Comparative efficacy of nifedipine-retard and atenolol in correction of target organ damage in patients with essential hypertension

The aim of the study was to assess the relationship between antihypertensive effect of nifedipine-retard and atenolol long-term therapy and changes of target organ damage (heart, carotid arteries, endothelial function) in patients with essential hypertension (HT) 2 stage. 45 patients with AH were included in the open prospective randomized study: 24 received nifedipine-retard 40 mg per day, 21 received atenolol 50 - 100 mg per day. There were no clinical and haemodynamic discrepanses between the groups at basline. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), echocardiography (EchoCG), assess of endothelium-dependent and endothelium-independent vasodilatation were performed at basal state (after 14 days wash-out period) and after 6-month therapy. Both nifedipine-retard and atenolol had comparable and apparent hypotensive effect. The regression of left ventricular hypertrophy and the improvement of left ventricle diastolic function became evident during nifedipine-retard therapy in contrast to atenolol treatment. Long-term nifedipine-retard therapy is accompanied by an increase of volume flow velocity in arteria radialis and leads to correction of endothelium dysfunction in patients with HT.

antihypertensive therapy, arterial hypertension, atenolol, blood pressure, endothelial dysfunction, left ventricle hypertrophy, nifedipine, target organ damage

1. European Society of Hypertension - European Society of Cardiology Guidelines for the management of arterial Hypertension. Guidelines Committее. J Hypertens 2003; 21: 1011-53.

2. Всероссийское научное общество кардиологов (ВНОК). Национальные рекомендациипо диагностике и лечению артериальной гипертонии. М., 2004

3. Chobanian A.V., Bakris G.L., Black H.R. et al. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. JAMA 2003; 289: 2560-72.

4. Borhani N.O., Mercuri M., Borhani P. et al. Final outcome results of the multicenter Isradipine Diuretic Atherosclerosis Study (MIDAS).JAМA 1996;276:785-91.

5. Omae T., Matsuoka H., Arakawa K. et al. A 12-month comparison of ACE inhibitor and Ca antagonist therapy in mild to moderate essential hypertension. Hypertens Res 1995;18:235-44.

6. Psaty B.M., Heckbert S.R., Koepsell T.D. et al. The risk of myocardial infarction associated with antihypertensive drug therapies. JAMA 1995; 274:620-5.

7. Aldermen M.N., Cohen H., Rogue R., Madhevan S. Effect of long-acting and short-acting calcium antagonists on cardiovascular outcomes in hypertensive patients. Lancet 1997:349:594-8.

8. The ALLHAT Officers and Coordinations. Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to ACE inhibitor or calcium channel blocker is diuretic (ALLHAT). JAMA 2002; 288: 2981-97.

9. Hansson L., Zanchetti A., Carruthers S.G. et al. Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial. Lancet 1998; 351: 1755-62.

10. Staessen J., Ji-Guang Wang, Thijs L. Calcium-channel blockade and cardiovascular prognosis: recent evidence from clinical outcome trials. Am J Hypertens 2002; 15: 85S-93S.

11. Stason W.B., Schmid C.H., Niedzwiecki D. et al. Safety of nifedipine in patients with hypertension. A mcta-analysis. Hypertension 1997; 30: 7-14.

12. Mac Mahon N.B., Cauinan S. Effects of ACE inhibitors, calcium antagonists, and other blood pressure lowering drugs: results of prospectively designed overviews of randomized trials. BPLTCT. Lancet 2004; 345:1076-78

13. Brown M., Palmer C., Castaigne L. et al. Morbidity and Mortality in Patients Randomized to Double-Blind Treatment with Long-Acting Calcium Channel Blockers or Diuretic in the International Nifedipine GITS Study: Intervention as a Goal in Hypertensive Treatment (INSIGHT). Lancet 2000, 356: 366-72.

14. Agabiti-Rosei E., Zulli R., Muiesan M. et al. Reduction of cardiovascular structural changes by nifedipine GITS in essential hypertensive patients. Blood Pressure, 1998; 7(3): 160-9.

15. Staessen J.A., Fagard R., Thijs L. et al., for the Systolic Hypertension in Europe Trial Investigators. Randomised doubleblind comparison of placebo and active treatment for older patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Lancet 1997; 350: 757-64.

16. Lindhohn L.H., Hansson L., Ekbom T. et al. Comparison of antihypertensive treatments in preventing cardiovascular events in elderly diabetic patients: results from the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension-2. STOP Hypertension-2 Study Group./Hypertens 2000 Nov; 18(11): 167.

17. Zanchetti A., Bond G., Hennig M. et al. Calcium antagonist lacidipine slows down progression asymptomatic carotid atherosclerosis. Principal results of European Lacidipine Study of Atherosclerosis (ELSA): a randomized, double-blind, long-term trail. Circulation 2002; 106: 2422-2426.

18. Pitt B., Byington R.P., Furberg C.D. et al. Effect of amlodipin on the progression of atherosclerosis and the occurrence of clinical events. Circulation 2000; 102: 1503-10.

19. Simon A., Gariepy J., Moyse D., Levenson J. Differential effects of nifedipine and coamilozide on the progression of early carotid wall changes. Circulation 2001; 103: 2949-2954.

20. ENCORE Investigators/Effect of nifedipine and cerivastatin on coronary endothelial function in patients with coronary artery disease: the ENCORE I Study (Evaluation of Nifedipine and Cerivastatin On Recovery of coronary Endothelial function). Circulation 2003', 107 (3): 422-8.

21. Virdis A., Taddei S. et al. Nifedipine improves endothelium-dependent vasodilatation by restoring nitric oxide. Am J Hypertens 1999-, 12 (Suppl.): 57A.