Herpin D, Vaïsse B, Allavoine T, Pitiot M, de Gaudemaris R, Mallion J M, Poggi L, Demange J
Service de cardiologie B, CHU La Milétrie, Poitiers.
Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss. 1993 Aug;86(8):1213-7.
this retrospective study was aimed: at comparing the effects of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and those of calcium antagonists (CA) on the pulse pressure of mild to moderate hypertensive patients; at assessing whether these effects were associated with some modifications of blood pressure variability or not.
the ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) recordings of 236 patients who previously entered clinical trials with a mean run-in placebo period of 2 weeks and a mean active treatment phase of 6 weeks (ACEI, n = 115; CA, n = 121) were reviewed. Baseline ABP has been analysed both as a continuous variable and as a categorical one (high when > 139/87 mmHg, low otherwise). Pulse pressure was calculated by the difference systolic ABP-diastolic ABP, whereas BP variability was estimated by the standard deviation and the variation coefficient of each recording. The results are given as percentage (mean +/- standard deviation). In the patients with high baseline systolic ABP, ACEI and CA did not significantly differ regarding their effects on pulse pressure (-11.1 +/- 17.2 vs -6.3 +/- 14.0, NS). By contrast, in the other patients, pulse pressure was lowered to a significantly greater degree by ACEI than by CA (-5.5 +/- 18.7 vs +1.8 +/- 18.8, p = 0.04). These differences were not related to baseline diastolic ABP. No difference at all was found with regard to BP variability which was altered by none of the drugs. In conclusion, pulse pressure, a reliable indicator of arterial compliance, seemed to be more decreased by ACEI than by CA, the difference being significant only in patients with apparent hypertension.
本回顾性研究旨在:比较血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂(ACEI)和钙拮抗剂(CA)对轻至中度高血压患者脉压的影响;评估这些影响是否与血压变异性的某些改变相关。
回顾了236例患者的动态血压(ABP)记录,这些患者先前进入临床试验,平均导入安慰剂期为2周,平均积极治疗期为6周(ACEI组,n = 115;CA组,n = 121)。基线ABP既作为连续变量又作为分类变量进行分析(收缩压> 139/87 mmHg时为高,否则为低)。脉压通过收缩压ABP与舒张压ABP之差计算,而血压变异性通过每次记录的标准差和变异系数估计。结果以百分比(均值±标准差)表示。在基线收缩压ABP高的患者中,ACEI和CA对脉压的影响无显著差异(-11.1±17.2 vs -6.3±14.0,无统计学意义)。相比之下,在其他患者中,ACEI使脉压降低的程度明显大于CA(-5.5±18.7 vs +1.8±18.8,p = 0.04)。这些差异与基线舒张压ABP无关。在血压变异性方面未发现差异,两种药物均未改变血压变异性。总之,脉压是动脉顺应性的可靠指标,ACEI似乎比CA更能降低脉压,这种差异仅在明显高血压患者中显著。