Antihypertensive Treatment and Central Arterial Hemodynamics: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Safety and efficacy of candesartan versus valsartan combined with amlodipine on peripheral and central blood pressure

INTRODUCTION

"Amlodipine/valsartan" or "amlodipine/candesartan" combinations represent two effective antihypertensive agents with complementary mechanisms of action. Nevertheless, a study has yet to be done to evaluate the effect of amlodipine/candesartan on central blood pressure and compare it with amlodipine/valsartan combination. To see how "amlodipine plus candesartan combination" reduces peripheral and central blood pressure compared to the most studied combination, "amlodipine plus valsartan".

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eighty-six patients were randomized in an open-label, prospective study by 1:1 ratio to two groups. Group I (n=42) received the amlodipine and valsartan combination, and group II (n=44) received the amlodipine and candesartan combination. Peripheral and central blood pressure (CBP) was measured at baseline, at 6 and 12 weeks of follow-up.

DISCUSSION

Both treatment groups reduced peripheral systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressure. There was no significant difference between and within both groups. The amlodipine/candesartan combination showed more reduction in peripheral systolic blood pressure (PSBP) after 12 weeks of treatment (p=<0.001). Both groups decreased CBP without significant differences between groups. The amlodipine/candesartan combination showed additional efficacy in decreasing CSBP after 12 weeks (p=<0.001). The two treatment groups did not exert significant efficacy in lowering heart rate (HR) and augmentation index% (AIx%).

CONCLUSION

To conclude, the amlodipine 10mg/candesartan 16mg combination was non-inferior to the amlodipine 10mg/valsartan 160mg combination in terms of reducing peripheral and CBP over time.

Antihypertensive therapy of late arterial hypertension in children following successful coarctation correction

BACKGROUNG

Late arterial hypertension (AH) is the most significant complication of coarctation of the aorta (CoA). Only a few clinical studies described antihypertensive treatment of late AH following successful CoA repair. The primary objective of this multicentre cross-sectional study was to describe real-life antihypertensive therapy for late AH in children after hemodynamically successful CoA repair. The secondary objective was to describe antihypertensive therapy used within different haemodynamic phenotypes of AH.

METHOD

Blood pressure status, echocardiographic parameters and central blood pressure measurements were evaluated in 110 children aged 6-18 years following successful CoA repair with right arm blood pressure not exceeding leg blood pressure by at least 20 mmHg.

RESULTS

AH was found in 62 (56%) patients including 47 who were already treated and 15 with new diagnosed AH of whom seven presented with masked hypertension. Among treated patients, 10 presented with masked hypertension. The dominant phenotype of AH among patients with uncontrolled AH was isolated systolic hypertension (32 patients out of 37; 87.5%). AH was controlled in 53% of treated patients. Fifty-three percent of hypertensive patients had elevated central SBP and 39% had left ventricular hypertrophy with various left ventricle geometry patterns, 23% of them had both. β-adrenergic receptor blockers were the most used antihypertensive drugs followed by angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors with doses within the lower recommended range.

CONCLUSION

High prevalence of uncontrolled AH despite successful CoA repair and use of relatively low doses of antihypertensive drugs indicates the need of close blood pressure monitoring and more intensive and combined antihypertensive therapy.

Central hypertension is a non-negligible cardiovascular risk factor

High blood pressure (BP) confers cardiovascular risk. However, the clinical value of central BP remains debatable. In this article, we aim to briefly review the prognosis, diagnosis, and treatment of central hypertension. Central and brachial BPs are closely correlated. In most prospective investigations, elevated central and peripheral BPs were similarly associated with adverse outcomes. Outcome-driven thresholds of the central systolic BP estimated by the type I device were on average 10 mmHg lower than their brachial counterparts. Cross-classification based on the central and brachial BPs identified that nearly 10% of patients had discrepancy in their status of central and brachial hypertension. Irrespective of the brachial BP status, central hypertension was associated with increased cardiovascular risk, highlighting the importance of central BP assessment in the management of hypertensive patients. Newer antihypertensive agents, such as renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and calcium channel blockers, were more efficacious than older agents in central BP reduction. Clinical trials are warranted to demonstrate whether controlling central hypertension with an optimized antihypertensive drug treatment will be beneficial beyond the control of brachial hypertension.