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...
Saved in:
Published in: | The journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) Conn.), 2014-11, Vol.16 (11), p.838-845 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
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 |