Do Antihypertensive Drugs Differ in Their Ability to Regress Left Ventricular Hypertrophy?
1997; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 95; Issue: 8 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1161/01.cir.95.8.1983
ISSN1524-4539
Autores Tópico(s)Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
ResumoHomeCirculationVol. 95, No. 8Do Antihypertensive Drugs Differ in Their Ability to Regress Left Ventricular Hypertrophy? Free AccessResearch ArticleDownload EPUBAboutView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessResearch ArticleDownload EPUBDo Antihypertensive Drugs Differ in Their Ability to Regress Left Ventricular Hypertrophy? Richard B. Devereux Richard B. DevereuxRichard B. Devereux From the Department of Medicine, The New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY. Originally published15 Apr 1997https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.95.8.1983Circulation. 1997;95:1983–1985Numerous studies have documented a strong relationship between left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy and the risk of cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients.123456 Furthermore, initial evidence suggests that whether LV hypertrophy is reduced or progresses over time directly influences the risk of subsequent complications.78910 In this context, it is understandable that considerable attention has been devoted to determining whether different forms of antihypertensive therapy differ with regard to their ability to induce regression of hypertensive LV hypertrophy. Some progress has been made, but important questions remain unanswered after the recent appearance of a meta-analysis of randomized double-blind studies of LV hypertrophy regression11 as well as detailed analyses of echocardiographic data from the Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study (TOMHS) and other large trials1213 and, in this issue of Circulation, from the long-awaited Veterans Administration study of single-drug antihypertensive treatment.14 To place this recent evidence in context, it is useful to consider the characteristics of optimal study designs for trials of LV hypertrophy regression that help make their results conclusive and generalizable.Criteria for an Optimal Study of LV Hypertrophy RegressionTo add useful information to the existing large but flawed literature, studies of LV hypertrophy regression should at least be randomized and double-blind and use an anatomically validated method of measuring LV mass to compare an active agent with either a placebo or one or more other active agents over ≥6 months in hypertensive women and men, many or all of whom have LV hypertrophy at baseline.15 Relatively small studies of this type, with 20 to 30 patients per treatment arm, may be used to address specific pathophysiological issues in detail or to explore the effects of new therapeutic agents, but they cannot provide conclusive comparisons between drugs. To test definitively whether different classes of antihypertensive agents have contrasting effects on hypertensive LV hypertrophy, studies need to enroll as many as 150 to 200 patients per treatment arm and last at least 1 year. Studies of this magnitude may have implications for the treatment of hypertension worldwide; thus, it is important that they be conducted in ethnically diverse populations because of evidence that the pathophysiology of hypertension may differ between whites and blacks and perhaps other ethnic groups. Even larger studies, with 500 to ≥600 patients per treatment arm and study durations of ≥4 years, are needed to have good power to determine whether treatment-induced changes in LV mass or in other measures of preclinical cardiovascular disease such as carotid artery wall thickness or atheroma predict subsequent cardiovascular events well enough to serve as surrogates for morbid events in subsequent treatment trials.10What Have Previous Studies Shown?In the early 1980s, wide publicity was given to the assertion by leading investigators that diuretics, drugs that have played an important role in reducing the complications of hypertension, had little if any ability to regress hypertensive LV hypertrophy,16 despite some early evidence to the contrary.17 This contention has now been conclusively disproved by findings from the TOMHS study12 and by the results of a meta-analysis by Schmieder et al11 of well-designed small studies. In analyses that adjusted for differences among treatment groups in study duration, Schmieder et al11 found that the 258 patients treated with diuretics had 6.8% greater reduction of LV mass than the 189 patients in 13 placebo-treated groups. The TOMHS used a complex study design in which all 819 patients received a nutritional-hygienic intervention designed to reduce weight and sodium and alcohol intake and to increase physical exercise. The group of patients who received placebo pills had, on average, normalization of blood pressure (to a mean of 131/82 mm Hg) and of LV mass (to a mean of 178 g). Nearly three quarters of TOMHS participants were randomized to receive additional small doses of one of five antihypertensive drugs. The patients who received chlorthalidone, a diuretic, had the greatest reduction in LV mass during treatment but also the highest pretreatment LV mass, raising the possibility that they were the only group with any residual LV hypertrophy on which a drug could act after the impressive effects of the nutritional-hygienic regimen.In contrast to the clear refutation provided by recent data of the concept that diuretics are without effect on LV hypertrophy, the even more important question of whether one or another type of agent is more effective in this regard has not been resolved. The meta-analysis by Schmieder et al11 suggested that ACE inhibitors have the greatest ability to reduce LV mass, with somewhat lesser effects for, in descending order, calcium channel blockers, diuretics, and β-adrenergic receptor blockers. However, a meta-analysis by Fagard18 suggested equal efficacy of ACE inhibitors and calcium blockers. A relatively large therapeutic trial by Agabiti-Rosei et al13 supported the concept that β-blockers might have somewhat less effect than other agents on LV mass, but it was conducted in a study population that did not include nonwhite patients and was too small (total n=111) to yield definitive results.How Does the Veterans Administration Study Improve Our Knowledge?The study presented by Gottdiener et al14 in this issue of Circulation is the first to compare the effects on echocardiographic LV mass of single-agent antihypertensive therapy in a large group (n=587 at baseline, 58% black) of patients with definite hypertension (mean baseline pressure, 153/100 mm Hg) and a high prevalence (45%) of LV hypertrophy at study entry. Echocardiograms were performed by standard methods, repeated after both short and longer durations of treatment (8 weeks and 1 year) and read blindly in a central laboratory that has extensive experience with this skill-dependent technique. Additional attractive features of the trial are its use of monotherapy and selection of a prototypic agent in each of six drug classes (diuretic, β-blocker, ACE inhibitor, calcium channel blocker, α-adrenergic receptor blocker, and centrally acting sympatholytic agents).Two of the principal results of the present study add to present knowledge of LV hypertrophy regression. First, short-term therapy over only 8 weeks had no significant effects on LV mass in any of the treatment groups, and the weak trends that existed toward greater LV mass reductions in the groups treated with diltiazem and clonidine were not confirmed by results obtained after 1 year of treatment. Second, after 1 year of treatment, the greatest reductions in LV mass were obtained by captopril (−15 g, P=.05) and hydrochlorothiazide (−14 g, P=.08), a minimal reduction (−4 g, P=NS) by atenolol, and no change or insignificant increases in LV mass (from −0.5 g to +7 g, all P=NS) by clonidine, prazosin, and diltiazem. In further analyses that took changes in covariates into account, the decrease over time in LV mass in the diuretic-treated and ACE inhibitor–treated groups were statistically greater than those in the groups treated with the calcium blocker, α-adrenergic receptor blocker, and central sympatholytic agent. These findings make an interesting parallel with the known prognostic benefits of treatment with diuretics and ACE inhibitors, respectively, in patients with hypertension or with heart failure or recent myocardial infarction1920 and the lack of such a proven benefit for the other three classes of drugs. The intermediate result obtained by Gottdiener et al14 with a β-adrenergic receptor blocker makes an interesting but inconclusive parallel with the British Medical Research Council trial in which β-blocker therapy appeared to be less beneficial than treatment with a diuretic.21However, several aspects of the Veterans Administration study limit its conclusiveness. Although the inclusion of a substantial number of black patients enhances its representativeness, the lack of women in the study limits its applicability to the majority of older hypertensive patients. Second, by the end of the 1-year follow-up period, only 230, or 39%, of 587 patients with initial echocardiograms and only 27% of patients in whom baseline echocardiograms were attempted remained in the trial. The much lower retention rate than in most therapeutic trials is due in part to the decision—in contrast to clinical practice, in which a second antihypertensive agent is commonly added to achieve pressure control—to drop patients if their pressure was not controlled by a single agent. In addition, there were serious difficulties in obtaining baseline and follow-up echocardiograms in some centers. The high dropout rate left fewer than 40 patients in most treatment arms at the end of 1 year, a number suitable to an initial exploratory study but insufficient to give definitive results. Second, retention rates differed by nearly twofold (15% to 28%) among treatment arms and tended to be higher for patients who at baseline had lower blood pressure and lower sodium intake and were black than for other groups. As an example of how this interacted with the assigned treatments, by the end of 1 year of therapy, the proportion of black patients was statistically lower (P<.05) among those receiving the drugs (captopril and atenolol) most likely to interrupt activity of the renin-angiotensin system than among those receiving agents with least activity against this system. Third, although no ambulatory or home blood pressure recordings were performed, it is possible that once-daily use of hydrochlorothiazide may have achieved better 24-hour blood pressure control than twice-daily doses of the relatively short-acting agents captopril and prazosin or even once-daily use of atenolol, which has been suggested to have a shorter duration of action than commonly recognized.22 Finally, several methodological choices made by the investigators partially limit interpretation of results. These choices include (1) the use of a formula known to overestimate anatomic LV mass by nearly 20%23 ; (2) the use in analyses of "the blood pressure averages for the first two consecutive visits at which goal blood pressure was achieved" instead of blood pressure at the time of the follow-up echocardiograms; and (3) the decision to perform analyses in which LV mass change was adjusted for covariates not in the entire groups of patients assigned to specific treatment arms but rather in subgroups of patients with lower, intermediate, or higher levels of baseline LV mass.What Do We Still Need to Learn?If one were to add the data from the Veterans Administration trial14 and those from the medium-sized study reported by Agabiti-Rosei et al13 to the results of the recent meta-analysis by Schmieder et al,11 one might calculate that ACE inhibitors and perhaps diuretics or calcium blockers would be more effective than β-blockers and several less widely used antihypertensive drug classes for regression of hypertensive LV hypertrophy. However, such retrospective pooling of data must always be suspect because of the need to merge findings from studies that often differ in important ways and because of the likelihood that some relevant but negative studies have gone unreported.24 The only sure way to obtain definitive data on the relative ability of antihypertensive drugs to regress LV hypertrophy is to perform studies comparing the effects of different agents on LV mass in ethnically diverse groups of women and men with established hypertension, many or all of whom have LV hypertrophy, over a treatment period of at least 1 year.15 Fortunately, as we have recently reviewed elsewhere,10 a number of such trials are now ongoing, comparing an ACE inhibitor with a diuretic (LIVE study, Phillipe Gosse, MD, personal communication, 1996) or with a long-acting calcium channel antagonist,25 comparing a calcium channel blocker with a diuretic,26 and comparing an angiotensin receptor blocker with a β-blocker.27Finally, the ultimate question with regard to hypertensive LV hypertrophy is not whether one agent or another is somewhat more effective in reversing it but rather whether regression of hypertensive LV hypertrophy confers a prognostic benefit over and above the degree of induced lowering of blood pressure. To answer this question will require studies that are much larger than either the Veterans Administration monotherapy trial14 or the Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study.12 At present, at least one study is under way that is designed to have adequate power to answer this question,27 and improvements in methods for ECG assessment of hypertrophy28 may make it possible to obtain important information in this regard from previous large trials in which findings on serial ECGs could be related to the subsequent occurrence of morbid events.The opinions expressed in this editorial are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.This work was supported in part by grant HL-47540 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Md, and grant CDSP 964-0A from Merck and Co, White Horse Station, NJ.FootnotesCorrespondence to Richard B. Devereux, MD, Division of Cardiology, Box 222, The New York Hospital–Cornell Medical Center, 525 E 68th St, New York, NY, 10021. E-mail [email protected] References 1 Levy D, Garrison RJ, Savage DD, Kannel WB, Castelli WP. Prognostic implications of echocardiographically determined left ventricular mass in the Framingham Heart Study. N Engl J Med.1990; 322:1561-1566. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2 Bikkina M, Levy D, Evans JC, Larson MG, Benjamin EJ, Wolf PA, Castelli WP. Left ventricular mass and the risk of stroke in an elderly cohort: the Framingham Heart Study. JAMA.1994; 272:33-36. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3 Koren MJ, Devereux RB, Casale PN, Savage DD, Laragh JH. Relation of left ventricular mass and geometry to morbidity and mortality in uncomplicated essential hypertension. Ann Intern Med.1991; 114:345-352. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4 Mensah GA, Pappas TW, Koren MJ, Ulin RJ, Laragh JH, Devereux RB. Comparison of classification of hypertension severity by blood pressure level and World Health Organization criteria for prediction of concurrent cardiac abnormalities and subsequent complications in essential hypertension. J Hypertens.1993; 11:1433-1444. Google Scholar5 Bolognese L, Dellavese P, Rossi L, Sarasso G, Bongo AS, Scianaro MC. Prognostic value of left ventricular mass in uncomplicated acute myocardial infarction and one-vessel coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol.1994; 73:1-5. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6 Liao Y, Cooper RS, McGee DL, Mensah GA, Ghali JK. The relative effects of left ventricular hypertrophy, coronary artery disease, and ventricular dysfunction on survival among black adults. JAMA.1995; 273:1592-1597. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7 Yurenev AP, Dyakonova HG, Novikov ID, Vitols A, Pahl L, Haynemann G, Wallrabe D, Tsifkova R, Romanovska L, Niderle P. Management of essential hypertension in patients with different degrees of left ventricular hypertrophy: multicenter trial. Am J Hypertens.1992; 5:182s-189s. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8 Levy D, Salomon M, D'Agostino RB, Belanger AJ, Kannel WB. Prognostic implications of baseline electrocardiographic features and their serial changes in subjects with left ventricular hypertrophy. Circulation.1994; 90:1786-1793. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9 Muiesan ML, Salvetti M, Rizzoni D, Castellano M, Donato F, Agabiti-Rosei E. Association of change in left ventricular mass with prognosis during long-term antihypertensive treatment. J Hypertens.1995; 13:1091-1105. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10 Devereux RB, Agabiti-Rosei E, Dahlof B, Gosse P, Hahn RT, Okin PM, Roman MJ. Regression of left ventricular hypertrophy as a surrogate end-point for morbid events in hypertension treatment trials. J Hypertens. 1996;14(suppl 2):S95-S102. Google Scholar11 Schmieder RE, Martus P, Klingbeil A. Reversal of left ventricular hypertrophy in essential hypertension: meta-analysis of randomized double-blind studies. JAMA.1996; 275:1507-1513. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12 Liebson PR, Grandits GA, Dianzumba S, Prineas RJ, Grimm RH Jr, Neaton JD, Stamler J. Comparison of five antihypertensive monotherapies and placebo for change in left ventricular mass in patients receiving nutritional-hygienic therapy in the Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study (TOMHS). Circulation.1995; 91:698-706. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13 Agabiti-Rosei E, Ambrosioni E, dal Palu C, Muiesen ML, Zanchetti A, on behalf of the RACE Study Group. ACE inhibitor ramipril is more effective than the beta-blocker atenolol in reducing left ventricular hypertrophy in hypertension: results of the RACE (Ramipril Cardioprotective Evaluation) study. J Hypertens.1995; 13:1325-1334. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14 Gottdiener JS, Reda DJ, Massie BM, Materson BJ, Williams DW, Anderson RJ, for the VA Cooperative Study Group on Antihypertensive Agents. Effect of single-drug therapy on reduction of left ventricular mass in mild to moderate hypertension: comparison of six antihypertensive agents: the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Anti-Hypertensive Agents. Circulation.1997; 95:2007-2014. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15 Devereux RB, Dahlof B. Criteria for an informative trial of left ventricular hypertrophy regression. J Hum Hypertens.1994; 8:735-739. MedlineGoogle Scholar16 Tarazi RC. Reversal of cardiac hypertrophy by medical treatment. Annu Rev Med.1985; 36:407-414. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17 Reichek N, Franklin BB, Chandler T, Muhammed A, Plappert T, St John Sutton M. Reversal of left ventricular hypertrophy by antihypertensive therapy. Eur Heart J. 1982;3(suppl A):165-169. Google Scholar18 Fagard RH. Reversibility of left ventricular hypertrophy by antihypertensive drugs. Neth J Med.1995; 47:173-179. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar19 SHEP Cooperative Research Group. Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension: final results of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program. JAMA.1991; 265:3255-3264. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar20 Yusuf S, Pepine CJ, Garces C, Pouleur H, Salem D, Kostis J, Benedict C, Rousseau M, Bourassa M, Pitt B. Effect of enalapril on myocardial infarction and unstable angina in patients with low ejection fractions. Lancet.1992; 340:1173-1178. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar21 MRC Working Party. Medical Research Council trial of treatment of hypertension in old adults: principal results. BMJ.1992; 304:405-412. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar22 Reed CM, Alpert BS. Assessment of ventricular performance after chronic beta-adrenergic blockade in the Marfan syndrome. Am J Cardiol.1992; 70:541-542. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar23 Devereux RB, Alonso DR, Lutas EM, Gottlieb GJ, Campo E, Sachs I, Reichek N. Echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular hypertrophy: comparison to necropsy findings. Am J Cardiol.1986; 57:450-458. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar24 Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet.1991; 337:867-872. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar25 Devereux RB, Dahlöf B, Levy D, Pfeffer MA. Comparison of enalapril vs nifedipine to decrease left ventricular hypertrophy in systemic hypertension (the PRESERVE trial). Am J Cardiol.1996; 78:61-65. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar26 Agabiti-Rosei E. Hypertension, atherosclerosis and left ventricular hypertrophy in ELSA. Blood Pressure. In press. Google Scholar27 Dahlof B, Devereux RB, de Faire U, Fyhrquist F, Hedner T, Ibsen H, Julius S, Kjeldsen S, Kristianson K, Lederballe-Pedersen O, Lindholm L, Nieminen M, Omvik P, Oparil S, Wedel H, for the LIFE Study Group. Losartan Intervention For End-point Reduction in Hypertension (the LIFE study). Am J Hypertens.1996; 9:26A. Abstract. Google Scholar28 Okin PM, Roman MJ, Devereux RB, Kligfield P. Electrocardiographic identification of increased left ventricular mass by simple voltage-duration products. J Am Coll Cardiol.1995; 25:417-423. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Khan M (2015) Beta-Blockers Cardiac Drug Therapy, 10.1007/978-1-61779-962-4_1, (1-68), . Hoshida S, Shinoda Y, Inui H, Hosoi R, Teranishi F, Asaoka N, Sugitani T and Hamasaki T (2014) Difference in Left Ventricular Mass Index Between Hypertensive Patients With and Without Renal Artery Stenosis by Propensity Score Analysis, The Journal of Clinical Hypertension, 10.1111/jch.12368, 16:8, (606-611), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2014. Beta-Blockers Cardiac Drug Therapy, 10.1007/978-1-59745-238-0_1, (1-35) Hypertension Cardiac Drug Therapy, 10.1007/978-1-59745-238-0_8, (103-135) KHAN M (2006) Hypertrophy of the Heart Encyclopedia of Heart Diseases, 10.1016/B978-012406061-6/50072-2, (493-499), . Verdecchia P, Angeli F, Sardone M and Gattobigio R Serial Changes in Left Ventricular Mass in Hypertension: Prognostic Impact Emerging Pathologies in Cardiology, 10.1007/88-470-0341-5_9, (75-81) Frishman W (2005) β-Adrenergic Blockers Hypertension, 10.1016/B978-0-7216-0258-5.50153-8, (653-659), . Verdecchia P and Angeli F (2004) Reversal of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy, American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs, 10.2165/00129784-200404060-00005, 4:6, (369-378), . Anan F, Takahashi N, Ooie T, Hara M, Yoshimatsu H and Saikawa T (2004) Candesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, improves left ventricular hypertrophy and insulin resistance, Metabolism, 10.1016/j.metabol.2003.12.021, 53:6, (777-781), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2004. de Cort P and Duprez D (2003) Het Cardiovasculair risicoprofiel en het Risico op hart- en Vaatziekten Cardiologie, 10.1007/978-90-313-9553-8_2, (19-35), . Gaudio C, Ferri F, Giovannini M, Pannarale G, Puddu P, Vittore A, Fera M, Vizza C and Fedele F (2003) Comparative Effects of Irbesartan Versus Amlodipine on Left Ventricular Mass Index in Hypertensive Patients with Left Ventricular Hypertrophy, Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology, 10.1097/00005344-200311000-00007, 42:5, (622-628), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2003. Gosse P, Dubourg O, Guéret P, De Simone G, Schmieder R, De Leeuw P, Degaute J, García Puig J, Karpov Y, Magometschnigg D, Matos L, Amouyel P, Asmar R, Le Heuzey J, Nieminen M and Dahlöf B (2002) Efficacy of very low dose perindopril 2 mg/indapamide 0.625 mg combination on left ventricular hypertrophy in hypertensive patients: the P.I.C.X.E.L. study rationale and design, Journal of Human Hypertension, 10.1038/sj.jhh.1001467, 16:9, (653-659), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2002. Adalet K, Oflaz H, Sezer A and Büyüköztürk K (2001) Efficacy and tolerability of fixed, low-dose combination therapy with verapamil sustained-release and trandolapril in patients with mild to severe essential hypertension uncontrolled by monotherapy: an open-label, multicenter trial, Current Therapeutic Research, 10.1016/S0011-393X(01)80010-2, 62:4, (261-271), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2001. Terpstra W, May J, Smit A, de Graeff P, Havinga T, van den Veur E, Schuurman F, Meyboom-de Jong B and Crijns H (2001) Long-term effects of amlodipine and lisinopril on left ventricular mass and diastolic function in elderly, previously untreated hypertensive patients: the ELVERA trial, Journal of Hypertension, 10.1097/00004872-200102000-00018, 19:2, (303-309), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2001. Laucka P and Trotter J (2001) Medication Management of Hypertension, Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 10.1097/00013614-200112000-00007, 17:2, (61-82), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2001. Setaro J (2001) The Hypertensive Heart: New Observations and Evolving Therapeutic Imperatives, The Journal of Clinical Hypertension, 10.1111/j.1524-6175.2001.00825.x, 3:1, (14-15), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2001. LANDMARK I (2009) More Non-Q-wave Myocardial Infarctions but Similar Infarct Sizes in Patients with Hypertension, Blood Pressure, 10.1080/08037050050151799, 9:2-3, (98-103), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2000. van Zwieten P (2000) Calcium Antagonists and Calcium Sensitizers Calcium: The Molecular Basis of Calcium Action in Biology and Medicine, 10.1007/978-94-010-0688-0_21, (333-363), . Gosse P, Sheridan D, Zannad F, Dubourg O, Guéret P, Karpov Y, de Leeuw P, Palma-Gamiz J, Pessina A, Motz W, Degaute J and Chastang C (2000) Regression of left ventricular hypertrophy in hypertensive patients treated with indapamide SR 1.5 mg versus enalapril 20 mg, Journal of Hypertension, 10.1097/00004872-200018100-00015, 18:10, (1465-1475), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2000. Scheuer J (1999) Catecholamines in cardiac hypertrophy, The American Journal of Cardiology, 10.1016/S0002-9149(99)00264-7, 83:12, (70-74), Online publication date: 1-Jun-1999. Sheridan , Kingsbury and Flores (2001) Regression of left ventricular hypertrophy; what are appropriate therapeutic objectives?, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 10.1046/j.1365-2125.1999.00871.x, 47:2, (125-130), Online publication date: 1-Feb-1999. (1999) Antihypertensiva en linkerventrikelhypertrofie, Medisch-Farmaceutische Mededelingen, 10.1007/BF03057349, 37:7, (150-151), Online publication date: 1-Jul-1999. Martina B, Lorz W, Frach B, Bart T and Battegay E (1999) The Effects of Mibefradil and Enalapril on 24-Hour Blood Pressure Control and Left Ventricular Mass in Patients with Mild to Moderate Hypertension: Double-Blind, Randomized Trial, Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology, 10.1097/00005344-199904000-00019, 33:4, (647-651), Online publication date: 1-Apr-1999. Virdis A, Ghiadoni L, Marzilli M, Orsini E, Favilla S, Duranti P, Taddei S, Marraccini P and Salvetti A (1999) Adenosine causes the release of active renin and angiotensin II in the coronary circulation of patients with essential hypertension, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 10.1016/S0735-1097(99)00078-9, 33:6, (1677-1684), Online publication date: 1-May-1999. (1998) Verschillen antihypertensiva in hun potentie om linkerventrikel-hypertrofie te reduceren?, Medisch-Farmaceutische Mededelingen, 10.1007/BF03057220, 36:12, (249-250), Online publication date: 1-Dec-1998. Grohé C, Kahlert S, Löbbert K, Neyses L, Eickels M, Stimpel M and Vetter H (1998) Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition modulates cardiac fibroblast growth, Journal of Hypertension, 10.1097/00004872-199816030-00015, 16:3, (377-384), Online publication date: 1-Mar-1998. Girerd X, Giannattasio C, Moulin C, Safar M, Mancia G and Laurent S (1998) Regression of Radial Artery Wall Hypertrophy and Improvement of Carotid Artery Compliance After Long-Term Antihypertensive Treatment in Elderly Patients 11This study was supported by grants from the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) (Grant 494014), Paris; Laboratoires SERVIER; and the European Community (BIOMED), Brussels, Belgium., Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 10.1016/S0735-1097(98)00043-6, 31:5, (1064-1073), Online publication date: 1-Apr-1998. April 15, 1997Vol 95, Issue 8 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics Copyright © 1997 by American Heart Associationhttps://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.95.8.1983 Originally publishedApril 15, 1997 KeywordsechocardiographyEditorialshypertensionhypertrophy Advertisement
Referência(s)