Literature DB >> 17414674

Assessment of long-term antihypertensive treatment by clinic and ambulatory blood pressure: data from the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis.

Giuseppe Mancia1, Gianfranco Parati, Grzegorz Bilo, Alberto Maronati, Stefano Omboni, Hansjörg Baurecht, Michael Hennig, Alberto Zanchetti.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Information on the features of long-term modifications of clinic and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) by treatment is limited. The present study aimed to address this issue.
METHODS: Ambulatory BP monitoring and clinic BP (CBP) measurements were performed at baseline and at yearly intervals over a 4-year follow-up period in 1523 hypertensives (56.1 +/- 7.6 years) randomized to treatment with lacidipine or atenolol in the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis (ELSA).
RESULTS: CBP was always greater than ABP, while reductions in all BP values (greater for CBP than for ABP) were on average maintained throughout 4 years, CBP changes showing limited relationship with ABP changes (r = 0.14-0.27). BP reductions by treatment during daytime and night-time were correlated (r = 0.63-0.73). BP normalization was achieved in a greater percentage of patients for CBP (41.7%) than for ABP (25.3%), with systolic BP control being always less common than diastolic BP control. BP normalization was more frequent at single yearly visits than throughout the 4 years. Twenty-four-hour BP variability was reduced by treatment over 4 years in absolute but not in normalized units.
CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides the best evidence available on long-term effect of antihypertensive treatment on both ABP and CBP. On average, ABP was sustainedly reduced by treatment throughout the follow-up period, but 24-h BP was more difficult to control than CBP. In several patients, ABP control was unstable between visits, the percentage of patients under control over 4 years being much less than that of those controlled at each year. Treatment induced a reduction in absolute but not in normalized BP variability estimates. This has clinical implications because of the prognostic importance of ABP mean values and variability.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17414674     DOI: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e32805bf8ce

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hypertens        ISSN: 0263-6352            Impact factor:   4.844


  5 in total

Review 1.  Does blood pressure variability modulate cardiovascular risk?

Authors:  Peter M Rothwell
Journal:  Curr Hypertens Rep       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 5.369

2.  Use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring to guide hypertensive therapy.

Authors:  Amita Singh; Eugenia Gianos; Arthur Schwartzbard; Henry Black; Howard Weintraub
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2013-12

Review 3.  Cardiac and vascular protection: the potential of ONTARGET.

Authors:  Giuseppe Mancia; Anne Jakobsen; Jose Heroys; Ann Ralph; Tomas Rees; Michael Shaw
Journal:  Medscape J Med       Date:  2008-03-26

4.  Agreement between community pharmacy and ambulatory and home blood pressure measurement methods to assess the effectiveness of antihypertensive treatment: the MEPAFAR study.

Authors:  Daniel Sabater-Hernández; Alejandro De La Sierra; Pablo Sánchez-Villegas; Fidelina M Santana-Pérez; Luisa Merino-Barber; María J Faus
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2012-03-05       Impact factor: 3.738

5.  Echocardiographic indices of left ventricular hypertrophy and diastolic function in hypertensive patients with preserved LVEF classified as dippers and non-dippers.

Authors:  Monika Możdżan; Karina Wierzbowska-Drabik; Małgorzata Kurpesa; Ewa Trzos; Tomasz Rechciński; Marlena Broncel; Jarosław D Kasprzak
Journal:  Arch Med Sci       Date:  2013-04-09       Impact factor: 3.318

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.