In the European Society of Cardiology–European Society of Hypertension guidelines of the year 2007, the consequences of arterial stiffness and wave reflection on cardiovascular mortality have a major role. But the investigators claimed the poor availability of devices/methods providing easy and widely suitable measuring of arterial wall stiffness or their surrogates like augmentation index (AIx) or aortic systolic blood pressure (aSBP). The aim of this study was the validation of a novel method determining AIx and aSBP based on an oscillometric method using a common cuff (ARCSolver) against a validated tonometric system (SphygmoCor). aSBP and AIx measured with the SphygmoCor and ARCSolver method were compared for 302 subjects. The mean age was 56 years with an s.d. of 20 years. At least two iterations were performed in each session. This resulted in 749 measurements. For aSBP the mean difference was −0.1 mm Hg with an s.d. of 3.1 mm Hg. The mean difference for AIx was 1.2% with an s.d. of 7.9%. There was no significant difference in reproducibility of AIx for both methods. The variation estimate of inter- and intraobserver measurements was 6.3% for ARCSolver and 7.5% for SphygmoCor. The ARCSolver method is a novel method determining AIx and aSBP based on an oscillometric system with a cuff. The results agree with common accepted tonometric measurements. Its application is easy and for widespread use.

Abstract-In the main Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation (VALUE) report, we investigated outcomes in 15 245 high-risk hypertensive subjects treated with valsartan-or amlodipine-based regimens. In this report, we analyzed outcomes in 7080 patients (46.4%) who, at the end of the initial drug adjustment period (6 months), remained on monotherapy. Baseline characteristics were similar in the valsartan (Nϭ3263) and amlodipine (Nϭ3817) groups. Time on monotherapy was 3.2 years (78% of treatment exposure time). The average in-trial blood pressure was similar in both groups. Event rates in the monotherapy group were 16% to 39% lower than in the main VALUE trial. In the first analysis, we censored patients when they discontinued monotherapy ("censored"); in the second, we counted events regardless of subsequent therapy (intention-to-treat principle). We also assessed the impact of duration of monotherapy on outcomes. No difference was found in primary composite cardiac end points, strokes, myocardial infarctions, and all-cause deaths with both analyses. Heart failure in the valsartan group was lower both in the censored and intention-to-treat analyses (hazard ratios: 0.63, Pϭ0.004 and 0.78, Pϭ0.045, respectively). Longer duration of monotherapy amplified between-group differences in heart failure. New-onset diabetes was lower in the valsartan group with both analyses (odds ratios: 0.78, Pϭ0.012 and 0.82, Pϭ0.034). Thus, despite lower absolute event rates in monotherapy patients, the relative risks of heart failure and new-onset diabetes favored valsartan. Moreover, these findings support the feasibility of comparative prospective trials in lower-risk hypertensive patients.