Keywords
calcium antagonists
creatinine clearance
hypertension
medial arterial pressure
How to Cite
Abstract
Objective: To compare the efficacy of Losartan and Verapamil for control of blood pressure and renal function. Method and Materials: We included 109 patients between men and women, and compared the period in which they were handled with verapamil (160 mg daily) (group A), and the time of the prescription of losartan (100 mg daily) (group B) to improve blood pressure control, only in the study included patients who met the eligibility criteria for improved clinical outcome with medication change. The mean age was 67 ± 11 years.
Results: The variables were the systolic arterial pressures (SAP), diastolic (DAP) and the renal function. The initial SAP were 135, 8±19, 2 in group A and 102, 7±12, 7 in group B, the DAP were 85± 9, 3 (group A) and 71±8.57 (group B. The Medial Arterial Pressure was of 67 mm Hg (group A) and 60 mm Hg (group B). As it is seen pressure cause down more in group A than in group B, however it was significative. Similar results were obtained in the renal function with a creatinine clearance of 59.04 mL/min (group B) and of 54.75 mL/min (group A).
Conclusion: The use of verapamil and losartan is considerably different as far as the effectiveness to reduce the pressures diastolic, systolic and mean. The losartan has major effectiveness on the diastolic pressure and the renal function.
Grad M, Meng Y, Bartlett G, et al. The ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group: Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). JAMA. 2002;288:2981-97.
Chobanian A, Bakris G, Black H, et al. The seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. JAMA. 2003;289:2560-73.
Williams B. British Hypertension Society guidelines for hypertension management. BMJ (BHS-IV). 2004;328:634-40.
García F, Solís J, Calderòn J, et al. Prevalencia de diabetes mellitus y factores de riesgo relacionados en una población urbana. Rev Soc Peru Med Interna. 2007;20:90-4.
Sánchez R, Ayala M, Baglivo H, et al. Guías latinoamericanas de hipertensión arterial Grupo Latinoamericano de Expertos. Rev Chil Cardiol. 2010;29:117-44.
Staessen J, Fagard R, Thijs L, et al. Randomised double-blind comparison of placebo and active treatment for older patients with isolated systolic hypertension. The Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial Investigators. Lancet. 1997;350:757-64.
Opie L, Schall R. Evidence-based evaluation of calcium channel blockers for hypertension: equality of mortality and cardiovascular risk relative to conventional therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39:315-22.
Lind D, Mason R, Marchal W. Estadística para administración y economía. 3a ed. México: McGraw Hill; 2005.
Mar J, Rodríguez F. Which is more important for the efficiency of hypertension treatment: hypertension stage, type of drug or therapeutic compliance? J Hypertens. 2001;19:149-55.
Skhiri A, Romdhane B, Chebbi R, et al. Management of arterial hypertension: results of a Tunisian general practitioner survey. Tunis Med. 2005;83 Suppl 5:47-52.
Segura L, Agusti R, Parodi J. Factores de riesgo de las enfermedades cardiovasculares en el Perú. Estudio Tornasol. Rev Soc Per Cardiol. 2006;32:82-128.
Lessa I. No compliance to hypertension treatment - social and economic impact. Rev Bras Hipertens. 2006; 3:39-46.
This journal is registered under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License. Thus, this work may be reproduced, distributed, and publicly shared in digital format, as long as the names of the authors and Pontificia Universidad Javeriana are acknowledged. Others are allowed to quote, adapt, transform, auto-archive, republish, and create based on this material, for any purpose (even commercial ones), provided the authorship is duly acknowledged, a link to the original work is provided, and it is specified if changes have been made. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana does not hold the rights of published works and the authors are solely responsible for the contents of their works; they keep the moral, intellectual, privacy, and publicity rights.
Approving the intervention of the work (review, copy-editing, translation, layout) and the following outreach, are granted through an use license and not through an assignment of rights. This means the journal and Pontificia Universidad Javeriana cannot be held responsible for any ethical malpractice by the authors. As a consequence of the protection granted by the use license, the journal is not required to publish recantations or modify information already published, unless the errata stems from the editorial management process. Publishing contents in this journal does not generate royalties for contributors.