Blood pressure control in treated hypertensive patients in daily practice of Latvian family physicians.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE. The aim of this study was to evaluate blood pressure (BP) control level in treated hypertensive patients in Latvia and to compare their characteristics according to the adequacy of BP control. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Family physicians collected information on demographic and clinical characteristics, and current antihypertensive treatment of 455 18-80-year-old patients with essential arterial hypertension treated for 1 or more years. Target BP was defined as values of <140/90 mm Hg for patients with low or moderate cardiovascular risk and <135/85-125/75 mm Hg for patients with high or very high risk. BP was measured in the office setting after a 5-minute rest in a sitting position using a calibrated aneroid sphygmomanometer. RESULTS. Nearly half of patients (46.2%) attained their target BP. The proportion of patients with effective BP control was higher in the group of low and moderate added cardiovascular risk than in the high and very high added cardiovascular risk group (61.7% vs. 34.4%, P<0.0001). The majority of patients were given two-drug (26.2%) or three-drug (31.6%) combined antihypertensive therapy. Current pharmacological treatment was similar in the patients who attained target BP and in those who did not. Overall, physicians did not modify antihypertensive treatment in 37.9% of patients; such a recommendation was more common among patients with controlled BP. Very few patients (7.4%) who did not attain target BP did not receive recommendations to modify antihypertensive treatment. CONCLUSIONS. The rate of effective BP control was less than 50% and was even worse (34.4%) in patients with high or very high added cardiovascular risk in the present sample of treated hypertensive patients.

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme or vasopeptidase inhibition on ventricular size and function in patients with heart failure: the Omapatrilat Versus Enalapril Randomized Trial of Utility in Reducing Events (OVERTURE) echocardiographic study.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition attenuates ventricular remodeling and improves ventricular function in heart failure patients. Vasopeptidase inhibition has shown similar effects in experimental models. OBJECTIVES: The OVERTURE echocardiographic study was designed to test the hypothesis that the vasopeptidase inhibitor omapatrilat would attenuate ventricular remodeling and improve ventricular function to a greater extent than an ACE inhibitor. METHODS: Three hundred twenty-one patients with heart failure (New York Heart Association class > or = 2) were included in the OVERTURE echocardiographic substudy and were randomized to receive enalapril (10 mg twice a day) or omapatrilat (40 mg every day). Echocardiograms were performed at baseline and at 1 year (n = 214). Left ventricular size was estimated by summation of ventricular areas in apical and short-axis views and by calculation of ventricular volumes. Ejection fraction was calculated from ventricular volumes. RESULTS: Combined diastolic and systolic areas and volumes decreased significantly (mean diastolic area change -8.36 cm2, 95% CI -9.4 to -7.3 cm2; mean systolic change -8.4 cm2, 95% CI -9.5 to -7.3 cm2), and ejection fractions increased significantly (3.6%, 95% CI 2.6% to 4.6%) in both treatment groups from baseline to 1 year. There were no differences in the magnitude of improvement in ventricular size or function based on treatment assignment. Patients who died or were hospitalized for heart failure subsequent to the final assessment demonstrated the least degree of reverse remodeling. CONCLUSION: Ventricular size and function improved similarly after 1 year with ACE or vasopeptidase inhibition in patients with heart failure. Reverse remodeling was associated with improved outcome.