Journal of General Practice Kotruchin et al.

, J Gen Pract (Los Angel) 2016, 4:5

DOI: 10.4172/2329-9126.1000274

Research Article OMICS International

Efficacy and Safety of Amlodipine versus Captopril and their Combination in

Hypertensive Urgency: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Praew Kotruchin1*, Orathai Pachirat2 and Chatlert Pongchaiyakul2
1Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
2Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
*Corresponding author: Praew Kotruchin, Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand, Tel: 66-43-366869;
Fax: 66-43-202401; E-mail: kpraew@kku.ac.th
Received: October 08, 2016; Accepted: November 14, 2016; Published: November 21, 2016
Copyright: © 2016 Kotruchin P, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of 10 mg amlodipine, 12.5 mg captopril and combination of 5 mg
amlodipine and 6.25 mg captopril in patients with hypertensive urgency at emergency room.

Study design: This was a single-center, randomized, double-blinded clinical trial in hypertensive urgency
patients (systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 180 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥ 110 mmHg). The
patients were randomized to receive 10 mg amlodipine (group A), 12.5 mg captopril (group B) or combination of 5
mg amlodipine and 6.25 mg captopril (group C). Blood pressure was measured every 30 minutes during 4 hours
after administration. The therapeutic response was defined as 15% to 25% reduction in mean arterial blood pressure
(MAP).

Results: Eighty-two patients were recruited (23, 28 and 31 patients in group A, B, and C, respectively). All three
regimens achieved the blood pressure target around half of the patients (52.2%, 53.5% and 51.6% in group A, B
and C, respectively), but there was no statistical difference among three groups. There were only minor adverse
events reported, i.e., headache, dizziness and fatigue, which were similar in all groups.

Conclusion: The efficacy of 10 mg amlodipine, 12.5 mg captopril and combination of 5 mg amlodipine with 6.25
mg captopril in treating patients with hypertensive urgency to achieve target blood pressure was comparable. No
major adverse events were observed and minor adverse events were minimal among three groups. This finding
suggested that three regimens could be safely used in emergency room for treating hypertensive urgency.

Keywords: Hypertensive urgency; Hypertensive crisis; Emergency varied among hospitals and among doctors who work even at the same
room; Amlodipine; Captopril institute. Common drugs used for lowering blood pressure in
hypertensive urgency are clonidine, nifedipine and captopril in
Background Western countries [9-11], while a survey in our tertiary care setting
(Srinagarind hospital) in 2013 found that hydralazine, amlodipine and
Hypertensive crisis patient defines as patient who has exceptionally angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) were commonly
high blood pressure (systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 180 mmHg used for hypertensive urgency treatment in ER, the choice of which
and/or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥ 110 mmHg) [1]. The 1993 was based on physicians’ preference.
report of the JNC proposed an operational classification of
hypertensive crises as either “hypertensive emergency” or It has been accepted that the effectiveness of blood pressure
“hypertensive urgency” depending on end-organ involvement lowering in this condition means reducing mean arterial blood
including cardiac, renal, and neurologic injury [2]. Distinguishing pressure (MAP) 15% to 20% from baseline within 4 h to 24 h [6,12,13].
hypertensive emergency from urgency is critical in formulating a Since in hypertensive urgency, the severe increasing in BP does not
therapeutic plan. It has been accepted that patients with hypertensive lead to target organ damage, an immediate reduction in blood pressure
emergency should have their blood pressure lowered within minutes to is not necessary and initiation of oral anti-hypertensive therapy is
hours since it is a critical condition and rapid lowering of blood generally appropriate. Moreover, the reduction of blood pressure in a
pressure is a cornerstone of treatment, whereas patients with short time span (as short as minutes to an hour) may be harmful since
hypertensive urgency should have their blood pressure reduced within it can lead to myocardial infarction or cerebrovascular diseases [14,15].
24 h to 48 h [3-6]. At present, standard practice guidelines for With this in mind, anti-hypertensive drugs used in HT urgency are
hypertensive emergency were developed and available for healthcare preferably administered in oral form such as calcium channel blockers
providers [3,6]. However, for hypertensive urgency, there is no (amlodipine, nifedipine), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors
standard practice guideline. (captopril), hydralazine and beta-blocking agents (labetolol). However,
there are no controlled studies which demonstrate long-term improved
A variety of oral antihypertensive drugs are available to prescribe in outcomes with acute treatment of hypertensive urgency and the drugs
patients with hypertensive urgency [5-8] and treatments are highly most effective in reducing blood pressure without causing side effects.

J Gen Pract (Los Angel), an open access journal Volume 4 • Issue 5 • 1000274
ISSN:2329-9126
Citation: Kotruchin P, Pachirat O, Pongchaiyakul C (2016) Efficacy and Safety of Amlodipine versus Captopril and their Combination in
Hypertensive Urgency: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Gen Pract (Los Angel) 4: 274. doi:10.4172/2329-9126.1000274

Page 2 of 7

Amlodipine is dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker. It lowers one month, known secondary hypertension (i.e., endocrine
blood pressure by dilating vessels. An initial dose is 5 mg per day hypertension, arteritis, and drug induced hypertension), women who
subsequently increased to 10 mg per day. Its side effects are usually were pregnant or breast feeding, myocardial infarction with symptoms
subtle, i.e., pedal edema (2% to 15%), skin rash and pruritus (1% to such as chest pain and abrupt variations in their electrocardiograms,
2%), nausea or abdominal pain (1% to 3%), flushing or palpitation (1% pulmonary edema, cerebral symptoms of hypertensive encephalopathy
to 4%), muscle cramp or weakness (1% to 3%), and all side effects are and stroke, aortic dissection, ocular conditions, allergy to amlodipine
dose related [16,17]. or captopril and received an antihypertensive drug within the prior
60 min.
Captopril is a drug that inhibits renin-angiotensin-aldosterone
system (RAAS). The onset of action is rapid in minutes to hour. It is
widely recommended to use in hypertensive crisis. The recommended Randomization
initial dose is 6.25 mg to 25 mg. Maximum dose is 100 mg per day. Randomization was conducted using a permuted block design with
Side effects of captopril are skin rash (4% to 7%), hyperkalemia (1% to random block sizes of 3, 6, and 9 using STATA (version 18.0).
11%), coughing (1% to 2%) and acute kidney injury particularly in Randomization sequences were manually generated by the investigator
dehydrated patients or patients with bilateral renal artery stenosis who was not involved in treating the patients; placed in consecutively
[16,17]. numbered, sealed, opaque envelopes; and opened only after obtaining
In most situations, only one antihypertensive drug (monotherapy) each patient's consent to participate in the study.
does not provide adequate therapeutic response. Second drug
combination is often administered to achieve a balanced and additive Intervention
antihypertensive effect with minimum adverse effects [18-20]. An
After patients were enrolled, they were taken to a restricted area of
understanding of differences in the mechanism of action of these
emergency room for 10 min of rest then blood pressure was measured
agents allows a logical approach for the use of these agents as a
in lying position with an automatic sphygmomanometer by a trained
combination therapy [16]. Even though, previously reports
nurse and the higher blood pressure was used for analysis. Doctors
demonstrate that the combination of these drugs is effective in
examined subjects thoroughly to detect target organ damage. Blood
hypertensive patients, there is no previous study to determine the
samples were collected for complete blood count, the kidney function
efficacy of the combination compared with single agents and also a lack
test and electrolytes measurement in all cases. Urine pregnancy test
of data to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events when using half-
and urine toxic screening including cocaine and amphetamine were
dose of amlodipine-captopril in combination for hypertensive urgency
done in suspected cases.
patients.
After measuring a blood pressure, the patients were randomized to
The present study’s primary objective is to compare the efficacy of
receive treatment regimens including 10 mg amlodipine (group A),
three regimens of antihypertensive agents (10 mg amlodipine, 12.5 mg
12.5 mg captopril (group B) or combination of 5 mg amlodipine and
captopril and combination of 5 mg amlodipine and 6.25 mg captopril)
6.25 mg captopril (group C) (Figure 1). The drug names were blinded
in reducing MAP of 15% to 25% from the baseline in hypertensive
to all patients, heath care workers and study team. The patients’ blood
urgency patients. The secondary objective was to examine the adverse
pressure measurement was taken every 30 min, totally 8 times (at 30
events of these three regimens during treatment at emergency room.
min, 60 min, 90 min, 120 min, 150 min, 180 min, 210 min and 240
min) after treatment administration. Both SBP and DBP were
Materials and Methods measured and any reported side effects and complications were
recorded until the primary endpoint was reached or the termination
Study design and setting criteria were observed.
This study was a single-center, randomized, double-blinded clinical
trial. We conducted the study in hypertensive urgency patients who
Statistical analysis
presented at emergency outpatient department, Srinagarind hospital Data were analyzed according to the randomly assigned groups of
during August 2013 to December 2014. The study was formally the participants, and all analyses were made on an intention-to-treat
approved by the Khon Kaen University Ethics Committee for Human basis. Descriptive indices such as frequency, mean and standard
Research. The written informed consent was obtained from each deviation (SD) were used. Baseline characteristics of the enrolled
individual and the study protocol conformed with the ethical subjects were presented to check balance among group A, B and C
guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki. using the unpaired t-test or Fisher’s exact test. The success of treatment
(% of MAP controlled to the goal) between the three groups were
Inclusion and exclusion criteria compared using Chi-square test. The 95% confidence interval was
reported and differences were statistically significant at level of 5%
The inclusion criteria were patients from both genders who age (P<0.05). All statistical analyses were performed using the STATA
between 35 years to 65 years old with a diagnosis of hypertensive statistical package (version 18).
urgency with thresholds determined by the Joint National Committee
on Prevention, Detection, and Evaluation and Treatment of High
Blood Pressure defined as a systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 180 mmHg Results
and/or a diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥ 110 mmHg after two Ninety-six patients with hypertensive urgency were identified for
measurements, ten minutes apart in the supine position. Patients were study inclusion (Figure 2). From those, 14 patients were excluded due
excluded if they exhibited any of the following criteria: a decrease in to previous chronic kidney disease (n=3), age more than 65 years
blood pressure after bed rest (15% to 20% from baseline), known (n=1), incomplete data (n=6), and decreasing of blood pressure after
chronic kidney disease or baseline serum creatinine >1.5 mg/dl within

J Gen Pract (Los Angel), an open access journal Volume 4 • Issue 5 • 1000274
ISSN:2329-9126
Citation: Kotruchin P, Pachirat O, Pongchaiyakul C (2016) Efficacy and Safety of Amlodipine versus Captopril and their Combination in
Hypertensive Urgency: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Gen Pract (Los Angel) 4: 274. doi:10.4172/2329-9126.1000274

Page 3 of 7

bed rest (n=4). After exclusions, 82 patients (28 men and 54 women) Forty-eight patients (58.5%) were diagnosed hypertension and were
were enrolled for analysis. Participants were randomized into three already taken antihypertensive drugs (56.5%, 59.3% and 61.3% in
groups. There were 23, 28 and 31 patients randomized to receive 10 mg group A, B and C, respectively).
amlodipine (group A), 12.5 mg captopril (group B) and combination of
5 mg amlodipine and 6.25 mg captopril (group C), respectively.
The average age was 49.5 years old, 52 years old and 53.2 years old
in group A, B and C, respectively and less than half of the patients had
family history of hypertension in first degree relatives. There were no
significant differences in age, duration of hypertension, clinical
symptoms related with hypertension, prior hypertension treatment,
discontinue antihypertensive drugs, family history of hypertension,
herbal use among three groups; however, numbers of patients who had
prior emergency room visiting due to hypertensive crisis trended to be
higher in group C (41.9%) compared with 17.4% and 14.8% in group A
and B, respectively. Interestingly, although there was no significant
difference in salt intake and exercise among three groups, but most of
patients (60%) who visited emergency room already restricted salt
intake and only few patients had regular exercise. Moreover, there were
no significant differences in serum creatinine, electrolytes, and left
ventricular hypertrophy by electrocardiography and chest radiography
among the groups, however, left ventricular hypertrophy detected by
both techniques was higher in group B (45.5%) than group A (21.2%)
and group C (33.3%) (Table1).

Figure 2: Flow diagram of patient recruitment and randomization.

The primary endpoint in this study was to reduce mean arterial

blood pressure (MAP) 15% to 25% from baseline. If MAP was higher
than baseline, decrease less than 15% or decrease more than 25% from
baseline or decrease too fast (more than 15% within 1st hour) would be
considered out of goal. Based on preliminary results of 82 patients, the
numbers of patients who achieve goal were comparable among three
groups (52.2%, 53.5% and 51.6% in group A, B and C, respectively);
and 32.6% and 67.5% reached the target within 1 h and 2 h,
respectively. We found that the percentage of achieving target within
first hour was highest in group A (41.7%), while within two hours, the
percentage was highest in group B (80%) compared with 58.4% and
62.5% in group A and C, respectively. Despite all patients received
antihypertensive drugs, 12 of 82 patients (14.6%) still increased in
blood pressure after treatment which found 21.7%, 14.3% and 9.7% in
group A, B and C, respectively (Table 2).
The changes in MAP, SBP and DBP among three groups were shown
in Figures 3-5. We found that the MAP, SBP and DBP in group B (12.5
mg captopril) and group C (5 mg amlopine + 6.25 mg captopril)
decreased faster than group A, particularly within the first 120 min
and then increasing after 120 min and 150 min in group B and C,
respectively. All MAP, SBP and DBP of patients in group A (10 mg
Figure 1: Study design. amlodipine) decreased overtime up to 210 min and then trending
toward higher level. In this study, blood pressure reduced beyond 15%
within 4 h in 57 subjects (responders), while 25 subjects were non-
In this study, most patients visited emergency department due to responders. The responders had significantly higher in MAP at
accidentally finding of significantly high blood pressure from other baseline compared with non-responders (145.4 mmHg ± 14.1 mmHg
clinics. Among all, 26 patients (31.7%) had clinical symptoms related and 136.4 mmHg ± 9.9 mmHg in responder and non-responder group,
with high blood pressure, i.e., dizziness, headache and fatigue, etc. respectively) with mean difference of 8.97 mmHg (95% CI 3.5-14.4,

J Gen Pract (Los Angel), an open access journal Volume 4 • Issue 5 • 1000274
ISSN:2329-9126
Citation: Kotruchin P, Pachirat O, Pongchaiyakul C (2016) Efficacy and Safety of Amlodipine versus Captopril and their Combination in
Hypertensive Urgency: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Gen Pract (Los Angel) 4: 274. doi:10.4172/2329-9126.1000274

Page 4 of 7

p<0.01). However, other factors, i.e., age, serum creatinine and groups (group A vs. group B, p=0.204; group A vs. group C, p=0.06;
duration of hypertension were not significantly difference between group B vs. group C, p=0.540).
responder and non-responder groups (Table 3).
In this study, there were only minor adverse events reported, i.e.,
In term of safety and adverse events, the proportion of overall headache, dizziness and fatigue. Mild degree of headache was the most
patients who decreased in MAP more than the safety criteria common adverse event, which found in 9 patients (2, 5 and 2 patients
(reduction >25% of the baseline at any times or >15% in the first hour) in group A, B and C. respectively). There was one patient in group A
was 17.1% (14 of 82), which was highest in group C (25.8%, 8 of 31) who had experienced dizziness, another 2 patients in group A felt
compared with group A (4.4%, 1 of 23) and group B (17.9%, 5 of 28), fatigue and one patient in group C had backache after treatment but
however there were no statistical significantly differences among only mild symptom.

Characteristics Amlodipine (10 mg) Captopril (12.5 mg) Amlodipine (5 mg) + Captopril (6.25 mg)

Number of patients 23 28 31

Sex

Men 10 (43.5) 10 (35.7) 8 (25.8)

Women 13 (56.5) 18 (64.3) 23 (74.2)

Age (year) 49.52 (9.6) 52 (8.7) 53.2 (9.5)

Chief complaint associated 10 (43.5) 6 (21.4) 10 (32.3)

with HT

Duration of HT (month) 27.6 (39.6) 31.7 (37.6) 33.6 (44.7)

Prior HT treatment 13 (56.5) 16 (59.3) 19 (61.3)

Prior ER visit due to HT urgency 4 (17.4) 4 (14.8) 13 (41.9)

Discontinuation of antihypertensive drug 7 (30.4) 8 (29.6) 11 (35.5)

Herbal use 2 (8.7) 5 (18.5) 5 (16.1)

Salt restriction 14 (60.9) 18 (66.7) 20 (64.5)

Regular exercise 5 (21.7) 2 (7.4) 4 (12.9)

Family history of hypertension 10 (43.5) 11 (40.7) 11 (35.5)

Creatinine 0.8 (0.2) 0.8 (0.2) 0.8 (0.3)

Sodium 137.5 (3.7) 139.2 (3.1) 138 (3.6)

Potassium 3.9 (0.4) 3.9 (0.3) 3.9 (0.5)

Bicarbonate 25.2 (3.5) 24.8 (2.3) 24.4 (2.8)

Chloride 99.6 (3.9) 101.3 (3.4) 99.9 (3.2)

Left ventricular hypertrophy 7 (35.0) 15 (62.5) 11 (39.3)

Table 1: Baseline characteristics of the study subjects.

Discussion This present study was designed to determine the efficacy in term of
the agents’ ability to reach a target blood pressure and to examine
Hypertensive urgency is common clinical occurrence that may safety of commonly used medications including amlodipine, captopril.
account one fourth of all emergencies presenting to the emergency However, to reduce complication of both drugs, we also investigated
department. Although most patients have only mild symptoms such as the half-dose combination of amlodipine and captopril.
headache, dizziness, tiredness and chest tightness without or delay
lowering blood pressure may further to target organ damage. We found that all three regimens achieved the blood pressure target
Notwithstanding, clinical practice management of this condition varies within 4 h around half of patients (51.6% to 53.5%), with the highest
considerably [21]. The variability is because of the lack of evidence percentage in 12.5 mg captopril group, but there was no statistical
supporting the use of one therapeutic agent over another and at significance among three groups. In patients who did not achieve the
present, there is no specific practice guideline for treatment patients targets (increased MAP or less than 15% decreased in MAP after drugs
with hypertensive urgency. administration), the failure rate was highest in patients in 10 mg
amlodipine group (43.4%, 10/33), while lower failure rate was in 12.5

J Gen Pract (Los Angel), an open access journal Volume 4 • Issue 5 • 1000274
ISSN:2329-9126
Citation: Kotruchin P, Pachirat O, Pongchaiyakul C (2016) Efficacy and Safety of Amlodipine versus Captopril and their Combination in
Hypertensive Urgency: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Gen Pract (Los Angel) 4: 274. doi:10.4172/2329-9126.1000274

Page 5 of 7

mg captopril and 5 mg amlodipine plus 6.25 mg captopril group. The contamination, therapeutic response, lack of long-term blood pressure
findings from this study were difficult to compare with previous control (>24 h after administration) and also different cardiovascular
studies, since many studies defined hypertensive urgency differently, endpoints.
had small sample size and differences in methodology, study designs,

Mean blood pressure outcomes Amlodipine 10 mg (n=23); n (%) Captopril 12.5 mg (n=28); n (%) Amlodipine 5 mg + Captopril 6.25 mg (n=31); n (%)

Increase 5 (21.7) 4 (14.3) 3 (9.7)

Decrease <15%

Decrease 15% to 25% 5 (21.7) 4 (14.3) 4 (12.9)

Decrease >15% at first hour or 12 (52.2) 15 (53.5) 16 (51.6)

>25% at any times 1 (4.4) 5 (17.9) 8 (25.8)

Table 2: Primary endpoints.

treatment in our study was higher (10 mg vs. 5 mg) than the study of
Grassi et al. [22], the discrepancy in response could explain by the
difference in the therapeutic threshold. In Grassi et al. [22] study,
which blood pressure satisfactory response was defined as SBP and
DBP level <180 mmHg and <110 mmHg after treatment, respectively
or with at least a 20 mmHg reduction in basal SBP and/or a 10 mmHg
reduction in basal DBP, while the responder in our study was patients
who decrease 15% to 25% in MAP and also exclude the patients who
lowered blood pressure more than 25%.

Figure 3: Mean arterial pressure trend during study period.

Figure 5: Diastolic blood pressure trend during study period.

Both oral and sublingual captopril is a common used in emergency

room. There are many studies demonstrated that sublingual captopril
was effective for lowering blood pressure in patients with hypertensive
urgency [23] and emergency [24-27]; however, some studies observed
that rapid and fast blood pressure reduction by sublingual route was
Figure 4: Systolic blood pressure trend during study period. harmful [28,29]. In term of efficacy, there were conflict results of the
efficacy between oral and sublingual route of captopril. Many studies
reported that the sublingual captopril lowered the blood pressure
When compared the efficacy of amlodipine in patients with better than the oral captopril [30-32] while there was no difference in
hypertensive urgency, we found that the blood pressure response was lowering blood pressure and plasma renin and angiotensin converting
consistent with previous study by Grassi et al. [22]. The response rates enzyme activity [33]. On the other hand, Karakilic et al. [34] reported
in patients who received amlodipine in this study and study by Grassi that in the first hour after administration, there was no significant
et al. [22] were similar (41.75% and 42.8%, respectively). However, the difference between sublingual and oral captopril route to decrease
favorable response within 2 h after drug administration was higher in blood pressure in patients with hypertensive crisis and suggested that
the study of Grassi et al. [22]. Even the dosage of amlodipine for oral captopril use is more appropriate to control blood pressure and

J Gen Pract (Los Angel), an open access journal Volume 4 • Issue 5 • 1000274
ISSN:2329-9126
Citation: Kotruchin P, Pachirat O, Pongchaiyakul C (2016) Efficacy and Safety of Amlodipine versus Captopril and their Combination in
Hypertensive Urgency: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Gen Pract (Los Angel) 4: 274. doi:10.4172/2329-9126.1000274

Page 6 of 7

also prevent undesirable side effects (i.e., hypersensitivity, bitter taste, pattern of blood pressure lowering from this study, it suggested that
chemical burn on oral mucosa, etc.) in patients with hypertensive sequential treatment has a promising role as it may not only achieve
urgency. In this study, 80% of patients who received oral captopril target within appropriate time but also has long lasting effect for blood
achieved the blood pressure goal within 2 h while only 14% of patients pressure control. However, our study was designed to limit for four
were non-responder. The dosage of oral captopril in this study was 12.5 hours, therefore further study with longer period is needed.
mg, which was lower compared with most previous studies (25 mg)
Interestingly, we found that the combination of half-dosed
and the response threshold in previous studies was defined as a cut-off
amlodipine and captopril tended to over reach the safety threshold
instead of percentage reduction in blood pressure [35,36].
(25.8%). However, there was no serious adverse event. The results
From the results, blood pressure lowering patterns including MAP, suggested that to reduce MAP more than 25% from baseline might be
SBP and DBP were consistent with each drugs’ pharmacokinetics. safe. Further study with more population is needed to investigate this
After single dose of amlodipine, blood pressure decreased gradually cut-off for target blood pressure before recommendation.
over 4 h. This finding was consistent with previous studies by Pujadas
In this study, responders (MAP reduced 15% or more within 4 h)
et al. [37] that the time needed for blood pressure reduction ranged
had a significantly higher MAP at baseline than non-responders while
from 30 min to 100 min in oral nifedipine which is also a
other factor i.e., age, serum creatinine level, duration of hypertension
dihydropyrine calcium channel blocker, while the studies of ACEIs,
were not significantly difference between groups. This finding was
this therapeutic time range was vary from 30 min to 120 min [37,38].
inconsistent with previous studies [39,40], which reported that serum
However, in our study, captopril had onset of action within half an
creatinine was the main barrier for achieving target blood pressure in
hour and blood pressure slowly raised after 120 min as the drug may
chronic setting. However, we noticed that creatinine level in non-
be eliminated. In combination group, blood pressure start to decrease
responders in current study was higher when compared with
as early as in captopril alone group, however, the effect last longer till
responders, but there was not significantly difference (Table 3).
150 min before blood pressure slowly increased again. Based on the

Factors Responders (n=57) Non-responders (n=25) Mean difference 95% CI P value

Age (year) 51.8 ± 9.9 51.6 ± 7.8 0.28 -4.1, 4.7 0.9

Mean arterial pressure (mmHg) 145.4 ± 14.1 136.4 ± 9.9 8.97 3.5, 14.4 <0.01

Serum creatinine (mg/dl) 0.76 ± 0.21 0.90 ± 0.32 -0.14 -0.29, 0.01 0.054

Duration of hypertension (month) 29.0 ± 37.5 38.2 ± 48.8 -9.17 -30, 12.2 0.4

Table 3: Factors associated with target blood pressure achievement.

The present study’s findings should be interpreted within the Acknowledgments

context of strengths and potential weaknesses. The major strengths of
this study are 1) an RCT which provide better control over possible This study was supported by the Khon Kaen University Research
bias through randomization and blinding, 2) the study’s drugs are the Fund. The authors thank Professor Pyatat Tasanawiwat and Associate
common antihypertensive which have been used in daily clinical Professor Songsak Kiatchoosakul for improving manuscript and also
practice in most Thai hospital settings, and 3) this was the first study in Mrs. Kaewjai Tepsuthammarut for statistical analysis.
Asia to evaluate the treatment for patients with hypertensive urgency
and also the first study to determine the efficacy for half-dose References
amlodipine and captopril combination. However, this study was
1. Reuler JB, Magarian GJ (1988) Hypertensive emergencies and urgencies:
designed to measure blood pressure in short time of period (only four definition, recognition, and management. J Gen Intern Med 3: 64-74.
hours after administration) and we did not collect the long-term blood
2. (1993) The Fifth Report of the Joint National Committee on Detection,
pressure control and also other cardiovascular endpoints, further Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Arch Intern Med 153:
research is needed to determine the best strategies to manage the 154-183.
patients with hypertensive urgency at emergency room and also the 3. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, Cushman WC, Green LA (2003)
maintenance therapy to achieve a better long-term blood pressure The seventh report of the Joint National Committee on prevention,
control during follow up period to prevent the adverse events, detection, evaluation and treatment of high blood pressure. Hypertens 42:
cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, number of hospitalization, 1206-1252.
and complications. 4. Vlcek M, Bur A, Woisetschager C, Herkner H, Laggner AN, et al. (2008)
Association between hypertensive urgencies and subsequent
In conclusion, the efficacy of 10 mg amlodipine, 12.5 mg captopril cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension. J Hypertens 26:
and combination of 5 mg amlodipine with 6.25 mg captopril for 657-662.
patients with hypertensive urgency to achieve target blood pressure 5. Cherney D, Straus S (2002) Management of Patients with Hypertensive
control was similar. Even though, treatment with captopril alone or in Urgencies and Emergencies. J Gen Intern Med 17: 937-945.
combination with amlodipine decreased blood pressure more than 6. Muiesan ML, Salvetti M, Amadoro V, di Somma S, Perlini S, et al. (2015 )
those with amlodipine alone, there was no statistical difference. Both An update on hypertensive emergencies and urgencies. J Cardiovasc Med
major and minor adverse events among the treatments were minimal. (Hagerstown) 16: 372-382.
This study suggested that three regimens can be can be safely used in 7. Mancia G, Fagard R, Narkiewicz K, Redón J, Zanchetti A, et al. (2013)
emergency room for hypertensive urgency. 2013 ESH/ESC Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension:

J Gen Pract (Los Angel), an open access journal Volume 4 • Issue 5 • 1000274
ISSN:2329-9126
Citation: Kotruchin P, Pachirat O, Pongchaiyakul C (2016) Efficacy and Safety of Amlodipine versus Captopril and their Combination in
Hypertensive Urgency: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Gen Pract (Los Angel) 4: 274. doi:10.4172/2329-9126.1000274

Page 7 of 7

the Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the 26. Hauger-Klevene JH (1986) Comparison of sublingual captopril and
European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of nifedipine. Lancet 25: 219.
Cardiology (ESC). J Hypertens 31: 1281-1357. 27. Sakano T, Okuda N, Sokura N (1981) Captopril in hypertensive
8. Varon J (2008) Treatment of acute severe hypertension: current and emergencies. Hirosh J Mewd Sci 30: 351-354.
newer agents. Drugs 68: 283-297. 28. Marik PE, Rivera R (2011) Hypertensive emergencies: an update. Curr
9. Kaplan NM (2005) Hypertensive crisis. In: Kaplan's clinical hypertension, Opin Crit Care 17: 569-580.
(9th edn), Lippincott, Williams, and Wilkins, Philadelphia, USA. 29. Gemici K, Karakoç Y, Ersoy A, Baran II, Güllülü S, et al. (1999) A
10. Elliott WJ (2001) Hypertensive emergencies. Crit Care Clin17: 435-451. Comparison of Safety and Efficacy of Sublingual Captopril with
11. Houston MC (1988) The comparative effects of clonidine hydrochloride Sublingual Nifedipine in Hypertensive Crisis. Int J Angiol 8: 147-149.
and nifedipine in the treatment of hypertensive crises. Am Heart J 115: 30. Al-Furaih TA, Mc Elnay JC, Elborn JS, Rusk R, Scott MG, et al. (1991)
152-159. Sublingual captopril- a pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic
12. Handler J (2006) Hypertensive urgency. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 8: evaluation. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 40: 393-398.
61-64. 31. Chetty DJ, Chen LL, Chien YW (2001) Characterization of captopril
13. Zeller KR, Von Kuhnert L, Matthews C (1989) Rapid reduction of severe sublingual permeation: determination of preferred routes and
asymptomatic hypertension. A prospective, controlled trial. Arch Intern mechanisms. J Pharm Sci 90: 1868-1877.
Med 149: 2186-2189. 32. Perez C, Dougnac A, Alvarez M, Andresen M, Diaz O (1991) Sublingual
14. Bannan LT, Beevers DG, Wright N (1980) ABC of blood pressure captopril versusnifedipine in the treatment of hypertensive crisis. Rev
reduction. Emergency reduction, hypertension in pregnancy, and Med Chil 119: 402-405.
hypertension in the elderly. BMJ 281: 1120-1122. 33. Dessì-Fulgheri P, Bandiera F, Rubattu S, Cocco F, Madeddu P, et al. (1987)
15. Reed WG, Anderson RJ (1986) Effects of rapid blood pressure reduction Comparison of sublingual and oral captopril in hypertension. Clin Exp
on cerebral blood flow. Am Heart J 111: 226-228. Hypertens A 9: 593-597.
16. Bruton LL, Parker L, Blumenthal D, Buxton I (2008) Goodman & 34. Karakiliç E, Büyükcam F, Kocalar G, Gedik S, Atalar E (2012) Same effect
Gilman’s: Manual of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, International of sublingual and oral captopril in hypertensive crisis. Eur Rev Med
edition, McGraw-Hill Companies Inc, USA. Pharmacol Sci 16: 1642-1645.
17. Joseph JS, Barry LC (2005) Applied Therapeutics: The Clinical Use of 35. Komsuoglu B, Sengun B, Bayram A, Komsuoglu SS (1991) Treatment of
Drugs, (8th edn), Washington: Applied Therapeutics Inc, USA. hypertensive urgencies with oral nifedipine, nicardipine, and
captopril. Angiology 42: 447-454.
18. Norris K, Neutel JM (2007) Emerging insights in the first-step use of
antihypertensive combination therapy. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 9: 36. Cherney D, Straus S (2002) Management of patients with hypertensive
5-14. urgencies and emergencies; A systematic review of the literature. J Gen
Intern Med 17: 937-945.
19. Prisant LM (2002) Fixed low-dose combination in first-line treatment of
hypertension. J Hypertens 20: S11-S19. 37. Pujadas R, Jané J, Fornós C, Gago MJ, de la Concepción N (1987)
Comparison of sublingual captopril and nifedipine in hypertensive crises.
20. Skolnik NS, Beck JD, Clark M (2000) Combination antihypertensive
Arch Intern Med 147: 175-176.
drugs: recommendations for use. Am Fam Physician 61: 3049-3056.
21. Kitiyakara C, Guzman N (1998) Malignant hypertension and 38. Damasceno A, Ferreira B, Patel S, Sevene E, Polónia J (1997) Efficacy of
captopril and nifedipine in black and white patients with hypertensive
hypertensive emergencies. J Am Soc Nephrol 9: 133-142.
crisis. J Hum Hypertens 11: 471-476.
22. Grassi D, O'Flaherty M, Pellizzari M, Bendersky M, Rodriguez P, et al.
(2008) Hypertensive urgencies in the emergency department: evaluating 39. Chowdhury EK, Owen A, Krum H, Wing LMH, Ryan P, et al. (2013)
Barriers to achieving blood pressure treatment targets in elderly
blood pressure response to rest and to antihypertensive drugs with
hypertensive individuals. J Hum Hypertens 27: 545-551.
different profiles. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 10: 662-667.
23. Papadopoulos DP, Mourouzis I, Thomopoulos C, Makris T, 40. Kudo N, Yokokawa H, Fukuda H, Sanada H, Miwa Y, et al. (2015)
Achievement of Target Blood Pressure Levels among Japanese Workers
Papademetriou V (2010) Hypertension crisis. Blood Press 19: 328-336.
with Hypertension and Healthy Lifestyle Characteristics Associated with
24. Ceyhan B, Karaaslan Y, Caymaz O, Oto A, Oram E, et al. (1990) Therapeutic Failure. PLoS One. 10: e0133641.
Comparison of sublingual captopril and sublingual nifedipine in
hypertensive emergencies. Jpn J Pharmacol 52: 189-193.
25. Hauger-Klevene JH (1985) Captopril in hypertensive crisis. Lancet 28:
732-733.

J Gen Pract (Los Angel), an open access journal Volume 4 • Issue 5 • 1000274
ISSN:2329-9126