摘要
Objectives: We assessed the impact of antihypertensive treatment in hypertensive patients with electrocardiographic(ECG) left ventricular(LV) hypertrophy and a history of atrial fibrillation(AF). Background: Optimal treatment of hypertensive patients with AF to reduce the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality remains unclear. Methods: As part of the Losartan Intervention For End point reduction in hypertension(LIFE) study, 342 hypertensive patients with AF and LV hypertrophy were assigned to losartan or atenolol- based therapy for 1,471 patient- years of follow- up. Results: The primary composite end point(cardiovascular mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction) occurred in 36 patients in the losartan group versus 67 in the atenolol group(hazard ratio[HR]=0.58, 95% confidence interval[CI] 0.39 to 0.88, p=0.009). Cardiovascular deaths occurred in 20 versus 38 patients in the losartan and atenolol groups, respectively(HR=0.58, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.99, p=0.048). Stroke occurred in 18 versus 38 patients(HR=0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.97, p=0.039), and myocardial infarction in 11 versus 8 patients(p=NS). Losartan- based treatment led to trends toward lower all- cause mortality(30 vs. 49, HR=0.67, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.06, p=0.090) and fewer pacemaker implantations(5 vs. 15, p=0.065), whereas hospitalization for heart failure took place in 15 versus 26 patients and sudden cardiac death in 9 versus 17, respectively(both p=NS). The benefit of losartan was greater in patients with AF than those with sinus rhythm for the primary composite end point(p=0.019) and cardiovascular mortality(p=0.039). Conclusions: Losartan is more effective than atenolol- based therapy in reducing the risk of the primary composite end point of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality as well as stroke and cardiovascular death in hypertensive patients with ECG LV hypertrophy and AF.
Objectives: We assessed the impact of antihypertensive treatment in hypertensive patients with electrocardiographic(ECG) left ventricular(LV) hypertrophy and a history of atrial fibrillation(AF). Background: Optimal treatment of hypertensive patients with AF to reduce the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality remains unclear. Methods: As part of the Losartan Intervention For End point reduction in hypertension(LIFE) study, 342 hypertensive patients with AF and LV hypertrophy were assigned to losartan or atenolol- based therapy for 1,471 patient- years of follow- up. Results: The primary composite end point(cardiovascular mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction) occurred in 36 patients in the losartan group versus 67 in the atenolol group(hazard ratio[HR]=0.58, 95% confidence interval[CI] 0.39 to 0.88, p=0.009). Cardiovascular deaths occurred in 20 versus 38 patients in the losartan and atenolol groups, respectively(HR=0.58, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.99, p=0.048). Stroke occurred in 18 versus 38 patients(HR=0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.97, p=0.039), and myocardial infarction in 11 versus 8 patients(p=NS). Losartan- based treatment led to trends toward lower all- cause mortality(30 vs. 49, HR=0.67, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.06, p=0.090) and fewer pacemaker implantations(5 vs. 15, p=0.065), whereas hospitalization for heart failure took place in 15 versus 26 patients and sudden cardiac death in 9 versus 17, respectively(both p=NS). The benefit of losartan was greater in patients with AF than those with sinus rhythm for the primary composite end point(p=0.019) and cardiovascular mortality(p=0.039). Conclusions: Losartan is more effective than atenolol- based therapy in reducing the risk of the primary composite end point of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality as well as stroke and cardiovascular death in hypertensive patients with ECG LV hypertrophy and AF.
