论文部分内容阅读
目的比较拉西地平和氨氯地平改善老年高血压患者动脉弹性功能的作用。方法本研究是一项多中心、随机、对照临床试验,入选60~79岁1~2级原发性高血压老年患者134例,随机分为拉西地平(4mg,1次/d,n=66)和氨氯地平(5mg,1次/d,n=68)组,治疗24周,观察治疗对老年高血压患者脉压和臂踝动脉脉搏波传导速度(baPWV)的影响。结果拉西地平和氨氯地平治疗24周,脉压和baPWV均较基线下降[分别为拉西地平(55.1±8.0)比(68.0±11.0)mm Hg,(18.0±3.3)比(19.3±3.3)m/s;氨氯地平(57.1±9.6)比(67.7±12.9)mm Hg,(17.8±3.3)比(19.0±3.1)m/s;均P<0.05],两治疗组间脉压和baPWV比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论拉西地平和氨氯地平治疗老年高血压患者24周,都显著降低了患者的脉压和baPWV,两组间差异无统计学意义。
Objective To compare the effects of lacidipine and amlodipine on arterial elasticity in elderly hypertensive patients. Methods This study was a multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial of 134 elderly patients aged 60-79 years with grade 1 or 2 essential hypertension randomized to lacidipine (4 mg once daily, n = 66) and amlodipine (5mg, 1 / d, n = 68) for 24 weeks. The effects of treatment on pulse pressure and brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV) were observed in elderly hypertensive patients. Results Both lacidipine and amlodipine had a lower pulse pressure and baPWV than those of baseline ([(55.1 ± 8.0) vs (68.0 ± 11.0) mm Hg vs (18.0 ± 3.3) vs 19.3 ± 3.3 ), amlodipine (57.1 ± 9.6) vs (67.7 ± 12.9) mm Hg, (17.8 ± 3.3) vs (19.0 ± 3.1) m / s, all P <0.05] baPWV comparison, the difference was not statistically significant (P> 0.05). Conclusion Both lacidipine and amlodipine can significantly decrease the pulse pressure and baPWV in elderly hypertensive patients for 24 weeks, with no significant difference between the two groups.