Context 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). Objective To determine the association of systolic BP control achieved and adverse cardiovascular outcomes in a cohort of patients with diabetes and CAD. Design, Setting, and Patients 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. Intervention Patients received first-line treatment of either a calcium antagonist or β-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. Main Outcome Measures Adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including the primary outcomes which was the first occurrence of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Results 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). Conclusion Tight control of systolic BP among patients with diabetes and CAD was not associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes compared with usual control.

No abstract

Catheter thrombus aspiration during acute myocardial infarction is beneficial in reducing mortality compared with PCI alone. Mechanical thrombectomy appears to increase mortality, whereas embolic protection appears to have a neutral effect.

Objective Resistant hypertension (res-HTN) is a challenging problem, but little is known of res-HTN in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). In this post-hoc INternational VErapamil SR-Trandolapril STudy (INVEST) analysis, we assessed prevalence, predictors, and impact on outcomes of res-HTN in CAD patients with hypertension. Methods Participants (n=17 190) were divided into three groups according to achieved blood pressure (BP): controlled (BP <140/90 mmHg on three or fewer drugs); uncontrolled (BP ≥140/90mmHg on two or fewer drugs); or resistant (BP ≥140/90 mmHg on three drugs or any patient on at least four drugs). Results The prevalence of res-HTN was 38%: significant predictors of res-HTN included heart failure [odds ratio (OR) 1.73], diabetes (OR 1.63), Black race (OR 1.50), and US residence (OR 1.50). Compared with controlled HTN, res-HTN had multivariate-adjusted association with higher risk of adverse outcomes {first occurrence of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke [hazard ratio 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13–1.43], and individual outcomes of all-cause death (hazard ratio 1.29, 95% CI 1.13–1.48), cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio 1.47, 95% CI 1.21–1.78), and nonfatal stroke (hazard ratio 1.61, 95% CI 1.17–2.22), but not nonfatal myocardial infarction (hazard ratio 0.98, 95% CI 0.72–1.34)}. Adverse outcomes, except nonfatal stroke, did not differ in patients with res-HTN compared to uncontrolled HTN. Conclusions Res-HTN is common in patients with CAD and hypertension, associated with poor prognosis, and linked with a number of conditions. Emphasis should be placed on recognizing those at risk for res-HTN and future studies should examine whether more aggressive treatment of res-HTN improves outcomes.

No abstract