Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (14)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Aurell, M.
Right arrow Articles by Bjorck, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Aurell, M.
Right arrow Articles by Bjorck, S.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, Vol 12, Issue 11 2289-2294, Copyright © 1997 by Oxford University Press


ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Enalapril versus metoprolol in primary hypertension - effects on the glomerular filtration rate

M Aurell, C Bengtsson and S Bjorck
Departments of Nephrology and General Medicine, University of Gotbeborg, Goteborg, Sweden; Corresponding author at: Department of Nephrology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, S-413 45 Goteborg, Sweden

Background: Hypertension is a significant cause of end-stage renal failure and effective treatment of hypertensive will reduce the progression rate of chronic renal failure in various kidney disorders. Different classes of drugs may be more effective than others in this respect. In this study we compared the effects on the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of the ACE-inhibitor enalapril and the betablocker metoprolol in patients with mild and moderate primary hypertension during 6 years. Methods: Patients with GFR in the normal range (⩾80 ml/min/1.73 m2 BSA) were included after a placebo treatment period of 4-8 weeks if diastolic blood pressure was 100-120 mmHg. Target blood pressure was set to <90 mm Hg diastolic. One hundred and thirty patients were randomized in an open parallel study to receive either enalapril or metoprolol. No placebo groups was included. GFR was measured using the 51Cr-EDTA clearance method and 81 patients completed the study. Results: At inclusion, there was no significant differences regarding GFR or blood pressure between the groups. The blood pressure treatment goal was reached in all patients and was maintained during the whole observation period. A small but significant fall in GFR by 4 ml/min/1.73 m2 BSA was noted in both groups after the first year of treatment but thereafter GFR decreased by only 1 ml/min/year/1.73 m2 BSA in both groups. Body weight, serum uric acid and triglycerides increased slightly with metoprolol treatment but no other differences between the two treatments were noted. Conclusions: With the blood pressure maintained at the same level using either enalapril or metoprolol during a 6-year study period, GFR decreased to the same extent in the two groups both during the first year and thereafter. The overall magnitude of the GFR decline approached that of the normal age-related decrease of kidney function, i.e. GFR decreased only about 1 ml/min/year. Thus, treatment with an ACE-inhibitor , enalapril, and a beta-blocker, metoprolol, protected the kidney function to the same extent in this 6 year long study in mild and moderate primary hypertension. Key words: ACE-inhibitors; antihypertensive treatment; betablockers; glomerular filtration rate; hypertension
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
ANN INTERN MEDHome page
T. H. Jafar, C. H. Schmid, M. Landa, I. Giatras, R. Toto, G. Remuzzi, G. Maschio, B. M. Brenner, A. Kamper, P. Zucchelli, et al.
Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Progression of Nondiabetic Renal Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Patient-Level Data
Ann Intern Med, July 17, 2001; 135(2): 73 - 87.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.