Robert Fagard’s research while affiliated with KU Leuven and other places

Background The effects of pharmacological blood-pressure-lowering on cardiovascular outcomes in individuals aged 70 years and older, particularly when blood pressure is not substantially increased, is uncertain. We compared the effects of blood-pressure-lowering treatment on the risk of major cardiovascular events in groups of patients stratified by age and blood pressure at baseline. Methods We did a meta-analysis using individual participant-level data from randomised controlled trials of pharmacological blood-pressure-lowering versus placebo or other classes of blood-pressure-lowering medications, or between more versus less intensive treatment strategies, which had at least 1000 persons-years of follow-up in each treatment group. Participants with previous history of heart failure were excluded. Data were obtained from the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Triallists' Collaboration. We pooled the data and categorised participants into baseline age groups (<55 years, 55–64 years, 65–74 years, 75–84 years, and ≥85 years) and blood pressure categories (in 10 mm Hg increments from <120 mm Hg to ≥170 mm Hg systolic blood pressure and from <70 mm Hg to ≥110 mm Hg diastolic). We used a fixed effects one-stage approach and applied Cox proportional hazard models, stratified by trial, to analyse the data. The primary outcome was defined as either a composite of fatal or non-fatal stroke, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction or ischaemic heart disease, or heart failure causing death or requiring hospital admission. Findings We included data from 358 707 participants from 51 randomised clinical trials. The age of participants at randomisation ranged from 21 years to 105 years (median 65 years [IQR 59–75]), with 42 960 (12·0%) participants younger than 55 years, 128 437 (35·8%) aged 55–64 years, 128 506 (35·8%) 65–74 years, 54 016 (15·1%) 75–84 years, and 4788 (1·3%) 85 years and older. The hazard ratios for the risk of major cardiovascular events per 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure for each age group were 0·82 (95% CI 0·76–0·88) in individuals younger than 55 years, 0·91 (0·88–0·95) in those aged 55–64 years, 0·91 (0·88–0·95) in those aged 65–74 years, 0·91 (0·87–0·96) in those aged 75–84 years, and 0·99 (0·87–1·12) in those aged 85 years and older (adjusted pinteraction=0·050). Similar patterns of proportional risk reductions were observed for a 3 mm Hg reduction in diastolic blood pressure. Absolute risk reductions for major cardiovascular events varied by age and were larger in older groups (adjusted pinteraction=0·024). We did not find evidence for any clinically meaningful heterogeneity of relative treatment effects across different baseline blood pressure categories in any age group. Interpretation Pharmacological blood pressure reduction is effective into old age, with no evidence that relative risk reductions for prevention of major cardiovascular events vary by systolic or diastolic blood pressure levels at randomisation, down to less than 120/70 mm Hg. Pharmacological blood pressure reduction should, therefore, be considered an important treatment option regardless of age, with the removal of age-related blood-pressure thresholds from international guidelines. Funding British Heart Foundation, National Institute of Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford Martin School.

Background The effects of pharmacological blood pressure lowering at normal or high-normal blood pressure ranges in people with or without pre-existing cardiovascular disease remains uncertain. We analysed individual participant data from randomised trials to investigate the effects of blood pressure lowering treatment on the risk of major cardiovascular events by baseline levels of systolic blood pressure. Methods We did a meta-analysis of individual participant-level data from 48 randomised trials of pharmacological blood pressure lowering medications versus placebo or other classes of blood pressure-lowering medications, or between more versus less intensive treatment regimens, which had at least 1000 persons-years of follow-up in each group. Trials exclusively done with participants with heart failure or short-term interventions in participants with acute myocardial infarction or other acute settings were excluded. Data from 51 studies published between 1972 and 2013 were obtained by the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (Oxford University, Oxford, UK). We pooled the data to investigate the stratified effects of blood pressure-lowering treatment in participants with and without prevalent cardiovascular disease (ie, any reports of stroke, myocardial infarction, or ischaemic heart disease before randomisation), overall and across seven systolic blood pressure categories (ranging from <120 to ≥170 mm Hg). The primary outcome was a major cardiovascular event (defined as a composite of fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction or ischaemic heart disease, or heart failure causing death or requiring admission to hospital), analysed as per intention to treat. Findings Data for 344 716 participants from 48 randomised clinical trials were available for this analysis. Pre-randomisation mean systolic/diastolic blood pressures were 146/84 mm Hg in participants with previous cardiovascular disease (n=157 728) and 157/89 mm Hg in participants without previous cardiovascular disease (n=186 988). There was substantial spread in participants' blood pressure at baseline, with 31 239 (19·8%) of participants with previous cardiovascular disease and 14 928 (8·0%) of individuals without previous cardiovascular disease having a systolic blood pressure of less than 130 mm Hg. The relative effects of blood pressure-lowering treatment were proportional to the intensity of systolic blood pressure reduction. After a median 4·15 years' follow-up (Q1–Q3 2·97–4·96), 42 324 participants (12·3%) had at least one major cardiovascular event. In participants without previous cardiovascular disease at baseline, the incidence rate for developing a major cardiovascular event per 1000 person-years was 31·9 (95% CI 31·3–32·5) in the comparator group and 25·9 (25·4–26·4) in the intervention group. In participants with previous cardiovascular disease at baseline, the corresponding rates were 39·7 (95% CI 39·0–40·5) and 36·0 (95% CI 35·3–36·7), in the comparator and intervention groups, respectively. Hazard ratios (HR) associated with a reduction of systolic blood pressure by 5 mm Hg for a major cardiovascular event were 0·91, 95% CI 0·89–0·94 for partipants without previous cardiovascular disease and 0·89, 0·86–0·92, for those with previous cardiovascular disease. In stratified analyses, there was no reliable evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effects on major cardiovascular events by baseline cardiovascular disease status or systolic blood pressure categories. Interpretation In this large-scale analysis of randomised trials, a 5 mm Hg reduction of systolic blood pressure reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events by about 10%, irrespective of previous diagnoses of cardiovascular disease, and even at normal or high–normal blood pressure values. These findings suggest that a fixed degree of pharmacological blood pressure lowering is similarly effective for primary and secondary prevention of major cardiovascular disease, even at blood pressure levels currently not considered for treatment. Physicians communicating the indication for blood pressure lowering treatment to their patients should emphasise its importance on reducing cardiovascular risk rather than focusing on blood pressure reduction itself. Funding British Heart Foundation, UK National Institute for Health Research, and Oxford Martin School.

There is no the abstract of this guidelines

Use of intima-media thickness in the assessment of the development of preclinical atherosclerosis R.N.N. Najafov

Whereas exercise training is key in the management of patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk (obesity, diabetes, dyslipidaemia, hypertension), clinicians experience difficulties in how to optimally prescribe exercise in patients with different CVD risk factors. Therefore, a consensus statement for state-of-the-art exercise prescription in patients with combinations of CVD risk factors as integrated into a digital training and decision support system (the EXercise Prescription in Everyday practice & Rehabilitative Training (EXPERT) tool) needed to be established. EXPERT working group members systematically reviewed the literature for meta-analyses, systematic reviews and/or clinical studies addressing exercise prescriptions in specific CVD risk factors and formulated exercise recommendations (exercise training intensity, frequency, volume and type, session and programme duration) and exercise safety precautions, for obesity, arterial hypertension, type 1 and 2 diabetes, and dyslipidaemia. The impact of physical fitness, CVD risk altering medications and adverse events during exercise testing was further taken into account to fine-tune this exercise prescription. An algorithm, supported by the interactive EXPERT tool, was developed by Hasselt University based on these data. Specific exercise recommendations were formulated with the aim to decrease adipose tissue mass, improve glycaemic control and blood lipid profile, and lower blood pressure. The impact of medications to improve CVD risk, adverse events during exercise testing and physical fitness was also taken into account. Simulations were made of how the EXPERT tool provides exercise prescriptions according to the variables provided. In this paper, state-of-the-art exercise prescription to patients with combinations of CVD risk factors is formulated, and it is shown how the EXPERT tool may assist clinicians. This contributes to an appropriately tailored exercise regimen for every CVD risk patient.

Exercise rehabilitation is highly recommended by current guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease, but its implementation is still poor. Many clinicians experience difficulties in prescribing exercise in the presence of different concomitant cardiovascular diseases and risk factors within the same patient. It was aimed to develop a digital training and decision support system for exercise prescription in cardiovascular disease patients in clinical practice: the European Association of Preventive Cardiology Exercise Prescription in Everyday Practice and Rehabilitative Training (EXPERT) tool.

This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study compared the efficacy of amlodipine and losartan in an older hypertensive population, focusing on therapeutic coverage in the case of missed doses. Following a 4-week, single-blind, placebo washout period, 211 patients were randomly assigned to receive either 5 mg of amlodipine once daily or 50 mg of losartan once daily. Doses were doubled after 6 weeks of treatment if the diastolic blood pressure exceeded 90 mm Hg. After the 12-week treatment period, patients received the placebo for 2 days (drug holiday) to simulate two missed doses of antihypertensive medication. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was conducted at the end of the placebo washout period (baseline), upon completion of the 12-week treatment period (steady state), and after the 2-day drug holiday. Amlodipine was more effective than losartan in reducing patients’ 24-h ambulatory blood pressure at the steady-state sampling time. The increases in 24-h blood pressure during the drug holiday averaged 6±2/2±1 mm Hg (P<0.0001) in the amlodipine group and 3±2/2±1 mm Hg (P<0.0001) in the losartan group. The rise in systolic pressure was greater in patients on amlodipine than in those on losartan (P<0.0001). For diastolic pressure, the changes did not differ. Owing to the lower pressure during treatment, patients in the amlodipine group remained at a significantly lower blood pressure level after the 2-day drug holiday. Amlodipine was more effective than losartan in lowering blood pressure and in maintaining blood pressure control after two missed doses, and the difference was most significant for systolic blood pressure.

Objective: We assessed the prognostic value of ECG left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) using Sokolow-Lyon (SL-LVH), Cornell voltage (CV-LVH) or Cornell product (CP-LVH) criteria in 3043 hypertensive people aged 80 years and over enrolled in the Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial. Methods: Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular diseases, stroke and heart failure in participants with and without LVH at baseline. The mean follow-up was 2.1 years. Results: LVH identified by CV-LVH or CP-LVH criteria was associated with a 1.6-1.9-fold risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke. The presence of CP-LVH was associated with an increased risk of heart failure (hazard ratio 2.38, 95% CI 1.16-4.86). In sex-specific analyses, CV-LVH (hazard ratio 1.94, 95% CI 1.06-3.55) and CP-LVH (hazard ratio 2.36, 95% CI 1.25-4.45) were associated with an increased risk of stroke in women and of heart failure in men, CV-LVH (hazard ratio 6.47, 95% CI 1.41-29.79) and CP-LVH (10.63, 95% CI 3.58-31.57), respectively. There was no significant increase in the risk of any outcomes associated with Sokolow-Lyon-LVH. LVH identified by these three methods was not a significant predictor of all-cause mortality. Conclusion: Use of Cornell voltage and Cornell product criteria for LVH predicted the risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke. Only Cornell product was associated with an increased risk of heart failure. This was particularly the case in men. The identification of ECG LVH proved to be important in very elderly hypertensive people.