Forteza Gil, Alberto Sánchez Sánchez, Violeta Sanz, Paz Gracia, Teresa Centeno Rodríguez, Jorge Rufilanchas Sánchez, Juan José Cortina Romero, José María
Efficacy of losartan vs. atenolol for the prevention of aortic dilation in Marfan syndrome: a randomized clinical trial. [artículo] - European heart journal, 2016 - 37(12):978-85.
Formato Vancouver:
Forteza A, Evangelista A, Sánchez V, Teixidó Turà G, Sanz P, Gutiérrez L et al. Efficacy of losartan vs. atenolol for the prevention of aortic dilation in Marfan syndrome: a randomized clinical trial. Eur Heart J. 2016 Mar 21;37(12):978-85.
PMID: 26518245
Contiene 27 referencias
Aims: To determine the efficacy of losartan vs. atenolol in aortic dilation progression in Marfan syndrome (MFS) patients.
Methods and results: A phase IIIb, randomized, parallel, double-blind study was conducted in 140 MFS patients, age range: 5-60 years, with maximum aortic diameter <45 mm who received losartan (n = 70) or atenolol (n = 70). Doses were raised to a maximum of 1.4 mg/kg/day or 100 mg/day. The primary end-point was the change in aortic root and ascending aorta maximum diameter indexed by body surface area on magnetic resonance imaging after 36 months of treatment. No serious drug-related adverse effects were observed. Five patients presented aortic events during a follow-up (one in the losartan and four in the atenolol groups, P = 0.366). After 3 years of follow-up, aortic root diameter increased significantly in both groups: 1.1 mm (95% CI 0.6-1.6) in the losartan and 1.4 mm (95% CI 0.9-1.9) in the atenolol group, with aortic dilatation progression being similar in both groups: absolute difference between losartan and atenolol -0.3 mm (95% CI -1.1 to 0.4, P = 0.382) and indexed by BSA -0.5 mm/m2 (95% CI -1.2 to 0.1, P = 0.092). Similarly, no significant differences were found in indexed ascending aorta diameter changes between the losartan and atenolol groups: -0.3 mm/m2 (95% CI -0.8 to 0.3, P = 0.326).
Conclusion: Among patients with MFS, the use of losartan compared with atenolol did not result in significant differences in the progression of aortic root and ascending aorta diameters over 3 years of follow-up.
Efficacy of losartan vs. atenolol for the prevention of aortic dilation in Marfan syndrome: a randomized clinical trial. [artículo] - European heart journal, 2016 - 37(12):978-85.
Formato Vancouver:
Forteza A, Evangelista A, Sánchez V, Teixidó Turà G, Sanz P, Gutiérrez L et al. Efficacy of losartan vs. atenolol for the prevention of aortic dilation in Marfan syndrome: a randomized clinical trial. Eur Heart J. 2016 Mar 21;37(12):978-85.
PMID: 26518245
Contiene 27 referencias
Aims: To determine the efficacy of losartan vs. atenolol in aortic dilation progression in Marfan syndrome (MFS) patients.
Methods and results: A phase IIIb, randomized, parallel, double-blind study was conducted in 140 MFS patients, age range: 5-60 years, with maximum aortic diameter <45 mm who received losartan (n = 70) or atenolol (n = 70). Doses were raised to a maximum of 1.4 mg/kg/day or 100 mg/day. The primary end-point was the change in aortic root and ascending aorta maximum diameter indexed by body surface area on magnetic resonance imaging after 36 months of treatment. No serious drug-related adverse effects were observed. Five patients presented aortic events during a follow-up (one in the losartan and four in the atenolol groups, P = 0.366). After 3 years of follow-up, aortic root diameter increased significantly in both groups: 1.1 mm (95% CI 0.6-1.6) in the losartan and 1.4 mm (95% CI 0.9-1.9) in the atenolol group, with aortic dilatation progression being similar in both groups: absolute difference between losartan and atenolol -0.3 mm (95% CI -1.1 to 0.4, P = 0.382) and indexed by BSA -0.5 mm/m2 (95% CI -1.2 to 0.1, P = 0.092). Similarly, no significant differences were found in indexed ascending aorta diameter changes between the losartan and atenolol groups: -0.3 mm/m2 (95% CI -0.8 to 0.3, P = 0.326).
Conclusion: Among patients with MFS, the use of losartan compared with atenolol did not result in significant differences in the progression of aortic root and ascending aorta diameters over 3 years of follow-up.
