Long-term hemodynamic effects at rest and during exercise of newer antihypertensive agents and salt restriction in essential hypertension: review of epanolol, doxazosin, amlodipine, felodipine, diltiazem, lisinopril, dilevalol, carvedilol, and ketanserin.
ABSTRACT Hypertension is due to disturbance of the complex interplay between numerous known and unknown mechanisms that normally control blood pressure. Antihypertensive agents may, therefore, reduce blood pressure through widely different actions and, at the same time, elicit counterregulatory responses. This is a review of the long-term hemodynamic effects at rest as well as during exercise of nine relatively new antihypertensive compounds: a beta-blocker (epanolol), an alpha-receptor blocker (doxazosin), two double-acting compounds (dilevalol and carvedilol), three calcium antagonists (amlodipine, felodipine, and diltiazem), an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril), a serotonin antagonist (ketanserin), and low-salt diet as a nonpharmacological treatment in 171 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. The results in the treatment groups are compared to the hemodynamic changes seen in 28 hypertensive patients left untreated for 10 years. The patient populations of the different groups were comparable. The invasive hemodynamic technique, including intraarterial blood pressure recording and measurements of cardiac output by Cardigreen, was the same in all studies. While blood pressure remained nearly unchanged in the untreated group, all antihypertensive compounds induced significant and sustained blood pressure reduction both at rest and during exercise. The modest reduction (3-5%) in blood pressure during a low-salt diet was also statistically significant. This review shows the multiplicity of the long-term hemodynamic changes, ranging from a reduction in cardiac output to peripheral vasodilatation, during chronic antihypertensive therapy. In untreated hypertensives, the cardiac output is reduced by 1-2% per year and total peripheral resistance is increased by 2-3% per year. The review also focuses on counterregulatory responses and modify the initial reduction in blood pressure after drug treatment for hypertension. It is concluded that proper understanding of the hemodynamic effects of antihypertensive agents is useful in the selection of the right treatment for specific groups of hypertensive patients.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Antihypertensive drugs may lower blood pressure through very different mechanisms, initially as well as during chronic use. This article is a review of the immediate hemodynamic changes induced by a beta blocker (visacor), an alpha-receptor blocker (doxazosin), two calcium antagonists (tiapamil and nisoldipine), an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (perindoprilat), two double-acting compounds (dilevalol and carvedilol), and placebo studied in 126 patients with mild to moderately severe essential hypertension. The patient populations of the different treatment groups were comparable. The invasive hemodynamic technique, including intraarterial blood pressure (BP) recording and measurements of cardiac output by cardiogreen, was the same in all studies. All antihypertensive compounds examined induced a rapid reduction in blood pressure both at rest and during exercise, while no significant changes occurred in the placebo group. This review shows the scope of hemodynamic responses, ranging from peripheral vasodilation to a reduction of heart rate and blood flow. Furthermore, different counterregulatory effects blunting the immediate BP reduction are demonstrated.Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy 09/1990; 4(4):1135-43. · 2.67 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The reproducibility of ambulatory, home, and clinic blood pressures was compared in 13 untreated mildly hypertensive and 14 normotensive subjects. Each subject had two sets of daily ambulatory recordings, home self-measured readings (over 6 days), and clinic measurements taken 2 weeks apart. Comparisons over the 2 weeks within and among the methods of measurements were made using a repeated-measures analysis of variance. The results showed that there was no consistent average change in the ambulatory or home pressures and no change in clinic diastolic pressures, but the clinic systolic pressure of the hypertensive subjects dropped 6 mm Hg (p less than 0.05), while that of the normotensive subjects showed no significant change. Test-retest correlations of each of the three methods were similar in magnitude, indicating a similar level of reliability. Test-retest correlations of the ambulatory standard deviations, however, were low, indicating a low reliability of this measure of daily pressure variability. These results suggest that the reproducibility of ambulatory pressures may be as good or better than that of home or clinic measurements. They also suggest that the average ambulatory pressure may be preferable as the measurement in clinical trials, since it may be less influenced by measurement anxiety, particularly in hypertensive subjects.Hypertension 07/1988; 11(6 Pt 1):545-9. · 6.87 Impact Factor
- American Heart Journal 02/1973; 85(1):22-34. · 4.50 Impact Factor