Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 167

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Forteza, Alberto, Evangelista, Arturo, Sánchez, Violeta, Teixidó-Turà, Gisela, Sanz, Paz, Gutiérrez, Laura, Gracia, Teresa, Centeno, Jorge, Rodríguez-Palomares, José, Rufilanchas, Juan Jose, Cortina, José, Ferreira-González, Ignacio, García-Dorado, David·2016·European Heart Journal

Abstract

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv575

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 167

Metadata

Authors
Forteza, A., Evangelista, A., Sánchez, V., Teixidó-Turà, G., Sanz, P., Gutiérrez, L., Gracia, T., Centeno, J., Rodríguez-Palomares, J., Rufilanchas, J. J., Cortina, J., Ferreira-González, I., & García-Dorado, D.
Venue
European Heart Journal
Published
2015-10-29
Volume
37
Issue
12
Pages
978-985
ISSN
  • 0195-668X (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-9645
OpenAlex
W1957090444
Cited by
167
References
1
FWCI
11.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Efficacy of losartan vs. atenolol for the prevention of aortic dilation in Marfan syndrome: a randomized clinical trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv575
The paper
Forteza, A., Evangelista, A., Sánchez, V., Teixidó-Turà, G., Sanz, P., Gutiérrez, L., Gracia, T., Centeno, J., Rodríguez-Palomares, J., Rufilanchas, J. J., Cortina, J., Ferreira-González, I., & García-Dorado, D. (2016). Efficacy of losartan vs. atenolol for the prevention of aortic dilation in Marfan syndrome: a randomized clinical trial. European Heart Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv575

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.