We have located links that may give you full text access.
Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in chronic Type B aortic dissection combined with mild hypertension.
American Journal of Hypertension 2024 April 3
BACKGROUND: Optimal antihypertensive medication for chronic Type B aortic dissection remains undecided. This study compared the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan with valsartan to determine suitable antihypertensive drug combinations.
METHODS: In this single-center, open-label, randomized, controlled trial, patients with chronic Stanford type B aortic dissection and mild hypertension were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan 100/200 mg or valsartan 80/160 mg. The primary endpoint was the reduction in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) at Week 8 in patients with sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan. Key secondary endpoints included changes in 1) mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP); 2) pulse pressure; and 3) mean ambulatory blood pressure for 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime. Safety assessments included adverse events and serious adverse events. This trial was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, identifier: ChiCTR2300073399.
RESULTS: A total of 315 patients completed the study. Sacubitril/valsartan provided a significantly greater reduction in msSBP than valsartan at Week 8 (between-treatment difference: -5.1 mm Hg [95% confidence interval (CI) -5.8 to -4.5], P < 0.001). Reductions in msSBP, msDBP, and pulse pressure as well as the mean ambulatory blood pressure for 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime, were significantly greater in sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan (all P < 0.001). No excessive episodes of adverse events occurred in the sacubitril/valsartan group.
CONCLUSION: Sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan reduced BP compared with baseline values. However, sacubitril/valsartan improved blood pressure control to a greater extent than valsartan. It may offer a new treatment option for patients with mild hypertension and chronic Type B aortic dissection.
METHODS: In this single-center, open-label, randomized, controlled trial, patients with chronic Stanford type B aortic dissection and mild hypertension were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan 100/200 mg or valsartan 80/160 mg. The primary endpoint was the reduction in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) at Week 8 in patients with sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan. Key secondary endpoints included changes in 1) mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP); 2) pulse pressure; and 3) mean ambulatory blood pressure for 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime. Safety assessments included adverse events and serious adverse events. This trial was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, identifier: ChiCTR2300073399.
RESULTS: A total of 315 patients completed the study. Sacubitril/valsartan provided a significantly greater reduction in msSBP than valsartan at Week 8 (between-treatment difference: -5.1 mm Hg [95% confidence interval (CI) -5.8 to -4.5], P < 0.001). Reductions in msSBP, msDBP, and pulse pressure as well as the mean ambulatory blood pressure for 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime, were significantly greater in sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan (all P < 0.001). No excessive episodes of adverse events occurred in the sacubitril/valsartan group.
CONCLUSION: Sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan reduced BP compared with baseline values. However, sacubitril/valsartan improved blood pressure control to a greater extent than valsartan. It may offer a new treatment option for patients with mild hypertension and chronic Type B aortic dissection.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Revascularization Strategy in Myocardial Infarction with Multivessel Disease.Journal of Clinical Medicine 2024 March 27
Intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine during the surgery to prevent postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European Journal of Medical Research 2024 April 19
The Tricuspid Valve: A Review of Pathology, Imaging, and Current Treatment Options: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 26
Consensus Statement on Vitamin D Status Assessment and Supplementation: Whys, Whens, and Hows.Endocrine Reviews 2024 April 28
Management of Diverticulitis: A Review.JAMA Surgery 2024 April 18
Interstitial Lung Disease: A Review.JAMA 2024 April 23
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app