Why the study?
Does low-dose valsartan reduce left ventricular mass index in patients with type 2 diabetes and left ventricular hypertrophy?
Does low-dose valsartan reduce left ventricular mass index in patients with type 2 diabetes and left ventricular hypertrophy?
Low-dose valsartan significantly reduced left ventricular mass index in type 2 diabetic patients with LVH without affecting systemic blood pressure.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports hypothesis of BP-independent LVMI reduction with low-dose valsartan in T2D-LVH; hypothesis-generating, requires RCTs before practice change.
AIM: The aim of the present study was to examine the effects of an angiotensin II receptor antagonist, valsartan, on echocardiographically proven left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Outpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were recruited at Niigata University Hospital. The left ventricular mass index (LVMI) was calculated by echocardiography. LVH was considered to be present if the LVMI was > 131 g/m(2) in males and > 100 g/m(2) in females. Patients with LVH received a low dose (40 mg/day) of valsartan for 12 months. This low dose had no clinical effect on blood pressure. RESULTS: Of the 38 patients who entered the study, 14 (36.8%) had LVH. After only 6 months of valsartan therapy, the mean LVMI decreased significantly, from 126.5 +/- 27.8 to 119.0 +/- 23.5 g/m(2) (p < 0.01 vs. baseline). Also, a significant decrease was observed after 12 months (116.5 +/- 30.9 g/m(2), p < 0.05 vs. baseline). Compared to baseline, there were no significant differences after treatment in body mass index, glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)), systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: In type 2 diabetic patients with LVH, treatment with a low dose of valsartan, an angiotensin II receptor antagonist, for 12 months, reduced LVMI, with no reduction in systemic blood pressure. This drug may be safely administered to type 2 diabetic patients with LVH. The long-term risk-reduction effects will have to be evaluated in further trials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Suzuki et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: