scholarly journals Blood pressure control and treatment adherence in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome: protocol of a randomized controlled study based on home blood pressure telemonitoring vs. conventional management and assessment of psychological determinants of adherence (TELEBPMET Study)

Trials ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianfranco Parati ◽  
Stefano Omboni ◽  
Angelo Compare ◽  
Enzo Grossi ◽  
Edward Callus ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Anjuman Alam ◽  
S. M. A. Zakaria

Background: To compare intravenous labetalol with oral nifedipine in terms of rapidity at which they control blood pressure in acute hypertensive emergencies of pregnancy.Methods: A randomized controlled study. Pregnant women with severe gestational hypertension with BP ≥160/110 mmHg after ≥20 weeks of gestation were randomized with computer generated numbers, either to receive IV labetalol with an escalating dose of 20, 40, 80, 80 and 80 mg or nifedipine capsule orally in a dose of 10 mg every 15 minutes (upto 5 doses) until a BP of ≤150/100 mmHg is achieved. Crossover treatment was to be effected if initial treatment regimen was unsuccessful. Primary outcome was time taken and number of doses required to achieve the target BP of ≤150/100 mmHg. Secondary outcomes were volume of urine output, maternal heart rate changes, fetal heart rate abnormality, perinatal and maternal outcome and side effects.Results: Oral nifedipine achieved the target BP (≤150/100 mmHg) more rapidly in (26.25±12.60) minutes in comparison to (32.62±12.19) minutes with IV labetalol (p= 0.024). Nifedipine group also took less number of doses to achieve the target BP of (≤150/100 mmHg) mmHg than IV labetalol (1.75±0.840 vs. 2.18±0.83), p= 0.024. Volume of urine output was also significantly more in nifedipine group (94.90±1.84 ml) at 1 hour and thereafter till 24 hour of treatment in comparison to IV labetalol (41.28±2.14 ml), p= 0.000. Side effects are few and not serious. No patient required crossover treatment.Conclusions: Both the drugs are equally effective in controlling acute hypertensive emergencies of pregnancy, however oral nifedipine is more rapid in controlling severe hypertension and also it is associated with significantly increased urine output.


Nutrients ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. 3213
Author(s):  
Yasemin Ergul Kunduraci ◽  
Hanefi Ozbek

The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of an energy restriction intermittent fasting diet in metabolic biomarkers and weight management among adults with metabolic syndrome. This randomized controlled study was performed with metabolic syndrome patients, aged 18–65 years, at an academic institution in Istanbul, Turkey (n = 70). All participants were randomized to the Intermittent Energy Restriction (IER) intervention group and Continuous Energy Restriction (CER) control group. Biochemical tests including lipid profile, fasting plasma glucose, insulin, glycosylated hemoglobin Type A1c (HbA1c), homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), blood pressure, and body composition were evaluated at baseline and at the 12th week in diet interviews. Dietary intake was measured with the 24-h dietary recall method and dietary quality was evaluated with the Healthy Eating Index-2010. Changes in body weight (≈7% weight loss) and composition were similar in both groups. Blood pressure, total cholesterol, triglyceride, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), fasting glucose, and insulin at the 12th week decreased in both groups (p < 0.05). No significant differences were observed in metabolic syndrome biomarkers between the IER and CER groups. The energy-restricted intermittent fasting diet did not cause any deficiencies in macronutrient and fiber intake in the subjects. Healthy Eating Index (HEI) index scores were achieved similarly in both groups, and subjects’ dietary intakes were close to daily reference nutritional intake values. The technique used to achieve energy restriction, whether intermittent or continuous, appears to alleviate the metabolic syndrome biomarkers activated by weight loss.


2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yendelela L Cuffee ◽  
Christopher Sciamanna ◽  
William Gerin ◽  
Erik Lehman ◽  
Lindsay Cover ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document