The INternational VErapamil SR-Trandolapril study (INVEST) had 6400 of 22 576 (28.3%) participants with diabetes at entry. The objectives of this prespecified analysis were to compare antihypertensive treatment strategies in the diabetes cohort (verapamil SR-based [n = 3169] versus atenolol-based [n = 3231]) and identify predictors for the primary outcome (a composite of first occurrence of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke). During a mean follow-up of 2.7 years, 913 participants with diabetes experienced a primary outcome event, with no significant difference between treatment strategies (14.6%, verapamil SR versus 13.9%; atenolol hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.19). Risk for the primary outcome increased with presence of baseline heart failure, renal impairment, US residency, age, previous stroke/transient ischemic attack, previous myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, or smoking. High systolic and diastolic pressures during follow-up also were associated with increased risk, as were low diastolic pressures. Antihypertensive treatment with a verapamil SR or atenolol strategy resulted in similar rates of cardiovascular outcomes in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients with diabetes. Thus, a verapamil SR-based antihypertensive treatment strategy is an alternative to a beta-blocker-based strategy in adults with CAD and diabetes.
Bakris, G., Gaxiola, E., Messerli, F., Mancia, G., Erdine, S., Cooper DeHoff, R., et al. (2004). Clinical outcomes in the diabetes cohort of the international verapamil SR-trandolapril study. HYPERTENSION, 44(5), 637-642 [10.1161/01.HYP.0000143851.23721.26].
Clinical outcomes in the diabetes cohort of the international verapamil SR-trandolapril study
MANCIA, GIUSEPPE;
2004
Abstract
The INternational VErapamil SR-Trandolapril study (INVEST) had 6400 of 22 576 (28.3%) participants with diabetes at entry. The objectives of this prespecified analysis were to compare antihypertensive treatment strategies in the diabetes cohort (verapamil SR-based [n = 3169] versus atenolol-based [n = 3231]) and identify predictors for the primary outcome (a composite of first occurrence of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke). During a mean follow-up of 2.7 years, 913 participants with diabetes experienced a primary outcome event, with no significant difference between treatment strategies (14.6%, verapamil SR versus 13.9%; atenolol hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.19). Risk for the primary outcome increased with presence of baseline heart failure, renal impairment, US residency, age, previous stroke/transient ischemic attack, previous myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, or smoking. High systolic and diastolic pressures during follow-up also were associated with increased risk, as were low diastolic pressures. Antihypertensive treatment with a verapamil SR or atenolol strategy resulted in similar rates of cardiovascular outcomes in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients with diabetes. Thus, a verapamil SR-based antihypertensive treatment strategy is an alternative to a beta-blocker-based strategy in adults with CAD and diabetes.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.