a Department of Cardiology , The First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University , Fuzhou , China.
b The E.N.T. Department , Fujian Provincial Governmental Hospital , Fuzhou , China.
Clin Exp Hypertens. 2017;39(5):421-426. doi: 10.1080/10641963.2016.1267188. Epub 2017 May 23.
This meta-analysis of randomized parallel controlled trials was designed to compare the efficacy of atenolol with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) in changing pulse wave velocity (PWV), peripheral blood pressure and heart rate (HR) among patients with essential hypertension.
This study was conducted according to the PRISMA guideline. Data collection was independently completed by two investigators. Statistical analyses were completed by Stata software (v12.0).
Eight clinical trials were meta-analyzed in this study. Overall changes in PWV (weighted mean difference or WMD = 0.068, 95% confidence interval or CI: -0.487 to -0.623, P = 0.811) and peripheral systolic blood pressure (PSBP) (WMD = -1.281 mmHg, 95% CI: -6.936 to 4.375, P = 0.657) did not differ significantly between atenolol and ACEIs treatment. Relative to ACEIs, atenolol had a more favorable impact on peripheral diastolic blood pressure (PDBP) (WMD = -1.912 mmHg, 95% CI: -3.732 to -0.091, P = 0.040) and HR (WMD = -9.23 bpm, 95% CI: -12.53 to -5.93, P < 0.001). In stratified analyses, particularly by follow-up period, atenolol was observed to be superior over ACEIs within early 3-month treatment in PSBP (WMD = -4.097 mmHg, 95% CI: -6.589 to -1.605, P = 0.001), PDBP (WMD = -6.802 mmHg, 95% CI: -8.517 to -5.087, P < 0.001) and HR (WMD = -14.242 bpm, 95% CI: -16.427 to -12.058, P = 0.028), without heterogeneity (I = 0.0%). There were low probabilities of publication bias for all comparisons.
Our findings demonstrate that atenolol and ACEIs were equally effective in reducing PWV and PSBP, while atenolol was superior over ACEIs in improving PDBP and HR, especially within short-term treatment.
本荟萃分析旨在比较美托洛尔与血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂(ACEIs)在改变原发性高血压患者脉搏波速度(PWV)、外周血压和心率(HR)方面的疗效。
本研究按照 PRISMA 指南进行。由两名研究人员独立完成数据收集。统计分析使用 Stata 软件(v12.0)进行。
本研究共纳入 8 项临床试验进行荟萃分析。美托洛尔与 ACEIs 治疗后,PWV(加权均数差或 WMD = 0.068,95%置信区间或 CI:-0.487 至 -0.623,P = 0.811)和外周收缩压(PSBP)(WMD = -1.281mmHg,95%CI:-6.936 至 4.375,P = 0.657)的总体变化无显著差异。与 ACEIs 相比,美托洛尔对 PDBP(WMD = -1.912mmHg,95%CI:-3.732 至 -0.091,P = 0.040)和 HR(WMD = -9.23bpm,95%CI:-12.53 至 -5.93,P < 0.001)的影响更为有利。在分层分析中,特别是在随访期内,在 3 个月的早期治疗中,美托洛尔在 PSBP(WMD = -4.097mmHg,95%CI:-6.589 至 -1.605,P = 0.001)、PDBP(WMD = -6.802mmHg,95%CI:-8.517 至 -5.087,P < 0.001)和 HR(WMD = -14.242bpm,95%CI:-16.427 至 -12.058,P = 0.028)方面的疗效均优于 ACEIs,且无异质性(I = 0.0%)。所有比较均存在低发表偏倚的可能性。
本研究结果表明,美托洛尔与 ACEIs 在降低 PWV 和 PSBP 方面同样有效,而在改善 PDBP 和 HR 方面,美托洛尔优于 ACEIs,尤其在短期治疗中。