In hypertensive subjects with LVH, regression of LVH was predicted much more closely by treatment-induced changes in ABP than in the clinic BP. This provides the first longitudinally controlled evidence that ABP may be clinically superior to traditional BP measurements.

This study used 2D Doppler flowmetry to assess the effects on peripheral hemodynamics of effective treatment with nicardipine or atenolol in 40 patients with mild or moderate essential hypertension. Two groups of 20 patients received treatment with nicardipine or atenolol, respectively, for 8 months. Consequently, those patients considered to be responders (blood pressure less than 150/90 mm Hg) were monitored for another 4 weeks after the therapy was suspended in order to determine whether the changes, if any, in arterial compliance persisted. Following the 8-month therapy, four patients from each group were excluded from the study because of unsatisfactory blood pressure levels. After the treatment, there was a decrease in blood pressure in both groups (P less than .01). In the nicardipine group, there was a significant increase in diameter and compliance (P less than .01), whereas pulse wave velocity and resistance decreased (P less than .01). In the atenolol group, these parameters did not change significantly. After therapy was ended, blood pressure returned to baseline values in both groups. However, in the nicardipine group, the observed improvement in forearm hemodynamics persisted. This result may indicate that nicardipine is able to induce a regression of functional and/or structural changes in the large arteries of hypertensive patients.

This double-blind, multicenter trial compared antihypertensive efficacy, tolerability, and impact on quality of life of manidipine and amlodipine in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Patients were randomly assigned to 48 weeks of once-daily manidipine, 10-20 mg, or amlodipine, 5-10 mg. Patients who did not respond to treatment after 12 weeks were also given enalapril, 10-20 mg, for the study's duration. The main efficacy end point was equivalence in sitting systolic (SiSBP) and diastolic (SiDBP) blood pressure reduction between the two drugs after 8 weeks (per protocol analysis). An intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was performed in all patients with at least one efficacy determination during treatment. Quality of life was assessed by the "Subjective Symptoms Assessment Profile" (SSA-P) and "General Well-being Schedule" (GWBS), after 12 weeks of treatment. SiSBP reduction after 8 weeks was equivalent for manidipine (15.2 mm Hg, n = 227) and amlodipine (17.0 mm Hg, n = 219). The corresponding figure for SiDBP was 11.3 mm Hg for manidipine and 12.3 mm Hg for amlodipine. In the larger ITT population SiDBP was similarly and significantly reduced by manidipine (from 102 +/- 5 to 88 +/- 9 mm Hg, n = 241) and amlodipine (from 101 +/- 5 to 87 +/- 8 mm Hg, n = 240). Similar results were observed for SiSBP and standing SBP and DBP. Neither drug changed sitting or standing heart rate compared with baseline. SSA-P scores improved with manidipine but not amlodipine. GWBS total and partial scores increased more with manidipine than with amlodipine. Safety profile favored manidipine, which was associated with significantly less ankle edema than was amlodipine. This study shows for the first time that long-term treatment with the long-acting calcium channel blocker manidipine is as effective as treatment with amlodipine, has a better tolerability profile, and induces greater improvement in quality of life than amlodipine.

The risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality is greatly affected by cigarette smoking. In order to study the pressor response to smoking, 10 normotensive and 10 mild or moderate essential-hypertensive smokers ( > 20 cigarettes daily) were compared with 2 comparable groups of non-smokers. All subjects were asked to smoke 4 cigarettes during 1 h; blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) were monitored beat-to-beat by a non-invasive device (Finapres Ohmeda) during the smoking period and during the immediately preceding non-smoking hour. Furthermore, all subjects underwent 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring. In all groups, each cigarette induced a similar and statistically significant increase from baseline for both BP and HR. The recovery from the marked rise in BP and HR was very slow so that in the smoking hours BP and HR were persistently higher than in non-smoking hours; there were no statistically significant differences between the four groups. During 24-hour ambulatory monitoring both normo-and hypertensive smokers showed higher BP values and higher BP variability in comparison with the respective non-smokers’ group. In conclusion, smoking habits were associated with a persistent increase in BP in each group we studied, possibly contributing to a smoking-related cardiovascular risk.

No abstract

Fifty patients with mild or moderate hypertension were assessed for the influence on peripheral hemodynamics of 10 months of treatment with lisinopril (25 patients) or metoprolol (25 patients). Two-dimensional Doppler flowmetry was used for the evaluation. Responding patients (blood pressure < 150/90 mm Hg) were monitored for another 4 weeks after treatment withdrawal to determine whether changes in forearm hemodynamics, if any, persisted. Twenty-two patients from either group (88%) were considered to be responders. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure in patients receiving lisinopril dropped by 6% and 15%, respectively (p < 0.001), in those receiving metoprolol the decrease was 5.9% and 14%, respectively (p < 0.001). Forearm hemodynamics was not significantly different before treatment and improved in patients receiving lisinopril, with increased compliance (p < 0.001) and lower vascular resistance (p < 0.001). No significant changes were observed with metoprolol. After withdrawal, blood pressure returned to baseline values in both groups. However, improvement in forearm hemodynamics persisted in the lisinopril group. Hemodynamics changes were statistically different on lisinopril versus metoprolol both after treatment and after withdrawal. Lisinopril, but not metoprolol, seems capable to induce regression of functional and/or structural changes of large arteries in patients with hypertension.

Many patients with arterial hypertension have abnormal urinary excretion levels of albumin. This study was aimed at examining the effects of lisinopril and amlodipine on urinary excretion of albumin and kidney function. Thirty-six previously untreated patients with essential arterial hypertension were divided randomly into two groups. The first group received lisinopril 20 mg daily for 12 weeks followed by 10 mg amlodipine daily for another 12 weeks. The second group received 10 mg amlodipine daily for 12 weeks followed by 20 mg lisinopril daily for another 12 weeks. The arterial pressure decreased in a similar way with both therapies in both groups. In both groups urinary albumin excretion decreased in patients receiving lisinopril (p < 0.01). No significant changes were observed with amlodipine. This study shows that lisinopril, but not amlodipine, is able to reduce urinary excretion of albumin in patients with essential hypertension independently of its effective antihypertensive properties. It is probable that the positive effect of lisinopril on microalbuminuria is attributable to the modifications in intrarenal hemodynamics or to a change in glomerular permeability.

No abstract