Why the study?
Does valsartan reduce new-onset atrial fibrillation in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk compared to amlodipine?
Does valsartan reduce new-onset atrial fibrillation in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk compared to amlodipine?
Valsartan-based antihypertensive therapy significantly reduces the incidence of new-onset and persistent atrial fibrillation compared to amlodipine in high-risk hypertensive patients.
Supports valsartan over amlodipine to lower new-onset AF risk in high-risk hypertension; extends ARB benefits beyond BP control.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schmieder et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: