Dataset Information

Antihypertensive Treatment and Central Arterial Hemodynamics: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: Background: Antihypertensive treatment may have different effects on central arterial hemodynamics. The extent of the difference in effects between various antihypertensive drugs remains undefined. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that explored the effects of antihypertensive agents on both central and peripheral systolic blood pressure (SBP) and pulse pressure (PP) or central augmentation index, with a special focus on the comparison between newer [renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAS) inhibitors and calcium-channel blockers (CCBs)] and older antihypertensive agents (diuretics and β- and α-blockers). Results: In total, 20 studies (n = 2,498) were included. Compared with diuretics (10 studies), β-blockers (16 studies), or an α-blocker (1 study), RAS inhibitors (21 studies), and CCBs (6 studies) more efficaciously (P < 0.001) reduced both central and peripheral SBP by a weighted mean difference of -5.63 (-6.50 to -4.76 mmHg) and -1.97 mmHg (-2.99 to -0.95 mmHg), respectively. Compared with older agents, the newer agents also more efficaciously (P < 0.001) reduced central PP (-3.27 mmHg; -4.95 to -1.59 mmHg), augmentation index (-6.11%; -7.94 to -4.29) and augmentation (-3.35 mmHg; -5.28 to -1.42 mmHg) but not peripheral PP (p ≥ 0.09). Accordingly, the newer agents reduced central-to-peripheral PP amplification significantly less than the older agents (0.11 mmHg; 0.05 to 0.17 mmHg; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Newer agents, such as RAS inhibitors and CCBs, were significantly more efficacious than older agents in their effects on central hemodynamics.

SUBMITTER: Cheng YB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8652138 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundExercise is accepted as an important contribution to the rehabilitation of patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aims to better understand the possible causes for lack of consensus and reviews the effects of three exercise modalities (aerobic, resistance and combined exercise) on central hemodynamics, arterial stiffness and cardiac function for better rehabilitation strategies in CVD.MethodsThe electronic data sources, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Web of Science, EBSCO (CINAHL), and ScienceDirect from inception to July 2017 were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of exercise modalities in adult patients with CVD. The effect size was estimated as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were used to study potential moderating factors.ResultsThirty-eight articles describing RCTs with a total of 2089 patients with CVD were included. The pooling revealed that aerobic exercise [MD(95%CI) = -5.87 (-8.85, -2.88), P = 0.0001] and resistance exercise [MD(95%CI) = -7.62 (-10.69, -4.54), P<0.00001] significantly decreased aortic systolic pressure (ASP). Resistance exercise significantly decreased aortic diastolic pressure [MD(95%CI) = -4(-5.63, -2.37), P<0.00001]. Aerobic exercise significantly decreased augmentation index (AIx) based on 24-week exercise duration and patients aged 50-60 years. Meanwhile, aerobic exercise significantly improved carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cf-PWV) [MD(95%CI) = -0.42 (-0.83, -0.01), P = 0.04], cardiac output (CO) [MD(95% CI) = 0.36(0.08, 0.64), P = 0.01] and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) [MD(95%CI) = 3.02 (2.11, 3.93), P<0.00001]. Combined exercise significantly improved cf-PWV [MD(95%CI) = -1.15 (-1.95, -0.36), P = 0.004] and CO [MD(95% CI) = 0.9 (0.39, 1.41), P = 0.0006].ConclusionsAerobic and resistance exercise significantly decreased ASP, and long-term aerobic exercise reduced AIx. Meanwhile, aerobic and combined exercise significantly improved central arterial stiffness and cardiac function in patients with CVD. These findings suggest that a well-planned regime could optimize the beneficial effects of exercise and can provide some evidence-based guidance for those involved in cardiovascular rehabilitation of patients with CVD.

Project description:Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a distinctive modality commonly used by osteopathic physicians to complement their conventional treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. Previous reviews and meta-analyses of spinal manipulation for low back pain have not specifically addressed OMT and generally have focused on spinal manipulation as an alternative to conventional treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.Computerized bibliographic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, OSTMED, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were supplemented with additional database and manual searches of the literature. Six trials, involving eight OMT vs control treatment comparisons, were included because they were randomized controlled trials of OMT that involved blinded assessment of low back pain in ambulatory settings. Data on trial methodology, OMT and control treatments, and low back pain outcomes were abstracted by two independent reviewers. Effect sizes were computed using Cohen's d statistic and meta-analysis results were weighted by the inverse variance of individual comparisons. In addition to the overall meta-analysis, stratified meta-analyses were performed according to control treatment, country where the trial was conducted, and duration of follow-up. Sensitivity analyses were performed for both the overall and stratified meta-analyses.Overall, OMT significantly reduced low back pain (effect size, -0.30; 95% confidence interval, -0.47 - -0.13; P = .001). Stratified analyses demonstrated significant pain reductions in trials of OMT vs active treatment or placebo control and OMT vs no treatment control. There were significant pain reductions with OMT regardless of whether trials were performed in the United Kingdom or the United States. Significant pain reductions were also observed during short-, intermediate-, and long-term follow-up.OMT significantly reduces low back pain. The level of pain reduction is greater than expected from placebo effects alone and persists for at least three months. Additional research is warranted to elucidate mechanistically how OMT exerts its effects, to determine if OMT benefits are long lasting, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.

Dataset Information

Antihypertensive Treatment and Central Arterial Hemodynamics: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets