The antihypertensive effect of pinacidil versus prazosin in mild to moderate hypertensive patients seen in general practice.
The antihypertensive effect of pinacidil versus prazosin in mild to moderate hypertensive patients seen in general practice.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.0954-6820.1988.tb19591.x
复制
发表时间：
2009-04
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
B. Sterndorff;P. Johansen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Sterndorff;P. Johansen
在一项随机、开放的全科临床研究中，比较了一种新的血管舒张药物pinacidil与prazosin的降压效果，该研究包括131名坐位舒张压（DBP）在100-115 mmHg之间的患者。纳入时，108例患者未接受治疗，其余患者接受噻嗪类利尿剂和/或受体阻滞剂治疗。目的是将坐位舒张压降至小于或等于95 mmHg， 85%的pinacidil组患者和77%的prazosin组患者实现了这一目标。在应答患者中，pinacidil组（n = 60）和prazosin组（n = 46）分别降低（平均+/- SD） 16 +/- 7 mmHg （p < 0.001）和13 +/- 6 mmHg (p < 0.001) （p < 0.10）。在5个月的维持治疗期间，两组患者的血压无统计学差异。血管扩张剂治疗的副作用是典型的，即头痛、头晕、心动过速和水肿，导致每个治疗组有10例患者停止治疗。品酸酯组心率（HR）升高，吡唑嗪组不变。用品酸酯治疗常出现水肿，用哌唑嗪治疗常出现头晕。因水肿给予平酸组9例噻嗪类利尿剂，吡唑嗪组2例。心电图和生化指标均无明显临床变化。总之，本研究表明pinacidil是一种与吡唑嗪一样有效的降压药。Pinacidil可作为单一疗法使用。然而，该研究建议pinacidil应作为噻嗪类利尿剂的附加治疗。
The antihypertensive effect of a new vasodilating drug, pinacidil, was compared with prazosin in a randomized, open study in general practice including 131 patients with a sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) between 100-115 mmHg. At inclusion 108 patients were untreated and the remaining patients were on treatment with thiazide diuretics and/or beta-blockers. The aim was to reduce the sitting DBP to less than or equal to 95 mmHg, which was achieved in 85% of the patients treated with pinacidil and in 77% of the patients treated with prazosin (NS). In the responding patients the reductions were (mean +/- SD) 16 +/- 7 mmHg (p less than 0.001) and 13 +/- 6 mmHg (p less than 0.001) in the pinacidil group (n = 60) and the prazosin group (n = 46), respectively (p less than 0.10). During 5 months of maintenance therapy no statistically significant differences in blood pressures between the two treatment groups were present. Side-effects were typical of vasodilator therapy, i.e. headache, dizziness, tachycardia and edema, leading to discontinuation of therapy in 10 patients in each treatment group. Heart rate (HR) was increased with pinacidil and unchanged with prazosin. Edema was frequently seen with pinacidil and dizziness with prazosin. Because of edema a thiazide diuretic was given to nine patients in the pinacidil group and two patients in the prazosin group. No clinically significant changes in ECG and biochemical variables were observed. In conclusion, the study has demonstrated that pinacidil is as effective an antihypertensive agent as prazosin. Pinacidil may be used as monotherapy. However, the study suggests that pinacidil should be used as add-on therapy to thiazide diuretics.