Suppr超能文献

伊拉地平与普萘洛尔治疗氢氯噻嗪控制的高血压患者的多中心评估

Isradipine vs propranolol in hydrochlorothiazide-treated hypertensives. A multicenter evaluation.

作者信息

Prisant L M, Carr A A, Nelson E B, Winer N, Velasquez M T, Gonasun L M

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.

出版信息

Arch Intern Med. 1989 Nov;149(11):2453-7.

PMID:2530945
Abstract

A randomized, parallel, controlled study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of isradipine, 2.5 to 10 mg orally twice a day, compared with propranolol hydrochloride, 60 to 240 mg orally twice a day, in 78 hypertensives whose supine diastolic blood pressure was greater than 95 mm Hg while receiving 50 mg/d or more of hydrochlorothiazide. Isradipine or propranolol was titrated during a 10-week double-blind phase to achieve a supine diastolic blood pressure below 90 mm Hg while a fixed dose of hydrochlorothiazide was maintained. Supine diastolic blood pressure was reduced by 10 mm Hg in 88% of the isradipine/hydrochlorothiazide-treated and 83% of the propranolol/hydrochlorothiazide-treated groups and to less than 90 mm Hg in 55% of the isradipine/hydrochlorothiazide-treated and 69% of the propranolol/hydrochlorothiazide-treated patients. There was no significant difference in supine blood pressure reduction between either group, but there was a 3-to 4-beats per minute increase in supine heart rate in isradipine-treated patients and an expected 15- to 20-beats per minute decrease in heart rate in propranolol-treated patients. Five of 7 patients in the isradipine-treated group and 8 of 9 patients in the propranolol-treated group discontinued the therapy because of adverse reactions or treatment failure. Using Fisher's Exact Test, we found no significant difference in the relative frequency of individual adverse reactions between groups, although the absolute adverse reaction frequency was significantly higher with isradipine. This study demonstrates the effectiveness and safety of supplemental isradipine in the treatment of hypertension not controlled by hydrochlorothiazide alone.

摘要

一项随机、平行、对照研究旨在评估每日口服两次、剂量为2.5至10毫克的伊拉地平与每日口服两次、剂量为60至240毫克的盐酸普萘洛尔在78例高血压患者中的安全性和有效性。这些患者在接受每日50毫克或更多氢氯噻嗪治疗时,仰卧位舒张压大于95毫米汞柱。在为期10周的双盲阶段,对伊拉地平或普萘洛尔进行滴定,以将仰卧位舒张压降至90毫米汞柱以下,同时维持固定剂量的氢氯噻嗪。在伊拉地平/氢氯噻嗪治疗组中,88%的患者仰卧位舒张压降低了10毫米汞柱,在普萘洛尔/氢氯噻嗪治疗组中,83%的患者仰卧位舒张压降低了10毫米汞柱;在伊拉地平/氢氯噻嗪治疗的患者中,55%的患者仰卧位舒张压降至90毫米汞柱以下,在普萘洛尔/氢氯噻嗪治疗的患者中,69%的患者仰卧位舒张压降至90毫米汞柱以下。两组之间仰卧位血压降低没有显著差异,但伊拉地平治疗组患者的仰卧位心率每分钟增加3至4次,而普萘洛尔治疗组患者的心率每分钟预期降低15至20次。伊拉地平治疗组的7例患者中有5例、普萘洛尔治疗组的9例患者中有8例因不良反应或治疗失败而停止治疗。使用费舍尔精确检验,我们发现两组之间个体不良反应的相对频率没有显著差异,尽管伊拉地平的绝对不良反应频率明显更高。这项研究证明了补充伊拉地平在治疗仅用氢氯噻嗪无法控制的高血压方面的有效性和安全性。

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