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: [Comparative efficacy of sustained release verapamil and captopril in mild to moderate arterial hypertension by ambulatory measurement and occasional measurement].
    Author: Drici MD, Teboul B, Lapalus P, Morand P, Atlan JP, Bouche JM, Ceccaldi JP, Giacomoni S, Halimi G, Passeron-Seître M.
    Journal: Ann Cardiol Angeiol (Paris); 1991 Nov; 40(9):567-70. PubMed ID: 1776803.
    Abstract:
    The evaluation of mild to moderate hypertension must be carried out under the conditions in which treatments are usually prescribed, i.e., in general practice. After specific training of the physicians in the methods used, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of a new formulation of verapamil by comparing it with a reference drug: captopril. The main assessment criterion was the restoration of normal blood pressure in mildly to moderately hypertensive patients (blood pressure in excess of 160/95 mmHg). Blood pressure was evaluated by two methods: a mercury column sphygmomanometer, after the patient had rested in a half-sitting position for 10 minutes, and the ambulatory measurement of blood pressure (AMBP) using the SpaceLabs system. The results of this study involving 40 patients followed up for 3 months by 8 GPs in collaboration with our blood pressure unit were as follows: on verapamil, 47% of patients recovered normal values after 30 days of treatment and 71% after 60 days (with no change in dosage). On captopril, the normalization rates were 22 and 27% respectively. The highly significant reduction of blood pressure found by the "occasional" measurement for both treatments (p less than 0.001) was only faintly reflected by AMBP. Verapamil induced a reduction of nighttime blood pressure with no significant impact on heart rate. The clinical, paraclinical and electrocardiographic safety of both treatments was good.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]