Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 514

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

Calcium Antagonist Lacidipine Slows Down Progression of Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis: Principal Results of the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis (ELSA), a Randomized, Double-Blind, Long-Term Trial

Zanchetti, Alberto, Bond, M. Gene, Hennig, Michael, Neiss, Albrecht, Mancia, Giuseppe, Dal Palù, Cesare, Hansson, Lennart, Magnani, Bruno, Rahn, Karl-Heinz, Reid, John L., Rodicio, Josè, Safar, Michel, Eckes, Lothar, Rizzini, Paolo·2002·Circulation

Abstract

Background— Most cardiovascular events associated with hypertension are complications of atherosclerosis. Some antihypertensive agents influence experimental models of atherosclerosis through mechanisms independent of blood pressure lowering. Methods and Results— The European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis (ELSA) was a randomized, double-blind trial in 2334 patients with hypertension that compared the effects of a 4-year treatment based on either lacidipine or atenolol on an index of carotid atherosclerosis, the mean of the maximum intima-media thicknesses (IMT) in far walls of common carotids and bifurcations (CBM max ). This index has been shown by epidemiological studies to be predictive of cardiovascular events. A significant ( P <0.0001) effect of lacidipine was found compared with atenolol, with a treatment difference in 4-year CBM max progression of −0.0227 mm (intention-to-treat population) and −0.0281 mm (completers). The yearly IMT progression rate was 0.0145 mm/y in atenolol-treated and 0.0087 mm/y in lacidipine-treated patients (completers, 40% reduction; P =0.0073). Patients with plaque progression were significantly less common, and patients with plaque regression were significantly more common in the lacidipine group. Clinic blood pressure reductions were identical with both treatments, but 24-hour ambulatory systolic/diastolic blood pressure changes were greater with atenolol (−10/−9 mm Hg) than with lacidipine (−7/−5 mm Hg). No significant difference between treatments was found in any cardiovascular events, although the relative risk for stroke, major cardiovascular events, and mortality showed a trend favoring lacidipine. Conclusion— The greater efficacy of lacidipine on carotid IMT progression and number of plaques per patient, despite a smaller ambulatory blood pressure reduction, indicates an antiatherosclerotic action of lacidipine independent of its antihypertensive action.

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 · 10.1161/01.cir.0000039288.86470.dd

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

Cites

Cited by

See all 514

Metadata

Authors
Zanchetti, A., Bond, M. G., Hennig, M., Neiss, A., Mancia, G., Dal Palù, C., Hansson, L., Magnani, B., Rahn, K.-H., Reid, J. L., Rodicio, J., Safar, M., Eckes, L., & Rizzini, P.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2002-11-05
Volume
106
Issue
19
Pages
2422-2427
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2160258470
Cited by
514
References
1
FWCI
25.12
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

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.