The Pivotal Role of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers in Hypertension Management and Cardiovascular and Renal Protection: A Critical Appraisal and Comparison of International Guidelines.

Arterial hypertension is the main preventable cause of premature mortality worldwide. Across Latin America, hypertension has an estimated prevalence of 25.5-52.5%, although many hypertensive patients remain untreated. Appropriate treatment, started early and continued for the remaining lifespan, significantly reduces the risk of complications and mortality. All international and most regional guidelines emphasize a central role for renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASis) in antihypertensive treatment. The two main RAASi options are angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). Although equivalent in terms of blood pressure reduction, ACEis are preferably recommended by some guidelines to manage other cardiovascular comorbidities, with ARBs considered as an alternative when ACEis are not tolerated. This review summarizes the differences between ACEis and ARBs and their place in the international guidelines. It provides a critical appraisal of the guidelines based on available evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses, especially considering that hypertensive patients in daily practice often have other comorbidities. The observed differences in cardiovascular and renal outcomes in RCTs may be attributed to the different mechanisms of action of ACEis and ARBs, including increased bradykinin levels, potentiated bradykinin response, and stimulated nitric oxide production with ACEis. It may therefore be appropriate to consider ACEis and ARBs as different antihypertensive drugs classes within the same RAASi group. Although guideline recommendations only differentiate between ACEis and ARBs in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities, clinical evidence suggests that ACEis provide benefits in many hypertensive patients, as well as those with other cardiovascular conditions.

Impact of waist circumference reduction on cardiovascular risk in treated obese subjects.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization reports that waist circumference (WC) independent of weight or body mass index (BMI) predicts cardiovascular risk. We undertook this study to determine the change of prevalence in comorbidities associated with obesity and cardiovascular risk after favorably modifying WC. METHODS: We studied 153 nondiabetic patients with obesity (BMI =30 kg/m²) and WC in women =80 cm and in men =94 cm who entered a weight control program for 2 years. We evaluated the evolution of their anthropometric measurements and metabolic status. Ninety patients (58.8%) completed the study. With the prior acceptance of the patients, they received nutritional advice and psychological and physical activity support during their monthly visits. Also, anthropometric measurements and blood pressure were evaluated. At the beginning and after each 6 months, glucose, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides were determined. At the beginning and at the end of study the Framingham risks were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 90 patients, 37 (group 1) decreased their WC: in women <80 cm and in men <94 cm. In 53 patients (group 2) there were no significant changes. Changes were shown in group 1 for blood pressure (from 36.6% to 21.6%), hyperglycemia >100 mg/dl decreased from 18.8% to 8.1%, triglycerides >150 mg/dl decreased from 28.8% to 18.9% and Framingham risk at 10 years decreased. CONCLUSIONS: There is a direct relationship between WC and cardiovascular risk. When WC decreases, cardiovascular risk is favorably modified. Measurement of WC is a good predictor of cardiovascular risk.

Global cardiovascular risk stratification: comparison of the Framingham method with the SCORE method in the Mexican population.

BACKGROUND: In the Mexican population we are unaware if the Framingham model is a better system than the SCORE system for stratifying cardiovascular risk. The present study was conducted to compare risk stratification with the Framingham tables using the same procedure but using the SCORE, with the aim of recommending the use of the most appropriate method. METHODS: We analyzed a database of apparently healthy workers from the Mexico City General Hospital included in the study group "PRIT" (Prevalencia de Factores de Riesgo de Infarto del Miocardio en Trabajadores del Hospital General de México) and we calculated the risk in each simultaneously with the Framingham method and the SCORE method. RESULTS: It was possible to perform risk calculation with both methods in 1990 subjects from a total of 5803 PRITHGM study participants. When using the SCORE method, we stratified 1853 patients into low risk, 133 into medium risk and 4 into high risk. The Framingham method qualified 1586 subjects as low risk, 268 as medium risk and 130 as high risk. Concordance between scales to classify both patients according to the same risk was 98% in those classified as low risk, 19.4% among those classified as intermediate risk and only 3% in those classified as high risk. CONCLUSIONS: According to our results, it seems more appropriate in our country to recommend the Framingham model for calculating cardiovascular risk due to the fact that the SCORE model underestimated risk.