Key result
Azelnidipine (16 mg/day) demonstrated comparable beneficial effects to amlodipine (5 mg/day) on left ventricular mass regression and longitudinal strain over 12 months.
Why the study?
Does azelnidipine improve left ventricular mass and longitudinal function compared to amlodipine in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy?
RCT (n=32)
Does azelnidipine improve left ventricular mass and longitudinal function compared to amlodipine in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy?
Azelnidipine and amlodipine provide comparable beneficial effects on left ventricular mass regression and longitudinal strain in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy.
Supports azelnidipine as alternative in hypertensive LVH; hypothesis-generating and requires RCTs before practice change.
BACKGROUND: The impact of long-acting calcium channel blocker (CCB) administration on serial changes in left ventricular (LV) function and morphology in hypertensive patients with LV hypertrophy remains unclear. This study attempted to clarify this impact by comparing the effects of administration of azelnidipine with that of amlodipine using conventional and speckle tracking echocardiography. METHODS: An equal number (16) of 32 hypertensive patients was prospectively assigned to a group administered 5 mg of amlodipine/day or a group administered 16 mg of azelnidipine/day. LV function and morphology was examined by conventional and speckle tracking echocardiography at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after treatment initiation. RESULTS: Both groups were found to have experienced a significant decrease in systolic blood pressure by 1 month after treatment initiation; a significant reduction in septal thickness and LV mass index at 6 and 12 months. Transmitral flow E/A ratio and early diastolic mitral annular velocity at lateral wall significantly improved at 12 months. On the other hand, a significant improvement of global longitudinal strain was observed earlier than the above indexes at 3, 6, and 12 months. Ar-A duration difference was significantly decreased at 3 months. The global circumferential strain improved significantly at 3 months, but there were no significant changes in mid-/apical circumferential and radial strains throughout the study period. CONCLUSION: Azelnidipine has beneficial effects on LV mass regression, transmitral flow, tissue Doppler, and LV longitudinal strain that are comparable to those of amlodipine on the same parameters.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Motoki et al. (2014) conducted an RCT in Hypertension with left ventricular hypertrophy (n=32). Azelnidipine vs. Amlodipine 5 mg/day was evaluated on Serial changes in left ventricular function and morphology. Azelnidipine (16 mg/day) demonstrated comparable beneficial effects to amlodipine (5 mg/day) on left ventricular mass regression and longitudinal strain over 12 months.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: