[Labile hypertension in the clinic]. / Klinikte labil hipertansiyon.

Labile hypertension is a common problem in daily clinical practice. It is defined as a rapid, temporary rise in blood pressure to above 140/90 mm Hg, most often due to emotional stress, followed by a return to normal values. In the clinical setting, it may be due to white coat hypertension, masked hypertension, pseudopheochromocytoma, orthostatic hypertension, or supine hypertension. Labile hypertension can lead to increased cardiovascular risk. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is often used for the diagnosis. Alpha blockers+beta blockers and antidepressants are frequently used for treatment.

HYT-hypertension in Turkey: a cross-sectional survey on blood pressure control with calcium channel blockers alone or combined with other antihypertensive drugs.

INTRODUCTION: Although improved during the past few years, high blood pressure control still remains an unmet goal of antihypertensive drug treatment. Among different antihypertensive agents, calcium channel blockers (CCBs), either as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs are recommended by several guidelines for initiation and maintenance of antihypertensive treatment. AIM: The HYT-HYperTension survey, carried out in Turkey was aimed to assess (a) blood pressure control in hypertensive patients under treatment with dihydropyridine CCBs, either as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs and (b) the prevalence of blood pressure control in subgroups of patients with cardiovascular risk factors (previous cardiovascular disease, diabetes, renal disease, isolated systolic hypertension, visceral obesity, overweight, current smoking habit). METHODS: More than 7000 hypertensive patients (60.0 % men, mean age 61.2 ± 11.5 years), routinely visited by either a specialist or a non-specialist physician in the Primary Care Units of 26 cities across Turkey, were enrolled in the survey. Only patients treated with dihydropyridine-type CCBs, as mono- or combination therapy were included in the study, whereas individuals treated with non-dihydropyridine-type CCBs or with other drug classes (as monotherapy or combination therapy), were excluded. Demographic data (age, gender, height, weight, waist circumference, current smoker habit), clinical data and drug treatments were collected at each visit. Blood pressure was measured with a semiautomatic device (Omron-M6) with the patient in sitting position and after at least 5 min of rest. Measurements were repeated three times, at intervals of 5 min each other. RESULTS: In the overall survey population blood pressure control (blood pressure <140/90 mmHg) was achieved in 31.7 % of patients and the average systolic and diastolic blood pressure was 145.3/88.2 mmHg. Prevalence of patients treated with dihydropyridine-type CCBs, either as monotherapy or combined with other drugs, was superimposable (51.6 vs 48.4 %, P = NS). Dihydropyridine-type CCBs were more frequently combined with drugs acting on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (86.4 %), particularly with ACE-inhibitors (34.1 %) and angiotensin II receptor antagonists (52.3 %), while in 13.6 % of patients CCBs were combined with diuretics and/or beta-blockers. Diabetes mellitus was detected in 22.7 % of patients, obesity in 41.5 % and history of cardiovascular disease in 23.0 % (coronary artery disease in 19.2 % and stroke in 3.8 %). Blood pressure control was more difficult to be achieved in complicated hypertension, particularly when cigarette smoking, obesity, overweight, visceral obesity and renal disease were associated with hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together these findings provide evidence that dihydropyridine-type CCBs, particularly when combined with ACE-inhibitors or angiotensin II receptors blockers, allow to achieve a blood pressure control better than the one reported in the same geographic area by other treatment strategies based on different combinations of diuretics, beta-blockers, ACE-inhibitors, angiotensin II receptors blockers and calcium channel blockers.

Effect of irbesartan monotherapy compared with ACE inhibitors and calcium-channel blockers on patient compliance in essential hypertension patients: a multicenter, open-labeled, three-armed study.

OBJECTIVES: This multicenter, three-armed, open-labeled study investigated patient compliance of patients receiving irbesartan, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or calcium-channel blockers (CCB) for essential hypertension for a 6-month period. Patients were either newly diagnosed or switched from existing antihypertensive medication due to lack of efficacy or side-effects. METHODS: Patients were started monotherapy with irbesartan (n=377), ACE inhibitors (n=298) or CCB (n=308) and were reevaluated on 1st, 3rd, and 6th months of the treatment. The primary endpoint was patient compliance, assessed by proportion of patients who had taken their study medication every day. Efficacy was recorded as mean reductions in blood pressure and the proportion of patients whose blood pressure normalized. Tolerability was assessed by reported adverse events. RESULTS: Significantly more patients receiving irbesartan had complied with study medication after 3 and 6 months of treatment than ACE inhibitors or CCB. Significantly fewer patients receiving irbesartan needed to change their antihypertensive medication. All three study treatments exhibited similar efficacy profiles, but irbesartan had significantly less adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that patient compliance to irbesartan was significantly superior to other study treatments. Irbesartan is therefore a suitable first-line therapy for essential hypertension in everyday clinical practice.

Comparison of supervised exercise training and home-based exercise training in chronic heart failure.

OBJECTIVE: This study was planned to compare the outcomes between supervised and home-based exercise training in patients with chronic heart failure. METHODS: The study was conducted at the Department of Physical Therapy in Ankara University, Faculty of Medicine, Turkey between 2000 and 2001. Twenty-two patients with stable chronic heart failure were randomly assigned to the supervised exercise training group (n=11) or the home-based exercise training group (n=11). Symptom-limited maximal exercise tests with gas exchange analysis were carried out before randomization. Work load equivalent to 60% of achieved peak heart rate at the tests was determined as exercise training work load for each subject. Both groups participated in a program of 3 exercise training sessions per week for 3 months. The exercise tests were repeated after 3 months. RESULTS: After training, peak exercise duration increased significantly in the supervised exercise training group and the home-based exercise training group (p<0.05). There was substantial improvement in peak VO2 with exercise training in the supervised exercise training group (p<0.05) but, peak VO2 did not change significantly in the home-based exercise training group (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Supervised and home-based exercise training enhanced exercise capacity in patients with chronic heart failure. The training program must be tailored to each patient's specific limitations, individual needs and possibilities. Home-based exercise training may be a training alternative to stable chronic heart failure patients who prefer not to participate in an outpatient supervised training program.

Treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension with calcium channel blockers: a multicentre comparison of once-daily nifedipine GITS with once-daily amlodipine.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is one of the most important causes of cardiovascular disease, and treatment of hypertension leads to a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. Although calcium channel blockers are regarded as an important part of the therapeutic armamentarium against cardiovascular diseases, and are among the most frequently prescribed antihypertensive medications, concern has been aroused about these drugs, particularly the short-acting dihydropyrldine derivatives. However, the value of nifedipine GITS(Adalat-Crono), the long-acting dihydropyrldine, is in need of being re-established. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of once-daily nifedipine and amlodipine treatment in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. DESIGN: Randomised multicentre trial with an open comparison of treatments for 12 weeks, with a preceding placebo run-in period of 2 weeks (patients on beta-blockers at the time of enrollment entered a mandatory 2-week wash-out period before being allowed In the placebo run-in period;this wash-out period was one week for patients using any antihypertensive medication other than beta-blockers). SETTING: Nine centres (all university hospitals) in Turkey. PATIENTS: 155 patients with essential hypertension(diastolic blood pressure 95-109 mmHg). INTERVENTIONS: Initial treatment (step 1) consisted of 30 mg nifedipine GlTS (n = 76; (Adalat-Crono tablets), or 5 mg amlodipine (n = 79; Norvasct5-mg tablets), either administered once daily, as a morning dose, or f the blood pressure was not below 140/90 mmHg, or the reduction In diastolic blood pressure was lower than 10 mmHg after a treatment period of 6 weeks, the dose was increased (Step 2) to 60 mg once daily in the nifedipine group, or 10 mg once daily in the amlodipine group. MAIN EFFICACY PARAMETER: Diastolic blood pressure at trough after 12 weeks of active compound therapy adjusted to baseline. RESULTS: After 12 weeks of treatment, the mean diastolic blood pressure was 83.1 and 81.9 mmHg,in the nifedipine and amlodipine groups, respectively (p = 0.436). The mean decrease in systolic blood pressure (28.5 +/- 11.9 and 28.2 +/- 11.2 mmHg in the nifadipine and amlodipine groups, respectively) and the mean decrease in diastolic blood pressure (16.4A +/- 7.0 and 17.5 +/- 6.9 mmHg in the nifedipine and amlodipine groups, respectively), as well as the responder rates (88.1%and 92.1%, in the nifediplne and amlodipine groups, respectively) were comparable at the end of the study. No significant differences between groups were detected In the efficacy parameters assessed in this study. Both drugs were well tolerated. The overall incidence of adverse events was 7.9% in the nifadipine group and 10.1% In the amlodipine group. However, more patients discontinued treatment prematurely in the amlodipine group (13 patients; 19.7%), than in the nifedipine group (four patients; 5.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrated that once-daily nifedipine in GITS formation and amlodipine are comparably safe and effective treatment options in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension.

Coronary-pulmonary artery fistula associated with right heart failure: successful closure of fistula with a graft stent.

Coronary artery fistula constitutes a rare congenital anomaly. The reported incidence of this anomaly ranges from 0.1% to 0.2% of the population undergoing coronary angiography. Coronary-pulmonary artery fistula is an extremely rare congenital anomaly of the coronary artery. Its real incidence is unknown. The authors report a case of coronary-pulmonary artery fistula that caused right heart failure in a 77-year-old woman. The fistula, arising from a proximal portion of the circumflex artery to the pulmonary artery, was sealed successfully using a Jostent (polytetrafluoroethylene-covered graft stent).