Background and Purpose-In hypertensive stroke patients, for the same level of blood pressure control, eprosartan will be more effective than nitrendipine in reducing cerebrovascular and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Methods-A total of 1405 well-defined, high-risk hypertensives with cerebral event during the last 24 months (proven by cerebral computed tomography scan or nuclear magnetic resonance) were randomized to eprosartan or nitrendipine (mean follow-up 2.5 years). Primary end point was the composite of total mortality and all cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, including all recurrent events. Results-Randomization was successful without significant differences in the baseline characteristics. Blood pressure was reduced to a comparable extent without any significant differences between the 2 groups during the whole study period (150.

No abstract

on behalf of the ACCESS Study GroupBackground and Purpose-The Acute Candesartan Cilexetil Therapy in Stroke Survivors (ACCESS) study was designed to assess the safety of modest blood pressure reduction by candesartan cilexetil in the early treatment of stroke. The study was also designed to provide an estimate of the number of cases required to perform a larger phase III efficacy study. Methods-Five hundred patients were recruited in a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter phase II study. Results-This safety trial was stopped prematurely when 342 patients (339 valid) had been randomized because of an imbalance in end points. Demographic data, cardiovascular risk factors, and blood pressure on admission, on study onset, and within the whole study period were not significantly different between the 2 groups. However, the cumulative 12-month mortality and the number of vascular events differed significantly in favor of the candesartan cilexetil group (odds ratio, 0.475; 95% CI, 0.252 to 0.895). There were no significant differences in concomitant medication and in number or type of side effects. Conclusions-Although the mechanisms by which angiotensin type 1 (AT 1 ) receptor blockade affects cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are still unresolved, the present study shows that early neurohumoral inhibition has similar beneficial effects in cerebral and in myocardial ischemia.

No abstract

There is now good clinical evidence that patients with high-normal blood pressure (prehypertension) are more likely to progress to manifest hypertension than patients with optimal or normal blood pressure. Additional ambulatory blood pressure monitoring seems to be essential to achieve correct diagnosis. Treatment of patients with high-normal office blood pressure with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor was well tolerated, and significantly reduced the risk of progression to manifest hypertension.

In non-diabetic hypertensive patients, MAU as well as TPU increases the incidence of cardiovascular events. Normalization of MAU, TPU or macroproteinuria during angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitor-based treatment correlates with a reduction of cardiovascular events. Beyond blood pressure control, normalization of MAU and TPU should be considered as a further therapeutic goal. There is a need for further studies to optimize treatment if proteinuria is unresponsive to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.

Baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) has been demonstrated to decrease office blood pressure (BP) in the randomized, double-blind Rheos trial. There are limited data on 24-hour BP changes measured by ambulatory BP measurements (ABPMs) using the first generation rheos BAT system suggesting a significant reduction but there are no information about the effect of the currently used, unilateral BAT neo device on ABPM. Patients treated with the BAT neo device for uncontrolled resistant hypertension were prospectively included into this study. ABPM was performed before BAT implantation and 6 months after initiation of BAT. A total of 51 patients were included into this study, 7 dropped out from analysis because of missing or insufficient follow-up. After 6 months, 24-hour ambulatory systolic (from 148±17 mm Hg to 140±23 mm Hg, P <0.01), diastolic (from 82±13 mm Hg to 77±15 mm Hg, P <0.01), day- and night-time systolic and diastolic BP (all P ≤0.01) significantly decreased while the number of prescribed antihypertensive classes could be reduced from 6.5±1.5 to 6.0±1.8 ( P =0.03). Heart rate and pulse pressure remained unchanged. BAT was equally effective in reducing ambulatory BP in all subgroups of patients. This is the first study demonstrating a significant BP reduction in ABPM in patients undergoing chronically stimulation of the carotid sinus using the BAT neo device. About that BAT-reduced office BP and improved relevant aspects of ABPM, BAT might be considered as a new therapeutic option to reduce cardiovascular risk in patients with resistant hypertension. Randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate BAT effects on ABPM in patients with resistant hypertension accurately.

BackgroundPrevious randomized controlled trials demonstrated a protective effect of renin angiotensin system blocking agents for the development of type-2 diabetes in patients with pre-diabetes. However, there are no real-world data available to illustrate the relevance for clinical practice.MethodsOpen, prospective, parallel group study comparing patients with an ACE inhibitor versus a diuretic based treatment. The principal aim was to document the first manifestation of type-2 diabetes in either group.ResultsA total of 2,011 patients were enrolled (mean age 69.1 ± 10.3 years; 51.6% female). 1,507 patients were available for the per-protocol analysis (1,029 ramipril, 478 diuretic group). New-onset diabetes was less frequent in the ramipril than in the diuretic group over 4 years. Differences were statistically different at a median duration of 3 years (24.4% vs 29.5%; p < 0.05). Both treatments were equally effective in reducing BP (14.7 ± 18.0/8.5 ± 8.2 mmHg and 12.7 ± 18.1/7.0 ± 8.3 mmHg) at the 4 year follow-up (p < 0.001 vs. baseline; p = n.s. between groups). In 38.6% and 39.7% of patients BP was below 130/80 mmHg (median time-to-target 3 months). There was a significant reduction of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in favour of ramipril (p = 0.033). No significant differences were found for a change in HbA1c as well as for fasting blood glucose levels during follow-up. The rate of adverse events was higher in diuretic treated patients (SAE 15.4 vs. 12.4%; p < 0.05; AE 26.6 vs. 25.6%; p = n.s).ConclusionsRamipril treatment is preferable over diuretic based treatment regimens for the treatment of hypertension in pre-diabetic patients, because new-onset diabetes is delayed.