Comparison of 24-Hour Ambulatory Central Blood Pressure Reduction Efficacy Between Fixed Amlodipine or Up-Titrated Hydrochlorothiazide Plus Losartan: The K-Central Study

24-Hour Blood Pressure Control with Amlodipine: A Review of the Current Scenario

Introduction Hypertension is the leading cause of cardiovascular diseases and premature death worldwide. Antihypertensive therapy using calcium channel blockers (CCBs) is one of the preferred choices to treat blood pressure (BP) and control blood pressure variability (BPV). In contrast to clinic BP, 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) has evolved into an accurate and reproducible tool for the assessment and management of hypertension. Amlodipine, a longer acting dihydropyridine CCB is effective for 24 hours BP control and also minimizing BPV. The present article is the comprehensive review highlighting the efficacy of amlodipine in controlling 24-hour BP and minimizing BPV from the review of recent studies.

Materials and Methods The literature search was done using PubMed, Google Scholar, and MEDLINE databases. The studies to be included for review, were identified through the keywords: “amlodipine,” “ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM),”“blood pressure variability (BPV),” “CCBs,” and filtering articles published in English language only.

Results Pharmacological evidence suggests that amlodipine has the ability to block all the subtypes of CCBs such as L-, N-, P-, Q-, R-, and T-type. Various clinical studies reported that amlodipine is a powerful, well-tolerated, and safe antihypertensive agent which is widely used either alone or as a key component of combination therapy for control of 24 hours BP.

Conclusion Overall, amlodipine is a proven and effective antihypertensive drug and helpful in controlling 24-hour BP, minimizing BP variability and hence reducing the risk of cardiovascular complications.

Differential impact of antihypertensive drugs on cardiovascular remodeling: a review of findings and perspectives for HFpEF prevention

Heart failure (HF) is an important health problem worldwide whose stages have traditionally been classified from A to D. In addition, HF can be categorized as that with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and that with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Hypertension and arterial stiffness in stage A HF are major drivers of the progression to left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), a criterion of stage B HF. Although the pathogenesis of HFpEF is heterogeneous, affected patients tend to be older than HFrEF patients and have a greater prevalence of hypertension, which is closely associated with arterial stiffness and LVH. Thus, to treat HFpEF, the optimal intervention for improving prognosis is an aggressive approach to early-stage, i.e., Stage A and B, HF. This paper reviews the findings on arterial stiffness and LVH using conventional antihypertensive drugs such as angiotensin receptor II blockers (ARBs) and a new drug class for HF, ARB/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi). Previous studies have suggested that the combination of an ARB with an L-T-type calcium channel blocker might be recommended for the improvement of arterial stiffness and regression of LVH. More recent research has shown that ARNi also improves central BP, which leads to a reduced afterload and a significant reduction in LVH. For optimal treatment of HFpEF, drug therapy should directly address arterial stiffness as well as hypertension.

Effects of enhanced versus reduced vasodilating treatment on brachial and central blood pressure in patients with chronic kidney disease: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Blood pressure (BP) control is important in chronic kidney disease (CKD), but a reduction in brachial BP may not mirror changes in central aortic BP (cBP) during antihypertensive medication. We hypothesize that a fall in cBP is better reflected during enhanced vasodilation treatment (EVT) compared with reduced vasodilation treatment (RVT) because of different hemodynamic actions of these interventions.

METHODS

Eighty-one hypertensive CKD stage 3-4 patients (mean measured glomerular filtration rate 36 ml/min per 1.73 m2) were randomized to either EVT based on renin--angiotensin blockade and/or amlodipine or RVT based on nonvasodilating β-blockade (metoprolol). Before randomization and following 18 months of treatment, we performed 24-h ambulatory BP measurements (ABPM) and radial artery pulse wave analysis for estimation of cBP and augmentation index (AIx). Forearm resistance (Rrest) was determined by venous occlusion plethysmography and arterial stiffness by carotid--femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV). Matched healthy controls were studied once for comparison.

RESULTS

Compared with controls, CKD patients had elevated ABPM, cBP and PWV. Although ABPM remained unchanged from baseline to follow-up in both treatment groups, cBP decreased 4.7/2.9 mmHg (systolic/diastolic) during EVT and increased 5.1/1.5 mmHg during RVT (Δ=9.8/4.4 mmHg, P=0.02 for SBP, P = 0.05 for DBP). At follow-up, the difference between systolic cBP and 24-h ABPM (ΔBPsyst) was negatively associated with heart rate and positively associated with AIx and Rrest (all P < 0.01) but not PWV (P = 0.32).

CONCLUSION

In CKD patients, EVT and RVT have opposite effects on cBP and the difference between cBP and ambulatory BP is larger for EVT than RVT.

The association of smoothness index of central blood pressure with ambulatory carotid femoral pulse wave velocity after 20-week treatment with losartan in combination with amlodipine versus hydrochlorothiazide

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

The aim of this study was to identify associations between the smoothness index of central SBP (CSBP) and changes of ambulatory carotid femoral pulse wave velocity in response to 20-week treatments with losartan and amlodipine vs. losartan and hydrochlorthiazide combinations.