Literature DB >> 6184569

Verapamil compared with nifedipine in the treatment of essential hypertension.

K Midtbø, O Hals, J van der Meer.   

Abstract

In a double-blind, cross-over study for 6 weeks that included 28 patients with essential hypertension, WHO stage I-II, the hypotensive action of verapamil (160 mg thrice daily) was compared with nifedipine (20 mg slow release twice daily). Twenty-six patients completed the trial. Both regimens reduced the blood pressure significantly in patients in the supine, sitting, and standing positions, with sustained and slightly increasing effect throughout the periods. Verapamil reduced mean diastolic blood pressure significantly more than nifedipine in all positions and lowered mean systolic pressure slightly more than nifedipine. Resting heart rate was significantly decreased by verapamil and insignificantly altered by nifedipine. Serum lipoproteins, liver function tests, serum creatinine, serum electrolytes (Na+, K+, and Cl-), and body weight were not affected by either drug. Atrioventricular (AV) conduction was significantly prolonged by verapamil and unaffected by nifedipine. Subjective side effects were more numerous with nifedipine than with verapamil, but were mainly mild and transient except for one patient in each group who was withdrawn because of severe adverse reactions. It is concluded that the calcium antagonists verapamil and nifedipine have a significant hypotensive effect, more pronounced with verapamil than with nifedipine in the actual doses. Both drugs are treatment alternatives in mild to moderate essential hypertension.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1982        PMID: 6184569

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cardiovasc Pharmacol        ISSN: 0160-2446            Impact factor:   3.105


  9 in total

1.  A comparison of verapamil and nifedipine on quality of life.

Authors:  A Palmer; A Fletcher; G Hamilton; S Muriss; C Bulpitt
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 2.  Nifedipine. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic efficacy, in ischaemic heart disease, hypertension and related cardiovascular disorders.

Authors:  E M Sorkin; S P Clissold; R N Brogden
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1985-09       Impact factor: 9.546

3.  Long-acting nifedipine versus metoprolol as monotherapy for essential hypertension. A randomized, controlled crossover study.

Authors:  K S Woo; C O Pun
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1990-02

Review 4.  Drug treatment of hypertension.

Authors:  B N Prichard
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 9.546

5.  Dose response and length of action of nifedipine capsules and tablets in patients with essential hypertension: a randomised crossover study.

Authors:  F P Cappuccio; N D Markandu; F A Tucker; G A MacGregor
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 2.953

Review 6.  Primary prevention potential of the calcium antagonists. Effects on blood pressure and lipid pattern.

Authors:  K Midtbø
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 7.  Calcium channel antagonists. Part III: Use and comparative efficacy in hypertension and supraventricular arrhythmias. Minor indications.

Authors:  L H Opie
Journal:  Cardiovasc Drugs Ther       Date:  1988-03       Impact factor: 3.727

Review 8.  Calcium channel antagonists. Part IV: Side effects and contraindications drug interactions and combinations.

Authors:  L H Opie
Journal:  Cardiovasc Drugs Ther       Date:  1988-07       Impact factor: 3.727

9.  Comparison of the efficacy of nicardipine, a new calcium channel blocker, with nifedipine in the treatment of mild to moderate essential hypertension.

Authors:  C Armstrong; J Garnham; R Blackwood
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 2.401

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.