List of Authors:
H.Matsubara, T.Sawada, T.Takahashi, H.Yamada, B.Dahröf
Abstract:
Aims
The objective was to assess the add-on effect of valsartan on top of the conventional treatment for high risk hypertension in terms of the morbidity and mortality.
Methods and results
The KYOTO HEART study was of a multicentre, Prospective Randomised Open Blinded Endpoint (PROBE) design, and the primary endpoint was a composite of fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events (clintrials.gov NCT00149227). 3031 Japanese patients (43% female, mean 66 years) with uncontrolled hypertension were randomized to either valsartan add-on or non-ARB treatment. Median follow-up period was 3.27 years. In both groups, blood pressure at baseline was 157/88 mmHg, and 133/76 mmHg at the end of study. Compared with non-ARB arm, valsartan add-on arm had fewer primary endpoints (83 vs 155; HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42-0.72, p=0.00001).
Conclusion
Valsartan add-on treatment to improve blood pressure control prevented more cardiovascular events than conventional non-ARB treatment in high-risk hypertensive patients in Japan. These benefits cannot be entirely explained by a difference in blood pressure control.
Report:
The objective was to assess the add-on effect of valsartan on top of the conventional treatment for high risk hypertension in terms of the morbidity and mortality.The KYOTO HEART study was of a multicentre, Prospective Randomised Open Blinded Endpoint (PROBE) design, and the primary endpoint was a composite of fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events (clintrials.gov NCT00149227). 3031 Japanese patients (43% female, mean 66 years) with uncontrolled hypertension were randomized to either valsartan add-on or non-ARB treatment. Median follow-up period was 3.27 years. In both groups, blood pressure at baseline was 157/88 mmHg, and 133/76 mmHg at the end of study. Compared with non-ARB arm, valsartan add-on arm had fewer primary endpoints (83 vs 155; HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42-0.72, p=0.00001).Valsartan add-on treatment to improve blood pressure control prevented more cardiovascular events than conventional non-ARB treatment in high-risk hypertensive patients in Japan. These benefits cannot be entirely explained by a difference in blood pressure control.
Notes to editor
This congress report accompanies a presentation given at the ESC Congress 2009. Written by the author himself/herself, this report does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Society of Cardiology.