Comparing outcomes of clonidine and captopril in patients with hypertensive urgency: A randomized clinical trial.

IF 0.5 Q4 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Ahmad Mirdamadi, Rana Abrishamkar, Afrooz Kargaran
{"title":"Comparing outcomes of clonidine and captopril in patients with hypertensive urgency: A randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Ahmad Mirdamadi,&nbsp;Rana Abrishamkar,&nbsp;Afrooz Kargaran","doi":"10.48305/arya.v18i1.2146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hypertension (HTN) is the second leading risk factor for death and disability. One fourth of healthcare in Eastern Europe and Central Asia is being spent on blood pressure (BP)-related diseases. An important situation in patients with high BP is hypertensive crisis (BP > 180/120 mmHg), which is divided to hypertensive emergency and urgency. Therefore, here, we decided to compare the effect of captopril and clonidine in patients with hypertensive urgencies, and their side effects.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a parallel-group randomized clinical trial. Patients, who referred to emergency ward with any symptoms of hypertensive crisis, underwent a careful history taking and clinical examination. Individuals with systolic BP (SBP) ≥ 180 mmHg or diastolic BP (DBP) ≥ 110 mmHg with no evidence of end organ damage were randomly assigned into two interventions, clonidine and captopril. 25% decrease in BP was considered as ideal relief.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Regarding the duration of response to treatment drugs, patients who received clonidine relieved significantly faster than those who received captopril (P = 0.016). Moreover, the frequencies of side effects such as headache, dizziness/vertigo, dry mouth, and drowsiness in the clonidine group were significantly lower than captopril group (P < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients in clonidine group relieved sooner and experienced fewer side effects. Therefore, this study suggests clonidine as a more effective therapeutic for hypertensive urgency compared with captopril.</p>","PeriodicalId":46477,"journal":{"name":"ARYA Atherosclerosis","volume":"18 1","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/13/1e/ARYA-18-2-2146.PMC9931607.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ARYA Atherosclerosis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.48305/arya.v18i1.2146","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Hypertension (HTN) is the second leading risk factor for death and disability. One fourth of healthcare in Eastern Europe and Central Asia is being spent on blood pressure (BP)-related diseases. An important situation in patients with high BP is hypertensive crisis (BP > 180/120 mmHg), which is divided to hypertensive emergency and urgency. Therefore, here, we decided to compare the effect of captopril and clonidine in patients with hypertensive urgencies, and their side effects.

Methods: This was a parallel-group randomized clinical trial. Patients, who referred to emergency ward with any symptoms of hypertensive crisis, underwent a careful history taking and clinical examination. Individuals with systolic BP (SBP) ≥ 180 mmHg or diastolic BP (DBP) ≥ 110 mmHg with no evidence of end organ damage were randomly assigned into two interventions, clonidine and captopril. 25% decrease in BP was considered as ideal relief.

Results: Regarding the duration of response to treatment drugs, patients who received clonidine relieved significantly faster than those who received captopril (P = 0.016). Moreover, the frequencies of side effects such as headache, dizziness/vertigo, dry mouth, and drowsiness in the clonidine group were significantly lower than captopril group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: Patients in clonidine group relieved sooner and experienced fewer side effects. Therefore, this study suggests clonidine as a more effective therapeutic for hypertensive urgency compared with captopril.

Abstract Image

比较可乐定和卡托普利治疗高血压急症的疗效:一项随机临床试验。
背景:高血压(HTN)是导致死亡和残疾的第二大危险因素。在东欧和中亚,四分之一的医疗保健用于治疗与血压相关的疾病。高血压危象(BP > 180/120 mmHg)是高血压患者的重要情况,分为高血压急诊和急症。因此,在这里,我们决定比较卡托普利和可乐定在高血压急症患者中的疗效及其副作用。方法:采用平行组随机临床试验。凡有高血压危象症状的患者,均接受详细的病史记录和临床检查。收缩压(SBP)≥180 mmHg或舒张压(DBP)≥110 mmHg且无终末器官损伤证据的个体被随机分配到可乐定和卡托普利两种干预措施中。血压降低25%被认为是理想的缓解。结果:在对治疗药物的反应时间上,可乐定组的缓解明显快于卡托普利组(P = 0.016)。此外,可乐定组头痛、头晕/眩晕、口干、嗜睡等不良反应发生率显著低于卡托普利组(P < 0.05)。结论:可乐定组患者缓解快,副作用少。因此,本研究表明,与卡托普利相比,可乐定是一种更有效的治疗高血压急症的药物。
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
ARYA Atherosclerosis
ARYA Atherosclerosis CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
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