Cited by 826Atrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias

Angiotensin II receptor blockade reduces new-onset atrial fibrillation and subsequent stroke compared to atenolol

Open access
Wachtell, Kristian, Lehto, Mika, Gerdts, Eva, Olsen, Michael H., Hornestam, Björn, Dahlöf, Björn, Ibsen, Hans, Julius, Stevo +4 more·2005·Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract

Objectives This study was designed to evaluate whether different antihypertensive treatment regimens with similar blood pressure reduction have different effects on new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF).Background It is unknown whether angiotensin II receptor blockade is better than beta-blockade in preventing new-onset AF.Methods In the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study 9,193 hypertensive patients and patients with electrocardiogram-documented left ventricular hypertrophy were randomized to once-daily losartan- or atenolol-based antihypertensive therapy. Electrocardiograms were Minnesota coded centrally, and 8,851 patients without AF by electrocardiogram or history, who were thus at risk of developing AF, were followed for 4.8 +/- 1.0 years.Results New-onset AF occurred in 150 patients randomized to losartan versus 221 to atenolol (6.8 vs. 10.1 per 1,000 person-years; relative risk 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55 to 0.83, p < 0.001) despite similar blood pressure reduction. Patients receiving losartan tended to stay in sinus rhythm longer (1,809 +/- 225 vs. 1,709 +/- 254 days from baseline, p = 0.057) than those receiving atenolol. Moreover, patients with new-onset AF had two-, three- and fivefold increased rates, respectively, of cardiovascular events, stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure. There were fewer composite end points (n = 31 vs. 51, hazard ratio = 0.60, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.94, p = 0.03) and strokes (n = 19 vs. 38, hazard ratio = 0.49, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.86, p = 0.01) in patients who developed new-onset AF in the losartan compared to the atenolol treatment arm of the study. Furthermore, Cox regression analysis showed that losartan (21% risk reduction) and new-onset AF both independently predicted stroke even when adjusting for traditional risk factors.Conclusions Our novel finding is that new-onset AF and associated stroke were significantly reduced by losartan- compared to atenolol-based antihypertensive treatment with similar blood pressure reduction.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.10.068

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Dahlöf B, Devereux RB, de Faire U, et al. The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction (LIFE) in Hypertension Study. Am J Hyper- tens 1997;10:705-13.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wachtell, K., Lehto, M., Gerdts, E., Olsen, M. H., Hornestam, B., Dahlöf, B., Ibsen, H., Julius, S., Kjeldsen, S. E., Lindholm, L. H., Nieminen, M. S., & Devereux, R. B.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Helsinki University Hospital (FI)
  • Haukeland University Hospital (NO)
  • Glostrup Hospital (DK)
  • Sahlgrenska University Hospital (SE)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Oslo University Hospital (NO)
  • University Hospital of Umeå (SE)
Corresponding author
Wachtell, Kristian
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-03
Volume
45
Issue
5
Pages
712-719
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2147918774
Cited by
826
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 33
FWCI
64.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American College of Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Rigshospitalet
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Keywords
angiotensin II receptor blockade, losartan, atenolol, beta-blockers, stroke prevention, hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy, antihypertensive therapy, heart failure hospitalization, cardiovascular events, life studies, sinus rhythm maintenance, RAS inhibition, renin-angiotensin system
MeSH terms
Adrenergic beta-Antagonists, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Atenolol, Atrial Fibrillation, Cause of Death, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Survival Rate, Hypertrophy, Left Ventricular, Losartan, Stroke, Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers, Secondary Prevention

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review