Suppr超能文献

用于治疗高血压的钙通道阻滞剂:剖析不良反应的证据

Calcium channel blockers for hypertension: dissecting the evidence for adverse effects.

作者信息

Opie L H

机构信息

MRC Unit for Ischaemic Heart Disease, University of Cape Town, South Africa.

出版信息

Am J Hypertens. 1997 May;10(5 Pt 1):565-77. doi: 10.1016/s0895-7061(96)00508-0.

Abstract

Safety in the drug treatment of hypertension can only be seen in relation to efficacy, which has now come to mean not just blood pressure (BP) reduction but improvements in hard end points including mortality. Information on safety can come from a variety of sources, in an ascending hierarchy, which is as follows: case-control studies, cohort studies, randomized control trials (RCTs), and metaanalyses based on good RCTs. Only in the case of metaanalyses are definite criteria for acceptability established, but evaluation of case-control and cohort studies remains subjective. Despite these reserves about the data sources, it is proposed that the case-control study pointing to the risk of acute myocardial infarction during therapy with short-acting calcium channel blockers (CCBs) can be balanced out by another better more recent study, and by a large cohort study from Israel. In a very elderly population, a well-designed cohort study strongly suggests that short-acting nifedipine can be linked to increased mortality and that the specific links may be with a high dose and when the initial BP is less than 160/90 mm Hg. However, initial BP was only available in an unspecified number of patients. The risk of using short-acting verapamil was no more than that of beta-blockade. These differences can be attributed at least in part to the low catecholamine profile of verapamil and the marked rapid adrenergic activation with short-acting nifedipine, which could also explain the adverse effects found when this agent is given to patients with acute coronary syndromes. During the chronic use of long-acting dihydropyridine (DHP) CCBs, most evidence suggests that there is little or no catecholamine activation, or in the case of amlodipine, even a decrease in plasma catecholamine levels. These differences may explain why the expected regression of left ventricular hypertrophy is obtained with long- but not short-acting DHPs. At present the results of several large randomized controlled trials with long-acting CCBs are awaited. In the meantime, when the decision has been made to use a CCB, the preferential choice is for the use of a non-DHP for hypertension with clinical ischemia or for postinfarct hypertension, for a long-acting CCB for the control of left ventricular hypertrophy, and for the DHP amlodipine when there is associated depression of myocardial function.

摘要

高血压药物治疗的安全性只能与疗效相关联来看待,而如今疗效不仅意味着降低血压(BP),还包括改善包括死亡率在内的硬性终点。关于安全性的信息可来自多种来源,按层级递增如下:病例对照研究、队列研究、随机对照试验(RCT)以及基于高质量RCT的荟萃分析。只有在荟萃分析的情况下才确立了可接受性的明确标准,但对病例对照研究和队列研究的评估仍然主观。尽管对这些数据来源有所保留,但有人提出,一项指出短效钙通道阻滞剂(CCB)治疗期间急性心肌梗死风险的病例对照研究,可以通过另一项更新的更好的研究以及以色列的一项大型队列研究来平衡。在非常老年的人群中,一项设计良好的队列研究强烈表明,短效硝苯地平可能与死亡率增加有关,具体关联可能与高剂量以及初始血压低于160/90 mmHg时有关。然而,初始血压仅在未指明数量的患者中可用。使用短效维拉帕米的风险不高于β受体阻滞剂。这些差异至少部分可归因于维拉帕米的低儿茶酚胺水平以及短效硝苯地平明显的快速肾上腺素能激活,这也可以解释将该药物用于急性冠状动脉综合征患者时发现的不良反应。在长期使用长效二氢吡啶(DHP)CCB期间,大多数证据表明几乎没有或没有儿茶酚胺激活,或者就氨氯地平而言,血浆儿茶酚胺水平甚至会降低。这些差异可能解释了为什么长效而非短效DHP能使左心室肥厚预期消退。目前正在等待几项关于长效CCB的大型随机对照试验的结果。与此同时,当决定使用CCB时,对于伴有临床缺血的高血压或梗死后高血压,优先选择使用非DHP;对于控制左心室肥厚,选择使用长效CCB;对于伴有心肌功能抑制的情况,选择使用DHP氨氯地平。

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