PubMed · 12428999
Early diagnosis of this otherwise progressive, asymptomatic process is essential.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Ivan Goldberg, Stuart L Graham, Paul R Healey. 2002-11-18. Primary open-angle glaucoma.. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2002.tb04946.x
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are reduced by treatment with the angiotensin II AT(1)-receptor antagonist losartan compared with conventional treatment with the beta-blocker atenolol in patients with hypertension and electrocardiogram-defined left ventricular hypertrophy, many of whom had known vascular disease. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether losartan reduces cardiovascular event rates in lower-risk hypertensive patients without clinically evident vascular disease. DESIGN: Subgroup analysis of a randomized trial. SETTING: The Losartan Intervention for Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study. PATIENTS: 6886 men and women (57% women) 55 to 80 years of age (average, 66 years) with essential hypertension (sitting blood pressure, 160 to 200/95 to 115 mm Hg [average, 174/98 mm Hg]) and electrocardiogram-defined left ventricular hypertrophy who did not have clinically evident vascular disease. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to once-daily double-blind treatment with losartan or atenolol. MEASUREMENTS: An end point committee ascertained end points (cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction). RESULTS: Blood pressure was reduced similarly by losartan and atenolol. The primary composite end point occurred in 282 losartan-treated patients (17.5 per 1000 patient-years) and 355 atenolol-treated patients (21.8 per 1000 patient-years; relative risk, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.95]; P = 0.008). Cardiovascular death occurred in 103 losartan-treated patients and 132 atenolol-treated patients (relative risk, 0.80 [CI, 0.62 to 1.04]; P = 0.092), stroke (nonfatal and fatal) occurred in 125 losartan-treated patients and 193 atenolol-treated patients (relative risk, 0.66 [CI, 0.53 to 0.82]; P < 0.001), and myocardial infarction (nonfatal and fatal) occurred in 110 losartan-treated patients and 100 atenolol-treated patients (relative risk, 1.14 [CI, 0.87 to 1.49]; P > 0.2). New-onset diabetes occurred less often in patients treated with losartan (n = 173) than in patients treated with atenolol (n = 254) (relative risk, 0.69 [CI, 0.57 to 0.84]; P < 0.001). Benefits of losartan treatment were numerically smaller, but not significantly so, in patients with preexisting vascular disease. CONCLUSION: In hypertensive patients without clinically evident vascular disease, losartan was more effective than atenolol in preventing cardiovascular morbidity and death, predominantly stroke, independent of blood pressure reduction.
This was a double-blind, randomized, prospective study comparing the effects of nebivolol and atenolol on systolic diastolic left ventricular function in patients with essential hypertension. A significant difference was seen in stroke volume between these 2 drugs. The blood pressure lowering effect of atenolol was strongly related to cardiac output and heart rate reduction. The blood pressure lowering effect of nebivolol was related to a reduction in peripheral resistance and an increase in stroke volume with preservation of cardiac output. This preservation of cardiac output, together with a reduced peripheral resistance, may be potentially important in treating heart failure.