Prevention of Atrial Fibrillation by Intensive Antihypertensive Treatment
Wei Zhang,Ji‐Guang Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/hypertensionaha.120.14856
IF: 9.8968
2020-01-01
Hypertension
Abstract:HomeHypertensionVol. 75, No. 6Prevention of Atrial Fibrillation by Intensive Antihypertensive Treatment Free AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBPrevention of Atrial Fibrillation by Intensive Antihypertensive Treatment Wei Zhang and Ji-Guang Wang Wei ZhangWei Zhang From the Centre of Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials, The Shanghai Institute of Hypertension, Department of Hypertension, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, China. and Ji-Guang WangJi-Guang Wang Correspondence to Ji-Guang Wang, MD, PhD, The Shanghai Institute of Hypertension, Ruijin 2nd Rd 197, Shanghai 200025, China. Email E-mail Address: [email protected] From the Centre of Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials, The Shanghai Institute of Hypertension, Department of Hypertension, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, China. Originally published13 May 2020https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.14856Hypertension. 2020;75:1414–1416This article is a commentary on the followingIncidence and Implications of Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter in HypertensionEffect of Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering on the Risk of Atrial FibrillationSee related articles, pp 1483–1490, 1491–1496Because of increasing longevity, atrial fibrillation has become a frequent cardiac arrhythmia in clinical practice and a huge burden on healthcare systems in both high and low/middle-income countries. According to the recent data from the Global Heath Data Exchange database, the estimated worldwide incidence and prevalence for 2017 were 403 per million inhabitants and 0.5% of the total population, respectively, being 31% and 33% more than 20 years ago in 1997.1 In addition, the projected absolute disease burden of atrial fibrillation may further increase by 60% in 2050.1 These estimations and projections were similar to the results of several earlier studies.Atrial fibrillation is not always symptomatic. However, it increases the risk of embolic stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular events and mortality by a few folds.2,3 Current guidelines recommend atrial fibrillation screen in high-risk people by pulse palpitation, handheld electrocardiography, oscillometric blood pressure measurement, and so on. Current technology with a smartphone camera-based photoplethysmography even supports for atrial fibrillation screen in massive populations.4 Cardioversion in some patients with atrial fibrillation is possible. However, even the advanced invasive techniques only ameliorate symptoms but do not improve clinical outcomes. Anticoagulation prevents embolic stroke and systemic embolism. The cost is huge, and bleeding happens in some patients, which limits the use of this efficacious therapeutic modality. Prevention of atrial fibrillation is essential.Among several others, hypertension is a proven risk factor of atrial fibrillation. A recent large study in close to 10 million Koreans provided strong evidence on the association between the duration and degree of hypertension and atrial fibrillation.5 There is some observational evidence that blood pressure reduction may be beneficial in the prevention of atrial fibrillation.6 There is not much but some evidence from post hoc analyses of randomized controlled trials that investigated effect of antihypertensive treatment on the incidence of atrial fibrillation in patients with hypertension.3,7 In the SHEP (Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program) trial, active antihypertensive treatment (targeting systolic blood pressure <150 mm Hg), compared with placebo, tended to reduce the incidence rate of atrial fibrillation in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥160 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg) during a mean of 4.5 years follow-up (1.82% versus 2.32%). The between-group difference, however, did not attain statistical significance (hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.52–1.17]; P=0.20).3 In the ACCORD-BP (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) trial, intensive antihypertensive treatment (targeting systolic blood pressure <120 mm Hg), compared with standard therapy (targeting systolic blood pressure <140 mm Hg), also tended to reduce the incidence of atrial fibrillation in patients with hypertension and diabetes mellitus during a mean of 4.4 years follow-up (37 versus 45 incident cases; hazard ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.55–1.32]; P=0.48).7 If these 2 trials were combined, the difference was still not statistically significant (P=0.13).3,7In this issue of the journal, 2 post hoc analyses of the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) provided important evidence on the benefit of intensive antihypertensive treatment in the prevention of incident atrial fibrillation.8,9 One analysis was performed by the SPRINT investigators at the SPRINT electrocardiogram reading center with full access to the raw data and electrocardiogram recordings (Table).8 The other was from the publicly available dataset for the SPRINT trial.9Table. Comparison of the 2 Analyses on the Selection of Study Participants and the Incidence of Atrial FibrillationCharacteristicSoliman EZ, et al8Parcha V, et al9Data accessFull access to the raw data and ECG recordingsPublicly available data setNumber of the SPRINT participants93619361 Exclusion1339812 Missing data121234 Preexisting AF127778 Inclusion (intensive/standard)8022 (4003/4019)8549 (NR)Incident atrial fibrillationn=206n=141 Rate per 1000 patient-years by randomization (number of cares, intensive/standard)6.21/8.33 (88/118)4.11/4.95 (NR) Hazard ratio (95% CI)0.74 (0.56–0.98)0.78 (0.56–1.09)* P value0.0370.14Values are number of patients unless indicated otherwise. AF indicates atrial fibrillation; ECG, electrocardiogram; NR, not reported; and SPRINT, Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial.8,9*Adjusted for age, sex, race, body mass index, baseline systolic blood pressure, baseline heart rate, left ventricular hypertrophy on ECG (defined using Cornell voltage criteria), clinical or subclinical cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, number of ECGs, total cholesterol levels, aspirin use, statin use, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers use, smoking status, thyroid disease, alcohol abuse, and randomization.9Probably because of the difference in data and electrocardiogram access, the 2 analyses were different in the selection of study participants and hence also the number of incident cases of atrial fibrillation. A major difference was that the analysis from Soliman et al8 excluded patients with an electrocardiogram atrial fibrillation at baseline (n=127) and those with missing electrocardiogram at baseline (n=138) or during follow-up (n=1074),8 whereas the analysis from Parcha et al9 excluded the so-called preexisting atrial fibrillation according to electrocardiogram at baseline and history of atrial fibrillation (n=778). Thus, those patients with a history of atrial fibrillation but an electrocardiogram sinus rhythm at baseline were eventually included in the analysis from Soliman et al8 but not the one from Parcha et al.9 In this group of patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation at baseline, the recurrence rate during follow-up could be high. That may explain to some extent why the incidence rate of atrial fibrillation was much higher in the former (6.21 and 8.33 per 1000 person-years in the intensive and standard therapy groups, respectively)8 than latter analysis (4.11 and 4.95 per person-years in the intensive and standard therapy groups, respectively).9In this group of patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, the benefit from treatment, if any, could also be higher than those without this disease. That probably may explain why the benefit in the prevention of incident atrial fibrillation by intensive antihypertensive therapy was slightly greater in the analysis from Soliman et al8 (number of incident cases 206; hazard ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56–0.98]; P=0.037)8 than the one from Parcha et al9 (number of incident cases 141, the multivariable-adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.56–1.10]; P=0.15). Nonetheless, not only do the CIs largely overlap between the 2 analyses, but also the size of the hazard ratios is of similar magnitude. The authors interpreted their results differently according to P values. One was positive.8 The other was negative.9 However, if the atrial fibrillation results of the SPRINT trial would be combined with the data from the ACCORD6 and SHEP trials,3 the pooled risk ratio reached statistical significance for both analyses of Parcha et al9 and Soliman et al8 in favor of intensive antihypertensive treatment (0.80 [95% CI, 0.61–0.98]; P=0.047 and 0.77 [95% CI, 0.63–0.95]; P=0.01; Figure).Download figureDownload PowerPointFigure. Risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation in active or intensive antihypertensive treatment vs control groups in 3 randomized controlled trials with a systolic blood pressure difference of ≥11 mm Hg.3,7–9 Dots represent risk ratio of each trial. Horizontal lines denote 95% CIs. The open diamond denotes pooled risk ratio with 95% CIs, computed from a fixed-effects model using the Stata software (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX) in the absence of heterogeneity, as indicated by an inconsistency index statistic (I2, a value of 0% indicating no observed heterogeneity, and greater values indicating increasing heterogeneity) of <50% and a P<0.05 in the Cochran Q test. The size of the gray squares is proportional to the weight of each trial, also computed from a fixed effects model. ACCORD-BP indicates Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes7; SHEP, Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program3; and SPRINT, Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial.8,9The analysis of Parcha et al9 provided incremental evidence on the risk of preexisting and incident atrial fibrillation. A major finding in the regard is that after controlling systolic/diastolic blood pressure to a level below 120/80 mm Hg in patients with atrial fibrillation at baseline, the residual risk was still significantly higher than those without atrial fibrillation for stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure. However, this finding corroborates that atrial fibrillation engenders high cardiovascular risk but should not refute benefit of intensive antihypertensive treatment in the risk management of atrial fibrillation, because the comparator was not the patients group with atrial fibrillation and uncontrolled hypertension.9If we believe that intensive antihypertensive treatment would prevent atrial fibrillation, what are the underlying mechanisms. In the SPRINT8,9 and SHEP trials,3 active or intensive antihypertensive treatment significantly reduced the risk of heart failure,3,8,9 which should account for some of the benefit in the prevention of atrial fibrillation, because heart failure and atrial fibrillation are closely related. Antihypertensive drug treatment probably also confers benefit for the prevention of atrial fibrillation by improving structural and electric remodeling of the heart, especially when the between-group systolic/diastolic blood pressure difference is sufficiently large as in the ACCORD (14.2/6.1 mm Hg),7 SHEP (11/5 mm Hg),3 and SPRINT (14.8/7.8 mm Hg) hypertension trials.8,9 Whether certain classes of antihypertensive drugs would be particularly efficacious in the prevention of atrial fibrillation remains controversial. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers prevent atrial fibrillation in the presence of heart failure but not on other clinical conditions. In the ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial), the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor lisinopril showed worse results in the prevention of incident atrial fibrillation than chlorthalidone numerically (+4%, P=0.48) and amlodipine statistically (+13%, P=0.02).10 Nonetheless, specific mechanisms can still be clinically relevant and remains to be investigated.Because of the clear-cut outcome benefit of intensive antihypertensive treatment in the SPRINT trial, the present finding on atrial fibrillation would not add much on the current guideline recommendations for the management of hypertension in general. However, it may stimulate discussions in considering atrial fibrillation as a special condition and setting up specific strategies for the management of hypertension in the presence of atrial fibrillation in future guidelines. The SPRINT trial did not standardize the antihypertensive regimens. All the major classes of antihypertensive drugs were frequently used in the intensive and standard therapy groups of the SPRINT trial. The present finding on atrial fibrillation supports the current guidelines recommendations on the use of antihypertensive drugs. The SPRINT trial excluded patients with prior stroke and symptomatic heart failure. These patients were also largely excluded from the ACCORD7 and SHEP trials,3 and hence may not be appropriate for intensive antihypertension treatment in the prevention and management of atrial fibrillation.Intensive antihypertensive treatment may be extremely useful for the prevention and management of atrial fibrillation, and hence should be investigated in dedicated trials in patients with hypertension. It should be considered for research in patients with hypertension at high risk of atrial fibrillation, with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or after ablation procedure. It should also be investigated as a major approach for risk management in patients with hypertension and atrial fibrillation, especially those with restricted use of anticoagulants for whatever reasons. At least one such trial is ongoing in elderly Chinese with hypertension and atrial fibrillation (URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT04111419).Sources of FundingJ.-G. Wang was financially supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grants 91639203 and 81770455) and Ministry of Science and Technology (2018YFC1704902), Beijing, China and from the Shanghai Commissions of Science and Technology (19DZ2340200) and Health and Family Planning (grant 15GWZK0802 and a special grant for leading academics), Shanghai, China.DisclosuresJ.-G. Wang reports receiving lecture and consulting fees from Astra-Zeneca, Bayer, Omron, Salubris, Servier, and Takeda. The other author reports no conflicts.FootnotesThis manuscript was sent to Dr Oparil, Consulting Editor, for review by expert referees, editorial decision, and final disposition.Correspondence to Ji-Guang Wang, MD, PhD, The Shanghai Institute of Hypertension, Ruijin 2nd Rd 197, Shanghai 200025, China. Email [email protected]com.cnReferences1. Lippi G, Sanchis-Gomar F, Cervellin G. Global epidemiology of atrial fibrillation: an increasing epidemic and public health challenge.Int J Stroke. 2020;15:1747493019897870. doi: 10.1177/1747493019897870Google Scholar2. Li LH, Sheng CS, Hu BC, Huang QF, Zeng WF, Li GL, Liu M, Wei FF, Zhang L, Kang YY, et al. The prevalence, incidence, management and risks of atrial fibrillation in an elderly Chinese population: a prospective study.BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2015; 15:31. doi: 10.1186/s12872-015-0023-3CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Vagaonescu TD, Wilson AC, Kostis JB. Atrial fibrillation and isolated systolic hypertension: the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program and Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program-extension study.Hypertension. 2008; 51:1552–1556. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.108.110775LinkGoogle Scholar4. Perez MV, Mahaffey KW, Hedlin H, Rumsfeld JS, Garcia A, Ferris T, Balasubramanian V, Russo AM, Rajmane A, Cheung L, et al; Apple Heart Study Investigators. Large-scale assessment of a smartwatch to identify atrial fibrillation.N Engl J Med. 2019; 381:1909–1917. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1901183CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Kim YG, Han KD, Choi JI, Yung Boo K, Kim DY, Oh SK, Lee KN, Shim J, Kim JS, Kim YH. Impact of the duration and degree of hypertension and body weight on new-onset atrial fibrillation: a nationwide population-based study.Hypertension. 2019; 74:e45–e51. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.119.13672LinkGoogle Scholar6. Okin PM, Hille DA, Larstorp AC, Wachtell K, Kjeldsen SE, Dahlöf B, Devereux RB. Effect of lower on-treatment systolic blood pressure on the risk of atrial fibrillation in hypertensive patients.Hypertension. 2015; 66:368–373. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.115.05728LinkGoogle Scholar7. Chen LY, Bigger JT, Hickey KT, Chen H, Lopez-Jimenez C, Banerji MA, Evans G, Fleg JL, Papademetriou V, Thomas A, et al. Effect of intensive blood pressure lowering on incident atrial fibrillation and P-wave indices in the ACCORD blood pressure trial.Am J Hypertens. 2016; 29:1276–1282. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpv172CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8. Soliman EZ, Rahman AKMF, Zhang ZM, Rodriguez CJ, Chang TI, Bates JT, Ghazi L, Blackshear JL, Chonchol M, Fine LJ, et al. Effect of intensive blood pressure lowering on the risk of atrial fibrillation.Hypertension. 2020; 75:1491–1496. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.14766LinkGoogle Scholar9. Parcha V, Patel N, Kalra R, Kim J, Gutierrez OM, Arora G, Arora P. Incidence and implications of atrial fibrillation/flutter in hypertension: Insights from the SPRINT trial.Hypertension. 2020; 75:1483–1490. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.14690LinkGoogle Scholar10. Dewland TA, Soliman EZ, Yamal JM, Davis BR, Alonso A, Albert CM, Simpson LM, Haywood LJ, Marcus GM. Pharmacologic prevention of incident atrial fibrillation: long-term results from the ALLHAT (antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment to prevent heart attack trial).Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2017; 10:e005463. doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.117.005463LinkGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByGawałko M and Linz D (2022) Atrial Fibrillation Detection and Management in Hypertension, Hypertension, 80:3, (523-533), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2023.Rønningen P, Berge T, Solberg M, Enger S, Pervez M, Orstad E, Kvisvik B, Aagaard E, Lyngbakken M, Ariansen I, Røsjø H, Steine K and Tveit A (2022) Impact of Blood Pressure in the Early 40s on Left Atrial Volumes in the Mid‐60s: Data From the ACE 1950 Study, Journal of the American Heart Association, 11:11, Online publication date: 7-Jun-2022. Kario K, Mogi M and Hoshide S (2022) Latest hypertension research to inform clinical practice in Asia, Hypertension Research, 10.1038/s41440-022-00874-8, 45:4, (555-572), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2022. O'Keefe E, Sturgess J, O'Keefe J, Gupta S and Lavie C (2021) Prevention and Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation via Risk Factor Modification, The American Journal of Cardiology, 10.1016/j.amjcard.2021.08.042, 160, (46-52), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2021. Zhang W, Chen Y, Huang Q and Wang J (2021) Rationale and Design of a Randomized Controlled Trial on Intensive Management of Blood PRESSure and Cholesterol in Elderly Chinese with Hypertension and Atrial FibrillatION (IMPRESSION), Cardiology Discovery, 10.1097/CD9.0000000000000026, 1:3, (173-178), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2021. Kjeldsen S, Narkiewicz K, Burnier M and Oparil S (2020) Intensive systolic blood pressure control and prevention of new onset atrial fibrillation in the SPRINT study: is the association really controversial?, Blood Pressure, 10.1080/08037051.2020.1782595, 29:4, (199-201), Online publication date: 3-Jul-2020. Related articlesIncidence and Implications of Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter in HypertensionVibhu Parcha, et al. Hypertension. 2020;75:1483-1490Effect of Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering on the Risk of Atrial FibrillationElsayed Z. Soliman, et al. Hypertension. 2020;75:1491-1496 June 2020Vol 75, Issue 6 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics © 2020 American Heart Association, Inc.https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.14856PMID: 32401649 Originally publishedMay 13, 2020 PDF download Advertisement SubjectsHypertension