smoking. High systolic and diastolic pressures during follow-up also were associated with increased risk, as were low diastolic pressures. Antihypertensive treatment with a verapamil SR or atenolol strategy resulted in similar rates of cardiovascular outcomes in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients with diabetes. Thus, a verapamil SR-based antihypertensive treatment strategy is an alternative to a beta-blocker-based strategy in adults with CAD and diabetes

BACKGROUND: Despite a high prevalence of hypertension in the population with CAD, there are limited data describing the clinical characteristics and treatments, as well as their interrelations in these patients. This is particularly true for black and Hispanic patients who have been underrepresented in randomized CAD trials. HYPOTHESIS: There exist racial and ethnic differences that define the characteristics of patients with both coronary artery disease (CAD) and hypertension. METHODS: This report describes the characteristics of Caucasian, Hispanic, and black patients enrolled in the International Verapamil SR/trandolapril Study (INVEST), a prospective trial undertaken exclusively in patients with CAD and hypertension. RESULTS: In all, 10,925 Caucasian, 8,045 Hispanic, and 3,029 black patients are described. An abnormal angiogram or documented myocardial infarction was observed more frequently in Caucasian patients (73%), while angina pectoris was more prevalent in Hispanic patients (87%). Diabetes and left ventricular hypertrophy were most common in black patients (33 and 29%, respectively), while hypercholesterolemia and prior revascularization (coronary artery bypass graft or angioplasty) were most common in Caucasian patients (64 and 41%, respectively). More than 60% of Hispanic and black patients were women--a unique characteristic for randomized CAD trials. Comparing race/ethnic cohorts, there were significant differences for all characteristics. More than 80% of patients in all race/ethnic groups were receiving antihypertensive therapy; however, only fewer than 25% had controlled blood pressure according to guidelines from the sixth report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. CONCLUSIONS: This high-risk population of hypertensive patients with CAD has been undertreated and does not have well-controlled BP. Race/ethnic differences were observed for clinical characteristics and medication use

BACKGROUND: Recent reports suggest that existing antihypertensive agents may not have sufficient efficacy to control blood pressure (BP) in many patients. Omapatrilat, an agent under development, has been shown to have significantly greater antihypertensive efficacy than existing agents, but may also carry increased risk of angioedema. We compared the efficacy and safety of omapatrilat to a representative angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, enalapril. METHODS: The Omapatrilat Cardiovascular Treatment vs. Enalapril (OCTAVE) trial is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, 24-week trial in 25,302 patients with untreated or uncontrolled hypertension conducted in 3298 office-based sites in 12 countries. Subjects were randomized to omapatrilat 10 mg or enalapril 5 mg as initial therapy for hypertension (group 1, n = 9292), replacement for existing antihypertensive therapy (group 2, n =11,224), or in addition to existing antihypertensive therapy (group 3, n = 4751). Study drug was force-titrated at week 2 and electively titrated at weeks 4 and 6 to a maximum of omapatrilat 80 mg or enalapril 40 mg once daily. At weeks 8 and 16, adjunctive antihypertensive medications were added electively to achieve target BP. RESULTS: Omapatrilat reduced systolic BP 3.6 mm Hg more than enalapril at week 8, and was associated with less use of adjunctive antihypertensive therapy by week 24 (19% v 27%; P < 0.001 for both comparisons). Subjects randomized to omapatrilat were more likely to reach BP target, regardless of demographics or comorbid conditions and whether omapatrilat was used as initial therapy, replacement for existing therapy, or in addition to existing therapy. Angioedema was more frequent with omapatrilat than enalapril (2.17% v 0.68%). Two omapatrilat-treated subjects experienced angioedema with airway compromise, which was successfully treated. CONCLUSIONS: Omapatrilat provided broadly superior antihypertensive efficacy when used in a setting resembling clinical practice. Angioedema was more common than with enalapril but life-threatening angioedema was rare. The risk-benefit profile for omapatrilat in clinical use therefore appears likely to be favorable in appropriate patients

BACKGROUND: Decreased heart rate variability (HRV) is often assumed to be associated with mortality in all patients after myocardial infarction (MI), independent of clinical factors or time after MI. METHOD: HRV was determined from Holter tapes in the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST). Patients were 71 +/- 120 days after MI. A total of 735 pre-therapy tapes were analyzed in patients who had ventricular premature contractions (VPCs) suppressed on the first treatment. The period of follow-up was 362 +/- 243 days (69 deaths). The association of clinical and demographic factors and 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime HRV to mortality in all patients, patients without coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery between the qualifying MI and the Holter monitoring, and patients with neither CABG nor diabetes mellitus was determined with univariate Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: For the entire group and the subgroup without CABG, the strongest association was with increased daytime normalized high frequency power (NHF day). Further excluding patients with diabetes mellitus strengthened the association of HRV with mortality rate. Decreased natural logarithm (ln) 24-hour total and ultra low frequency (ULF) power were the strongest predictors of mortality. The best cutoff point for ln ULF for separating survivors and non-survivors was determined. After including a history of MI, congestive heart failure, or both as co-factors, ln ULF < or =7.85 identified patients at approximately 4-times the relative risk of mortality, but did not risk-stratify patients without prior MI or history of congestive heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: HRV predicts mortality rate in a broad range of times after MI. Excluding patients with CABG after MI or with diabetes mellitus significantly strengthens the association of HRV with mortality. HRV measures beyond the peri-infarction period, with clinical factors, can identify subgroups at an elevated risk of mortality

CONTEXT: Despite evidence of efficacy of antihypertensive agents in treating hypertensive patients, safety and efficacy of antihypertensive agents for coronary artery disease (CAD) have been discerned only from subgroup analyses in large trials. OBJECTIVE: To compare mortality and morbidity outcomes in patients with hypertension and CAD treated with a calcium antagonist strategy (CAS) or a non-calcium antagonist strategy (NCAS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, open label, blinded end point study of 22 576 hypertensive CAD patients aged 50 years or older, which was conducted September 1997 to February 2003 at 862 sites in 14 countries. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to either CAS (verapamil sustained release) or NCAS (atenolol). Strategies specified dose and additional drug regimens. Trandolapril and/or hydrochlorothiazide was administered to achieve blood pressure goals according to guidelines from the sixth report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC VI) of less than 140 mm Hg (systolic) and less than 90 mm Hg (diastolic); and less than 130 mm Hg (systolic) and less than 85 mm Hg (diastolic) if diabetes or renal impairment was present. Trandolapril was also recommended for patients with heart failure, diabetes, or renal impairment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: first occurrence of death (all cause), nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke; other: cardiovascular death, angina, adverse experiences, hospitalizations, and blood pressure control at 24 months. RESULTS: At 24 months, in the CAS group, 6391 patients (81.5%) were taking verapamil sustained release; 4934 (62.9%) were taking trandolapril; and 3430 (43.7%) were taking hydrochlorothiazide. In the NCAS group, 6083 patients (77.5%) were taking atenolol; 4733 (60.3%) were taking hydrochlorothiazide; and 4113 (52.4%) were taking trandolapril. After a follow-up of 61 835 patient-years (mean, 2.7 years per patient), 2269 patients had a primary outcome event with no statistically significant difference between treatment strategies (9.93% in CAS and 10.17% in NCAS; relative risk [RR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.06). Two-year blood pressure control was similar between groups. The JNC VI blood pressure goals were achieved by 65.0% (systolic) and 88.5% (diastolic) of CAS and 64.0% (systolic) and 88.1% (diastolic) of NCAS patients. A total of 71.7% of CAS and 70.7% of NCAS patients achieved a systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg. CONCLUSION: The verapamil-trandolapril-based strategy was as clinically effective as the atenolol-hydrochlorothiazide-based strategy in hypertensive CAD patients

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors such as captopril reduce mortality and cardiovascular morbidity among patients with myocardial infarction complicated by left ventricular systolic dysfunction, heart failure, or both. In a double-blind trial, we compared the effect of the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan, the ACE inhibitor captopril, and the combination of the two on mortality in this population of patients. METHODS: Patients receiving conventional therapy were randomly assigned, 0.5 to 10 days after acute myocardial infarction, to additional therapy with valsartan (4909 patients), valsartan plus captopril (4885 patients), or captopril (4909 patients). The primary end point was death from any cause. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 24.7 months, 979 patients in the valsartan group died, as did 941 patients in the valsartan-and-captopril group and 958 patients in the captopril group (hazard ratio in the valsartan group as compared with the captopril group, 1.00; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.90 to 1.11; P=0.98; hazard ratio in the valsartan-and-captopril group as compared with the captopril group, 0.98; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.89 to 1.09; P=0.73). The upper limit of the one-sided 97.5 percent confidence interval for the comparison of the valsartan group with the captopril group was within the prespecified margin for noninferiority with regard to mortality (P=0.004) and with regard to the composite end point of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events (P<0.001). The valsartan-and-captopril group had the most drug-related adverse events. With monotherapy, hypotension and renal dysfunction were more common in the valsartan group, and cough, rash, and taste disturbance were more common in the captopril group. CONCLUSIONS: Valsartan is as effective as captopril in patients who are at high risk for cardiovascular events after myocardial infarction. Combining valsartan with captopril increased the rate of adverse events without improving survival

BACKGROUND: The VALsartan In Acute myocardial iNfarcTion (VALIANT) trial compared outcomes with: (1) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition (ACEI) with the reference agent captopril; (2) angiotensin-receptor blockade (ARB) with valsartan; or (3) both in patients with heart failure (HF) and/or left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) after myocardial infarction (MI). AIMS: a goal of this active-control trial was to simulate conditions that would lead current practitioners to use ACEIs. Thus, we compared characteristics of VALIANT patients with those of patients in placebo-controlled trials that established ACEIs as standard treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: We collected demographic, clinical, medication and imaging information from 14703 patients in 24 countries. This high-risk population was a median 65.8 years old, and 31.1% were female. Most (51.8%) showed imaging evidence of LVSD at enrollment. Most (72%) had Killip class>/=II HF. Patients received evidence-based therapies at rates similar to those of contemporary MI trials and at an improved rate compared with prior placebo-controlled ACEI trials. CONCLUSION: VALIANT represents the largest globally representative cohort enrolled with HF and/or LVSD after MI. Patients were similar to those in placebo-controlled ACEI trials while reflecting improvements in evidence-based care. With enrollment complete, VALIANT is poised to define the optimal strategy for renin-angiotensin system blockade after MI to improve cardiovascular outcomes

It is debatable whether patients benefit directly from participation in a randomized clinical trial. We attempt to address this question for participants in the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) and the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) studies. Survival rates were compared between eligible patients who enrolled in the trials and eligible patients who did not enroll, adjusting for baseline covariates. In CAST, despite that the active therapy was found to confer an almost threefold increased risk of death, survival was similar between the 3163 enrolled and the 1363 nonenrolled eligible patients. However, when patients were under study management, their risk of death was approximately 20% lower than when they left study management. In AVID, overall survival was similar between the 1016 enrolled and the 1246 nonenrolled eligible patients. However, mortality was substantially higher among patients not enrolled because the referring physician mandated the type of therapy. Overall these observational analyses suggest a net improvement in survival for the participants in these two trials