Comparative Effects of Dopaminergic Agonists on Cardiovascular, Renal, and Renin-Angiotensin Systems in Hypertensive Patients

The role of dopaminergic receptors on renal function has been extensively studied. Recently dopaminergic receptor has been classified in two subtypes D1 and D2, which seem to have different modulatory function. However, the role of dopaminergic receptors on cardiovascular function and more specifically the potential role of dopaminergic agonists as antihypertensive agents has not yet been clarified. Nine outpatients with mild and moderate hypertension were studied in the Cardiology Service of Vargas Hospital with a D1 agonist, piribedil, at 50-100 mg/day, orally, for 8 weeks, and with a D2 agonist, bromocriptine, at 2.5 - 5 mg/day, orally, for an another 8 weeks by using a placebo comparative crossover design. Piribedil reduced blood pressure with a modest increase in heart rate, plasma renin activity, and of plasma aldosterone, and an important increment of renal function. Bromocriptine reduced blood pressure with a decrease in heart rate and plasma aldosterone without altering renal function. There was no orthostatic hypotension with either agent. The authors conclude that activation of dopaminergic D1 receptor induces a vasodilatory and antihypertensive effect with a reflex increase in sympathetic tone, whereas activation of dopaminergic D2 receptor induces a decrease in sympathetic tone, probably due to a decrease in norepinephrine release at adrenergic endings. The potential effect of these compounds as antihypertensive agents is of great interest because blood pressure reduction can be induced by a new mechanism, i.e. activation of dopaminergic receptors which results in a decrease of the renin angiotensin system or a vasodilatory action.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Diagnostic electrocardiography in epidemiological studies of Chagas' disease: multicenter evaluation of a standardized method

An electrocardiographic recording method with an associated reading guide, designed for epidemiological studies on Chagas' disease, was tested to assess its diagnostic reproducibility. Six cardiologists from five countries each read 100 electrocardiographic (ECG) tracings, including 30 from chronic chagasic patients, then reread them after an interval of 6 months. The readings were blind, with the tracings numbered randomly for the first reading and renumbered randomly for the second reading. The physicians, all experienced in interpreting ECGs from chagasic patients, followed printed instructions for reading the tracings. Reproducibility of the readings was evaluated using the kappa (kappa) index for concordance. The results showed a high degree of interobserver concordance with respect to the diagnosis of normal vs. abnormal tracings (kappa = 0.66; SE 0.02). While the interpretations of some categories of ECG abnormalities were highly reproducible, others, especially those having a low prevalence, showed lower levels of concordance. Intraobserver concordance was uniformly higher than interobserver concordance. The findings of this study justify the use by specialists of the recording of readings method proposed for epidemiological studies on Chagas' disease, but warrant caution in the interpretation of some categories of electrocardiographic alterations.

A Double-Blind, Parallel, Comparative Evaluation of Amlodipine vs. Captopril in the Monotherapeutic Treatment of Mild and Moderate Essential Hypertension

A double-blind, parallel, comparative study of the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of once-daily oral doses of amlodipine (5-10 mg/day) vs. twice-daily oral doses of captopril (25-50 mg twice daily) in adult patients with mild or moderate essential hypertension (supine diastolic blood pressure of 95-115 mm Hg) was undertaken in two hospital centers. Interim analysis of data from 40 patients shows that amlodipine and captopril both significantly (p < 0.05) reduced blood pressure compared with baseline. Nineteen of 21 (90.5%) amlodipine-treated patients and 15 of 19 (78.9%) captopril-treated patients had their diastolic blood pressure "normalized" (< 90 mm Hg) with mean final doses of 8.2 and 76.7 mg/day, respectively. At the final visit, there were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups in either mean supine or standing blood pressure. Minor nonsignificant changes in standing heart rate were observed in both treatment groups. Seven of the 21 amlodipine-treated patients and 3 of the 19 captopril-treated patients reported adverse experiences. No patients in either treatment group discontinued due to adverse events; one patient in the amlodipine group required a dose reduction. These interim data indicate that the overall efficacy and safety profiles of these two drugs are comparable.