Twenty-four hour blood pressure rhythm in patients with hypertension and ischemic heart disease

AIM: To elucidate relationship between presence of ischemic heart disease and 24-hour blood pressure (BP) profile. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty four hour BP index characterizing degree of nocturnal blood pressure fall was measured in patients with hypertension without coronary heart disease (n=65, group 1), with hypertension and effort angina (n=35, group 2), with effort angina and normal BP (n=25, group 3). RESULTS: Values of 24-hour BP systolic and diastolic index were in group 1 12.7+/-1.3 and 16.0+/-1.1%, respectively, in group 2 5.8+/-2.4 and 7.4+/-3.6%, respectively, in group 3, 6.0+/-2.2 and 6.0+/-3.0%, respectively (p<0.05, groups 2 and 3 vs group 1). CONCLUSION: Decreased nocturnal BP lowering could be a compensatory reaction aimed at maintenance of adequate blood flow through stenosed coronary vessels.     

Twenty-four hour automatic recording of blood pressure and cardiac rhythm in patients with borderline hypertension

The aim of the study was to evaluate the usefulness of 24-hour automatic recording of blood pressure and cardiac rhythm in patients with borderline hypertension. The study was performed in 50 patients aged 38.8 +/- 13.1 using the Del Mar Avionics device. Mean time of recordings was 21.3 hours, and the mean number of blood pressure measurements per one patient was 52.4. Great fluctuations of systolic blood pressure (from 92.1 +/- 12.6 to 191 +/- 37.0 mm Hg) and diastolic one (from 57.3 +/- 11.4 to 118.9 +/- 13.8 mm Hg) were observed. Mean systolic blood pressure (125.6 +/- 10.6 mm Hg) was significantly lower than the mean value of last three ambulatory measurements (141.9 +/- 9.8; p less than 0.001). Also mean diastolic pressure was lower than that obtained in the out patient clinic (84.7 +/- 9.7 vs 91.9 +/- 3.2 mm Hg; p less than 0.001). Mean heart rate during the day was 86.2 +/- 10.7 and at night 69.7 +/- 10.5 beats per minute. Ventricular and/or supraventricular cardiac arrhythmias were observed in 14 (28%) of examined patients. Results of the study indicate, that 24-hour automatic blood pressure recording is the valuable method, affording possibilities for more precise estimation of blood pressure and its 24-hour fluctuations in patients with borderline hypertension.     

Capillary blood cell velocity in finger nailfold: effect of enalapril and mibefradil in patients with mild to moderate hypertension

Outpatients with essential hypertension were randomized to receive antihypertensive treatment with either mibefradil or enalapril. Ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM) and video capillary microscopy of the finger nailfold were performed at baseline and after 12 weeks of treatment. In the enalapril group (n = 21) baseline ABP was 156 +/- 12/100 +/- 9 mm Hg and decreased to 140 +/- 17/89 +/- 10 mm Hg after 12 weeks. In the mibefradil group (n = 22) mean 24-h ABP decreased from 159 +/- 14/102 +/- 7 to 140 +/- 10/89 +/- 7 mm Hg. Capillary blood cell velocity (CBV) without treatment was 0.90 +/- 0.58 mm/s (mean +/- SD) and 0.83 +/- 0.46 mm/s at rest and 0.30 +/- 0.22 and 0.21 +/- 0.20 mm/s immediately after local finger cooling in the mibefradil and the enalapril group, respectively. In the Enalapril group CBV at week 12 was 0.99 +/- 0. 60 mm/s (n.s.) at rest and 0.40 +/- 0.28 mm/s immediately after local cooling (P = 0.005 compared to 0.21 +/- 0.20 mm/s without treatment). Twelve weeks after initiation of treatment CBV was 0.76 +/- 0.48 mm/s (n.s.) at rest and 0.31 +/- 0.28 mm/s (n.s.) immediately after local cooling in the mibefradil group. Finger nailfold CBV immediately after local finger cooling was increased by enalapril compared to baseline. The T-channel-inhibiting calcium antagonist mibefradil did not change CBV in finger nailfold capillaries.     

Twenty-four hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring pattern of resistant hypertension

OBJECTIVE: Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is a tool to diagnose resistant hypertension (RH). The objective of this study is to describe the pattern of 24-h ABPM in patients using at least three anti hypertensive drugs without blood pressure (BP) control, classifying them as true RH or white-coat RH. METHODS: A cross-sectional study involving resistant hypertensives that were submitted to clinical, laboratory and 2D-echocardiographic evaluation. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was used to diagnose true or white-coat RH. The chi-squared test was used for comparisons among categorical variables and Kruskall-Wallis test for continuous ones. RESULTS: Of the 286 patients, 161 (56.3%) were classified as true RH and 125 (43.7%) as white-coat RH. Sex, age, office BP and the cardiovascular risk factors for both groups were similar. True resistant hypertensives had more target organ damage then white-coat resistant hypertensives; nephropathy (40.1 versus 23.9%, P=0.007) and left ventricular hypertrophy (83.3 versus 76.3%, P=0.05). In ABPM, the true RH group had a smaller nocturnal systolic and diastolic BP reduction (6.4+/-8.8 versus 9.8+/-7.5 mmHg, P=0.0004; 10.4+/-9.6 versus 13.6+/-9.2 mmHg, P=0.001) and 68.7% of them were non-dippers versus 49.6% in the white-coat RH group (P=0.001). True RH also had a larger 24 h pulse pressure (65.8+/-13.7 versus 51.5+/-10.0 mmHg, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is a fundamental tool to diagnose RH, and to check treatment efficacy. The presence of a greater pulse pressure and a lower nocturnal blood pressure reduction in true RH patients may be responsible for this increased cardiovascular risk profile.     

The antihypertensive effect and safety of lisinopril in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. A Belgian multicenter study

The safety and efficacy of lisinopril in the treatment of mild to moderate essential hypertension was evaluated by Belgian general practitioners in patients whose hypertensive condition remained uncontrolled by previous treatment and/or in whom the prior drug regimen was not tolerated. In this 8-week study, 3060 eligible patients were initially treated with 20 mg lisinopril once daily; this dose was increased to 40 mg if diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was greater than 90 mm Hg after 4 weeks. Lisinopril monotherapy in the 1902 patients completing the trial resulted in marked reductions of systolic (SBP) and DBP from 172.5/102.4 mm Hg at baseline to 147.4/86.6 mm Hg by week 8. More than 90% of patients achieved a DBP less than 95 mm Hg. The decrease in blood pressure was similar in patients older and younger than 65 year of age. Only about 20% of patients required an increase in their daily intake of lisinopril to 40 mg. Treatment was well tolerated and the profile of adverse events was similar to the pattern found with other nonsulfydryl angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors. Tolerance in the elderly was similar to that experience by hypertensives under 65 years of age. Thus, lisinopril at 20 or 40 mg once daily proved both well tolerated and effective in reducing blood pressure in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension.     

Placebo-controlled comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily moxonidine and enalapril in mild to moderate essential hypertension

OBJECTIVES: To compare the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of the imidazoline I1-receptor agonist moxonidine, administered as a single daily dose of 0.6 mg, with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril (20 mg o.d.) in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. METHODS: A total of 154 patients were enrolled and randomized to placebo (n = 50), moxonidine (0.2 mg o.d.; n = 51) or enalapril (5 mg o.d.; n = 53) for 2 weeks. Dosages were then increased to moxonidine 0.6 mg o.d. or enalapril 20 mg o.d. for a further 6 weeks. Blood pressure responses to therapy were measured using conventional office techniques and by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. RESULTS: The average reduction in sitting blood pressure with moxonidine was similar to that achieved with enalapril (24.9 +/- 20.7/13.2 +/- 8.4 mmHg vs 21.9 +/- 17.1/11.9 +/- 7.5 mmHg, respectively) and significantly superior to that seen with placebo (1.2 +/- 14.4/2.3 +/- 7.0 mmHg; p < 0.001). Reductions in blood pressure after 8 weeks of treatment were as follows: moxonidine, from 166.2 +/- 15.5/101.3 +/- 4.0 to 141.2 +/- 15.7/88.1 +/- 7.7mmHg; enalapril, from 165.4 +/- 14.3/101.1 +/- 4.4 to 143.5 +/- 12.7/89.2 +/- 7.4 mmHg; and placebo, from 162.5 +/- 14.4/99.9 +/- 3.9 to 161.3 +/- 17.9/97.6 +/- 6.6 mmHg. Both moxonidine and enalapril produced sustained reductions in blood pressure during 24-h recording (p < 0.01 for overall effect of either drug vs placebo). Average 24-h blood pressure was reduced from 149.8 +/- 14.3/92.2 +/- 7.0 to 134.0 +/- 13.1/82.3 +/- 8.9 mmHg with moxonidine and from 146.5 +/- 13.0/ 92.5 +/- 7.2 to 131.1 +/- 11.0/82.1 +/- 8.8 mmHg with enalapril; the change with placebo was small (from 147.3 +/- 13.3/90.0 +/- 6.2 to 144.8 +/- 12.9/89.5 +/- 8.0 mmHg). Both drugs were generally well tolerated. No patients withdrew from the study because of drug-attributed adverse events. CONCLUSION: Moxonidine 0.6 mg o.d. and enalapril 20 mg o.d. have similar antihypertensive efficacy.     

Effects of lisinopril and low-dose trichlormethiazide on lipoprotein metabolism in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

Fifty-six hypertensive patients were recruited to participate in a 12 week, randomised, multicentre trial to compare the effects of lisinopril (n = 31) and low-dose trichlormethiazide (n = 25) administration on blood pressure and lipoprotein metabolism. Both systolic and diastolic BPs decreased significantly after administration of lisinopril (5-40mg/day, mean dose 11 mg/day) and trichlormethiazide (2.0-4.0 mg/day, mean dose 2.2 mg/day). There were no significant changes in lipids, lipoproteins or apolipoproteins with either drug for 12 weeks and no significant differences between the two drugs for these parameters. It is concluded that lisinopril and low-dose trichlormethiazide administration are effective antihypertensive measures without any adverse effects after 12 weeks on lipoprotein metabolism in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension.     

Twenty-four hour ambulatory blood pressure in therapeutically resistant hypertensive patients

Circadian blood pressure and heart rate rhythms were determined in essential and renal hypertensive patients who failed to respond to drug therapy. Indirect ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate recordings were measured in 31 subjects for 24 hours. Essential hypertensive patients exhibit 'white coat hypertension', are normotensive outside the clinic and have a higher awake than sleep blood pressure. Blood pressure and heart rate of renal hypertensive patients do not increase in the presence of a physician and there is no difference between awake and sleep values. In contrast to patients with essential hypertension, the circadian fluctuations of blood pressure were depressed in renal hypertensive patients. We conclude that essential hypertensive patients who appear clinically uncontrolled are in fact well controlled in their domestic environment, whereas renal hypertensive patients are consistently uncontrolled. Ambulatory monitoring may help in differentiating the various types of patient and in the evaluation of antihypertensive therapy.     

Comparison of enalapril and atenolol in mild to moderate hypertension

PURPOSE: Short-term therapy with angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for hypertension is effective and well tolerated, and compared with beta blockers, may cause fewer adverse reactions. Furthermore, enalapril has been observed to have a greater effect on systolic blood pressure than beta blockers. We therefore decided to compare the ACE inhibitor enalapril and the beta blocker atenolol as monotherapy in a double-blind study of patients with mild to moderate hypertension. PATIENTS AND METHODS: After a four-week placebo run-in period, 162 patients were allocated randomly to receive atenolol (50 to 100 mg daily) or enalapril (20 to 40 mg daily) for 12 weeks. To assess the influence of these drugs on quality of life, a series of psychologic tests was performed, and a subset of patients also underwent treadmill exercise and pulmonary function tests. RESULTS: In 147 patients who completed the study, enalapril reduced supine blood pressure by 19/12 mm Hg, compared with 9/7 mm Hg for atenolol (p less than 0.001/p less than 0.005). The modest blood pressure response to atenolol was not due to poor compliance. A target blood pressure of 140/90 mm Hg or less was achieved by 35 percent of enalapril-treated atenolol (p less than 0.01). The frequency and severity of adverse effects with the two drugs were similar, and few important differences emerged from the quality-of-life assessments. CONCLUSION: At the doses used, enalapril induced a greater short-term blood pressure response than atenolol; long-term studies of its safety and efficacy are required.     

Twenty-four hour blood pressure after exercise in patients with coronary artery disease

The objective was to assess the influence of a cardiac rehabilitation training session on blood pressure measured shortly after exercise and during the subsequent 24 h in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Blood pressure was measured conventionally and by use of 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in seven men, mean age 53+/-8 (s.d.) years, after participation in a cardiac rehabilitation session and, in randomised order, on a non-exercise control day. Conventional blood pressure averaged 112+/-7/77+/-5 mm Hg in the sitting position on the control day and was not different at the same time of the day shortly after the patients had participated in a cardiac rehabilitation training session. Standing systolic pressure was lower by 7.8+/-4.3 mm Hg (P < 0.005) after exercise compared to the control situation, but this was not associated with orthostatic symptoms. However, ambulatory monitoring showed no differences in blood pressure with the non-exercise day during the subsequent 24-h period. In conclusion, standing but not sitting blood pressure was slightly lower shortly after a cardiac rehabilitation session, but the postexercise orthostatic hypotension was not sustained during normal activities of daily living.     

比索洛尔、拉西地平和赖诺普利对高血压病患者24小时血压的影响

目的比较比索洛尔、拉西地平和赖诺普利对２９例高血压病患者的降压疗效。方法采用随机、单盲和交叉的方法，运用２４小时动态血压监测。结果三药均能显著降低血压，彼此间降低偶测血压的幅度无显著差异。比索洛尔和拉西地平降低２４小时平均和白天平均血压的幅度大于赖诺普利。三药均能有效控制清晨血压高峰期的血压，它们的降压谷／峰比值都超过６５％。结论比索洛尔、拉西地平和赖诺普利均可每日服用１次，前二药控制２４小时血压及清晨醒后的高峰期血压较后者为佳。     

Twenty-Four hour ambulatory blood pressure profile of a new slow-release formulation of diltiazem in mild to moderate hypertension

Twelve patients with a mild to moderate essential hypertension were included in a double-blind, balanced, randomized placebo-controlled cross-over study to assess the efficacy and duration of action of a new slow-release formulation of diltiazem (300 mg) given once daily for 3 weeks. All office blood pressure measurements were done 24 hours after drug intake. In order to improve the accuracy of the trial, 24-hours non-invasive ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (Spacelabs 90207 system) were performed as well. Diltiazem significantly lowered supine and standing systolic and diastolic office blood pressure (by 16.9/12.7 mmHg and by 17.3/13.8 mmHg, respectively), without changing office heart rate. Diltiazem also significantly lowered ambulatory blood pressure measured over 24 hours, as well as ambulatory heart rate. The blood pressure lowering effect was most pronounced during the daytime period and did not reach statistical significance during the sleeping hours. The treatment was well tolerated, and there were no significant side effects. The results confirm the antihypertensive efficacy of diltiazem LP 300 mg once daily during the daytime and during the early morning blood pressure rise, without inducing nocturnal hypotension.     

Evaluation of the placebo effect on blood pressure profile during exercise in patients with mild uncomplicated hypertension

The administration of placebo (pharmacologically inactive substance) is justified in clinical trials of antihypertensive drugs, in order to avoid the inclusion of placebo-responders. The evaluation of antihypertensive treatments during exercise is an interesting end point, since aerobic exercising is part of antihypertensive treatment. The aims of this study are to determine the placebo impact on blood pressure, heart rate and catecholamine secretion profiles during exercise testing. METHOD: 10 untreated essential mild to moderate hypertensives participated to a single blind study comprising two successive submaximal exercise testings (85% of maximal theoretical heart rate), separated by a single oral administration of placebo. Blood pressure and heart rate were measured after 10 minutes of resting position and at the end of each effort step (2 mm, 20 Watts), both before and after placebo. Blood samples (5 ml) were collected at rest and during maximal exercise before and after placebo, in order to determine the effect of placebo on circulating catecholamines. RESULTS: there was no significant variations between the "control" and exercise testings after placebo, neither on blood pressure or heart rate profiles, nor in values of circulating catecholamines [Noradrenaline at rest: 1.88 +/- 0.96, exercise: 6.43 +/- 1.93 nm/l before placebo, 1.65 +/- 0.83 nm/l and 5.71 +/- 2.12 nm/l after placebo respectively (NS)]. CONCLUSION: the placebo, which effect is generally determined on blood pressure at rest by sphygmomanometry, seems devoid of any activity on blood pressure, heart rate or catecholamine profile during exercise, in essential moderate hypertensives. Thus, antihypertensive treatments at exercise can be evaluated by comparison to baseline cardiovascular parameters without placebo groups.     

Comparison of lisinopril versus atenolol for mild to moderate essential hypertension.

The antihypertensive effects and safety profiles of lisinopril (10 to 40 mg) and atenolol (50 to 100 mg) were compared in a randomized, double-blind, parallel group trial in 144 patients with essential hypertension. After 8 weeks of therapy, seated blood pressure (BP) decreased by 26/15 mm Hg with lisinopril and by 19/14 mm Hg with atenolol. Lisinopril produced a greater reduction (p less than 0.05) in sitting systolic BP than did atenolol. Standing BP decreased by 25/15 mm Hg with lisinopril and by 19/14 mm Hg with atenolol. No important changes in hematologic and biochemical profiles were seen with either drug. Eleven patients, 7 receiving lisinopril and 4 receiving atenolol, were withdrawn because of adverse experiences; another 3 patients defaulted during treatment, 1 in the lisinopril group and 2 in the atenolol group. Both drugs were well-tolerated and are therefore suitable for first-line therapy in essential hypertension.     

Twenty-four hour blood pressure monitoring in the Syst-Eur trial.

This article describes the objectives and protocol of a study on ambulatory blood pressure in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension. This study constitutes an optional side-project to the Syst-Eur trial. The multicentre Syst-Eur trial investigates whether antihypertensive treatment of elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension will influence the incidence of stroke. Secondary endpoints include cardiovascular events, such as myocardial infarction. The main objective of the side-project is to investigate whether ambulatory blood pressure monitoring will improve the prediction of cardiovascular complications based on blood pressure measurement in the clinic. The side-project also provides the opportunity to evaluate the diurnal profile of blood pressure in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension randomized to placebo or active antihypertensive treatment.     

Double-blind comparison of captopril and enalapril in mild to moderate hypertension

To compare the antihypertensive and humoral effects of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors captopril and enalapril, 20 patients with essential hypertension, not receiving treatment for 2 weeks and consuming a prescribed sodium ion intake, were randomly assigned to two parallel, double-blind treatment groups with stratification based on race and untreated seated diastolic blood pressure. These groups received a placebo (day -1) followed by either captopril, 200 mg every 12 hours (n = 9), or enalapril maleate, 20 mg every 12 hours (n = 11), alone (days 1 to 14) and then with hydrochlorothiazide, 25 mg every 12 hours (days 16 to 28). Captopril and enalapril were coadministered alone (day 15) and with hydrochlorothiazide (day 29) to assess whether further decreases in blood pressure would occur. Captopril and enalapril alone caused comparable decreases (p less than 0.05) in the mean 12 hour time-averaged seated diastolic blood pressure from values on day -1 (placebo), on day 1 (11 and 9 mm Hg, respectively) and day 14 (8 and 7 mm Hg, respectively). The addition of hydrochlorothiazide further decreased (p less than 0.05) blood pressure in each group (7 and 8 mm Hg, respectively) from values on day 14. Combined use of captopril and enalapril did not result in further reduction. Coupled with the comparable changes observed in each treatment group in serum angiotensin-converting enzyme activity, plasma renin activity and plasma aldosterone concentration, these data support the view that captopril and enalapril have similar antihypertensive effects and mechanisms.     

Twenty-four hour profile of blood pressure in patients with acromegaly. Correlation with demographic, clinical and hormonal features

Cardiovascular events are frequently reported in patients with acromegaly and they are usually related to arterial hypertension. Aim of the present study was to assess the 24-hour profile of blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) in patients with active acromegaly and to correlate them with clinical and hormonal data. Sixteen patients and 16 healthy, age and sex matched subjects underwent ambulatory blood pressure monitoring by means of a portable automatic device (SpaceLabs monitor 90207, Kontron) with measurements every 20 minutes for 24 hours. The presence of the nocturnal fall was assessed by the calculation of the night-day systolic and diastolic ratio. The mean 24-hour diastolic BP was significantly higher in acromegalic patients than in controls (79.1+/-11.5 mmHg vs 70.8+/-5.3 mmHg, p<0.05) and the circadian diastolic profile was flatten. In fact, 10/16 patients were defined as nondippers while this figure was 2/16 in the control group (62% vs 12%, p<0.01). Also the mean 24-hour systolic BP was higher in acromegalic patients than in controls (124.8+/-17.2 mmHg vs 114.1+/-8.6 mmHg, p<0.05). The circadian systolic profile paralleled that of diastolic and was flatten, without a significant nocturnal fall. Ten out of 16 patients were nondippers compared to 2/16 controls (62 vs 12%, p<0.01). No significant correlation was found between mean 24-hour BP, either diastolic or systolic, and demographic or hormonal characteristics of the patients. HR patterns did not differ between patients and controls and were characterized by a prominent nocturnal fall.     

Quality of life, side effects and efficacy of lisinopril compared with metoprolol in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension.

In a double-blind, parallel-group multicentre study in general practice, lisinopril (10-20 mg once daily) was compared with metoprolol (100-200 mg once daily) in 360 patients whose diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was in the range 91-115 mmHg despite diuretic treatment. Following a three week run-in period during which the diuretic was withdrawn, monotherapy with either lisinopril or metoprolol was given for two months with dose doubled after one month if DBP remained greater than 90 mmHg. Quality of life was assessed using established and validated questionnaires at the time of cessation of diuretic treatment and again after two months's active treatment. Both metoprolol and lisinopril achieved statistically significant BP reduction relative to baseline (P less than 0.001). Significantly fewer adverse events were experienced on lisinopril and metoprolol than on diuretic treatment. Frequency of withdrawals due to adverse events were statistically significantly lower on lisinopril than metoprolol P = 0.01. Before treatment approximately 35% of the patients had quality of life problems measured by General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), which was reduced to 17% on lisinopril and 23% on metoprolol. Thus both metoprolol and lisinopril were effective and safe in the treatment of mild to moderate essential hypertension with lisinopril being better tolerated. From patients' self-assessments of quality of life, lisinopril was found to be superior to metoprolol in some aspects of emotional, cognitive and social functioning.     

The effect duration of candesartan cilexetil once daily, in comparison with enalapril once daily, in patients with mild to moderate hypertension

OBJECTIVE: To determine the antihypertensive efficacy, effect duration and safety of the angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker candesartan cilexetil and the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril once daily in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. METHODS: A multicenter, randomised, double-blind parallel group study was performed in Finland, France, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden. Three-hundred-and-ninety-five men and women in the age range 20-80 years with primary hypertension were randomised to an 8-week double-blind treatment period with either candesartan cilexetil 8-16 mg or enalapril 10-20 mg once daily, with forced dose titration after 4 weeks. Non-invasive ambulatory blood pressure was measured for 36 h at baseline and after 8 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the change in mean diastolic and systolic ambulatory blood pressure 22-24 h post-dose. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in the adjusted mean difference for the change from baseline to week 8 between candesartan cilexetil and enalapril 22-24 h post-dose by -3.5 mmHg (95% confidence interval, CI: -6.8 to -0.3 mmHg; p < 0.032) in ambulatory systolic blood pressure and -3.0 mmHg (95% CI: -5.1 to -0.8 mmHg; p < 0.008) in ambulatory diastolic blood pressure. There was a significant difference in adjusted mean daytime ambulatory blood pressure 24-36 h post-dose by -4.2 mmHg (95% CI: -6.8 to -1.6 mmHg; p < 0.002)/-3.5 mmHg (95% CI: -5.1 to -1.8 mmHg; p < 0.001). Both drugs were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study suggest that advantages may be attributed to the use of candesartan cilexetil, as compared to enalapril in the treatment of patients with essential hypertension. In comparison with enalapril 20 mg, candesartan cilexetil 16 mg more effectively lowered blood pressure at trough and in particular on the day following the day after the last dose.