scholarly journals Comparative efficacy and predictive value of fixed combination of amlodipine and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker in patients with coronary heart disease, post-infarction cardiosclerosis and hypertension

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 791-799
Author(s):  
M. M. Dolzhenko ◽  
S. A. Bondarchuk

The aim of the work – to analyze the effectiveness of a fixed combination of amlodipine and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (lisinopril) or angiotensin II receptor blocker (valsartan) in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD), post-infarction cardiosclerosis (PIC), arterial hypertension (AH) regarding the blood pressure (BP) control and impact on a composite endpoint. Materials and methods. General clinical examination of 108 patients with PIC and AH was done at the Cardiology Department of Shupyk National Healthcare University of Ukraine within 12 months. Patients were divided into two groups. The first group patients (n = 50) were assigned to receive a fixed combination of valsartan and amlodipine (160 mg and 5 mg, respectively), and the second group patients (n = 58) were treated with a fixed combination of lisinopril and amlodipine (10 mg and 5 mg, respectively). Patients were followed-up for 12 months, including general clinical examination, office BP measurements, 24-hour BP monitoring, echodopplerography, monitoring of the composite endpoint. Exclusion criteria were hemodynamically significant heart valve lesions, permanent or temporary cardiac pacing, acute heart failure and implanted cardioverter-defibrillator, permanent form of atrial fibrillation, acute cerebrovascular disorder, decompensation of severe somatic pathology. Statistical analysis of the data obtained was performed using Microsoft Excel, IBM SPSS Statistics v. 23. Descriptive data were presented as arithmetic mean ± standard deviation (M ± SD) in the case of normal distribution of variables, data with distribution other than normal were presented in Me format (Q25; Q75), where Me was the median, Q25, Q75 – lower and upper quartiles (Q25; Q75), or as a percentage for categorical values with Pearson’s Chi-square (χ2) calculation. Differences in mean values were considered statistically significant at a level of Р < 0.05. Results. According to all statistical criteria, BP indicators did not differ in both patient groups. Systolic office BP in the first group was 133.00 (123.00; 140.25) mm Hg., in the second group – 130.00 (122.00; 140.00) mm Hg. In the first group, diastolic office BP was 81.00 (79.50; 81.00) mm Hg and in the second group – 80.00 (75.00; 86.00) mm Hg. No statistically significant differen­ces were found in the study groups when assessing mean BP levels during the 24-hour monitoring. In the assessment of index values, systolic BP load was higher than normal in 58 % of patients in the first group and in 56.9 % of patients in the second group (χ2 = 0.01; P = 0.53). The assessment of diastolic BP load indices revealed increased diastolic BP index in 72 % of patient in the first group and in 75.9 % – in the second group (χ2 = 0.2; P = 0.4). The number of patients with BP higher or less than 130/80 mm Hg was compared. Systolic BP was above and below 130 mm Hg in 56 % and 44 %, respectively, of the first group patients; the distribution was 37.9 % and 62.1 % in the second group. Therefore, the percentage of patients with target systolic BP was higher in the second group (χ2 = 3.52; P = 0.046). Analyzing the composite endpoint, a statistically significant difference in the Kaplan–Meier curves via the statistical criterion using a log-rank test (P = 0.007) was detected. Conclusions. No statistically significant differences were found in the analysis of office blood pressure and 24-hour blood pressure monitoring between amlodipine with lisinopril and amlodipine with valsartan groups. The detailed analysis revealed a greater percentage of patients with target blood pressure below 130/80 mm Hg among those under 65 years of age receiving amlodipine with lisinopril (χ2 = 3.52; P = 0.046). The better prognostic value of the fixed combination of amlodipine with lisinopril compared to the combination of amlodipine with valsartan (P = 0.007) was demonstrated by the endpoint analysis.

2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 39A-49A ◽  
Author(s):  
J Petrovic ◽  
D Petrovic ◽  
N Vukovic ◽  
B Zivanovic ◽  
J Dragicevic ◽  
...  

Angiotensin II induces inflammatory activation of vascular smooth muscle cells and can cause left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). Telmisartan is an angiotensin II receptor blocker with demonstrated beneficial effects on cardiac and vascular structure and function in animal models. The angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ramipril also reduces ventricular and vascular remodelling. The open-label study observed 75 treatment-naïve, moderately or severely hypertensive (systolic blood pressure 160-190 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure 90-110 mmHg) patients (age range, 42-58 years) treated with once-daily telmisartan 40 mg force-titrated to 80 mg after 1 month (n = 25), once-daily ramipril 2.5 mg force-titrated to 5 mg after 1 month (n = 25), or once-daily telmisartan 40 mg plus ramipril 2.5 mg (n = 25); the total duration of treatment was 6 months. At baseline, blood pressure, left ventricular mass index (LVMI), carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) and carotid cross-sectional intima-media area (CSA) were measured. Measurements were repeated 1, 3 and 6 months after initiation of treatment. After 6 months, comparable blood pressure reductions were achieved with the three treatments. Reductions in LVMI after 6 months' treatment were 11.4%, 9.9% and 15.6% with telmisartan, ramipril, and telmisartan plus ramipril, respectively. Respective reductions in IMT were 14.6%, 12.0% and 18.2%, and for CSA were 7.8%, 4.3% and 11.5%. In conclusion, treatment with telmisartan or ramipril for 6 months resulted in regression of LVH and vascular remodelling. When a combination of telmisartan and ramipril was administered, additional regression and remodelling occurred.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. e0244532
Author(s):  
Rodrigo A. Brandão Neto ◽  
Julio F. Marchini ◽  
Lucas O. Marino ◽  
Julio C. G. Alencar ◽  
Felippe Lazar Neto ◽  
...  

Background The first cases of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Brazil were diagnosed in February 2020. Our Emergency Department (ED) was designated as a COVID-19 exclusive service. We report our first 500 confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia patients. Methods From 14 March to 16 May 2020, we enrolled all patients admitted to our ED that had a diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia. Infection was confirmed via nasopharyngeal swabs or tracheal aspirate PCR. The outcomes included hospital discharge, invasive mechanical ventilation, and in-hospital death, among others. Results From 2219 patients received in the ED, we included 506 with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia. We found that 333 patients were discharged home (65.9%), 153 died (30.2%), and 20 (3.9%) remained in the hospital. A total of 300 patients (59.3%) required ICU admission, and 227 (44.9%) needed invasive ventilation. The multivariate analysis found age, number of comorbidities, extension of ground glass opacities on chest CT and troponin with a direct relationship with all-cause mortality, whereas dysgeusia, use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin-ii receptor blocker and number of lymphocytes with an inverse relationship with all-cause mortality Conclusions This was a sample of severe patients with COVID-19, with 59.2% admitted to the ICU and 41.5% requiring mechanical ventilator support. We were able to ascertain the outcome in majority (96%) of patients. While the overall mortality was 30.2%, mortality for intubated patients was 55.9%. Multivariate analysis agreed with data found in other studies although the use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin-ii receptor blocker as a protective factor could be promising but would need further studies. Trial registration The study was registered in the Brazilian registry of clinical trials: RBR-5d4dj5.


2020 ◽  
Vol 222 (8) ◽  
pp. 1256-1264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine W Lam ◽  
Kenneth W Chow ◽  
Jonathan Vo ◽  
Wei Hou ◽  
Haifang Li ◽  
...  

Abstract Background This study investigated continued and discontinued use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) during hospitalization of 614 hypertensive laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients. Methods Demographics, comorbidities, vital signs, laboratory data, and ACEi/ARB usage were analyzed. To account for confounders, patients were substratified by whether they developed hypotension and acute kidney injury (AKI) during the index hospitalization. Results Mortality (22% vs 17%, P &gt; .05) and intensive care unit (ICU) admission (26% vs 12%, P &gt; .05) rates were not significantly different between non-ACEi/ARB and ACEi/ARB groups. However, patients who continued ACEi/ARBs in the hospital had a markedly lower ICU admission rate (12% vs 26%; P = .001; odds ratio [OR] = 0.347; 95% confidence interval [CI], .187–.643) and mortality rate (6% vs 28%; P = .001; OR = 0.215; 95% CI, .101–.455) compared to patients who discontinued ACEi/ARB. The odds ratio for mortality remained significantly lower after accounting for development of hypotension or AKI. Conclusions These findings suggest that continued ACEi/ARB use in hypertensive COVID-19 patients yields better clinical outcomes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document