Article

Blood pressure and coronary heart disease.

Clinical Trial Service Unit and ICRF Cancer Studies Unit, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford OX2 6HE, UK
The Lancet (Impact Factor: 39.21). 09/1990; 336(8711):370-1. DOI: 10.1016/0140-6736(90)91908-S
Source: PubMed
0 Bookmarks
 · 
58 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hypertension as well as hypotension can be harmful to a newly transplanted renal allograft. Elevated blood pressure is also a major risk factor for cardiovascular death, which is a frequent occurrence despite successful renal transplantation. Renal artery stenosis, immunosuppressive drugs, chronic rejection, retained native kidneys, and excessive extracellular fluid volume may all contribute to post-transplant hypertension. Antihypertensive agents are widely used in the management of post-transplant hypertension. Careful clinical judgement and knowledge of the pharmacology, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, adverse drug reaction profiles, potential contraindications, and drug-drug interactions of antihypertensive agents are important when therapy with antihypertensive drugs is initiated in renal transplant recipients. Since blood pressure elevation in any individual is determined by a large number of hormonal and neuronal systems, the effect of antihypertensive agents on the allograft should be considered a critical factor in the management of hypertension in renal transplant recipients. Most renal transplant recipients have other risk factors for premature cardiovascular death such as diabetes mellitus, hypercholesterolemia, insulin resistance, obesity, left ventricular hypertrophy and ischaemic heart disease. Initial antihypertensive therapy should be tailored individually according to the patient's risk factors. A realistic therapeutic goal for blood pressure management in the initial post-operative state is a systolic blood pressure <160 mm Hg and a diastolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg with lower pressure targets becoming applicable late post-transplantation.
    Drugs 01/2000; 58(6):1011-27. · 4.13 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Data on seasonal differences in stroke incidence are conflicting. Little is known about seasonal variability in etiological stroke subtypes and population-based data on possible trigger factors are lacking. The Ludwigshafen Stroke Study is a prospective population-based stroke registry. All residents of the city of Ludwigshafen who suffer from acute stroke or TIA are registered. Patients with first-ever stroke (FES) were included for the present analysis. Between January 1, 2006 and December 31st, 2010, 1,779 patients (age 71.7 ± 13.4 years (mean + standard deviation; 897 (50.4 %) women) suffered a FES. Incidence for FES was lowest in summer (reference) with significantly higher rates in winter (rate ratio (RR) 1.20, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.37) and spring (RR 1.21 95 % CI 1.06-1.38). First-ever ischemic stroke (FEIS) was more common in winter (RR 1.16, 95 %CI 1.01-1.34) and first-ever intracerebral haemorrhage (FE-ICH) was more frequent in spring (RR 2.0, 95 %CI 1.24-3.22) than in summer. In FES, systolic and diastolic blood pressure on admission (SBP/DBP) showed significant variation with lowest values in summer (SBP: p = 0.02; DBP p = 0.05). In subtypes of FEIS, cardioembolism tended to be more common in winter (p = 0.14). There were no differences in risk factor prevalence between seasons. Leukocyte count on admission was lowest in summer (8.2 ± 1.4/μl) and highest in winter (8.9 ± 1.9/μl; p = 0.008). The hematocrit showed a similar trend (p = 0.06). Our data show higher incidence rates for FES in winter and spring, for FEIS in winter and for FE-ICH in spring. Variations in blood pressure on admission and leukocyte counts were associated with these findings and may possibly contribute to seasonal stroke variability.
    European Journal of Epidemiology 02/2013; · 5.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although clinical research in healthy volunteers is commonly performed there have been few studies of the value of the medical screening of subjects. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence and incidence of medical conditions found during the medical screening of 'healthy' subjects employed in a pharmaceutical company who volunteered to participate in medical research. This was a retrospective study of the medical notes of all the subjects who volunteered for membership of the Zeneca Clinical Pharmacology Unit's healthy volunteer panel over a 4 year period from 1990 to 1994. The prevalence of medical conditions found at presentation was determined. The incidence of medical conditions during the 4 year observation period was also ascertained. Medical screening included a full medical history and examination, clinical chemistry, haematology and urinalysis screens, pulmonary function tests, ECGs, 24 h ambulatory cardiac monitoring and a request for information from the volunteer's General Practitioner. Prevalence-1293 subjects volunteered to join the panel of which 156 subjects (12%) were not accepted at presentation including 141 (10. 9%) for medical reasons. The most medical common reasons were; previously diagnosed medical conditions (3.3%), cardiovascular abnormalities (1.9%), abnormal liver function tests (1.9%), anaemia (1.2%), hyperlipidaemia (1.1%), excess alcohol intake (0.6%) and thyroid disease (0.5%). Incidence-36 of the 1137 volunteers (0.8% per year) accepted onto the panel subsequently developed medical conditions of which the most common were; anaemia (0.29% per year), cardiovascular abnormalities (0.13% per year) and vasovagal syncope (0.13% per year). This study demonstrates the importance of medical screening before healthy volunteers participate in clinical research.
    British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 08/1999; 48(1):25-31. · 3.69 Impact Factor