Advantages of blood pressure optimization
Lowering blood pressure (BP) reduces cardiovascular events, but aggressive BP management may not be advantageous. Optimal BP control (target: < 120/ 80 mm Hg) and conventional BP control (target: < 140/90 mm Hg) were compared in patients with hypertension in terms of target-organ damage and tolerability. A total of 23 patients with hypertension were randomly assigned to optimal versus conventional therapy for 6 months. Therapy was initiated with lercanidipine 10 mg/day. For BP control, the dose could be doubled or other drugs added. Three indices of target-organ damage were studied: left ventricular mass (LVM) index, flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) of the brachial artery, and 24-hour urinary albumin excretion. The BP decreased markedly by 21.3±3.4/13.2±1.7 mm Hg in the conventional therapy group and by 26.6±3.6/17.9±1.5 mm Hg in the optimal therapy group. Diastolic BP was significantly lower, by 4.7±2.3 mm Hg, in the optimal therapy group (P < .05). Ambulatory BP was also decreased in both groups. There was no significant change in LVM or FMD in either group. Baseline LVM index and FMD values were correlated with systolic BP (r=0.51, P=.02; r=0.54, P=.009). In the optimal therapy group, urinary albumin excretion increased significantly (P=.04). Plasma levels of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) decreased with antihypertensive therapy (P=.03). Treatment was well tolerated, and none of the patients withdrew from the study. There was no significant difference in adverse events between the 2 groups. Optimization of BP is feasible, safe, and well tolerated; however, a larger study of longer duration may be needed to demonstrate improvements in LVM and endothelial function with conventional versus optimal therapy.
Keywordsblood pressure hypertension antihypertensive drugs endothelial function left ventricular hypertrophy
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 4.Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure; National High Blood Pressure Education Program Coordinating Committee. The seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA. 2003;289:2560–2572.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. BMJ. 1998;317:703–713.Google Scholar
- 10.Cheung BMY, Cheung AHK, Ho SPC, Lau CP, Kumana CR. Utilisation of antihypertensive drugs in a hypertension clinic in 1996 and 1998. J Clin Pharmacol. 1999;39:969.Google Scholar
- 11.Cheung BMY, Wong YL, Lau CP. Queen Mary utilisation of antihypertensive drugs study: use of antihypertensive drug classes in the hypertension clinic 1996–2004. Brit J Clin Pharmacol. 2005;30:391–399.Google Scholar
- 13.Oh JK, Seward JB, Tajik AJ. The Echo Manual. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott-Raven; 1999.Google Scholar
- 21.Cheung BMY, Law CY, Fung PCW, et al. Randomised trial of candesartan and enalapril (RACE) in the treatment of hypertension. Proceedings of the 6th Congress of the European Association for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics; Istanbul, Turkey, June 24–28, 2003; p 128.Google Scholar