Characteristics and Outcomes of Revascularized Patients With Hypertension An International Verapamil SR-Trandolapril Substudy

Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, 1600 SW Archer Rd, PO Box 100277, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA. .
Hypertension (Impact Factor: 6.48). 03/2009; 53(4):624-30. DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.108.111542
Source: PubMed


Our understanding of the growing population of revascularized patients with hypertension is limited. We retrospectively analyzed the International Verapamil SR-Trandolapril Study, which randomized coronary artery disease patients with hypertension to either verapamil SR- or atenolol-based treatment strategies, focusing on characteristics and outcomes of 6166 previously revascularized patients compared with 16 410 nonrevascularized patients. Revascularized patients had a history of coronary artery bypass grafting (45.2%), percutaneous coronary intervention (42.1%), or both (12.8%). Compared with nonrevascularized patients, revascularized patients at baseline demonstrated a higher prevalence of coronary artery disease risk factors and risk conditions (P<0.001). This higher prevalence was the principal cause of a higher incidence of primary outcome (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) among revascularized patients (14.2% versus 8.5% for nonrevascularized patients; P<0.001). However, both patient groups demonstrated a relatively low incidence of subsequent revascularization (5.1% versus 1.5% respectively; P<0.0001). Associations between adjusted hazard ratio for primary outcome and follow-up blood pressure appeared "J shaped" for both patient groups. Because, as a group, revascularized patients with hypertension had worse outcomes compared with nonrevascularized patients, management of blood pressure to a specific target in future studies could result in improved outcomes.

Download full-text


Available from: Annette Champion, Oct 09, 2014
9 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Not Available
    Telephone Energy conference, 1978. INTELEC 78. International; 11/1978
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A robot soccer match poses an interesting problem in planning: the planning of coordinated motion of individual players as a team, against the opponent players the next move of which is not known a priori, in such a way as to achieve the common goal, i.e. winning the match. The outcome of a soccer match depends largely on how well the motions of individual players of a team are coordinated against those of the opponent. The technical challenge lies in formulating such coordination strategy together with computational formalism that allows a real-time search for an optimal coordinated motion of individual players. In this paper, we propose the concept of the "controllable zone" of a player or a team, representing the area or the set of field positions that the player or the team can occupy before the opponents at time t. A systematic way of computing various forms of controllable zone is presented. Based on the formalism of controllable zone, it is possible to identify whether a team should be in an offensive or a defensive mode, and which strategy among shooting, capturing, dribbling, and passing is desirable for the team at time t. The coordinated motions of individual players are then determined in such a way as to optimize the strategic scores associated with controllable zones. The proposed paradigm is applied to a real environment for animated simulation: 3×3 FIRA World Cup micro robot soccer match, to evaluate its performance.
    Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2004. (IROS 2004). Proceedings. 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on; 11/2004
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hypertension guidelines advocate treating systolic blood pressure (BP) to less than 130 mm Hg for patients with diabetes mellitus; however, data are lacking for the growing population who also have coronary artery disease (CAD). To determine the association of systolic BP control achieved and adverse cardiovascular outcomes in a cohort of patients with diabetes and CAD. Observational subgroup analysis of 6400 of the 22,576 participants in the International Verapamil SR-Trandolapril Study (INVEST). For this analysis, participants were at least 50 years old and had diabetes and CAD. Participants were recruited between September 1997 and December 2000 from 862 sites in 14 countries and were followed up through March 2003 with an extended follow-up through August 2008 through the National Death Index for US participants. Patients received first-line treatment of either a calcium antagonist or beta-blocker followed by angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, a diuretic, or both to achieve systolic BP of less than 130 and diastolic BP of less than 85 mm Hg. Patients were categorized as having tight control if they could maintain their systolic BP at less than 130 mm Hg; usual control if it ranged from 130 mm Hg to less than 140 mm Hg; and uncontrolled if it was 140 mm Hg or higher. Adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including the primary outcomes which was the first occurrence of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. During 16,893 patient-years of follow-up, 286 patients (12.7%) who maintained tight control, 249 (12.6%) who had usual control, and 431 (19.8%) who had uncontrolled systolic BP experienced a primary outcome event. Patients in the usual-control group had a cardiovascular event rate of 12.6% vs a 19.8% event rate for those in the uncontrolled group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-1.71; P < .001). However, little difference existed between those with usual control and those with tight control. Their respective event rates were 12.6% vs 12.7% (adjusted HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.93-1.32; P = .24). The all-cause mortality rate was 11.0% in the tight-control group vs 10.2% in the usual-control group (adjusted HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.99-1.45; P = .06); however, when extended follow-up was included, risk of all-cause mortality was 22.8% in the tight control vs 21.8% in the usual control group (adjusted HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .04). Tight control of systolic BP among patients with diabetes and CAD was not associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes compared with usual control. Identifier: NCT00133692.
    JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 07/2010; 304(1):61-8. DOI:10.1001/jama.2010.884 · 35.29 Impact Factor
Show more