Search

Background: Hypertension after heart transplantation (HTx) is common. We investigated predictors of and mechanisms for hypertension development during the first year after HTx, with particular attention toward immunosuppressive agents, reinnervation processes, and donor/recipient sex., Methods: Heart transplant recipients (HTxRs) were consecutively enrolled 7 to 12 wk after surgery and followed prospectively for 12 mo. Ambulatory blood pressure recordings and autonomic cardiovascular control assessments were performed at baseline and follow-up. Possible predictors of posttransplant hypertension development were investigated in bivariate linear regression analyses followed by multiple regression modeling., Results: A total of 50 HTxRs were included; 47 attended the follow-up appointment at 12 mo. Mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure increased significantly during the observational period (systolic blood pressure from 133 to 139 mm Hg, P  = 0.007; diastolic blood pressure from 81 to 84 mm Hg, P  = 0.005). The blood pressure increment was almost exclusively confined to HTxRs with a female donor heart, doubling the cases of systolic hypertension (from 6 to 13/14; 46% to 93%, P  = 0.031) and diastolic hypertension (from 7 to 14/14; 54% to 100%, P  = 0.031) in this subgroup. Autonomic cardiovascular control assessments suggested tonically constricted resistance and capacitance vessels in recipients with female donor hearts. Immunosuppressive agents and reinnervation markers were not associated with hypertension development., Conclusions: Blood pressures increase during the first year after HTx, with female donor sex as a strong predictor of recipient hypertension development. The underlying mechanism seems to be enhanced peripheral vasoconstriction caused by attenuated cardiovascular homeostasis capabilities. Further studies are needed to confirm the results., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess whether fasting blood glucose is independently related to blood pressure at rest and during exercise, and to development of elevated blood pressure., Design: Cross-sectional and prospective cohort study of 2014 apparently healthy middle-aged men., Methods: The baseline survey included carefully standardized blood pressure measurements at rest and during exercise testing, an intravenous glucose tolerance test and a panel of fasting blood tests, including fasting blood glucose. Results from 7-years follow-up provided data on development of elevated blood pressure., Results: Strong associations were found between quartiles of fasting blood glucose and baseline resting and/or exercise levels of blood pressure, and also development of elevated blood pressure over 7 years. Physical fitness, calculated from an exercise test, had a strong modulating effect on blood pressure at all levels of fasting blood glucose. In multivariate models - after adjusting for intravenous glucose tolerance, physical fitness, age, body mass index, triglycerides and cholesterol - fasting blood glucose was strongly associated with blood pressure at rest (coefficient = 2.83, P = 0.0004) and during exercise (coefficient = 6.57, P < 0.0001), and further to development of treated hypertension and/or elevated blood pressure [odds ratio (OR), 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.05-1.31]., Conclusion: In healthy non-diabetic and non-hypertensive men, strong associations were found between fasting blood glucose and blood pressure at rest and during exercise and to development of elevated blood pressure after 7-years follow-up. Fasting glucose metabolism deserves scrutiny when studying the pathogenesis of hypertension.

In this multicentre, double-blind trial in 461 patients with essential hypertension, amlodipine (5-10 mg once daily) and enalapril (10-40 mg once daily) were compared in terms of quality of life, efficacy and tolerability after 1 year of treatment (part 1). In part 2, 177 patients successfully treated with amlodipine in part 1 continued in an open evaluation of efficacy and safety of antihypertensive treatment with amlodipine for a further 2 years. In part 1, both drugs were similarly effective in lowering blood pressure (BP) (although significantly more enalapril patients required a diuretic) while maintaining quality of life. Apart from class-typical effects, such as oedema for calcium antagonists and cough for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, both drugs were equally well tolerated, with few adverse effects of clinical significance. Only a few patients (eight amlodipine (4%), nine enalapril (4%)) were withdrawn from the trial because of drug-related adverse events, demonstrating that the tolerability was good. Neutral to slightly beneficial effects were found in blood lipid concentrations after treatment with amlodipine. The BP reduction seen in the amlodipine patients after part 1 was maintained during part 2. Also, blood lipids and safety variables remained virtually constant. It is concluded that, at similar BP reduction, quality of life is equally well maintained on amlodipine and enalapril therapy. Thus, amlodipine compares favourably with enalapril as an effective and well-tolerated anti-hypertensive agent over the first year. Additionally, amlodipine patients evaluated over a 2-year extension maintained good BP control and the drug was well tolerated.

The efficacy, tolerability and impact on quality of life of amlodipine and enalapril were compared in a multicentre, double-blind, general practice study in 461 mild and moderate hypertensives over a 50-week active treatment period. Amlodipine (5-10 mg, once daily) and enalapril (10-40 mg, once daily) were found to be similarly effective in lowering blood pressure while not adversely affecting quality-of-life parameters. However, 20% of the enalapril group compared with 11% of the amlodipine group required the addition of hydrochlorothiazide for blood pressure control (P < 0.01). Diastolic blood pressure was normalised or reduced by 10 mmHg in 204 (90%) patients on amlodipine and in 190 (85%) patients on enalapril. Side-effects were, in general, mild or of little clinical significance. The major side-effects recorded were class-typical of ACE inhibitors and calcium antagonists, namely cough (enalapril) and oedema (amlodipine), respectively. Tolerability was very good, with only 17 patients (8 amlodipine, 4%; 9 enalapril, 4%) being withdrawn from the study due to side-effects definitely related to treatment. Amlodipine monotherapy produced a slightly beneficial effect on blood lipid concentration, and both drugs reduced the calculated 10-year risk of coronary heart disease. It was concluded that the calcium antagonist amlodipine compared favourably with the ACE inhibitor enalapril in terms of antihypertensive efficacy, tolerability and impact on quality of life.

In this multicentre trial in general practice the effect of one year of therapy with amlodipine or enalapril on quality of life and blood pressure was studied in 461 hypertensive patients. Quality of life was evaluated by means of a questionnaire administered on five occasions during the study. A total of 125 questions were distributed between psychological general well-being, own perception of health, social relations, sexual and cognitive functioning, and a combined index for frequency and intensity of symptoms. Both drugs were equally effective in reducing blood pressure, from 162/106 to 142/91 mm Hg, and had the same effect on quality of life. Neither of the drugs reduced quality of life, and in some of the variables a slight improvement (2-5%) was observed. The two compounds were tolerated equally well. Apart from class-typical effects (coughing for enalapril and edema for amlodipine) no clinically significant side effects were experienced.

In a double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled study the effects of four weeks' treatment with 4.55 g/day of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) on BP and serum lipids were assessed in 18 males with hypertension (WHO stage I-II). At the end of the double-blind phase, eight patients on placebo (olive oil) and ten patients on fish oil treatment were given nifedipine 20 mg twice daily added to their regimens for four weeks. Four weeks' fish oil treatment slightly reduced BP values; however, compared with placebo no changes were found. VLDL-cholesterol and triglycerides were significantly reduced by 24%, whereas total and LDL-cholesterol remained unchanged. Placebo did not change BP and lipid values. When nifedipine was added to fish oil/placebo, BP in the two groups was reduced to almost the same extent. When nifedipine was added to fish oil, total cholesterol was significantly reduced by 12% in comparison with baseline value and LDL-cholesterol was reduced by 15%, albeit insignificantly. Placebo plus nifedipine was lipid neutral. A significant correlation was found between the nifedipine-induced changes in supine mean arterial pressure and total, LDL- and VLDL-cholesterol, respectively, in those patients with and without fish oil treatment. In conclusion, the combined administration of fish oil and nifedipine possesses favourable antihypertensive and metabolic properties in hypertensive males with elevated lipid levels.

Objective: To compare tolerance, antihypertensive efficacy and impact on quality of life of amlodipine and enalapril in patients with mild or moderate hypertension., Design: Multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, comparative trial in general practice. Three phases were conducted: 4 weeks on placebo, 12 weeks of dose adjustment (amlodipine or enalapril) and a 38-week maintenance period., Patients: Four hundred and sixty-one patients of both sexes were enrolled; 451 were available for efficacy evaluation at the end of the trial., Treatment: The patients were allocated to either amlodipine (231) or enalapril (230) treatment. If at the end of dose adjustment (amlodipine 5-10 mg/day, enalapril 10-40 mg/day) diastolic blood pressure was > or = 95 mmHg, hydrochlorothiazide (25-50 mg/day) was added (27 amlodipine patients and 45 enalapril patients)., Main Outcome Measures: Blood pressure changes after 1 year of treatment; between- and within-group changes in quality of life as assessed by psychological general well-being, social and sexual functioning, health-risk perception, alertness, behaviour, and impact of symptom and side effects., Results: Indices on quality of life were unchanged or increased (2-9%) in both groups. Blood pressure was normalized or reduced by > or = 10 mmHg in 204 (90%) and 190 (85%) patients on amlodipine and enalapril, respectively. Cough was the most frequently reported adverse event in the enalapril group (13%) and oedema in the amlodipine group (22%). Only eight (4%) patients on amlodipine and nine (4%) on enalapril were withdrawn because of drug-related adverse events., Conclusion: At similar blood pressure reduction in mild and moderate hypertension, quality of life is equally well maintained on amlodipine and enalapril therapy.

It is well documented that in the treatment of mild or moderate hypertension selective alpha 1-inhibitors such as doxazosin and prazosin lower blood pressure to approximately the same extent as beta-blockers, diuretics, ACE inhibitors and calcium antagonists. However, treatment with selective alpha 1-inhibitors is also associated with a number of other favourable effects. For example, in contrast to most beta-blockers, selective alpha 1-inhibitors have a favourable effect on serum lipids, primarily lowering the triglycerides but also increasing the ratio of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol:total cholesterol. In addition, selective alpha 1-inhibitors do not aggravate glucose metabolism or increase uric acid concentration, as thiazide diuretics frequently do. Some patients gain particular benefit from treatment with a selective alpha 1-inhibitor, namely those with noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and kidney failure. While no controlled mortality trials with selective alpha 1-inhibitors have yet been completed, new vasodilator drugs such as these do lower blood pressure in a more physiological manner than traditional antihypertensive agents, and appear to cause fewer side effects. In this respect, with the exception of patients with manifest or strongly suspected coronary heart disease who are not receiving beta-blocker treatment, selective alpha 1-inhibitors should be recommended as first-line agents for the treatment of hypertension.

Amlodipine (5-10 mg, once daily) and enalapril (10-40 mg, once daily) were compared in terms of quality of life, efficacy, and tolerability, in a multicenter, double-blind trial lasting for 50 weeks in 461 mild or moderate hypertensive patients. Both drugs were similarly effective in lowering blood pressure while maintaining quality of life. Apart from class-typical effects, such as edema for calcium antagonists, and cough for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, both drugs were equally well tolerated, with few adverse effects of clinical significance. Only a few patients [eight amlodipine (4%); nine enalapril (4%)] were withdrawn from the trial due to drug-related adverse events, demonstrating that tolerability was good. Neutral to slightly beneficial effects were found in blood lipid concentrations after treatment with amlodipine. Both drugs reduced the calculated risk of coronary heart disease over the next 10 years. It was concluded that amlodipine compared favorably with enalapril as an effective and well-tolerated antihypertensive drug.

Mortality rises as resting heart rate increases. Patients who are less able to increase their heart rate while exercising are more likely to die than those whose heart rate does rise. The occurrence of silent ischaemic events shows a circadian distribution, with increased mortality, heart rate and systolic blood pressure early in the morning. Treatment with beta-blockers reduces the number of asymptomatic ischaemic episodes, and lowers heart rate during exercise and at rest. The ischaemic myocardium of the dog loses the ability to undergo wall thickening during exercise. Moreover, blood flow in the ischaemic subendocardium is reduced during exercise. These effects can be overcome using beta-blockers. The effects of beta-blockers in reducing heart rate are less pronounced during mental stress. Furthermore, changes in wall motion abnormalities during mental stress are not improved by beta-blockers. Treatment of patients with beta-blockers after a myocardial infarction reduces the mortality rate. The greater the reduction in heart rate, the greater the reduction in mortality.

Unlabelled: Inhaled nitric oxide is a potent vasodilator in acute severe pulmonary hypertension and is increasingly used as rescue treatment in intensive care algorithms aiming at reducing severe hypoxaemia in neonates and children. Although the immediate effects may seem impressive, long-term outcome regarding residual pulmonary hypertension and other sequelae has been studied in only a very few patients. The aim of the present study was to evaluate residual pulmonary hypertension, cardiopulmonary or neurological symptoms in children after treatment with inhaled nitric oxide in severely hypoxaemic and/or pulmonary hypertensive mechanically ventilated children. The study was performed in four paediatric intensive care units in university hospitals in Sweden, Norway and Australia. Patients who had received inhaled nitric oxide as part of their intensive care treatment for severe hypoxaemia and/or pulmonary hypertension, and in whom 6 mo had elapsed since treatment, were included for evaluation. Thus 36 paediatric or neonatal patients were examined for circulatory, respiratory or neurological disorders with clinical examination, echocardiography, chest X-ray and a capillary blood sample. Four patients with congenital heart disease had residual pulmonary hypertension. Nine patients were receiving bronchodilators. Sixteen patients had minor (n = 15) or moderate (n = 1) changes on a chest X-ray. One patient had a possible delay in psychomotor development.Conclusions: In spite of the severity of their primary illness, we found that the overwhelming majority of the surviving children were asymptomatic and doing well. The few residual circulatory and respiratory symptoms could be related to the initial condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]