Why the study?
Does a calcium channel blocker reduce all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure compared to an angiotensin II receptor blocker in hypertensive patients?
Does a calcium channel blocker reduce all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure compared to an angiotensin II receptor blocker in hypertensive patients?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Initial use of calcium channel blockers may be superior to angiotensin II receptor blockers for the prevention of stroke and myocardial infarction in patients with hypertension.
To explore the clinical effects of a calcium channel blocker compared with an angiotensin II receptor blocker in hypertensive patients, the authors collected data from randomized controlled trials. The pooled outcomes were all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure. Eight head-to-head trials enrolling 25,084 patients were included. There was no significant mortality difference in the two arms (relative risk, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.07). However, calcium channel blockers were more effective in reducing stroke (relative risk, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.99) and myocardial infarction incidence (relative risk, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.98). There was no significant difference with heart failure incidence between the two arms but a lower trend in patients with angiotensin II receptor blockers was noted (relative risk, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.98). The meta-analysis suggested that initially use of a calcium channel blocker might be superior to an angiotensin II receptor blocker for prevention of stroke and myocardial infarction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wu et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: