4.7 Article

Comparative effects of ramipril on ambulatory and office blood pressures -: A HOPE substudy

期刊

HYPERTENSION
卷 38, 期 6, 页码 E28-E32

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/hy1101.099502

关键词

antihypertensive therapy; blood pressure monitoring; ambulatory; clinical trials; peripheral vascular diseases; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; ramipril

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the HOPE-trial, the ACE inhibitor ramipril significantly reduced cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients at high risk for cardiovascular events. The benefit could only partly be attributed to the modest mean reduction of office blood pressure (OBP) during the study period (3/2 mm Hg). However, because according to the HOPE protocol ramipril was given once daily at bedtime and blood pressure was measured during the day, the 24-hour reduction of blood pressure may be underestimated based on OBP. Thirty-eight patients with peripheral arterial disease enrolled in the HOPE study underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) measurement before randomization and after 1 year. OBP was measured in the sitting position immediately before fitting the ABP measuring equipment to the patients. Ramipril did not significantly reduce OBP (8/2 nun Hg, P=NS) or day ABP (6/2 nun Hg, P=NS) after 1 year. Twenty-four-hour ABP was significantly reduced (10/4 mm. Hg, P=0.03), mainly because of a more pronounced blood pressure lowering effect during nighttime (17/8 mm Hg, P<0.001). The night/day ratio was also significantly lowered in the ramipril group. ABP shows greater falls, especially at night, than OBP during treatment with ramipril given once daily at bedtime. Although, OBP is the correct comparator when comparing with previous large intervention trials and epidemiological studies, the effects on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality seen with ramipril in the HOPE study may, to a larger extent than previously ascribed, relate to effects on blood pressure patterns over the 24-hour period.

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

4.7
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