Changes in Renal Resistive Index and Urinary Albumin Excretion in Hypertensive Patients under Long-Term Treatment with Lisinopril or Nifedipine GITSLeoncini G. · Martinoli C. · Viazzi F. · Ravera M. · Parodi D. · Ratto E. · Vettoretti S. · Tomolillo C. · Derchi L.E. · Deferrari G. · Pontremoli R.
Di MI, Section of Nephrology and DiCMI, Section of Radiology, University of Genoa, Italy
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Introduction: Increased renal vascular resistance and microalbuminuria are associated with hypertensive target organ damage and may be predictors of hypertensive nephrosclerosis. Aim: We investigated changes in renal resistive index (RI) and urinary albumin excretion (UAE) in a group of patients with primary hypertension before and during long-term antihypertensive treatment. Methods: Thirty-two patients were randomized to receive antihypertensive treatment with either a calcium channel blocker (nifedipine GITS, up to 90 mg/day, n = 16) or an ACE inhibitor (lisinopril, up to 20 mg/day, n = 16), alone or in association with a diuretic (chlortalidone, 25 mg/day). Blood pressure, renal resistive index (by US Doppler) and UAE (mean of three nonconsecutive timed urinary collections, µg/min) were evaluated at baseline and over the course of 24 months of treatment. Results: Both regimens effectively lowered blood pressure (mean blood pressure from 123 ± 1.8 at baseline to 103 ± 1.5 mm Hg at 24 months in the lisinopril group and from 122 ± 1.9 at baseline to 104 ± 0.8 at 24 months in the nifedipine group, p < 0.001 for both groups). Overall, blood pressure decrease was associated with a reduction in UAE and no change in RI throughout the study. However, despite similar blood pressure reduction, the two regimens showed different specific effects. Lisinopril was associated with a significant decrease in both UAE (33.8 ± 16.2 at baseline and 9.1 ± 2.1 at 24 months, p < 0.01) and renal RI (0.61 ± 0.02 at baseline and 0.56 ± 0.04 at 24 months, p < 0.05) while nifedipine GITS did not significantly influence UAE (35.7 ± 12.2 at baseline and 31.2 ± 12.1 at 24 months, n.s.) or RI (0.61 ± 0.01 at baseline and 0.59 ± 0.02 at 24 months, n.s.). Conclusion: Effective blood pressure control over a long period of time reduces the severity of organ damage, namely UAE while maintaining renovascular resistance in patients with essential hypertension. Different classes of antihypertensive agents might convey additional specific renal protection beyond blood pressure control. These data could be useful in devising individualized therapeutic strategies in hypertensive patients at increased renal risk.
© 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.