Herpin D, Vaïsse B, Raud-Raynier P, Boijoux C, Pitiot M, Asmar R, Contard S, Gosse P, de Gaudemaris R, Zannad F
Service de cardiologie B, CHU, Poitiers.
Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss. 1992 Aug;85(8):1235-8.
This multicenter study was aimed at determining whether the baseline ambulatory blood pressure (BP) level does influence the efficacy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (CEI) and that of calcium antagonists (CA) to the same degree.
The BP recordings of 236 patients with mild to moderate hypertension were reviewed: these subjects previously entered clinical trials comprising a mean 2-week placebo period and a mean 6-week active treatment phase (CEI = 115, CA = 121). The 24-hour baseline ambulatory BP was considered as high when greater than 139/87 mmHg, according to Staessen's meta-analysis.
In the patients with an high baseline ambulatory BP, CEI and CA have had roughly a similar effect (reduction in systolic = 9.5 +/- 7.8% vs 7.7 +/- 6.3%, NS; reduction in diastolic = 9.8 +/- 8.6% vs 8.3 +/- 5.8%, NS). Conversely, the patients with a baseline ambulatory BP level lower than or equal to 139/87 mmHg experienced a greater reduction in ambulatory BP with CEI than with CA (systolic = 7.9 +/- 7.0% vs 0.6 +/- 6.7%, p = 0.0001; diastolic: 5.0 +/- 7.4% vs 1.9 +/- 7.6%, p = 0.040). Finally, further analysis found the threshold of drug efficacy to be 120/80 and 135/85 mmHg in CEI and CA patients respectively.
这项多中心研究旨在确定基线动态血压(BP)水平是否会对血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂(CEI)和钙拮抗剂(CA)的疗效产生相同程度的影响。
回顾了236例轻至中度高血压患者的血压记录:这些受试者之前参加了临床试验,包括平均为期2周的安慰剂期和平均为期6周的积极治疗阶段(CEI组 = 115例,CA组 = 121例)。根据斯塔森的荟萃分析,24小时基线动态血压大于139/87 mmHg时被视为高血压。
在基线动态血压高的患者中,CEI和CA的效果大致相似(收缩压降低 = 9.5±7.8% 对 7.7±6.3%,无显著差异;舒张压降低 = 9.8±8.6% 对 8.3±5.8%,无显著差异)。相反,基线动态血压水平低于或等于139/87 mmHg的患者,CEI治疗后的动态血压下降幅度大于CA(收缩压:7.9±7.0% 对 0.6±6.7%,p = 0.0001;舒张压:5.0±7.4% 对 1.9±7.6%,p = 0.040)。最后,进一步分析发现CEI和CA患者的药物疗效阈值分别为120/80 mmHg和135/85 mmHg。
1)仅在动态血压低的患者中,CEI比CA更有效。2)然而,内脏灌注不足的风险似乎有限,因为当基线舒张压水平低于80 mmHg时,CEI不会进一步降低动态舒张压。