...
首页> 外文期刊>Hypertension: An Official Journal of the American Heart Association >Spironolactone Versus Clonidine as a Fourth-Drug Therapy for Resistant Hypertension: The ReHOT Randomized Study (Resistant Hypertension Optimal Treatment)
【24h】

Spironolactone Versus Clonidine as a Fourth-Drug Therapy for Resistant Hypertension: The ReHOT Randomized Study (Resistant Hypertension Optimal Treatment)

机译:螺旋酮与克拿尼金作为抗性高血压的第四种药物治疗:再现随机研究(耐高血压最佳治疗)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The aim of this study is to compare spironolactone versus clonidine as the fourth drug in patients with resistant hypertension in a multicenter, randomized trial. Medical therapy adherence was checked by pill counting. Patients with resistant hypertension (no office and ambulatory blood pressure [BP] monitoring control, despite treatment with 3 drugs, including a diuretic, for 12 weeks) were randomized to an additional 12-week treatment with spironolactone (12.5-50 mg QD) or clonidine (0.1-0.3 mg BID). The primary end point was BP control during office (140/90 mmHg) and 24-h ambulatory (130/80 mmHg) BP monitoring. Secondary end points included BP control from each method and absolute BP reduction. From 1597 patients recruited, 11.7% (187 patients) fulfilled the resistant hypertension criteria. Compared with the spironolactone group (n=95), the clonidine group (n=92) presented similar rates of achieving the primary end point (20.5% versus 20.8%, respectively; relative risk, 1.01 [0.55-1.88]; P=1.00). Secondary end point analysis showed similar office BP (33.3% versus 29.3%) and ambulatory BP monitoring (44% versus 46.2%) control for spironolactone and clonidine, respectively. However, spironolactone promoted greater decrease in 24-h systolic and diastolic BP and diastolic daytime ambulatory BP than clonidine. Per-protocol analysis (limited to patients with 80% adherence to spironolactone/clonidine treatment) showed similar results regarding the primary end point. In conclusion, clonidine was not superior to spironolactone in true resistant hypertensive patients, but the overall BP control was low (approximate to 21%). Considering easier posology and greater decrease in secondary end points, spironolactone is preferable for the fourth-drug therapy.
机译:本研究的目的是将螺旋酮与Clonidine相比,作为多中心,随机试验抗性高血压患者的第四种药物。通过丸计数检查医疗治疗依从性。具有抗性高血压的患者(无办公室和动态血压[BP]监测控制,尽管用3种药物治疗,包括利尿剂,12周内)与螺旋酮(12.5-50mg QD)或CLONIDINE(0.1-0.3mg BID)。主终点是在办公室(& 140/90mmhg)和24-h外部动态(& 130/80 mmhg)bp监测期间的BP控制。辅助端点包括来自每种方法的BP控制和绝对BP减少。从1597例患者招募,11.7%(187名患者)满足抗性高血压标准。与螺内酯基团(n = 95)相比,克拿尼氨酸基团(n = 92)呈现出类似的终点(分别为20.5%的20.5%;相对风险,1.01 [0.55-1.88]; p = 1.00 )。次要终点分析分别显示出类似的Office BP(33.3%,与29.3%的29.3%)和螺旋酮和克隆酮的44%对46.2%的44.2%)。然而,螺旋酮促进了比克隆汀的24-H收缩性和舒张BP和舒张温白天动态BP更大。每协议分析(限于依赖于螺旋体/克朗尼酮治疗的80%粘附的患者)显示出关于主要终点的类似结果。总之,克隆汀在真正抗性高血压患者中不优于螺旋酮,但总体BP控制低(约占21%)。考虑到更容易的病理学和次要终点的减少,螺旋酮对第四药物治疗是优选的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号