[Angiotensin-II receptor inhibitors in hemodialysed uremia patients with arterial hypertension: candesartan cilexitil versus losartan].

Cardiologia (Rome, Italy) Pub Date : 1999-12-01
G Cice, L Ferrara, E Tagliamonte, P E Russo, A Di Benedetto, A Iacono
{"title":"[Angiotensin-II receptor inhibitors in hemodialysed uremia patients with arterial hypertension: candesartan cilexitil versus losartan].","authors":"G Cice,&nbsp;L Ferrara,&nbsp;E Tagliamonte,&nbsp;P E Russo,&nbsp;A Di Benedetto,&nbsp;A Iacono","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim of this study was to evaluate, in patients with chronic renal failure in hemodialysis and arterial hypertension, the effectiveness of a new angiotensin II receptor antagonist, the candesartan cilexitil, comparing it with losartan, the first of this new class of drugs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We have selected 128 patients with chronic renal failure (92 males and 36 females, mean age 56 +/- 6 years) and arterial hypertension, subjected to hemodialysis 3 times a week, with hemodialytic seniority of 90 +/- 10 months. The inclusion criteria in the study were given from the presence, after 15 days of pharmacological wash-out, of values of diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > or = 95 mmHg and systolic blood pressure (SBP) > or = 150 mmHg, despite a hemodialysis correctly performed. Patients were divided into two groups whether they received single blind randomized candesartan cilexitil 16 mg or losartan 50 mg at hour 8.00 for a period of 8 weeks at the end of which, after a period of pharmacological wash-out of 15 days, the drugs were administered to inverted groups for other 8 weeks. After 4 and 8 weeks of treatment an evaluation of the anti-hypertensive effectiveness by means of medical complete visit and measurement of blood pressure were made. The statistical analysis was made by means of Student's t test for paired data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All the patients concluded the study. After 4 weeks of treatment SBP and DBP were reduced in the group with candesartan cilexitil with regard to baseline values (SBP 151.8 +/- 6.3 vs 159.8 +/- 5.1 mmHg, p < 0.05; DBP 93.6 +/- 4.5 vs 98.1 +/- 3.7 mmHg, p < 0.05). In the losartan group (SBP 151.8 +/- 6.3 vs 158.7 +/- 5.5 mmHg, p < 0.05; DBP 93.6 +/- 4.5 vs 97.5 +/- 3.8 mmHg, p < 0.05) no significant reduction in blood pressure values was observed compared with baseline values (SBP 158.7 +/- 5.5 vs 159.8 +/- 5.1 mmHg, NS; DBP 97.5 +/- 3.8 vs 98.1 +/- 3.7 mmHg, NS). After 8 weeks of treatment in the candesartan cilexitil group (SBP 128.3 +/- 5.9 vs 159.8 +/- 5.1 mmHg, p < 0.05; DBP 81.5 +/- 4.1 vs 98.1 +/- 3.7 mmHg, p < 0.05) and in the losartan group (SBP 151.7 +/- 5.1 vs 159.8 +/- 5.1 mmHg, p < 0.05; DBP 92.7 +/- 3.9 vs 98.1 +/- 3.7 mmHg, p < 0.05) blood pressure values were reduced in the same manner as at baseline. By comparing the two drugs, candesartan cilexitil proved to have a better antihypertensive effectiveness (SBP 128.3 +/- 5.9 vs 151.7 +/- 5.1 mmHg, p < 0.05; DBP 81.5 +/- 4.1 vs 92.7 +/- 3.9 mmHg, p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our experience suggests that angiotensin II receptor antagonists may be a therapeutic remarkable option in patients with chronic renal failure in hemodialysis and arterial hypertension; the antihypertensive effect seems to be class-specific. Nevertheless, at least for our data, a better and more rapid antihypertensive results was obtained with candesartan cilexitil.</p>","PeriodicalId":77063,"journal":{"name":"Cardiologia (Rome, Italy)","volume":"44 12","pages":"1071-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiologia (Rome, Italy)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate, in patients with chronic renal failure in hemodialysis and arterial hypertension, the effectiveness of a new angiotensin II receptor antagonist, the candesartan cilexitil, comparing it with losartan, the first of this new class of drugs.

Methods: We have selected 128 patients with chronic renal failure (92 males and 36 females, mean age 56 +/- 6 years) and arterial hypertension, subjected to hemodialysis 3 times a week, with hemodialytic seniority of 90 +/- 10 months. The inclusion criteria in the study were given from the presence, after 15 days of pharmacological wash-out, of values of diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > or = 95 mmHg and systolic blood pressure (SBP) > or = 150 mmHg, despite a hemodialysis correctly performed. Patients were divided into two groups whether they received single blind randomized candesartan cilexitil 16 mg or losartan 50 mg at hour 8.00 for a period of 8 weeks at the end of which, after a period of pharmacological wash-out of 15 days, the drugs were administered to inverted groups for other 8 weeks. After 4 and 8 weeks of treatment an evaluation of the anti-hypertensive effectiveness by means of medical complete visit and measurement of blood pressure were made. The statistical analysis was made by means of Student's t test for paired data.

Results: All the patients concluded the study. After 4 weeks of treatment SBP and DBP were reduced in the group with candesartan cilexitil with regard to baseline values (SBP 151.8 +/- 6.3 vs 159.8 +/- 5.1 mmHg, p < 0.05; DBP 93.6 +/- 4.5 vs 98.1 +/- 3.7 mmHg, p < 0.05). In the losartan group (SBP 151.8 +/- 6.3 vs 158.7 +/- 5.5 mmHg, p < 0.05; DBP 93.6 +/- 4.5 vs 97.5 +/- 3.8 mmHg, p < 0.05) no significant reduction in blood pressure values was observed compared with baseline values (SBP 158.7 +/- 5.5 vs 159.8 +/- 5.1 mmHg, NS; DBP 97.5 +/- 3.8 vs 98.1 +/- 3.7 mmHg, NS). After 8 weeks of treatment in the candesartan cilexitil group (SBP 128.3 +/- 5.9 vs 159.8 +/- 5.1 mmHg, p < 0.05; DBP 81.5 +/- 4.1 vs 98.1 +/- 3.7 mmHg, p < 0.05) and in the losartan group (SBP 151.7 +/- 5.1 vs 159.8 +/- 5.1 mmHg, p < 0.05; DBP 92.7 +/- 3.9 vs 98.1 +/- 3.7 mmHg, p < 0.05) blood pressure values were reduced in the same manner as at baseline. By comparing the two drugs, candesartan cilexitil proved to have a better antihypertensive effectiveness (SBP 128.3 +/- 5.9 vs 151.7 +/- 5.1 mmHg, p < 0.05; DBP 81.5 +/- 4.1 vs 92.7 +/- 3.9 mmHg, p < 0.05).

Conclusions: Our experience suggests that angiotensin II receptor antagonists may be a therapeutic remarkable option in patients with chronic renal failure in hemodialysis and arterial hypertension; the antihypertensive effect seems to be class-specific. Nevertheless, at least for our data, a better and more rapid antihypertensive results was obtained with candesartan cilexitil.

[血管紧张素- ii受体抑制剂在血液透析尿毒症合并动脉高血压患者中的应用:坎地沙坦西列西特与氯沙坦的对比]。
背景:本研究的目的是评价一种新的血管紧张素II受体拮抗剂坎地沙坦西列西特与氯沙坦的疗效,坎地沙坦西列西特是这类新药中的第一种。方法:选择慢性肾衰竭患者128例(男92例,女36例,平均年龄56 +/- 6岁),动脉性高血压患者,每周进行3次血液透析,血液透析年龄90 +/- 10个月。该研究的纳入标准是,在15天的药理学冲洗后,舒张压(DBP) >或= 95 mmHg,收缩压(SBP) >或= 150 mmHg,尽管正确进行了血液透析。患者被分为两组,分别在8点接受单盲随机坎地沙坦西列西替尔16 mg或氯沙坦50 mg,为期8周,结束后15天的药理学洗脱期后,将药物给药至倒立组,其余8周。治疗4周和8周后,通过医学完整访问和测量血压来评估降压效果。配对数据采用Student’st检验进行统计分析。结果:所有患者均完成研究。治疗4周后,坎地沙坦西列西特组收缩压和舒张压较基线值降低(收缩压151.8 +/- 6.3 vs 159.8 +/- 5.1 mmHg, p < 0.05;菲律宾93.6 + / - 4.5 vs 98.1 + / - 3.7毫米汞柱,p < 0.05)。氯沙坦组(收缩压151.8 +/- 6.3 vs 158.7 +/- 5.5 mmHg, p < 0.05;舒张压93.6 +/- 4.5 vs 97.5 +/- 3.8 mmHg, p < 0.05)与基线值相比,血压值无显著降低(收缩压158.7 +/- 5.5 vs 159.8 +/- 5.1 mmHg, NS;DBP 97.5 +/- 3.8 vs 98.1 +/- 3.7 mmHg, NS)。坎地沙坦西列西特组治疗8周后(收缩压128.3 +/- 5.9 vs 159.8 +/- 5.1 mmHg, p < 0.05;舒张压81.5 +/- 4.1 vs 98.1 +/- 3.7 mmHg, p < 0.05),氯沙坦组(收缩压151.7 +/- 5.1 vs 159.8 +/- 5.1 mmHg, p < 0.05;DBP (92.7 +/- 3.9 vs 98.1 +/- 3.7 mmHg, p < 0.05)血压值与基线时相同。通过比较两种药物,坎地沙坦西列西特具有更好的降压效果(收缩压128.3 +/- 5.9 vs 151.7 +/- 5.1 mmHg, p < 0.05;DBP 81.5 +/- 4.1 vs 92.7 +/- 3.9 mmHg, p < 0.05)。结论:我们的经验表明,血管紧张素II受体拮抗剂可能是治疗血液透析和动脉高血压患者慢性肾功能衰竭的一种显着选择;降压作用似乎是有类别特异性的。然而,至少在我们的数据中,坎地沙坦西列西特获得了更好、更快速的降压效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信