4.3 Article

Ramipril in the treatment of hypertension and proteinuria in children with chronic kidney diseases

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
卷 17, 期 5, 页码 415-420

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjhyper.2004.01.008

关键词

ramipril; hypertension; proteinuria; ambulatory blood pressure monitoring; children

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are the drugs of choice in renal hypertension. The efficacy and safety of ramipril in adults has been proved; however, data on effectiveness of ramipril in children are few. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of ramipril on blood pressure (BP) and proteinuria in children with chronic kidney diseases. Methods: A total of 31 children (median age 11.3 years, range 1.9-19.8 years) with various chronic nephropathies and hypertension or proteinuria were prospectively treated with ramipril for 6 months. Blood pressure was evaluated using ambulatory BP monitoring and hypertension was defined as mean BP equal to or greater than the 95th percentile for healthy children. Proteinuria was defined as protein excretion greater than or equal to 100 mg/m(2)/24 h. The starting dose of ramipril was 1.5 mg/m(2)/24 h once daily. In 27 children it was given as monotherapy. Results: The median decrease in ambulatory BP was 11 mm Hg for daytime systolic, 10 mm Hg for daytime and nighttime diastolic, and 8 mm Hg for nighttime systolic BP. Hypertension normalized in 55% of the children. Proteinuria decreased in 84% of the children with pathologic proteinuria; the median decrease was 51%. A positive correlation was found between initial proteinuria and change of proteinuria (r = 0.95, P < .001). Glomerular filtration rate and serum potassium level did not change significantly. One child developed a cough that was believed to be related to ramipril. Conclusions: Ramipril is an effective and safe drug in children with chronic kidney diseases associated with hypertension, proteinuria, or both.

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

4.3
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