Tag Archives: valsartan

The patients who developed cardiotoxicity were treated with beta blockers (carvedilol), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (enalapril) or angiotensin receptor blockers (valsartan), aldosterone antagonists (eplerenone), digitalis and diuretics (furosemide), as needed. When patients remained symptomatic and met the PARADIGM-HF inclusion criteria, sacubitril/valsartan was started instead of enalapril or valsartan. Results showed that sacubitril/valsartan therapy produced an improvement in ventricular remodelling, diastolic dysfunction, and on symptoms, reflected in the New York Heart Association class and the six-minute walk test. The auth

Landmark trials in heart failure – 30 years from CONSENSUS With 2017 marking the 30th year since the publication of CONSENSUS,1 which first reported a reduction in mortality with enalapril versus placebo in patients with advanced heart failure (HF), the BCS held a dedicated session to review the seminal clinical trials and advances in chronic heart failure management in this period. Dr Rosita Zakeri (Royal Brompton Hospital, London) reviewed this session for us and spoke to the BJC afterwards. Rosita Zakeri The era of vasodilator therapy for heart failure began in the 1990s. Professor Karl Swedberg (University of Gothenberg, Sweden) began

Studies involving nearly 6,000 patients with hypertension have shown it lowers blood pressure (BP) significantly more than ramipril, valsartan and olmesartan medoxomil when compared at their maximum doses. It also maintains BP lowering over a 24-hour period. Data on the new compound were presented by Professor Luis Ruilope, (Hospital 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain) at a Takedasponsored symposium during the 22nd European Society of Hypertension (ESH) meeting, held in London from 26th–28th April recently. In one study with ramipril, azilsartan 80 mg once daily provided a 9/6 mmHg greater reduction in clinic BP than ramipril 10 mg once daily, at

ACCORD/INVEST: do not aim for normal blood pressure in diabetes patients with CAD The results of two trials comparing intensive versus more conventional blood pressure lowering in patients with diabetes at high cardiovascular risk have suggested that intensive treatment is not necessary and may be harmful in this population. In the ACCORD BP (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes – Blood Pressure) trial, while intensive blood pressure treatment did reduce the risk of stroke, it failed to reduce the overall risk of cardiovascular events in patients and was associated with an increase in adverse events due to antihypertensive ther

No content available

No content available