1993British Journal of Clinical PharmacologyOpen access

Haemodynamic comparison of amlodipine and atenolol in essential hypertension using the quantascope

Tony Tham, Niall Herity, Guy S, Bernard Silke

Open full text 5 citations

Abstract

1 We have utilised a non-imaging echo-Doppler cardiac output device, using the principle of attenuated compensation volume flow (ACVF), to assess the cardiovascular effects of amlodipine and atenolol over 3 months in 24 patients with essential hypertension. 2 Both amlodipine and atenolol, at 4 and 12 weeks, similarly reduced mean arterial pressure (12 weeks amlodipine -12.6 mmHg, atenolol -14.9 mmHg; P < 0.01 for each vs baseline). 3 The heart rate fell on atenolol, both at 4 weeks (amlodipine -3 vs atenolol -12 beats min(-1); P < 0.05) and 12 weeks (-1 vs -11 beats min(-1); P < 0.05), without change on amlodipine. 4 Stroke volume initially rose on atenolol without change on amlodipine (4 weeks amlodipine -1.3 ml vs atenolol +10.1 ml; P = 0.05) but between drug effects were not different at 12 weeks. 5 The systemic vascular resistance was reduced on amlodipine (12 weeks: amlodipine -176 dyn s cm(-5): P < 0.05) without change on atenolol (atenolol -48 dyn s cm(-5): NS). 6 The cardiac stroke work was lowered on amlodipine both at 4 weeks (P < 0.01) and 12 weeks (P < 0.05) and statistically different from the unaltered atenolol values at both time points. 7 Skin nutrient flow or fingertip temperature was not altered by either treatment. 8 These results are consistent with contrasting mechanisms of action--vasodilator for amlodipine and decreased cardiac pumping for atenolol. The greater reduction in cardiac stroke work on amlodipine compared with atenolol warrants further investigation during longer-term studies.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

1 We have utilised a non-imaging echo-Doppler cardiac output device, using the principle of attenuated compensation volume flow (ACVF), to assess the cardiovascular effects of amlodipine and atenolol over 3 months in 24 patients with essential hypertension. 2 Both amlodipine and atenolol, at 4 and 12 weeks, similarly reduced mean arterial pressure (12 weeks amlodipine -12.6 mmHg, atenolol -14.9 mmHg; P < 0.01 for each vs baseline). 3 The heart rate fell on atenolol, both at 4 weeks (amlodipine -3 vs atenolol -12 beats min(-1); P < 0.05) and 12 weeks (-1 vs -11 beats min(-1); P < 0.05), without change on amlodipine. 4 Stroke volume initially rose on atenolol without change on amlodipine (4 weeks amlodipine -1.3 ml vs atenolol +10.1 ml; P = 0.05) but between drug effects were not different at 12 weeks. 5 The systemic vascular resistance was reduced on amlodipine (12 weeks: amlodipine -176 dyn s cm(-5): P < 0.05) without change on atenolol (atenolol -48 dyn s cm(-5): NS). 6 The cardiac stroke work was lowered on amlodipine both at 4 weeks (P < 0.01) and 12 weeks (P < 0.05) and statistically different from the unaltered atenolol values at both time points. 7 Skin nutrient flow or fingertip temperature was not altered by either treatment. 8 These results are consistent with contrasting mechanisms of action--vasodilator for amlodipine and decreased cardiac pumping for atenolol. The greater reduction in cardiac stroke work on amlodipine compared with atenolol warrants further investigation during longer-term studies.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 5 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

1 We have utilised a non-imaging echo-Doppler cardiac output device, using the principle of attenuated compensation volume flow (ACVF), to assess the cardiovascular effects of amlodipine and atenolol over 3 months in 24 patients with essential hypertension. 2 Both amlodipine and atenolol, at 4 and 12 weeks, similarly reduced mean arterial pressure (12 weeks amlodipine -12.6 mmHg, atenolol -14.9 mmHg; P < 0.01 for each vs baseline). 3 The heart rate fell on atenolol, both at 4 weeks (amlodipine -3 vs atenolol -12 beats min(-1); P < 0.05) and 12 weeks (-1 vs -11 beats min(-1); P < 0.05), without change on amlodipine. 4 Stroke volume initially rose on atenolol without change on amlodipine (4 weeks amlodipine -1.3 ml vs atenolol +10.1 ml; P = 0.05) but between drug effects were not different at 12 weeks. 5 The systemic vascular resistance was reduced on amlodipine (12 weeks: amlodipine -176 dyn s cm(-5): P < 0.05) without change on atenolol (atenolol -48 dyn s cm(-5): NS). 6 The cardiac stroke work was lowered on amlodipine both at 4 weeks (P < 0.01) and 12 weeks (P < 0.05) and statistically different from the unaltered atenolol values at both time points. 7 Skin nutrient flow or fingertip temperature was not altered by either treatment. 8 These results are consistent with contrasting mechanisms of action--vasodilator for amlodipine and decreased cardiac pumping for atenolol. The greater reduction in cardiac stroke work on amlodipine compared with atenolol warrants further investigation during longer-term studies.

Key concepts: Atenolol, Amlodipine, Medicine, Blood pressure, Stroke volume, Heart rate, Cardiology, Vasodilation

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Haemodynamic comparison of amlodipine and atenolol in essential hypertension using the quantascope — Research Paper | ScholarLens