Biblioteca Hospital 12 de Octubre
Vista normal Vista MARC Vista ISBD

Efficacy of losartan vs. atenolol for the prevention of aortic dilation in Marfan syndrome: a randomized clinical trial. [artículo]

Por: Forteza Gil, Alberto [Cirugía Cardiovascular] | Sánchez Sánchez, Violeta [Cardiología] | Sanz, Paz [Cardiología] | Gracia, Teresa [Cardiología] | Centeno Rodríguez, Jorge [Cirugía Cardiovascular] | Rufilanchas Sánchez, Juan José [Cirugía Cardiovascular] | Cortina Romero, José María [Cirugía Cardiovascular].
Colaborador(es): Servicio de Cardiología | Servicio de Cirugía Cardiovascular.
Tipo de material: materialTypeLabelArtículoEditor: European heart journal, 2016Descripción: 37(12):978-85.Recursos en línea: Solicitar documento Resumen: 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.
Etiquetas de esta biblioteca: No hay etiquetas de esta biblioteca para este título. Ingresar para agregar etiquetas.
    valoración media: 0.0 (0 votos)
Tipo de ítem Ubicación actual Signatura Estado Fecha de vencimiento
Artículo Artículo PC17768 (Navegar estantería) Disponible

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.

No hay comentarios para este ejemplar.

Ingresar a su cuenta para colocar un comentario.

Con tecnología Koha