4.7 Review

Betablocker treatment in diabetes mellitus

期刊

JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 250, 期 1, 页码 11-17

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2796.2001.00829.x

关键词

antihypertensive therapy; beta blockers; blood pressure control; coronary heart disease; diabetes mellitus; glucose metabolism; hypoglycaemia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. Betablockers have been convincingly shown to reduce total and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality of hypertensive diabetic patients. In diabetic patients, after myocardial infarction, these agents confer a twice as high protective effect when compared to non-diabetic patients. However, most paradoxically, betablocking agents are used less frequently in diabetes. Control of hypertension is insufficient in most of the diabetic patients, probably because a combination of antihypertensive agents including betablockers is frequently needed to sufficiently control blood pressure but is not used in these patients. The fear of betablocker-associated side effects in diabetes may be partly responsible for the frequent antihypertensive mono-therapy and the resulting poor quality of blood pressure control among diabetic patients. Design, We have performed an analysis of the literature to assess whether possible adverse metabolic effects, a higher risk of hypoglycaemia or less nephroprotective effects of beta (1)-selective beta-blocking agents could justify the reticence in prescribing these antihypertensive agents to diabetic patients. Results, A thorough review of the literature does not indicate that beta (1)-selective betablocking agents have important adverse effects on glucose metabolism, prolong hypoglycaemia or mask hypoglycaemic symptoms. In diabetic nephropathy, betablockers are as nephroprotective as angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors. Conclusions. The unnecessary less frequent prescription of beta (1)-selective betablockers in diabetes mellitus may contribute to the higher cardiovascular mortality among these 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

4.7
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