4.5 Article

Effects of perindopril-based blood pressure lowering and of patient characteristics on the progression of silent brain infarct: the perindopril protection against recurrent stroke study (PROGRESS) CT substudy in Japan

期刊

HYPERTENSION RESEARCH
卷 27, 期 3, 页码 147-156

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1291/hypres.27.147

关键词

perindopril; hypertension; cerebrovascular disease; recurrent stroke; stroke subtype

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Controversy persists as to whether reducing the blood pressure of patients with a history of stroke leads to an increased risk of silent brain infarct (SBI) and dementia. A total of 667 patients were randomized to receive the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor perindopril (4 mg daily), with or without the diuretic indapamide (2 mg daily) or matching placebo(s). Brain CT scanning was performed annually over the mean follow-up period of 3.9 years. Active treatment reduced the blood pressure (systolic/diastolic) by 5.2/2.6 mmHg over the follow-up period. A total of 119 new SBI were detected and 92% of them were lacunar type small infarcts. The frequency of reaching the primary end-point (recurrent symptomatic stroke or new SBI) was similar in the placebo group (26.5%) and in the active treatment group (25.9%). There was no significant difference in brain atrophy indices between two groups. In the subgroup with a history of large artery infarction, 7 out of 55 patients from the placebo group developed new SBI, while none of the 40 patients from the active treatment group did so (p=0.020). The baseline diastolic blood pressure was significantly associated with the risk of new SBI (p=0.004), but the stroke subtype was not. In conclusion, blood pressure-lowering with a perindopril-based regimen did not increase the risk of SBI and brain atrophy in patients with a history of stroke. The baseline diastolic blood pressure was an independent predictor of new SBI, but the index stroke subtype did not influence the risk of SBI.

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