These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Ankle edema formation during treatment with the calcium channel blockers lacidipine and amlodipine: a single-centre study.
    Author: Andrésdóttir MB, van Hamersvelt HW, van Helden MJ, van de Bosch WJ, Valk IM, Huysmans FT.
    Journal: J Cardiovasc Pharmacol; 2000; 35(3 Suppl 1):S25-30. PubMed ID: 11347858.
    Abstract:
    All studies suggesting a lower incidence of edema on lacidipine than on amlodipine are based on subjective scoring. Therefore, we have compared edema formation on two dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, using an accurate method for quantitative assessment of foot volume. In a randomized study, we treated 62 patients with essential hypertension for 12 weeks starting with either lacidipine 4 mg o.d. (n = 30) or amlodipine 5 mg o.d. (n = 32). At 6 weeks, the doses were increased to that maximally allowed (lacidipine 6 mg, n = 18; amlodipine 10 mg, n = 12) if trough diastolic blood pressure response was insufficient (>90 mmHg and decrease < 10 mmHg). Edema, scored visually, occurred more frequently (p = 0.02) on amlodipine (15/32) than on lacidipine (6/30); this was confirmed by an increase of foot volume above the 95% upper limit of normal variation in 15 patients on amlodipine and in only five patients on lacidipine (p = 0.01). In the whole group of patients, both the increases of foot volume and the decreases of blood pressure just failed to be significantly different between amlodipine and ]acidipine (foot volume, +3.3+/-1.0% on amlodipine and +1.2+/-0.5% on lacidipine, p = 0.08; mean arterial pressure, -11+/-1% on amlodipine and -8+/-1% on lacidipine, p = 0.052). In patients requiring dose increase, the increase of foot volume on amlodipine was more pronounced (p < 0.05), and the antihypertensive effect was larger (p < 0.05) than on lacidipine. In conclusion, our data show a higher incidence of edema on amlodipine than on lacidipine, which has to be explained at least partly by a comparably higher dose c.q. a larger antihypertensive effect of amlodipine. Other mechanisms might have contributed to these differences and need to be explored.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]