Russian immigrant cardiovascular risk assessment.

Immigration from the former Soviet Union has been increasing. In 1990, there were 454,000 Russian immigrants living in the United States. Lifestyle habits prevalent in Russia, including smoking, alcoholism, and little preventive health, are compelling medical and economic reasons to understand the health status of this population. This study identified a cohort of Russian-born subjects living in Denver to characterize their cardiovascular risk profile. Using a risk assessment questionnaire, 204 Russian immigrants were screened. Seventy-one percent had Medicaid insurance; 14 percent were medically indigent. Those aged 55 to 64 years had a higher prevalence of hyperlipidemia (p < 0.04) and hypertension (p < 0.03) than U.S. counterparts; those age 20 to 34 and 65 to 74 years had a higher prevalence of hypertension (p < 0.00001). Almost half of the participants had two or more cardiac risk factors. Cardiac risk factor identification and intervention programs may help to reduce the health care costs for these patients.

Effect of blood pressure control on diabetic microvascular complications in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes (ABCD) Trial is a prospective randomized blinded clinical trial that compares the effects of intensive versus moderate blood pressure control on the incidence and progression of type 2 diabetic complications. The current article discusses the results of 5.3 years of follow-up of 470 patients with hypertension and evaluates the effects of intensive and moderate blood pressure therapy using nisoldipine versus enalapril as the initial antihypertensive medication for nephropathy, retinopathy, and neuropathy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The 470 hypertensive subjects, defined as having a baseline diastolic blood pressure of > or = 90 mmHg, were randomized to intensive blood pressure control (diastolic blood pressure goal of 75 mmHg) versus moderate blood pressure control (diastolic blood pressure goal of 80-89 mmHg). RESULTS: The mean blood pressure achieved was 132/78 mmHg in the intensive group and 138/86 mmHg in the moderate control group. During the 5-year follow-up period, no difference was observed between intensive versus moderate blood pressure control and those randomized to nisoldipine versus enalapril with regard to the change in creatinine clearance. After the first year of antihypertensive treatment, creatinine clearance stabilized in both the intensive and moderate blood pressure control groups in those patients with baseline normo- or microalbuminuria. In contrast, patients starting with overt albuminuria demonstrated a steady decline in creatinine clearance of 5-6 ml.min-1.1.73 m-2 per year throughout the follow-up period whether they were on intensive or moderate therapy. There was also no difference between the interventions with regard to individuals progressing from normoalbuminuria to microalbuminuria (25% intensive therapy vs. 18% moderate therapy, P = 0.20) or microalbuminuria to overt albuminuria (16% intensive therapy vs. 23% moderate therapy, P = 0.28). Intensive therapy demonstrated a lower overall incidence of deaths, 5.5 vs. 10.7%, P = 0.037. Over a 5-year follow-up period, there was no difference between the intensive and moderate groups with regard to the progression of diabetic retinopathy and neuropathy. In addition, the use of nisoldipine versus enalapril had no differential effect on diabetic retinopathy and neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS: Blood pressure control of 138/86 or 132/78 mmHg with either nisoldipine or enalapril as the initial antihypertensive medication appeared to stabilize renal function in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients without overt albuminuria over a 5-year period. The more intensive blood pressure control decreased all-cause mortality.

The effect of nisoldipine as compared with enalapril on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes and hypertension.

BACKGROUND: It has recently been reported that the use of calcium-channel blockers for hypertension may be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular complications. Because this issue remains controversial, we studied the incidence of such complications in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and hypertension who were randomly assigned to treatment with either the calcium-channel blocker nisoldipine or the angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor enalapril as part of a larger study. METHODS: The Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes (ABCD) Trial is a prospective, randomized, blinded trial comparing the effects of moderate control of blood pressure (target diastolic pressure, 80 to 89 mm Hg) with those of intensive control of blood pressure (diastolic pressure, 75 mm Hg) on the incidence and progression of complications of diabetes. The study also compared nisoldipine with enalapril as a first-line antihypertensive agent in terms of the prevention and progression of complications of diabetes. In the current study, we analyzed data on a secondary end point (the incidence of myocardial infarction) in the subgroup of patients in the ABCD Trial who had hypertension. RESULTS: Analysis of the 470 patients in the trial who had hypertension (base-line diastolic blood pressure, > or = 90 mm Hg) showed similar control of blood pressure, blood glucose and lipid concentrations, and smoking behavior in the nisoldipine group (237 patients) and the enalapril group (233 patients) throughout five years of follow-up. Using a multiple logistic-regression model with adjustment for cardiac risk factors, we found that nisoldipine was associated with a higher incidence of fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarctions (a total of 24) than enalapril (total, 4) (risk ratio, 9.5; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.7 to 33.8). CONCLUSIONS: In this population of patients with diabetes and hypertension, we found a significantly higher incidence of fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction among those assigned to therapy with the calcium-channel blocker nisoldipine than among those assigned to receive enalapril. Since our findings are based on a secondary end point, they will require confirmation.