Key result
Higher left atrial systolic force is linked to ~10% lower incident AF risk in hypertensive LVH.
Why the study?
Whether left atrial systolic force can predict new-onset atrial fibrillation and how atenolol- versus losartan-based treatment affects it remained unknown.
Does left atrial systolic force predict new-onset atrial fibrillation in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy, and does losartan preserve LASF better than atenolol?
Cohort (n=758)
Double-blind (parent trial)
Randomized (parent trial)
Yes
Does left atrial systolic force predict new-onset atrial fibrillation in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy, and does losartan preserve LASF better than atenolol?
Effect estimate: HR 0.90 (95% CI 0.85-0.96)
p-value: p=0.001
Lower left atrial systolic force is an independent predictor of incident atrial fibrillation in hypertensive patients with LVH, and losartan therapy better preserves this function compared to atenolol.
LASF may aid NOAF risk stratification in hypertensive LVH; extends losartan-at enolol comparison to atrial mechanics in RCT data.
It remains unknown whether left atrial systolic force (LASF), a measure of left atrial function, can be used as a predictor of new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF). Furthermore, the effect of the treatment with atenolol and losartan on LASF is unclear. A total of 758 patients without atrial fibrillation at baseline were enrolled from the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint (LIFE) reduction in hypertension echocardiography sub-study. Participants of the LIFE study were randomized to either atenolol-or losartan-based treatment. The mean follow-up was 59 months. LASF was calculated using the average mitral orifice area and mitral peak. The velocity was obtained by Doppler echocardiography. At baseline, 25% of patients had a LASF ≤ 10.3 kdyn. Compared to other quartiles, this quartile had a higher proportion of men, lower heart rate, body mass index, and age. After controlling for these variables, patients in the first quartile had a lower stroke volume compared to other quartiles. New-onset AF occurred in 29 (8.1/1,000 patient-years of follow-up) patients. In multivariable Cox regression analyses with backward elimination, increasing LASF was associated with a lower risk of NOAF (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.90 [95% confidence interval 0.85-0.96], p = 0.001). Integrated discrimination improvement was 0.054 (p = 0.004) and there was a borderline significant net reclassification improvement of 19.2% (p = 0.075). Over time LASF decreased more in the atenolol-based than the losartan-based treatment group (< 0.001). Low LASF was associated with a higher risk of new-onset AF. Losartan-based treatment was associated with better preservation of LASF compared to atenolol-based treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gerholt et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Hypertension with left ventricular hypertrophy (n=758). Losartan vs. Atenolol was evaluated on New-onset atrial fibrillation (per 1 kdyn increase in LASF) (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85-0.96, p=0.001). Increasing left atrial systolic force was associated with a lower risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation (HR 0.90) in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: