• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

通过24小时动态监测评估赖诺普利的降压效果:一项双盲、安慰剂对照、交叉研究。

Antihypertensive effect of lisinopril assessed by 24-hour ambulatory monitoring: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study.

作者信息

Tomei R, Rossi L, Carbonieri E, Franceschini L, Molon G, Zardini P

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Verona, Italy.

出版信息

J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1992 Jun;19(6):911-4. doi: 10.1097/00005344-199206000-00011.

DOI:10.1097/00005344-199206000-00011
PMID:1376812
Abstract

The antihypertensive effect of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor lisinopril administered in a single dose of 20 mg was evaluated by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study. Twenty-four patients (21 men and 3 women, mean age 52 +/- 6 years) with mild to moderate hypertension were included in the study and randomly assigned to two consecutive treatments with lisinopril 20 mg and placebo, each administered for 4 weeks. On the last day of each treatment, BP was assessed by noninvasive 24-h ABPM. BP was significantly lower after lisinopril than after placebo in a 24-h period (mean 24-h systolic BP (SBP) with lisinopril 120 +/- 7 mm Hg and with placebo 135 +/- 9 mm Hg; mean day SBP with lisinopril 125 +/- 3 mm Hg and with placebo 142 +/- 5 mm Hg; mean night SBP with lisinopril 112 +/- 4 mm Hg and with placebo 124 +/- 6 mm Hg; mean 24-h diastolic BP (DBP) with lisinopril 76 +/- 6 mm Hg, and with placebo 87 +/- 8 mm Hg; mean day DBP with lisinopril 80 +/- 3 mm Hg and with placebo 93 +/- 4 mm Hg; mean night DBP with lisinopril 69 +/- 2 mm Hg and with placebo 79 +/- 5 mm Hg, p less than 0.001). Mean 24-h, mean day, and mean night heart rate (HR) did not differ significantly between placebo and lisinopril treatments. Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed a significant influence on SBP (p less than 0.001) and DBP (p less than 0.001) throughout the treatment.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

摘要

在一项双盲、安慰剂对照、交叉研究中,通过动态血压监测(ABPM)评估了单剂量20毫克血管紧张素转换酶(ACE)抑制剂赖诺普利的降压效果。24例轻度至中度高血压患者(21例男性和3例女性,平均年龄52±6岁)纳入研究,并随机分配接受连续两个疗程的治疗,分别为服用20毫克赖诺普利和安慰剂,每个疗程4周。在每个治疗疗程的最后一天,通过无创24小时ABPM评估血压。赖诺普利治疗后24小时血压显著低于安慰剂治疗后(24小时平均收缩压(SBP):赖诺普利组为120±7毫米汞柱,安慰剂组为135±9毫米汞柱;日间平均SBP:赖诺普利组为125±3毫米汞柱,安慰剂组为142±5毫米汞柱;夜间平均SBP:赖诺普利组为112±4毫米汞柱,安慰剂组为124±6毫米汞柱;24小时平均舒张压(DBP):赖诺普利组为76±6毫米汞柱,安慰剂组为87±8毫米汞柱;日间平均DBP:赖诺普利组为80±3毫米汞柱,安慰剂组为93±4毫米汞柱;夜间平均DBP:赖诺普利组为69±2毫米汞柱,安慰剂组为79±5毫米汞柱,p<0.001)。安慰剂和赖诺普利治疗之间,24小时平均、日间平均和夜间平均心率(HR)无显著差异。重复测量方差分析(ANOVA)显示,整个治疗过程中对SBP(p<0.001)和DBP(p<0.001)有显著影响。(摘要截断于250字)

相似文献

1
Antihypertensive effect of lisinopril assessed by 24-hour ambulatory monitoring: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study.通过24小时动态监测评估赖诺普利的降压效果:一项双盲、安慰剂对照、交叉研究。
J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1992 Jun;19(6):911-4. doi: 10.1097/00005344-199206000-00011.
2
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).通过动态血压监测评估厄贝沙坦和依那普利治疗轻至中度原发性高血压成人患者疗效和安全性的多中心、随机、双盲比较:MAPAVEL研究(动态血压监测APROVEL)
Clin Ther. 2002 Jan;24(1):126-38. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2918(02)85010-x.
3
Manidipine versus enalapril monotherapy in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 24-week study.马尼地平与依那普利单药治疗高血压合并2型糖尿病患者的多中心、随机、双盲、24周研究。
Clin Ther. 2005 Feb;27(2):166-73. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2005.02.001.
4
[Ambulatory monitoring of arterial pressure in the treatment of mild-moderate arterial hypertension with lisinopril vs. enalapril].赖诺普利与依那普利治疗轻中度动脉高血压时的动态血压监测
Arch Inst Cardiol Mex. 1997 Jan-Feb;67(1):29-37.
5
Twenty-four hour blood pressure effect of once-daily lisinopril, enalapril, and placebo in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.赖诺普利、依那普利及安慰剂每日一次给药对轻至中度高血压患者24小时血压的影响
J Hum Hypertens. 1992 Aug;6(4):325-31.
6
Effects of celecoxib on ambulatory blood pressure in hypertensive patients on ACE inhibitors.塞来昔布对服用血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂的高血压患者动态血压的影响。
Hypertension. 2002 Apr;39(4):929-34. doi: 10.1161/01.hyp.0000014323.99765.16.
7
Nocturnal reduction of blood pressure and the antihypertensive response to a diuretic or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor in obese hypertensive patients. TROPHY Study Group.肥胖高血压患者夜间血压降低情况以及对利尿剂或血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂的降压反应。TROPHY研究组
Am J Hypertens. 1998 Aug;11(8 Pt 1):914-20. doi: 10.1016/s0895-7061(98)00087-9.
8
Assessment of antihypertensive effect by blood pressure monitoring: applications to bisoprolol and lisinopril in a double-blind study.
J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1997 May;29(5):612-7. doi: 10.1097/00005344-199705000-00008.
9
Lisinopril versus enalapril: evaluation of trough:peak ratio by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.赖诺普利与依那普利对比:通过动态血压监测评估谷峰比值
J Hum Hypertens. 1999 Jun;13(6):405-12. doi: 10.1038/sj.jhh.1000821.
10
Lisinopril dose-response relationship in essential hypertension.赖诺普利在原发性高血压中的剂量-反应关系。
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1989 Oct;28(4):415-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1989.tb03521.x.

引用本文的文献

1
Blood pressure lowering efficacy of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for primary hypertension.血管紧张素转换酶(ACE)抑制剂对原发性高血压的降压疗效。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Oct 8;2008(4):CD003823. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003823.pub2.
2
Zofenopril versus Lisinopril in the Treatment of Essential Hypertension in Elderly Patients : A Randomised, Double-Blind, Multicentre Study.佐芬普利与赖诺普利治疗老年原发性高血压的随机、双盲、多中心研究。
Clin Drug Investig. 2005;25(3):175-82. doi: 10.2165/00044011-200525030-00003.
3
Trandolapril. How does it differ from other angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors?
Drugs. 1993;46 Suppl 2:172-81; discussion 182. doi: 10.2165/00003495-199300462-00027.