4.6 Article

Beneficial Effects on Arterial Stiffness and Pulse-Wave Reflection of Combined Enalapril and Candesartan in Chronic Kidney Disease - A Randomized Trial

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041757

关键词

-

资金

  1. Danish Kidney Association (Nyreforeningen)
  2. Danish Society of Nephrology
  3. Danish Heart Association
  4. Research Council of Herlev Hospital
  5. Foundation of Augustinus
  6. Foundation of Horslev
  7. Foundation of Aase
  8. Foundation of Ejnar Danielsen
  9. Aase Bay, Denmark

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is highly prevalent in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Inhibition of the renin-angiotensinsystem (RAS) in hypertension causes differential effects on central and brachial blood pressure (BP), which has been translated into improved outcome. The objective was to examine if a more complete inhibition of RAS by combining an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) and an angiotensin receptor antagonist (ARB) compared to monotherapy has an additive effect on central BP and pulse-wave velocity (PWV), which are known markers of CVD. Methods: Sixty-seven CKD patients (mean GFR 30, range 13-59 ml/min/1.73 m(2)) participated in an open randomized study of 16 weeks of monotherapy with either enalapril or candesartan followed by 8 weeks of dual blockade aiming at a total dose of 16 mg candesartan and 20 mg enalapril o.d. Pulse-wave measurements were performed at week 0, 8, 16 and 24 by the SphygmoCor device. Results: Significant additive BP independent reductions were found after dual blockade in aortic PWV (20.3 m/s, P<0.05) and in augmentation index (22%, P<0.01) compared to monotherapy. Furthermore pulse pressure amplification was improved (P<0.05) and central systolic BP reduced (26 mmHg, P<0.01). Conclusions: Dual blockade of the RAS resulted in an additive BP independent reduction in pulse-wave reflection and arterial stiffness compared to monotherapy in CKD patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据