112 F. W. Beltman et al.Table II. Baseline values <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> changes after 1 year <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> treatment for <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fice <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> ambulatory (ABP) blood pressure<str<strong>on</strong>g>Amlodipine</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>Lisinopril</str<strong>on</strong>g>Baseline Change 1 year (CI) Baseline Change 1 year (CI)6 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 6< 6Office BP SBP 157.7 16.3 ÿ14.9 (ÿ9.4,ÿ20.4)* 161.3 14.6 ÿ15.6 (ÿ10.8,ÿ20.4)*DBP 102.0 5.2 ÿ12.4 (ÿ9.7,ÿ15.1)* 100.1 3.5 ÿ9.2 (ÿ7.0,ÿ11.5)*HR 81.0 12.2 ÿ9.7 (ÿ5.9,ÿ13.5)* 82.4 11.1 ÿ9.5 (ÿ4.6,ÿ14.5)*24h-ABP SBP 140.8 14.3 ÿ15.3 (ÿ10.2,ÿ20.3)* 137.5 11.1 ÿ15.0 (ÿ11.0,ÿ19.0)*DBP 90.1 10.7 ÿ9.8 (ÿ6.4,ÿ13.2)* 87.2 8.1 ÿ9.9 (ÿ7.3,ÿ12.5)*HR 76.3 7.8 ÿ2.4 (0.1,ÿ4.9) 75.6 7.2 ÿ2.0 (ÿ4.3,0.3)Day-ABP SBP 145.7 13.3 ÿ15.2 (ÿ10.5,ÿ20.0)* 144.1 11.5 ÿ15.7 (ÿ11.0,ÿ20.4)*DBP 95.1 10.4 ÿ10.2 (ÿ6.9,ÿ13.4)* 92.8 8.6 ÿ10.7 (ÿ7.7,ÿ13.7)*HR 80.9 8.7 ÿ2.2 (1.0,ÿ5.3) 79.9 8.4 ÿ2.0 (0.9,ÿ4.9)Night-ABP SBP 130.5 19.4 ÿ15.3 (ÿ8.7,ÿ22.0)* 124.1 14.3 ÿ13.0 (ÿ8.8,ÿ17.1)*DBP 79.9 13.0 ÿ9.0 (ÿ4.4,ÿ13.7)* 75.7 9.9 ÿ8.3 (ÿ5.3,ÿ11.3)*HR 67.0 7.3 ÿ3.0 (ÿ0.8,ÿ5.1)* 67.0 6.9 ÿ1.0 (ÿ3.2,1.2)ABP = ambulatory blood pressure (in mmHg), SBP = systolic blood pressure (in mmHg), DBP = diastolic blood pressure(in mmHg), HR = heart rate (in bpm), CI = 95% c<strong>on</strong>fidence interval, * = statistically significant change with respect to baseline(p 0.05). No differences between treatment groups except for <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fice DBP (see text), values are mean st<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ard deviati<strong>on</strong>.pnoea (1), angina pectoris (2) <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> withdrawal <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> informedc<strong>on</strong>sent (1). All the patients were included in theintenti<strong>on</strong>-to-treat analysis.Office <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> ambulatory blood pressure resp<strong>on</strong>seThe <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fice <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> ambulatory blood pressures at baseline <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>the changes after 1 year <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> treatment are given in Table II.Systolic <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> diastolic <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fice blood pressures <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> heart ratedecreased significantly in both treatment groups. Fordiastolic blood pressure there was a significant interacti<strong>on</strong>between treatment group <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> sex (p = 0.02). For females,there was a difference in the change in diastolic bloodpressure between amlodipine <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> lisinopril in favour <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>amlodipine. No differences existed between amlodipine<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> lisinopril in the change in <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fice systolic bloodpressure <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> heart rate. The changes in ambulatoryderivedblood pressures, during daytime, night-time <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>24-h, were not significantly different between treatmentgroups.Echocardiographic measurementsThe baseline values <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> the changes in, the leftventricular dimensi<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> left ventricular mass estimatesare given in Table III. The percentages <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> patients withleft ventricular hypertrophy in the amlodipine <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>lisinopril group was 14% <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> 9%, respectively. Therewas a statistically significant decrease in LVMI in bothtreatment groups: ÿ11.0 g/m 2 (95% CI: ÿ6.0, ÿ16.1) inthe amlodipine group <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> ÿ12.6 g/m 2 (95% CI: ÿ8.2,ÿ17.0) in the lisinopril group. Septal <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> posterior wallthickness decreased significantly, whereas end-diastolicdiameter increased significantly in both treatment groups.Table III. <strong>Left</strong> ventricular mass <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> dimensi<strong>on</strong>s, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> weight at baseline <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> absolute change after 1 year <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> treatment foreach treatment group<str<strong>on</strong>g>Amlodipine</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>Lisinopril</str<strong>on</strong>g>Baseline Change 1 year (CI) Baseline Change 1 year (CI)6 66 66 66 66 66 66
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Effects</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Amlodipine</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Lisinopril</str<strong>on</strong>g> 113Table IV. <strong>Left</strong> ventricular filling parameters at baseline <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> absolute change after 1 year <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> treatment for each treatmentgroup<str<strong>on</strong>g>Amlodipine</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>Lisinopril</str<strong>on</strong>g>Baseline Change 1 year (CI) Baseline Change 1 year (CI)6 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 6
Change language