American journal of nephrology · 2012
Long-term effects of calcium antagonists on augmentation index in hypertensive patients with chronic kidney disease: a randomized controlled study.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Takenaka Tsuneo, Seto Takeru, Okayama Mika, Kojima Eriko, Nodaira Yuka, Sueyoshi Keita, Kikuta Tomohiro, Watanabe Yusuke, Inoue Tsutomu, Takane Hiroshi, Ohno Yoichi, Suzuki Hiromichi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Our previous retrospective study showed that benidipine was superior to amlodipine (AM) for reducing proteinuria and preserving the augmentation index (AI) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).
METHODS: The present study enrolled CKD patients whose blood pressure was not well controlled by an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) and a calcium channel blocker other than AM or azelnidipine (AZ). Either AM (5 mg) or AZ (16 mg) was prescribed randomly. Clinical parameters, including proteinuria, serum creatinine, and AI, were measured before initiation of AM or AZ and 1 year later to assess the long-term effect on renal function and central blood pressure.
RESULTS: Brachial and central blood pressures were similarly reduced in both groups. However, pulse rate increased in the AM group, but decreased in the AZ group (+3 ± 1 vs. -2 ± 1 bpm, p < 0.0001). The reduction of proteinuria was greater in the AZ group (-29 ± 2 vs. -38 ± 3%, p < 0.01). Improvement of AI adjusted for a pulse rate of 75 bpm was larger in the AZ group than in the AM group (-4 ± 1 vs. -9 ± 1%, p < 0.05). In both groups, estimated GFR remained unchanged throughout the observation period.
CONCLUSION: In hypertensive patients with CKD, combined treatment with AZ and an ARB decreases proteinuria and preferentially improves arterial reflection.
METHODS: The present study enrolled CKD patients whose blood pressure was not well controlled by an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) and a calcium channel blocker other than AM or azelnidipine (AZ). Either AM (5 mg) or AZ (16 mg) was prescribed randomly. Clinical parameters, including proteinuria, serum creatinine, and AI, were measured before initiation of AM or AZ and 1 year later to assess the long-term effect on renal function and central blood pressure.
RESULTS: Brachial and central blood pressures were similarly reduced in both groups. However, pulse rate increased in the AM group, but decreased in the AZ group (+3 ± 1 vs. -2 ± 1 bpm, p < 0.0001). The reduction of proteinuria was greater in the AZ group (-29 ± 2 vs. -38 ± 3%, p < 0.01). Improvement of AI adjusted for a pulse rate of 75 bpm was larger in the AZ group than in the AM group (-4 ± 1 vs. -9 ± 1%, p < 0.05). In both groups, estimated GFR remained unchanged throughout the observation period.
CONCLUSION: In hypertensive patients with CKD, combined treatment with AZ and an ARB decreases proteinuria and preferentially improves arterial reflection.