Comparative efficacy of perindopril and enalapril once daily using 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

ACE inhibitors are important therapeutic agents in controlling hypertension, correcting some of its pathophysiological derangement and improving its prognosis. While there are many such agents, there may be some important differences between them. This placebo run-in, double blind, crossover study, using 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, compares the efficacy of perindopril 4-8 mg and enalapril 10-20 mg as once daily antihypertensive agents on 32 patients. For diastolic blood pressure (DBP), perindopril had a placebo-corrected peak (P) reduction of blood pressure (BP) of -6.4 +/- 1.3 mmHg vs its placebo-corrected trough (T) of -5.2 +/- 1.7 mmHg. Enalapril had a reduction in DBP of -8.5 +/- 1.3 mmHg (P) and -5.7 +/- 1.7 mmHg (T). For systolic blood pressure (SBP), perindopril had a reduction of -7.5 +/- 1.6 mmHg (P) vs -7.3 +/- 2.2 mmHg (T) compared to enalapril with -10.8 +/- 1.6 mmHg (P) vs -8.3 +/- 2.3 mmHg (T). Placebo-corrected trough-to-peak ratio (SBP/DBP) for perindopril was 0.97/0.81 vs 0.77/0.67 for enalapril. There was no difference noted in 24-hour mean BP, area under the curve or post-dose casual BP measurements. Both perindopril and enalapril were well tolerated and the two treatment groups had similar safety profiles. Perindopril thus had a predictable and sustained blood pressure effect giving a 24-hour cover for the patient without excessive peak effect or poor trough effect.     

A placebo-controlled comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of candesartan cilexetil, 8 mg, and losartan, 50 mg, as monotherapy in patients with essential hypertension, using 36-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

This double-blind, randomised, controlled study compared the efficacy of candesartan cilexetil 8 mg (n = 87) and losartan 50 mg (n = 89), once daily for 6 weeks, relative to placebo (n = 80) in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressure (DBP): 95-115 mmHg). Ambulatory BP measurements were done every 15 min over 36 h. At the end of the 6-week treatment, the mean change in DBP between the baseline and the 0-24-h period after the last dose of study medication was greater in patients receiving candesartan cilexetil 8 mg (-7.3 mmHg +/- 6.9 mmHg) compared with losartan 50 mg (-5.1 mmHg +/- 4.9 mmHg) (p < 0.05) or placebo (0.3 mmHg +/- 6.5 mmHg) (p < 0.001). The mean change in systolic BP (SBP) during this time was greater in patients receiving candesartan cilexetil 8 mg (-10.8 mmHg +/- 11.3 mmHg), or losartan 50 mg (-8.8 mmHg +/- 8.9 mmHg) than placebo (1.2 mmHg +/- 9.9 mmHg) (p < 0.001). Candesartan cilexetil 8 mg was associated with a greater reduction in DBP and SBP, relative to placebo, when compared with losartan 50 mg, during both daytime and night-time, and between 12 and 24 h after dosing (p < 0.001). Both active treatments were well tolerated. In patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension, candesartan cilexetil 8 mg therefore had greater, more consistent antihypertensive efficacy throughout the day and the night, and long-lasting efficacy after the last dose, compared with losartan 50 mg. This greater efficacy is maintained with an excellent tolerability associated with members of the angiotensin Il type 1-receptor blocker class.     

Differential time effect profiles of amlodipine, as compared to valsartan, revealed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, self blood pressure measurements and dose omission protocol

Amlodipine and valsartan are once-daily antihypertensive agents. To date, no comparison between these agents given as monotherapies was reported. This study was aimed to evaluate the therapeutic coverage and safety of amlodipine and valsartan in mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients. Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, comparative study. After a 4-week placebo wash-out period, 246 outpatients with office diastolic blood pressure 95 < or = DBP < or =110 mmHg and systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 180 mmHg, in addition to a mean daytime SBP and/or DBP > 135/85 mmHg on 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), were randomly allocated to once-daily amlodipine 5-10 mg or valsartan 40-80 mg, for 12 weeks. In a subgroup of patients, 48-h ABPM were performed at the end of the treatment period. Dose omission was simulated by a single-blind placebo dosing. The primary efficacy end-point was the 24-h trough office BP after 12 weeks of active therapy. The reductions in 24-h trough BP were more pronounced in amlodipine compared with valsartan group as well in office [SBP: -17.8 +/- 10.9 vs. -14.6 +/- 11.2, P = 0.025, DBP: -12.7 +/- 7.2 vs. -10.9 +/- 7.8 mmHg, P = 0.06) as in ambulatory BP (SBP/DBP: -13.0 +/- 13.7/-10.8 +/- 9.1 vs. -7.2 +/- 19.4/-4.9 +/- 13.4 mmHg, P < 0.05). Forty-eight hours after the last active dose, the slope of the morning BP surge (4-9 h) was less steep with amlodipine vs. valsartan [DBP (P < 0.04), SBP (n.s.)]. Ankle edema were more often reported in amlodipine group. These results suggest a superior BP lowering and a longer duration of action with amlodipine compared with valsartan.     

The efficacy and tolerability of barnidipine hydrochloride in Thai patients with hypertension

This open-label, blinded study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of barnidipine at a titrated dose of 10-15 mg once daily for 8 weeks in the treatment of essential hypertension in 40 Thai patients. 'Office' blood pressure (BP) and 24-h ambulatory BP measurements were recorded. A systolic BP/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) reduction of 18.0 +/- 13.6/9.1 +/- 6.6 mmHg was obtained. The full response rate among patients with systolic and diastolic hypertension was 63% using either SBP or DBP criteria, and 54% using both SBP and DBP criteria. One of the two patients with isolated systolic hypertension had a full response, and the BP in two of the three patients with isolated diastolic hypertension was normalized. The trough-to-peak ratio and smoothness index for SBP/DBP were acceptable (0.76 +/- 0.63/0.55 +/- 0.26 and 1.2 +/- 0.4/1.2 +/- 0.3, respectively). In conclusion, once-daily barnidipine monotherapy provides effective 24-h BP control and is generally well tolerated in ambulatory patients.     

Similarity in amplitude of the nocturnal fall in blood pressure in old and young patients with essential hypertension

The influence of age on the nocturnal fall in blood pressure (BP) was examined in essential hypertensive patients as well as normal subjects. BP was monitored every 5 min for 24 hr by means of a finger volume oscillometric device. Average daytime BP was similar in the 3 age groups [young: less than 40 (years), n = 49, average daytime systolic BP (ASBP) = 132 +/- 20 mmHg, average daytime diastolic BP (ADBP) = 82 +/- 17 mmHg; adult: 40 less than or equal to less than 60, n = 110, ASBP = 127 +/- 19 mmHg, ADBP = 86 +/- 13 mmHg; old: 60 less than or equal to, n = 33, ASBP = 131 +/- 17 mmHg. ADBP = 83 +/- 11, mean +/- S.D.]. The nocturnal fall in BP was observed in all age groups and its amplitude (delta BP = average daytime BP - average nighttime BP) in the old patients (delta SBP = 13 +/- 11 mmHg, delta DBP = 10 + 8 mmHg) was similar to that in the young patients (delta SBP = 11 +/- 8 mmHg, delta DBP = 10 +/- 8 mmHg). The results suggests that information on the nocturnal behavior of BP is valuable in treating aged essential hypertensives to prevent cerebral and/or myocardial ischemia during sleep.     

阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停低通气综合征并新诊断的高血压手术治疗后血压变化观察

目的观察阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停低通气综合征（OSAHS）合并新诊断高血压病患者手术治疗后血压的变化情况。方法选择2012年9月至2014年3月在甘肃省人民医院鼾病科手术治疗的OSAHS合并新诊断的高血压病患者102例,分别行鼻中隔黏膜下矫正术、鼻内镜下鼻窦开放术、鼻息肉摘除术、腭咽成形术,术前及术后3、6个月进行多导睡眠监测、24 h动态血压监测、胸部X线摄片、纤维鼻咽镜等检查;观察术后3、6个月的血压变化。结果手术治疗后3、6个月患者体质指数（BMI）无明显变化,呼吸紊乱指数（AHI）和平均呼吸暂停时间较术前均显著下降,平均血氧饱和度（Sp O2）较术前显著升高（P均〈0.05）。手术治疗后3、6个月患者静息状态下的收缩压和舒张压、全天平均收缩压和舒张压、白天平均收缩压和舒张压、夜间平均收缩压和舒张压均较术前下降（P均〈0.05）,其中夜间平均收缩压和平均舒张压的下降更明显。静息状态下的收缩压和舒张压、平均收缩压和舒张压在术后3个月和6个月之间比较差异无统计学意义（P均〉0.05）。所有患者在手术治疗后的静息状态下血压恢复正常58例,缓解率为56.9%。结论 OSAHS相关高血压患者术前综合评估,确定个体化术式,术后辅助综合治疗,可收到良好降压效果。     

Efficacy of telmisartan in chronic obstructive lung disease wtih arterial hypertension

The study included evaluation of respiratory function, bronchial conductivity, gas homeostasis, and 24-hour profile of blood pressure (BP) in 15 male patients with chronic obstructive lung disease and I-II stage arterial hypertension prior to and after 2 weeks of therapy with telmisartan. The drug, administered in a dose of 80 mg/day, significantly increased 1 sec forced expiratory volume, peak expiratory flow rate, decreased effective bronchial resistance and CO2 partial pressure in arterial blood. Telmisartan also significantly reduced mean systolic BP (SBP) (p < 0.003) and diastolic BP (DBP) (p < 0.001) during day hours, SBD (p < 0.01) and pulse BP (p < 0.05) during night hours, significantly reduced SBP load (p < 0.02) and DBP load (p < 0.003) during day hours, and SBP load during night hours (p < 0.02).     

Morning rise of systolic blood pressure (by 24-hour ambulatory monitoring) and platelet aggregability in essential hypertension patients

AIM: To investigate the relationship between platelet aggregability (PA) and parameters of blood pressure (BP) in patients with essential hypertension (EH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 24-h BP recordings (SL-90207, 15-min day and 30 min night time intervals) of 47 hospitalized males with mild to moderate EH (mean age 48 +/- 1 years) to assess the following parameters: mean 24-h, awake (Aw) and nighttime (N) systolic (S) and diastolic (D) BP. We assessed the morning rise (MR) of BP using the new index: a relative morning rise of systolic BP-RMRSBP--(max value of SBP from 6 am to 12 am/mean asleep SBP) x 100%. The kinetics of mean aggregate size (MAS) changes was studied with aggregation analyzer model (230LA Biola Ltd., Russia). The following parameters were used for estimation of platelet aggregability: a relative increase in MAS 2 min after beginning of sample stirring--for spontaneous aggregation (SPA) and the maximum increase in the light transmission for 0.5 microM ADP-induced aggregation (ADPI-PA). The patients were divided into two groups according to the median value of RMRSBP: group 1 (n = 25, RMRSBP < 121%) and group 2 (n = 22, RMRSBP > 121%). The differences in estimated parameters were tested by Student two tailed t-tests and presented by M +/- SE. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: No significant differences have been found between the groups by mean age, body mass index, duration of arterial hypertension, mean 24-h, awake DBP and SBP. Statistically significant differences have been found between groups by SPA, ADPI-PA, night SBP, night DBP, RMRSBP, RMRDBP. In group 2 there was a correlation between RMRSBP and SPA, but not in group 1. CONCLUSIONS: The morning rise of systolic BP is associated with an increase of ADP-induced and spontaneous platelet aggregability in the patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension and apparently that association is more pronounced at high values of morning BP (more than 20% from mean nocturnal values of SBP).     

强化阿托伐他汀治疗对老年高血压患者血压变异性的影响

目的 探讨强化阿托伐他汀治疗对老年高血压患者血压变异性的影响.方法 入选河北省人民医院老年病科门诊就诊或住院的高血压病Ⅱ级以上的老年患者.所有入选患者随机分为标准治疗组(标准组,n =71)和强化治疗组(强化组,n =67),两组均服用左旋氨氯地平2.5～5 mg,每日1次,或加贝那普利5～10 mg,每日1次,将患者的血压控制在140/90 mmHg(1 mmHg=0.133 kPa)以下.标准组加服阿托伐他汀20 mg 1次/晚,强化组应用阿托伐他汀40 mg 1/晚.入选时记录两组患者临床基线资料.治疗前和治疗后8周,测定高敏C反应蛋白(hs-CRP)和同型半胱氨酸(Hcy)水平,比较两组患者治疗前和治疗后8周肝肾功能和血脂水平变化.所有患者均于入选时和治疗后8周分别进行动态血压监测,记录和比较相关参数.结果 两组患者临床基线资料、基线血压和血压变异性差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).经过8周治疗,标准组患者夜间SBP、晨峰SBP、白昼DBP、夜间DBP以及晨峰DBP均较治疗前明显下降(均P＜0.05),强化组患者SBP、DBP以及晨峰血压水平均显著下降(均P＜0.05),且强化组患者24 hSBP、白昼SBP、夜间SBP、白昼DBP和夜间DBP水平明显低于标准组(均P＜0.05).经过8周治疗,标准组患者24 hSBPV、白昼SBPV、24 hDBPV、白昼DBPV较治疗前明显改善,强化组患者24 hSBPV、白昼SBPV、夜间SBPV、24 hDBPV、白昼DBPV较治疗前显著改善(均P＜0.05).与标准组相比,强化组患者白昼SBPV和DBPV改善更加明显(均P ＜0.05).治疗8周后,两组患者血清hs-CRP和Hcy水平均降低(均P＜0.05),强化组hs-CRP水平下降更加明显(P ＜0.05).两组患者治疗后均出现丙氨酸转氨酶和天冬氨酸转氨酶一定水平的升高,但是升高幅度无临床意义.结论 强化他汀治疗可以在一定程度上提高老年高血压患者降压效果,改善血压变异性.     

Co-renitek treatment of patients with moderate and severe forms of hypertensive disease

AIM: To evaluate efficacy and tolerance of a compound drug co-renitec combining an ACE inhibitor enalapril maleate and diuretic hydrochlorothiazide co-renitec taken for 16 weeks in essential hypertension (EH). MATERIAL AND METHODS: 28 patients with EH (16 males and 12 females aged 47-74 years) of mean duration 13.1 +/- 1.6 years. Blood pressure (BP) was monitored for 24 hours with the device SL 90207 (SpaceLabs Medical, USA). Microalbuminuria (MAU) was estimated with the use of immunoturbodimetric test. RESULTS: By 24-hour monitoring, co-renitec reduced day BP by 14.9/8.9 +/- 3/2 mm Hg, nocturnal BP lowered by 18.6/11.4 +/- 3/2 mmHg, pulse pressure also fell. Coefficient T/P was 53.5% for systolic BP (SBP) and 59.6% for diastolic BP (DBP). The target SBP was reached in 77% patients, target DBP--in 69%. Co-renitec significantly decreased MAU, albumines excretion normalized in 46% patients. CONCLUSION: Co-renitec lowers both day and nocturnal blood pressure, improves 24-h rhythm of BP, has a positive effect on the kidneys. This allows its recommendation as a first-line drug in patients with moderate and severe EH.     

Antihypertensive effect of oral potassium aspartate supplementation in mild to moderate arterial hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies showed that potassium chloride (48-120 mmol/day) supplementation reduced arterial blood pressure (BP) in hypertensive patients. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to evaluate the effect of a lower dose of potassium aspartate salt on BP in individuals with essential arterial hypertension. METHODS: One hundred and four patients (65 males, age 53 +/- 12 years) with mild to moderate essential hypertension (systolic/diastolic BP 154.2/96.2 +/- 10.8/5.4 mmHg) were allocated in two comparable groups of 52 to receive or not 30 mmol/day per os of potassium aspartate supplementation for four weeks. Office and 24-h BP, as well as serum and urinary electrolytes, were measured at baseline and at the follow-up visit after four weeks. RESULTS: Office and 24-h BP did not change in the control group, while these values were significantly reduced in the potassium supplementation group. Changes in office (systolic BP: 154.4 +/- 8.2 vs. 142.2 +/- 7.6 mmHg; diastolic BP: 95.0 +/- 5.6 vs. 87.2 +/- 4.3 mmHg, P < 0.001 for both) and 24-h BP (systolic BP: 142.7 +/- 8.2 vs. 134.8 +/- 6.3 mmHg; diastolic BP: 90.8 +/- 4.4 vs. 84.6 +/- 3.8 mmHg, P < 0.001 for both) following potassium supplementation were highly significant. The changes in day time and night time BP were similar. The treated group showed significantly increased potassium serum level and 24-h urinary excretion of potassium (P < 0.01 in both cases) after four weeks, while the untreated group showed no significant changes of the same parameters. Urinary Na/K ratio decreased significantly with potassium supplementation (P < 0.001). In the treated group changes in office (r = 0.58, P < 0.001) and 24-h SBP (r = 0.51, P < 0.001), but not in DBP (r = 0.29 and r = 0.25, n.s.), correlated positively with the urinary Na/K ratio at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively low supplementation of 30 mmol/day of potassium as aspartate lowered office and 24-h ambulatory BP in subjects with mild to moderate essential hypertension. The antihypertensive effect was sustained throughout the day, and was greater in the patients with high basal urinary Na/K ratio.     

Ambulatory versus clinic blood pressure for the assessment of anti hypertensive efficacy in clinical trials: insights from the Val-Syst Study

BACKGROUND: Several studies have found that measurement of blood pressure (BP) in the clinical setting may lead to overestimation of hypertension and may yield inaccurate assessments of the efficacy of antihypertensive treatment. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of clinic BP in the Valsartan and Amlodipine for the Treatment of Isolated Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly (Val-Syst) study accurately identified those elderly outpatients with systolic hypertension who had true 24-hour elevations in BP, as well as those who required dose increases in antihypertensive therapy during follow-up. METHODS: In Val-Syst, patients aged between 60 and 80 years with a clinic sitting systolic BP (SBP) of 160 to 220 mm Hg and a diastolic BP <90 mm Hg after a 2-week placebo washout period were randomized to receive valsartan 80 mg or amlodipine 5 mg once daily (level 1). In those with a trough SBP > or =140 mm Hg after 8 weeks of double-blind treatment, doses were titrated upward to valsartan 160 mg or amlodipine 10 mg once daily (level 2). If clinic SBP was > or =140 mm Hg after a further 8 weeks, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg was added for an additional 8 weeks (level 3). Clinical decisions during the active-treatment period were based on clinic BP measurements. Thirteen of the 35 participating centers assessed ambulatory BP as well as clinic BP at baseline and the end of the treatment, making it possible to compare the results of the 2 modes of measurement. The Student test was used to compare drug-induced changes in clinic and ambulatory BP in individual patients. Differences between the decreases in clinic and ambulatory BP at the 3 treatment levels were tested using repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with baseline as the covariate. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-four elderly patients (age range, 60-80 years; 85 men, 79 women) were included in the study (79 valsartan, 85 amlodipine), and valsartan and amlodipine were reported to have comparable effects on the level and rhythm of 24-hour BP In the present study, 22 of 164 patients had white-coat hypertension at baseline (clinic SBP > or =160 mm Hg and mean 24-hour SBP <130 mm Hg). For both treatments combined, the mean (SD) decreases in clinic SBP were inversely proportional to the treatment level (level 1 = -33.2 (7.9) mm Hg; level 2 = -31.6 (11.8) mm Hg; level 3 = -29.3 (11.6) mm Hg; P = 0.001, overall ANCOVA). In contrast, after adjusting for baseline values, the decreases in mean 24-hour SBP did not differ between treatment levels (level 1 = -10.8 [10.4] mm Hg; level 2 = -13.0 [11.2] mm Hg; level 3 = -16.4 [13.8] mm Hg). The decrease in clinic BP during therapy was similar in patients with white-coat hypertension and sustained hypertension (clinic SBP > or 160 mm Hg and mean 24-hour SBP > or =130 mm Hg), whereas 24-hour and 8- to 9-am SBP decreased significantly only in patients with sustained hypertension (P < 0.001). At the end of the study, mean 24-hour SBP continued to be uncontrolled (> or =130 mm Hg) in 16 of 53 patients (30.2%) at treatment level 1, 27 of 62 (43.5%) at level 2, and 19 of 49 (38.8%) at level 3 (P = NS). CONCLUSION: Based on the findings in this population of elderly patients with systolic hypertension, the management of hypertension may vary depending on whether decisions concerning the selection of patients for clinical trials and treatment adjustments during follow-up are made using clinic or ambulatory BP measurement.     

不同给药时间对非勺型高血压患者降压效果的影响

目的对高血压患者不同服药时间进行研究和护理干预,观察给药时间与血压昼夜节律是否相关,以探讨合理的高血压患者给药时间。方法选择高血压病住院患者共58例,随机分为两组,分别在6：00～7：00、20：00～21：00服药,监测24h动态血压。结果清晨或夜间服药均能有效降低24h平均血压。夜间给药组夜间SBP和夜间DBP显著低于清晨给药组,清晨时段SBP或DBP显著低于清晨服药组。结论通过选择恰当的给药时间,可逆转异常的昼夜血压节律,有效抑制清晨时段血压的迅速上升,降低心脑事件的发生率。     

Treatment of hypertension in Bahrain

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the adequacy of blood pressure (BP) control and therapeutic appropriateness of antihypertensive drug(s) prescribed, taking into consideration laboratory parameters and the presence of comorbidities, in hypertensive patients. METHODS: Therapeutic audit of medical records of hypertensive patients from 9 primary care health centers in Bahrain using World Health Organization/International Society of Hypertension guidelines criteria. RESULTS: The recommended target BP <140/<90 mmHg was achieved in 37 (16.5%) patients with a mean BP of 126 +/- 6 / 80 +/- 5 mmHg. Groups with inadequate BP control were 15 (6.7%) with normal systolic BP (SBP) and high diastolic BP (DBP), 59 (26.3%) with high SBP and normal DBP, and 113 (50.4%) with high SBP and high DBP. Pulse pressure of the controlled group was 46.3 +/- 5.9, whereas pulse pressures of the inadequately controlled groups with BP cutoffs <140/> or =90, > or =140/<90, and > or =140/> or =90 mmHg were 37.4 +/- 6.1, 72.7 +/- 13.5, and 59.7 +/- 13.6 mmHg, respectively. Of the 281 treated hypertensive patients, 56.6% were on monotherapy; BP of patients on combination therapy versus monotherapy did not differ. The choice of antihypertensives in relation to comorbidities and laboratory findings revealed that many hypertensive patients with dyslipidemia were on beta-blockers and diuretics, 39.3% of patients with ischemic heart disease were on beta-blockers, approximately 20% of patients with hyperuricemia were on diuretics, and 27.6% and 10.4% of patients with isolated systolic hypertension were on diuretics and calcium-channel blockers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: BP control was achieved in 1 of 6 treated patients. In several instances, metabolic abnormalities and comorbidities were apparently not considered while prescribing antihypertensives. A rational drug therapy approach is needed in treating hypertension to achieve better control rates.     

Disorders of 24-h rhythm of blood pressure in patients with chronic glomerulonephritis

AIM: To characterize 24-h profile of blood pressure (BP) and to clarify prognostic significance of 24-h BP variability in patients with chronic glomerulonephritis (CGN) with intact renal function and hypofunction of the kidneys. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 38 hypertensive CGN patients (29 males and 9 females, mean age 37.9 +/- 12.4 years) entered the trial. All the patients had systolic BP (SBP) > 140 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP (DBP > 90 mm Hg. RESULTS: Twenty patients with renal hypofunction (creatinine > 1.4 mg/dl) had significantly higher (p < 0.05) SBP, day and 24-h SBP duration, high variability of day-time and 24-h SBP. Significantly higher mean day-time, night-time and 24-h SBP, SBP day-time and 24-h duration SBP duration, variability of SBP and DBP for a day and 24-h, respectively, were observed in 15 patients with left ventricular hypertrophy. Of prognostic significance in relation to renal survival estimated by Cox in 21 patients in multifactorial analysis were blood creatinine level, glomerular filtration rate, the patient's age, SBP duration for day, night and 24 hours. In multifactorial analysis, the final model included only age of the patient and blood creatinine. CONCLUSION: CGN patients with renal hypofunction had higher SBP and its variability associated with left ventricular variability.     

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind comparison of the efficacy and safety of irbesartan and enalapril in adults with mild to moderate essential hypertension, as assessed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: the MAPAVEL Study (Monitorización Ambulatoria Presión Arterial APROVEL)

BACKGROUND: When blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy is assessed by measurements taken in a clinic setting, angiotensin II-receptor antagonists show similar efficacy to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and better tolerability. A search of MEDLINE to date, however, reveals no randomized, double-blind studies using ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) to compare the BP-lowering efficacy of irbesartan and enalapril in a large number of patients ( > 200) with essential hypertension. OBJECTIVE: This study compared 24-hour BP reduction and BP control, as assessed by ABPM, in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension treated with irbesartan or enalapril. The relative tolerability of the 2 treatments was also evaluated. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (office diastolic BP [DBP] 90-109 mm Hg or systolic BP [SBP] 140-179 mm Hg). After a 3-week, single-blind placebo washout phase, patients with a mean daytime DBP > or = 85 mm Hg, as measured by ABPM between 10 AM and 8 PM, were randomized to 12 weeks of active treatment with irbesartan or enalapril. Starting doses were 150 and 10 mg/d, respectively, with titration to 300 or 20 mg/d if clinic DBP was > or = 90 mm Hg at week 4 or 8. Based on clinic measurements, BP control was defined as a BP reading < 140/90 mm Hg after 12 weeks of treatment; patients achieving a reduction in DBP of > or = 10 mm Hg at 12 weeks were considered responders. The ABPM criterion for BP control, independent of clinic values, was achievement of a daytime BP < 130/85 mm Hg after 12 weeks of treatment; patients achieving a reduction in 24-hour DBP > or = 5 mm Hg at 12 weeks were considered responders, in dependent of clinic values. RESULTS: A total of 238 patients were randomized to treatment, 115 to irbesartan and 123 to enalapril. The study population was approximately 52.0% female and 48.0% male, with a mean ( +/- SD) age of 52.7 +/- 10.6 years. The study was completed by 111 patients in the irbesartan group (dose titrated to 300 mg/d in 72.0% of patients) and 115 patients in the enalapril group (dose titrated to 20 mg/d in 76.5% of patients). BP reductions were similar in the 2 groups, both as measured in the clinic (DBP, 12.7 +/- 8.8 mm Hg irbesartan vs 12.4 +/- 7.4 mm Hg enalapril; SBP, 19.0 +/- 14.1 mm Hg vs 17.5 +/- 14.0 mm Hg) and by 24-hour ABPM (DBP, 9.4 +/- 8.5 mm Hg vs 8.8 +/- 8.5 mm Hg: SBP, 14.7 +/- 14.7 mm Hg vs 12.6 +/- 13.1 mm Hg). As assessed by ABPM, rates of BP control were 40.5% (45/111) for irbesartan and 33.9% (39/115) for enalapril, and the response rates were a respective 71.2% (79/111) and 71.3% (82/115). The overall incidence of adverse events (40.0% irbesartan, 51.2% enalapril) was not statistically different between groups, although the incidence of adverse events considered probably related to antihypertensive treatment was significantly higher with enalapril than with irbesartan (24.6% vs 9.2%, respectively; P = 0.026), essentially because of the higher incidence of cough (8.1% vs 0.9%). CONCLUSIONS: As assessed by ABPM, irbesartan 150 to 300 mg/d was as effective in lowering BP and achieving BP control as enalapril 10 to 20 mg/d. Based on the number of treatment-related adverse events, irbesartan was better tolerated than enalapril.     

Acute effects of peritoneal dialysis on hemodynamics.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the acute hemodynamic effects of peritoneal dialysis (PD) using the noninvasive Portapres technique [TNO Biomedical Instrumentation (TNO BMI); Amsterdam, The Netherlands]. DESIGN AND METHODS: Blood pressure was measured in 21 consecutive patients on continuous ambulatory PD during a standard peritoneal permeability analysis (SPA). Blood pressure, stroke volume, cardiac output, and total peripheral resistance were recorded and calculated using continuous finger pressure recordings with Portapres and Modelflow software (TNO BMI). The SPA consists of four phases: (1) drainage of night dwell dialysate, (2) instillation of a rinsing solution (1.36% glucose), (3) drainage of rinsing solution, and (4) instillation of the test solution (3.86% glucose to which dextran 70 has been added). RESULTS: Both systolic blood pressure (SBP) (7 +/- 9 mmHg, p < 0.005) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (5 +/- 6 mmHg, p < 0.01) increased during phase 2. Systolic BP and DBP increased further during phase 4 (SBP 8 +/- 14 mmHg, p < 0.05; DBP 6 +/- 8 mmHg, p < 0.005). These BP increases were caused by a rise in total peripheral resistance of 10% +/- 18% (p< 0.05) during phase 1, and 15% +/- 21% (p < 0.005) during phase 2. CONCLUSIONS: Instillation and dwell of a dialysis solution during PD causes a rise in blood pressure. This is caused by an increase in total peripheral resistance. Factors influencing total peripheral resistance could be a direct mechanical effect of dialysate on mesenteric resistance vessels or a temperature-related effect.     

Orthostatic hypertension in patients with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: The prevalence and clinical importance of orthostatic hypertension (OHT) in diabetic patients has not been elucidated, in contrast to orthostatic hypotension, which is occasionally found in diabetic patients with autonomic neuropathy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The prevalence and severity of orthostatic hypertension was investigated in 277 Japanese male patients with type 2 diabetes, including 90 hypertensive patients and 128 nondiabetic age-matched male subjects. Patients treated with antihypertensive drugs were excluded from the study. OHT was defined as an increase in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from <90 to >or=90 mmHg and/or an increase in systolic blood pressure (SBP) from <140 to >or=140 mmHg after standing from supine position. Clinical profiles and several serum biochemical parameters were determined in addition to chest X-rays and electrocardiograms. RESULTS: The prevalence of OHT in normotensive and hypertensive diabetic patients was significantly higher than in control subjects (12.8 vs. 1.8%, P < 0.01, for normotensive patients; 12.6 vs. 11.1%, not significant, for hypertensive patients). Orthostasis induced a mean increase of 6.8 +/- 11.4 mmHg in SBP and 9.1 +/- 5.2 mmHg in DBP in diabetic patients with OHT compared with those without OHT (-1.0 +/- 9.0 and 3.8 +/- 6.6 mmHg, respectively). Vibration sensation in the lower limb was reduced in diabetic patients with OHT, but the percent coefficient of variation of RR interval, cardio-to-thoracic ratio on chest X-ray, and serum triglyceride levels were higher in these patients compared with normotensive diabetic patients without OHT. CONCLUSIONS: Orthostatic hypertension is a novel complication in normotensive diabetic patients and may associate with early stage neuropathy and development of sustained hypertension.     

Population study of ambulatory blood pressure in a rural community in northern Japan

A cross sectional survey was performed on ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in a rural community in northern Japan. ABP was measured in 468 participants (148 men and 320 women, or 27.3% of the less than or equal to 20 year-old population in the study region) with a Colin ABPM 630, an ABP monitoring system. ABP was determined every 30 min for 24 hr. All-day average of 24 hr ambulatory systolic, (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) in these subjects were 121.5 +/- 11.8 and 71.7 +/- 8.0 mmHg (mean +/- S.D.), respectively. Ambulatory SBP and DBP levels increased gradually with an increase in age in both sexes. The age dependent increase in SBP was, however, extremely small in men compared with that in the casual SBP of the ordinary Japanese reported. The minimal age-dependent increase in ambulatory SBP in men reflects a high ambulatory SBP in those below 50 years-old as well as a minimal increase in ambulatory SBP in those over 50. Ambulatory SBPs in women were lower than those in men until they reach the age of 50 years. Ambulatory SBP levels in men and women were similar after their 60's. Ambulatory DBP tended to fall or remain at the same level after 60 years-old. Thus, a greater pulse pressure was observed in elderly subjects. Casual SBP and DBP in the ordinary Japanese were significantly higher than the daytime average ambulatory SBP and DBP in all age groups of both sexes in the population except those in their 20's. The results suggests that ABP has different clinical characteristics and may have a different clinical significance from casual BP.