乐卡地平和氨氯地平对高血压患者主要不良心血管事件的疗效比较

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Jinsung Jeon, Sunwoo Ryoo, Seungmi Oh, Soon Jun Hong, Cheol Woong Yu, Yong Hyun Kim, Eung Ju Kim, Hyung Joon Joo
{"title":"乐卡地平和氨氯地平对高血压患者主要不良心血管事件的疗效比较","authors":"Jinsung Jeon, Sunwoo Ryoo, Seungmi Oh, Soon Jun Hong, Cheol Woong Yu, Yong Hyun Kim, Eung Ju Kim, Hyung Joon Joo","doi":"10.1093/ajh/hpae147","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Lercanidipine, a newer-generation calcium channel blocker, is recognized for its effective antihypertensive properties and reduced side effects. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of lercanidipine and amlodipine in preventing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in hypertensive patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multicenter, retrospective observational study was conducted using the electronic medical records database from three tertiary hospitals in South Korea between 2017 and 2021. Hypertensive patients treated with either amlodipine or lercanidipine were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized to minimize confounders, matching patients in a 3:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was the incidence of MACE, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure hospitalizations, and coronary revascularization over a 3-year follow-up period.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 47640 patients were evaluated, and 6029 patients were matched. Before PSM, the lercanidipine group had a higher cardiovascular risk (SCORE-2/SCORE-2OP value: 11.6% ± 9.2 vs 10.9% ± 8.8, p<0.01) and a higher incidence of MACE compared to the amlodipine group (4.1% vs 3.4%, p<0.01). After PSM, the incidence of MACE was numerically lower in the lercanidipine group compared to the amlodipine group (2.8% vs 4.1%, p=0.11), though this difference was not statistically significant. Blood pressure control remained comparable between the two groups over the 3-year follow-up period.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Lercanidipine demonstrated comparable effectiveness to amlodipine in preventing MACE among hypertensive patients. Given its comparable antihypertensive efficacy and potential for fewer side effects based on prior studies, lercanidipine may be considered a preferable option for hypertension management.</p>","PeriodicalId":7578,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Hypertension","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Effectiveness of Lercanidipine and Amlodipine on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Hypertensive Patients.\",\"authors\":\"Jinsung Jeon, Sunwoo Ryoo, Seungmi Oh, Soon Jun Hong, Cheol Woong Yu, Yong Hyun Kim, Eung Ju Kim, Hyung Joon Joo\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ajh/hpae147\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Lercanidipine, a newer-generation calcium channel blocker, is recognized for its effective antihypertensive properties and reduced side effects. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of lercanidipine and amlodipine in preventing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in hypertensive patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multicenter, retrospective observational study was conducted using the electronic medical records database from three tertiary hospitals in South Korea between 2017 and 2021. Hypertensive patients treated with either amlodipine or lercanidipine were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized to minimize confounders, matching patients in a 3:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was the incidence of MACE, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure hospitalizations, and coronary revascularization over a 3-year follow-up period.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 47640 patients were evaluated, and 6029 patients were matched. Before PSM, the lercanidipine group had a higher cardiovascular risk (SCORE-2/SCORE-2OP value: 11.6% ± 9.2 vs 10.9% ± 8.8, p<0.01) and a higher incidence of MACE compared to the amlodipine group (4.1% vs 3.4%, p<0.01). After PSM, the incidence of MACE was numerically lower in the lercanidipine group compared to the amlodipine group (2.8% vs 4.1%, p=0.11), though this difference was not statistically significant. Blood pressure control remained comparable between the two groups over the 3-year follow-up period.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Lercanidipine demonstrated comparable effectiveness to amlodipine in preventing MACE among hypertensive patients. Given its comparable antihypertensive efficacy and potential for fewer side effects based on prior studies, lercanidipine may be considered a preferable option for hypertension management.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7578,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Hypertension\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Hypertension\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajh/hpae147\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Hypertension","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajh/hpae147","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:勒卡尼平是新一代钙通道阻滞剂,因其有效的降压特性和较低的副作用而受到认可。本研究旨在比较乐卡地平和氨氯地平在预防高血压患者主要不良心血管事件(MACE)方面的有效性:在2017年至2021年期间,利用韩国三家三级医院的电子病历数据库开展了一项多中心回顾性观察研究。研究分析了接受氨氯地平或乐卡地平治疗的高血压患者。为最大限度地减少混杂因素,采用倾向评分匹配法(PSM),以3:1的比例匹配患者。主要终点是MACE的发生率,即3年随访期内心血管死亡、心肌梗死、中风、心力衰竭住院和冠状动脉血运重建的综合指数:共有 47640 名患者接受了评估,6029 名患者进行了配对。在 PSM 之前,勒卡尼地平组的心血管风险更高(SCORE-2/SCORE-2OP 值:11.6% ± 9.2 vs 10.9% ± 8.8,pConclusions):在预防高血压患者的 MACE 方面,乐卡地平和氨氯地平的疗效相当。鉴于其降压疗效与氨氯地平相当,而且根据之前的研究,其副作用可能较小,因此可将勒卡尼平视为高血压治疗的首选药物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Effectiveness of Lercanidipine and Amlodipine on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Hypertensive Patients.

Background: Lercanidipine, a newer-generation calcium channel blocker, is recognized for its effective antihypertensive properties and reduced side effects. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of lercanidipine and amlodipine in preventing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in hypertensive patients.

Methods: A multicenter, retrospective observational study was conducted using the electronic medical records database from three tertiary hospitals in South Korea between 2017 and 2021. Hypertensive patients treated with either amlodipine or lercanidipine were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized to minimize confounders, matching patients in a 3:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was the incidence of MACE, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure hospitalizations, and coronary revascularization over a 3-year follow-up period.

Results: A total of 47640 patients were evaluated, and 6029 patients were matched. Before PSM, the lercanidipine group had a higher cardiovascular risk (SCORE-2/SCORE-2OP value: 11.6% ± 9.2 vs 10.9% ± 8.8, p<0.01) and a higher incidence of MACE compared to the amlodipine group (4.1% vs 3.4%, p<0.01). After PSM, the incidence of MACE was numerically lower in the lercanidipine group compared to the amlodipine group (2.8% vs 4.1%, p=0.11), though this difference was not statistically significant. Blood pressure control remained comparable between the two groups over the 3-year follow-up period.

Conclusions: Lercanidipine demonstrated comparable effectiveness to amlodipine in preventing MACE among hypertensive patients. Given its comparable antihypertensive efficacy and potential for fewer side effects based on prior studies, lercanidipine may be considered a preferable option for hypertension management.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American Journal of Hypertension
American Journal of Hypertension 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
144
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Hypertension is a monthly, peer-reviewed journal that provides a forum for scientific inquiry of the highest standards in the field of hypertension and related cardiovascular disease. The journal publishes high-quality original research and review articles on basic sciences, molecular biology, clinical and experimental hypertension, cardiology, epidemiology, pediatric hypertension, endocrinology, neurophysiology, and nephrology.
×
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