• George L Bakris, Efrain Gaxiola, Franz H Messerli, Giuseppe Mancia, Serap Erdine, Rhonda Cooper-DeHoff, Carl J Pepine, and INVEST Investigators.
• Rush Medical University, 1700 W Van Buren St, Suite 470, Chicago, IL. George_Bakris@rush.edu.
• Hypertension. 2004 Nov 1;44(5):637-42.

AbstractThe 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.

27 keywords...

hide…