PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Bo Carlberg

Publications and source records attributed to Bo Carlberg.

11 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Thoracic aorta--dilated or not?

OBJECTIVES: Knowledge of normal aortic diameters is important in the assessment of aortic disease. The aim of this study was to determine normal thoracic aortic diameters. DESIGN: 77 patients undergoing computed tomography of the thorax were studied. The diameter of the thoracic aorta was measured at three levels in the ascending aorta and at three levels in the descending aorta. The diameter was studied in relation to age, sex, weight and height. RESULTS: We found that aortic diameter is increasing with increasing age. Even sex and BMI influence the aortic diameter but to a lesser extent than age. The upper normal limit for ascending aorta can be calculated with the formula D(mm) = 31 + 0.16*age and for descending aorta with the formula D(mm) = 21 + 0.16*age. Thus a 20-year-old person has an upper normal limit for ascending aorta of 34 mm and an 80-year-old person has a limit of 44 m. CONCLUSIONS: The thoracic aortic diameter varies with age, sex and body weight and height. The strongest correlation can be seen with age. Age should therefore be taken into consideration when determining whether the thoracic aorta is dilated or not.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Cost implications of development of diabetes in the ALPINE study.

OBJECTIVE: To present a cost-effectiveness analysis of the Antihypertensive Treatment and Lipid Profile in a North of Sweden Efficacy Evaluation study (ALPINE). DESIGN: In newly diagnosed hypertensive individuals as yet untreated with drugs, the ALPINE study compared the 1-year metabolic effects of inexpensive treatment with a diuretic (hydrochlorothiazide), alone or in combination (84%) with a beta-adrenoceptor blocker (atenolol), with that of newer but also more expensive antihypertensive treatment with an angiotensin II receptor blocker (candesartan), alone or in combination (71%) with a calcium antagonist (felodipine). No crossover of medication was allowed. The cost-effectiveness analysis included costs for antihypertensive treatment during follow-up, and lifetime costs for care of diabetes mellitus diagnosed during follow-up. Cost per patient was calculated using Swedish prices and costs, translated into US dollars (US$), at 2004 prices. RESULTS: Diabetes mellitus was diagnosed in nine patients during the 1-year follow-up period of the study, eight in the hydrochlorothiazide group (4.1%) and one (0.5%) in the candesartan/felodipine group (P < 0.05). The cost of antihypertensive treatment per patient was US$92 in the hydrochlorothiazide/atenolol group and US$422 in the candesartan/felodipine group. Lifetime cost for care of diabetes mellitus per patient in the two groups was US$1013 and US$127, respectively. Total cost per patient was US$556 less in the candesartan/felodipine group. In sensitivity analyses, the outcome for the candesartan/felodipine group ranged from cost savings to an incremental cost of US$30 000 per case of diabetes mellitus prevented. In all analyses but one, the additional cost for antihypertensive treatment in the candesartan/felodipine group could be balanced by the reduced lifetime cost for care of diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that an antihypertensive treatment strategy with candesartan and felodipine may have a favourable health economic impact in the longer term.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Anticoagulant treatment at a specialized outpatient anticoagulant therapy unit, a descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: The indications for continuous oral anticoagulant treatment, the target interval and the procedures for withdrawing treatment have changed in the last 10 years. METHODS: Patients on continuous oral anticoagulant treatment at the Outpatient Anticoagulant Clinic at Umeå University Hospital in 2002 were included in a descriptive study (n = 900). 263 of those had a mechanical heart valve prosthesis. Only patient records for patients with other indications than mechanical heart valve prosthesis were examined. 582 of those records were found. In the 55 remaining patients some clinical information was retrieved from the computerised warfarin dosage database. These latter, more unsure clinical data, are presented separately. Anticoagulant treatment was discontinued if lack of proper indication or presence of too high risk for hemorrhagic complications were found. RESULTS: The prevalence of continuous oral anticoagulant treatment in the uptake area was 0.65%. The most common target interval was INR 2.1-3.0, but patients with a mechanical heart valve prosthesis were often treated more aggressively, i.e. with a higher INR target interval. Of the patients on continuous treatment, 26.6% of the INR values were outside 2.0-3.0. The most common reasons for oral anticoagulant treatment were atrial fibrillation or mechanical heart valve prosthesis, in contrast to earlier findings in studies of our population in 1987 and 1990. We found 90 patients (10.0%) without proper indication for oral anticoagulant treatment or too high risk, and their treatment was discontinued. CONCLUSION: In patients on oral anticoagulant therapy, re-evaluation of indications and risks resulted in a substantial number of treatment withdrawals. There have been major changes in treatment indications during the last decade, possibly due to rapid development of knowledge in the field of thrombosis risk factors. Treatment should be re-considered once a year.

Journal Article↗
PubMed2004

Doctors' estimation of cardiovascular risk and willingness to give drug treatment in hypertension: fair risk assessment but defensive treatment policy.

OBJECTIVE: We studied the differences between recommendations given in the 1999 World Health Organization-International Society of Hypertension (WHO/ISH) Guidelines and doctors' risk estimation and willingness to give antihypertensive drugs. METHODS: A population-based sample, the WHO Multinational Monitoring of Trends and Determinants in Cardiovascular Disease (WHO MONICA) (n = 5997), was classified according to the 1999 WHO/ISH Hypertension Guidelines risk stratification scheme. A total of 54 subjects were randomly drawn from the 12 different risk categories. Written case stories were constructed based on risk-factor levels for each selected subject. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Doctors (n = 139), comprising general practitioners (GPs, n = 110) and specialists in internal medicine or cardiology (specialists, n = 29), in northern Sweden assessed 12 cases each. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Factors used in risk assessment, estimation of cardiovascular risk, and willingness to give antihypertensive drugs. RESULTS: In a multivariate logistic regression model including all doctors, most major risk factors were significantly associated with a higher estimated risk and willingness to give drug treatment. Estimated risk was lower than the risk classified by 1999 WHO/ISH Hypertension Guidelines, and there was no difference between GPs and specialists in this respect. The use of antihypertensive drugs was much lower than advocated by the guidelines, but specialists were more inclined to give antihypertensive drug treatment than GPs. CONCLUSIONS: Doctors estimated the cardiovascular risk as being less severe than the recommendation given in the 1999 WHO/ISH Hypertension Guidelines. Moreover, their willingness to prescribe antihypertensive drugs was also lower than that advocated by the guidelines. The control of hypertension is poor in the community today, and this seems to be the way the profession wants to have it.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Risk stratification by guidelines compared with risk assessment by risk equations applied to a MONICA sample.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization/International Society of Hypertension (WHO/ISH) Hypertension Guidelines from 1999 propose a risk stratification scheme for estimating absolute risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Risk equations estimated by statistical methods are another way of predicting cardiovascular risk. OBJECTIVE: We studied the differences between these two approaches when applied to the same set of individuals with high blood pressure. DESIGN AND METHODS: The two northernmost counties in Sweden (NSW) constitute one of the centres in the WHO MONICA (monitoring trends and determinants in cardiovascular disease) Project. Three population surveys have been carried out in 1986, 1990 and 1994, and were used to estimate a risk equation for predicting the 10-year risk of fatal/non-fatal stroke and myocardial infarction. Another MONICA sample from 1999, a total of 5997 subjects, was classified according to the recent WHO/ISH risk stratification scheme. A risk assessment was also performed, by using the risk equations from the NSW MONICA sample and Framingham risk equations. RESULTS: The agreement between the two methods was good when the values obtained from the risk equation were averaged for each risk group obtained from the risk classification by guidelines. However, if the predicted risk for each individual was considered, the agreement was poor for the medium and high-risk groups. Although the average risk for all individuals is the same, many subjects have a higher risk or a lower risk than predicted by guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Risk classification by the 1999 WHO/ISH Hypertension Guidelines is not accurate and detailed enough for medium- and high-risk patients, which could be of clinical importance in the medium risk group.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Metabolic outcome during 1 year in newly detected hypertensives: results of the Antihypertensive Treatment and Lipid Profile in a North of Sweden Efficacy Evaluation (ALPINE study).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the Antihypertensive Treatment and Lipid Profile in a North of Sweden Efficacy Evaluation study was to compare the long-term effect of the commonly used inexpensive medication with a low-dose diuretic (hydrochlorothiazide), alone or in combination with a beta-adrenoceptor (atenolol), with that of more modern but also more expensive antihypertensive treatment with an angiotensin-II-receptor blocker (candesartan), alone or in combination with a calcium antagonist (felodipine), and to do so in newly diagnosed patients with primary hypertension. The objectives included comparisons of the effects on the glucose metabolism, lipoprotein metabolism, electrolytes, blood pressure, and subjective symptoms. DESIGN: A 1-year, prospective randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. SUBJECTS: In an investigator-initiated study, we included 392 patients (mean age 55 years, 48% men); 370 patients (94%) had never been treated with antihypertensive drugs before the study. No patient was lost to follow-up. RESULTS: Both treatment regimens lowered blood pressure well (23/13 mmHg in the hydrochlorothiazide group and 21/13 mmHg in the candesartan group), with a majority of patients needing two drugs. Fasting levels of both serum insulin and plasma glucose increased in the hydrochlorothiazide group in contrast to unaffected levels in the candesartan group. Diabetes mellitus was diagnosed in nine patients during follow-up, in eight patients in the hydrochlorothiazide group (4.1%) and in one patient (0.5%) in the candesartan group (P = 0.030). Triglycerides increased and high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol decreased more in the hydrochlorothiazide group than in the candesartan group. Both the low-density lipoprotein/high-density lipoprotein and the apolipoprotein B/apolipoprotein A-I ratios increased in the hydrochlorothiazide group. At 12 months, 18 patients in the hydrochlorothiazide group versus five in the candesartan group had a 'metabolic syndrome', as defined by the World Health Organization (P = 0.007) despite 1 year of active blood pressure-lowering therapy. There were less (P = 0.020) adverse events in the candesartan group, but no major differences in the subjective symptoms assessment profile. One subject in each group had a myocardial infarction. CONCLUSION: Antihypertensive treatment with a diuretic, if needed combined with a beta-adrenoceptor blocker, was associated with an aggravated metabolic profile; this was not so for patients treated with an angiotensin-II-receptor blocker, if needed combined with a calcium antagonist. An antihypertensive treatment strategy that costs more in the short run but has no metabolic adverse effects may have a health economic impact in the long term.

Antihypertensive Agents↗
PubMed2002

1999 WHO/ISH Guidelines applied to a 1999 MONICA sample from northern Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Treating hypertension with drugs is so far the most cost-effective way to reduce this important risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). It is, however, important to determine absolute risk, and thereby estimate indication for drug treatment, in order to maintain a cost-effective drug treatment. WHO/ISH Hypertension Guidelines from 1999 propose a risk stratification for estimating absolute risk for CVD based on blood pressure and additional risk factors, target organ damage (TOD) and CVD. OBJECTIVES: We studied the consequences of applying the recent WHO/ISH risk stratification scheme to a MONICA sample of 6000 subjects from a geographically defined population in northern Sweden, regarding indications for treatment, target blood pressure and risk distribution. METHODS: We have risk-classified each of these patients using a computer program, according to the WHO/ISH scheme. Data on TOD were not available. RESULTS: In all, 917 (15%) had drug-treated hypertension. Three-quarters (n = 737) were inadequately treated, with blood pressure levels at or above 140 or 90 mmHg. 1773 (30% of 5997) untreated subjects had a blood pressure of 140/90 or above; 16% in the low-, 62% in the medium-, 8% in the high-, and 14% in the very-high-risk group. The corresponding risk-group pattern for the inadequately treated hypertensives (n = 737) was 5.5, 48.3, 11.1 and 35.2%, respectively. If we shifted the target blood pressure from below 140/90 to below 130/85 for drug-treated subjects under 60 (n = 278) the number of inadequately treated subjects increased by 34 (12.2% of 278); 14 in the low-risk group, 15 in the medium-risk group, and only five in the high- or very-high-risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: Only one-fifth of the drug-treated hypertensives were well controlled. Moreover, the incidence of newly detected blood pressure elevation was high. The majority of younger subjects with high blood pressure had low risk, but in those aged 45-54 this had already risen to a medium risk. Changing the target blood pressure to below 130/85, for subjects aged below 60, as recommended by WHO/ISH, affects predominantly low- and medium-risk groups.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Atenolol in hypertension: is it a wise choice?

BACKGROUND: Atenolol is one of the most widely used beta blockers clinically, and has often been used as a reference drug in randomised controlled trials of hypertension. However, questions have been raised about atenolol as the best reference drug for comparisons with other antihypertensives. Thus, our aim was to systematically review the effect of atenolol on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients. METHODS: Reports were identified through searches of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, relevant textbooks, and by personal communication with established researchers in hypertension. Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of atenolol on cardiovascular morbidity or mortality in patients with primary hypertension were included. FINDINGS: We identified four studies that compared atenolol with placebo or no treatment, and five that compared atenolol with other antihypertensive drugs. Despite major differences in blood pressure lowering, there were no outcome differences between atenolol and placebo in the four studies, comprising 6825 patients, who were followed up for a mean of 4.6 years on all-cause mortality (relative risk 1.01 [95% CI 0.89-1.15]), cardiovascular mortality (0.99 [0.83-1.18]), or myocardial infarction (0.99 [0.83-1.19]). The risk of stroke, however, tended to be lower in the atenolol than in the placebo group (0.85 [0.72-1.01]). When atenolol was compared with other antihypertensives, there were no major differences in blood pressure lowering between the treatment arms. Our meta-analysis showed a significantly higher mortality (1.13 [1.02-1.25]) with atenolol treatment than with other active treatment, in the five studies comprising 17671 patients who were followed up for a mean of 4.6 years. Moreover, cardiovascular mortality also tended to be higher with atenolol treatment than with other antihypertensive treatment. Stroke was also more frequent with atenolol treatment. INTERPRETATION: Our results cast doubts on atenolol as a suitable drug for hypertensive patients. Moreover, they challenge the use of atenolol as a reference drug in outcome trials in hypertension.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Should beta blockers remain first choice in the treatment of primary hypertension? A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Beta blockers have been used widely in the treatment of hypertension and are recommended as first-line drugs in hypertension guidelines. However, a preliminary analysis has shown that atenolol is not very effective in hypertension. We aim to substantially enlarge the data on atenolol and analyse the effect of different beta blockers. METHODS: The Cochrane Library and PubMed were searched for beta blocker treatment in patients with primary hypertension. Data were then entered into the Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager package and were summarised in meta-analyses. 13 randomised controlled trials (n=105 951) were included in a meta-analysis comparing treatment with beta blockers with other antihypertensive drugs. Seven studies (n=27 433) were included in a comparison of beta blockers and placebo or no treatment. FINDINGS: The relative risk of stroke was 16% higher for beta blockers (95% CI 4-30%) than for other drugs. There was no difference for myocardial infarction. When the effect of beta blockers was compared with that of placebo or no treatment, the relative risk of stroke was reduced by 19% for all beta blockers (7-29%), about half that expected from previous hypertension trials. There was no difference for myocardial infarction or mortality. INTERPRETATION: In comparison with other antihypertensive drugs, the effect of beta blockers is less than optimum, with a raised risk of stroke. Hence, we believe that beta blockers should not remain first choice in the treatment of primary hypertension and should not be used as reference drugs in future randomised controlled trials of hypertension.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗