Loading…

Calcium Channel Blocker Compared With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker for Patients With Hypertension: A Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) Conn.), 2014-11, Vol.16 (11), p.838-845
Main Authors: Wu, Ling, Deng, Song‐Bai, She, Qiang
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4858-7f0a258934f36ace5fb035f4af3d5a591dfff58b46d7cf3056fb6b09c0ed69bf3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4858-7f0a258934f36ace5fb035f4af3d5a591dfff58b46d7cf3056fb6b09c0ed69bf3
container_end_page 845
container_issue 11
container_start_page 838
container_title The journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)
container_volume 16
creator Wu, Ling
Deng, Song‐Bai
She, Qiang
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/jch.12388
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8031805</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1622060571</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4858-7f0a258934f36ace5fb035f4af3d5a591dfff58b46d7cf3056fb6b09c0ed69bf3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kcFuFSEUhonR2PbqwhcwLHUxLQwDw7gwuU5ar6ZG09S4JAwDvVQGpjC3ze3KR3DhE_okYqfe6EI25w98-Q_n_AA8w-gQ53N0qdaHuCScPwD7uKa4qHHNHmZNy6pg-WYPHKR0iRAlpEGPwV5JUcNrUu-DH610ym4G2K6l99rBNy6orzrCNgyjjLqHX-y0hkt_YcOkfbIenmmlxynEHWqy_iQnq_2UZny1HXW8w4N_BZfwg57kz2_fl166bbIJBgPPpO_DYG9zhzb4KQbnsjyPVrr0BDwyuein93UBPp8cn7er4vTj23ft8rRQFae8qA2SJeUNqQxhUmlqOkSoqaQhPZW0wb0xhvKuYn2tDEGUmY51qFFI96zpDFmA17PvuOkG3as8QJROjNEOMm5FkFb8--LtWlyEa8ERwTxvcwFe3BvEcLXRaRKDTUo7J70OmyQwK0vEEK1xRl_OqIohpajNrg1G4neKIqco7lLM7PO__7Uj_8SWgaMZuLFOb__vJN63q9nyF2WEq9s</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1622060571</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Calcium Channel Blocker Compared With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker for Patients With Hypertension: A Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials</title><source>PubMed (Medline)</source><creator>Wu, Ling ; Deng, Song‐Bai ; She, Qiang</creator><creatorcontrib>Wu, Ling ; Deng, Song‐Bai ; She, Qiang</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1524-6175</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1751-7176</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1751-7176</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/jch.12388</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25098737</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: John Wiley and Sons Inc</publisher><subject>Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists - therapeutic use ; Antihypertensive Agents - therapeutic use ; Calcium Channel Blockers - therapeutic use ; Humans ; Hypertension - drug therapy ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Review Paper ; Review Papers</subject><ispartof>The journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2014-11, Vol.16 (11), p.838-845</ispartof><rights>2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4858-7f0a258934f36ace5fb035f4af3d5a591dfff58b46d7cf3056fb6b09c0ed69bf3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4858-7f0a258934f36ace5fb035f4af3d5a591dfff58b46d7cf3056fb6b09c0ed69bf3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8031805/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8031805/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25098737$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wu, Ling</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deng, Song‐Bai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>She, Qiang</creatorcontrib><title>Calcium Channel Blocker Compared With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker for Patients With Hypertension: A Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials</title><title>The journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)</title><addtitle>J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Antihypertensive Agents - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Calcium Channel Blockers - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hypertension - drug therapy</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Review Paper</subject><subject>Review Papers</subject><issn>1524-6175</issn><issn>1751-7176</issn><issn>1751-7176</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kcFuFSEUhonR2PbqwhcwLHUxLQwDw7gwuU5ar6ZG09S4JAwDvVQGpjC3ze3KR3DhE_okYqfe6EI25w98-Q_n_AA8w-gQ53N0qdaHuCScPwD7uKa4qHHNHmZNy6pg-WYPHKR0iRAlpEGPwV5JUcNrUu-DH610ym4G2K6l99rBNy6orzrCNgyjjLqHX-y0hkt_YcOkfbIenmmlxynEHWqy_iQnq_2UZny1HXW8w4N_BZfwg57kz2_fl166bbIJBgPPpO_DYG9zhzb4KQbnsjyPVrr0BDwyuein93UBPp8cn7er4vTj23ft8rRQFae8qA2SJeUNqQxhUmlqOkSoqaQhPZW0wb0xhvKuYn2tDEGUmY51qFFI96zpDFmA17PvuOkG3as8QJROjNEOMm5FkFb8--LtWlyEa8ERwTxvcwFe3BvEcLXRaRKDTUo7J70OmyQwK0vEEK1xRl_OqIohpajNrg1G4neKIqco7lLM7PO__7Uj_8SWgaMZuLFOb__vJN63q9nyF2WEq9s</recordid><startdate>201411</startdate><enddate>201411</enddate><creator>Wu, Ling</creator><creator>Deng, Song‐Bai</creator><creator>She, Qiang</creator><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201411</creationdate><title>Calcium Channel Blocker Compared With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker for Patients With Hypertension: A Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials</title><author>Wu, Ling ; Deng, Song‐Bai ; She, Qiang</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4858-7f0a258934f36ace5fb035f4af3d5a591dfff58b46d7cf3056fb6b09c0ed69bf3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Antihypertensive Agents - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Calcium Channel Blockers - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hypertension - drug therapy</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Review Paper</topic><topic>Review Papers</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wu, Ling</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deng, Song‐Bai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>She, Qiang</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>The journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wu, Ling</au><au>Deng, Song‐Bai</au><au>She, Qiang</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Calcium Channel Blocker Compared With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker for Patients With Hypertension: A Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials</atitle><jtitle>The journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)</addtitle><date>2014-11</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>838</spage><epage>845</epage><pages>838-845</pages><issn>1524-6175</issn><issn>1751-7176</issn><eissn>1751-7176</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>John Wiley and Sons Inc</pub><pmid>25098737</pmid><doi>10.1111/jch.12388</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1524-6175
ispartof The journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2014-11, Vol.16 (11), p.838-845
issn 1524-6175
1751-7176
1751-7176
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8031805
source PubMed (Medline)
subjects Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists - therapeutic use
Antihypertensive Agents - therapeutic use
Calcium Channel Blockers - therapeutic use
Humans
Hypertension - drug therapy
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Review Paper
Review Papers
title Calcium Channel Blocker Compared With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker for Patients With Hypertension: A Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T15%3A55%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Calcium%20Channel%20Blocker%20Compared%20With%20Angiotensin%20Receptor%20Blocker%20for%20Patients%20With%20Hypertension:%20A%20Meta%E2%80%90Analysis%20of%20Randomized%20Controlled%20Trials&rft.jtitle=The%20journal%20of%20clinical%20hypertension%20(Greenwich,%20Conn.)&rft.au=Wu,%20Ling&rft.date=2014-11&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=838&rft.epage=845&rft.pages=838-845&rft.issn=1524-6175&rft.eissn=1751-7176&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/jch.12388&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1622060571%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4858-7f0a258934f36ace5fb035f4af3d5a591dfff58b46d7cf3056fb6b09c0ed69bf3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1622060571&rft_id=info:pmid/25098737&rfr_iscdi=true