Losartan significantly reduced new-onset atrial fibrillation compared to atenolol (6.8 vs 10.1 per 1,000 person-years; RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.55-0.83; p<0.001).
RCT
Yes
Does losartan-based antihypertensive therapy reduce new-onset atrial fibrillation and subsequent stroke in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy compared to atenolol-based therapy?
8,851 hypertensive patients with electrocardiogram-documented left ventricular hypertrophy and without atrial fibrillation by ECG or history
Losartan-based antihypertensive therapy once-daily
Atenolol-based antihypertensive therapy once-daily
New-onset atrial fibrillation (AF)hard clinical
Losartan-based antihypertensive therapy significantly reduces the risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation and subsequent stroke compared to atenolol in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy.
OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to evaluate whether different antihypertensive treatment regimens with similar blood pressure reduction have different effects on new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF). BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether angiotensin II receptor blockade is better than beta-blockade in preventing new-onset AF. METHODS: In the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study 9,193 hypertensive patients and patients with electrocardiogram-documented left ventricular hypertrophy were randomized to once-daily losartan- or atenolol-based antihypertensive therapy. Electrocardiograms were Minnesota coded centrally, and 8,851 patients without AF by electrocardiogram or history, who were thus at risk of developing AF, were followed for 4.8 +/- 1.0 years. RESULTS: New-onset AF occurred in 150 patients randomized to losartan versus 221 to atenolol (6.8 vs. 10.1 per 1,000 person-years; relative risk 0.67, 95% confidence interval CI 0.55 to 0.83, p < 0.001) despite similar blood pressure reduction. Patients receiving losartan tended to stay in sinus rhythm longer (1,809 +/- 225 vs. 1,709 +/- 254 days from baseline, p = 0.057) than those receiving atenolol. Moreover, patients with new-onset AF had two-, three- and fivefold increased rates, respectively, of cardiovascular events, stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure. There were fewer composite end points (n = 31 vs. 51, hazard ratio = 0.60, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.94, p = 0.03) and strokes (n = 19 vs. 38, hazard ratio = 0.49, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.86, p = 0.01) in patients who developed new-onset AF in the losartan compared to the atenolol treatment arm of the study. Furthermore, Cox regression analysis showed that losartan (21% risk reduction) and new-onset AF both independently predicted stroke even when adjusting for traditional risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel finding is that new-onset AF and associated stroke were significantly reduced by losartan- compared to atenolol-based antihypertensive treatment with similar blood pressure reduction.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Kristian Wachtell
Mika Lehto
Eva Gerdts
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
University of Michigan
Cornell University
Umeå University
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Wachtell et al. (Thu,) conducted a rct in Hypertension with left ventricular hypertrophy (n=8,851). Losartan vs. Atenolol was evaluated on New-onset atrial fibrillation (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.83, p=<0.001). Losartan significantly reduced new-onset atrial fibrillation compared to atenolol (6.8 vs 10.1 per 1,000 person-years; RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.55-0.83; p<0.001).
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69e69841c715c26d55d593de — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2004.10.068
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: