4.5 Review

Clinical efficacy and safety of spironolactone in patients with resistant hypertension A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 99, 期 34, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000021694

关键词

meta-analysis; resistant hypertension; spironolactone

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81874385/81673758]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: We conducted a meta-analysis to summarize all available evidence from randomized controlled trial studies regarding the clinical efficacy and safety of spironolactone in patients with resistant hypertension (RH) and provided a quantitative assessment. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases through December 8, 2019, was performed. Randomized controlled trials randomized controlled trials meeting inclusion criteria were included to assess the effect of the addition of spironolactone on office blood pressure (BP), 24-hour ambulatory BP or adverse events in RH patients. Results: Twelve trials, which enrolled a total of 1655 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. In comparison with placebo, spironolactone significantly reduced office BP (office SBP, weighted mean difference [WMD] = -20.14, 95% CI = -31.17 to -9.12,P < .001; office DBP WMD = -5.73, 95% CI = -8.13 to -3.33,P < .001) and 24-hour ambulatory BP (ASBP, WMD = -10.31, 95% CI = -12.86 to -7.76,P < .001; ADBP, WMD = -3.94, 95% CI = -5.50 to -2.37,P < .001). Compared with alternative drugs, spironolactone treatment in RH patients significantly decreased 24-hour ambulatory BP (ASBP, WMD = -6.98, 95% CI = -12.66 to -1.30,P < .05; ADBP, WMD = -3.03, 95% CI = -5.21 to -0.85,P < .001). Conclusion: This meta-analysis fully evaluated the antihypertensive effect of spironolactone compared with placebo, alternative drugs, renal nerve denervation and no treatment. Spironolactone can result in a substantial BP reduction in patients with RH at 3 months.

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

4.5
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