Suppr超能文献

与血管紧张素受体阻滞剂(ARB)和氢氯噻嗪(HCTZ)的双联疗法相比,血管紧张素受体阻滞剂(ARB)、钙通道阻滞剂(CCB)和氢氯噻嗪(HCTZ)三联疗法对动态血压的影响。

Ambulatory blood pressure response to triple therapy with an angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), calcium-channel blocker (CCB), and HCTZ versus dual therapy with an ARB and HCTZ.

作者信息

Duprez Daniel, Ferdinand Keith, Purkayastha Das, Samuel Rita, Wright Richard

机构信息

Cardiovascular Division, Universityof Minnesota, 420 Delaware St SE, MMC 508, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.

出版信息

Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2011;7:701-8. doi: 10.2147/VHRM.S25743. Epub 2011 Nov 24.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Stage 2 hypertension often requires combination antihypertensive therapy. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is a useful tool for assessing antihypertensive drugs and their combinations.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of a moderate dose of angiotensin receptor blocker/calcium channel blocker (ARB/CCB) combined with a diuretic versus a maximal dose of ARB with a diuretic on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and other derived ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) parameters.

METHODS

The EXforge As compared to Losartan Treatment ABPM substudy was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, active-control, forced-titration study of patients with Stage 2 hypertension that compared the efficacy of initial treatment with valsartan/amlodipine 160/5 mg (n = 48) or losartan 100 mg (n = 36). At week 3, hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg was added in both treatment groups. ABP was measured at baseline and at week 6. Additionaly, 24-hour ABP, nighttime (10 pm to 6 am) and daytime (6 am to 10 pm) ABP, and ABP load (percentage of readings above 140/90 mmHg) were determined.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients (48 ARB/CCB/HCTZ, 36 ARB/HCTZ) had ABPM at baseline and at week 6. Reductions of systolic/diastolic ABP were greater in the ARB/CCB/ HCTZ group than in the ARB/HCTZ group for 24-hour mean ABP (-22.0/-13.3 versus -17.4/-8.1 mmHg), as well as nighttime ABP (-22.2/-13.3 versus -16.2/-7.4 mmHg), daytime ABP (-21.9/-13.0 versus -18.1/-8.6 mmHg), ABP in the last 4 hours of the dosing period (-21.5/-13.5 versus -17.0/-7.7 mmHg), and ABP load (21.7%/12.8% versus 30.8%/20.0%).

CONCLUSION

Initiating antihypertensive treatment with moderate doses of ARB/CCB with a diuretic is more effective in lowering nighttime and daytime ABP and reducing ABP load than a maximal dose of an ARB with a diuretic.

摘要

背景

2级高血压通常需要联合抗高血压治疗。动态血压监测(ABPM)是评估抗高血压药物及其联合用药的有用工具。

目的

比较中等剂量的血管紧张素受体阻滞剂/钙通道阻滞剂(ARB/CCB)联合利尿剂与最大剂量的ARB联合利尿剂对24小时动态血压监测(ABPM)及其他衍生动态血压(ABP)参数的影响。

方法

与氯沙坦治疗ABPM亚研究相比,EXforge是一项针对2级高血压患者的随机、双盲、平行组、活性对照、强制滴定研究,比较了缬沙坦/氨氯地平160/5mg(n = 48)或氯沙坦100mg(n = 36)初始治疗的疗效。在第3周时,两个治疗组均添加25mg氢氯噻嗪(HCTZ)。在基线和第6周时测量ABP。此外,还测定了24小时ABP、夜间(晚上10点至早上6点)和白天(早上6点至晚上10点)ABP以及ABP负荷(读数高于140/90mmHg的百分比)。

结果

84例患者(48例ARB/CCB/HCTZ,36例ARB/HCTZ)在基线和第6周时进行了ABPM。对于24小时平均ABP(-22.0/-13.3与-17. + 4/-8.1mmHg)、夜间ABP(-22.2/-13.3与-16.2/-7.4mmHg)、白天ABP(-21.9/-13.0与-18.1/- + B.6mmHg)、给药期最后4小时的ABP(-21.5/-13.5与-17.0/-7.7mmHg)以及ABP负荷(21.7%/12.8%与30.8%/20.0%),ARB/CCB/HCTZ组收缩压/舒张压ABP的降低幅度大于ARB/HCTZ组。

结论

与最大剂量的ARB联合利尿剂相比,起始使用中等剂量的ARB/CCB联合利尿剂进行抗高血压治疗在降低夜间和白天ABP以及降低ABP负荷方面更有效。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验