HTN: Potassium (2015)
Citation:
Franzoni F, Santoro G, Carpi A, DaPrato F, Bartolomucci F, Femia FR, Prattichizzo F, Galetta F. Antihypertensive effect of oral potassium aspartate supplementation in mild to moderate arterial hypertension. Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy. 2005; 59: 25-29.
PubMed ID: 15740932Study Design:
Non-Randomized Controlled Trial
Class:
C - Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:
To evaluate the effect of a lower dose of potassium aspartate salt on BP in individuals with essential arterial hypertension.
Inclusion Criteria:
- Established or newly diagnosed mild to moderate hypertension (SBP higher than 140mm Hg or DBP higher than 90mm Hg)
- Free from coronary artery disease, valvular or primary myocardial heart disease, diabetes, dyslipidemia and arrhythmias.
Exclusion Criteria:
- SBP higher than 200mm Hg
- Suspected or defined secondary hypertension.
Description of Study Protocol:
Recruitment
Patients referred to a hospital outpatient clinic.
Design
Non-randomized controlled trial.
Blinding Used
Implied with measurements.
Intervention
- Subjects were allocated to receive or not receive potassium aspartate supplementation daily for four weeks:
- 30mmol potassium aspartate
- Placebo.
- Constant dietary intake of sodium and potassium
- Compliance assessed by vial count and measurement of urinary potassium excretion.
Statistical Analysis
- One-way ANOVA
- Repeated measures ANOVA for repeated observations
- Linear regression analysis to assess correlations between parameters
- Significance level: P<0.05.
Data Collection Summary:
Timing of Measurements
Measurements made at baseline and at four weeks.
Dependent Variables
- Blood pressure:
- Office BP: Two measurements with sphygmomanometer
- 24-hour BP: Measurements every 30 minutes in the non-dominant arm using SpaceLabs monitor
- Daytime BP: Mean value from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m.
- Nighttime BP: Mean value from 11:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m.
- Fasting blood samples
- 24-hour urine samples.
Independent Variables
- 30mmol potassium aspartate supplementation vs placebo for four weeks
- Compliance assessed by vial count and measurement of urinary potassium excretion.
Description of Actual Data Sample:
- Initial N: N=104 (65 males, 39 females)
- Attrition (final N): N=104, no withdrawals from the study
- Age: Aged 35 years to 66 years. The treated group;s mean age was 51±11 years while the untreated group;s mean age was 53±12 years.
Treated (N=52) vs. untreated (N=52):
- BMI: 24.3±1.2kg/m2 vs. 24.5±1.5kg/m2
- Office SBP: 154.4±8.2mm Hg vs. 153.8±11.6mm Hg
- Office DBP: 95.0±5.6mm Hg vs. 96.4±4.4mm Hg
- 24-hour SBP: 142.7±8.2mm Hg vs. 141.8±8.5mm Hg
- 24-hour DBP: 90.8±4.4mm Hg vs. 91.6±3.2mm Hg.
Location
Italy.
Summary of Results:
Key Findings
- Treated group (N=52):
- Significant changes in office and 24-hour SBP and DBP (P<0.001)
- Changes in day and night time SBP and DBP were similar
- Significant increase in serum potassium (4.14mmol to 4.38mmol per L) and 24-hour urinary potassium (57.8mmol to 81.6mmol per 24 hours) (P<0.01)
- Significant decrease in urinary Na/K ratio ( 3.3 to 2.4) (P<0.01)
- Significant correlation between urinary Na/K ratio and changes in office SBP (R=0.58, P<0.001) and 24-hour SBP (R=0.51, P<0.001), but not DBP.
- Untreated group (N=52): No significant changes in any outcome
Arterial BP mmHg |
Treated Sub-Group | Untreated Sub-Group | |||
Baseline | Four Weeks | Baseline | Four Weeks | ||
Office | SBP | 154.4±8.2 | 142.2±7.6*,** | 153.8±11.6 | 152.2±9.4 |
DBP | 95.0±5.6 | 87.2±4.3*, ** | 96.6±4.4 | 96.0±4.7 | |
24-Hour | SBP | 142.7±8.2 | 134.8±6.3*, ** | 141.8±8.5 | 140.5±7.6 |
DBP | 90.8±4.4 | 84.6±3.8*, ** | 91.6±3.2 | 91.2±4.3 | |
Day SBP | 143.8±6.0 | 136.5±5.2*, ** | 142.5±9.1 | 142.2±7.4 | |
Day DBP | 93.5±4.1 | 85.9±3.0*, ** | 92.8±3.7 | 92.6±3.8 | |
Night SBP | 128.7±6.2 | 121.6±4.9*, ** | 127.0±7.5 | 128.3±8.1 | |
Night DBP | 77.5±3.7 | 74.4±3.2*, ** | 78.6±4.0 | 78.3±3.5 |
* P<0.001 vs. treated and untreated sub-groups at baseline
** P<0.001 vs. untreated sub-group at follow-up visit after four weeks.
Author Conclusion:
Potassium aspartate in a dose lower than previously reported lowers office and 24-hour ambulatory BP in subjects with mild to moderate hypertension and should be considered in initial treatment.
Funding Source:
University/Hospital: |
Reviewer Comments:
Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
|
|||
Relevance Questions | |||
1. | Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) | Yes | |
2. | Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? | Yes | |
3. | Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? | Yes | |
4. | Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) | Yes | |
Validity Questions | |||
1. | Was the research question clearly stated? | Yes | |
1.1. | Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? | Yes | |
1.2. | Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? | Yes | |
1.3. | Were the target population and setting specified? | Yes | |
2. | Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? | Yes | |
2.1. | Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? | Yes | |
2.2. | Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? | Yes | |
2.3. | Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? | Yes | |
2.4. | Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? | ??? | |
3. | Were study groups comparable? | Yes | |
3.1. | Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) | No | |
3.2. | Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? | Yes | |
3.3. | Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) | Yes | |
3.4. | If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? | N/A | |
3.5. | If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) | N/A | |
3.6. | If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? | N/A | |
4. | Was method of handling withdrawals described? | Yes | |
4.1. | Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? | Yes | |
4.2. | Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) | Yes | |
4.3. | Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? | Yes | |
4.4. | Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? | N/A | |
4.5. | If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? | N/A | |
5. | Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? | Yes | |
5.1. | In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? | Yes | |
5.2. | Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) | Yes | |
5.3. | In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? | N/A | |
5.4. | In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? | N/A | |
5.5. | In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? | N/A | |
6. | Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? | Yes | |
6.1. | In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? | Yes | |
6.2. | In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? | N/A | |
6.3. | Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? | Yes | |
6.4. | Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? | Yes | |
6.5. | Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? | Yes | |
6.6. | Were extra or unplanned treatments described? | N/A | |
6.7. | Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? | Yes | |
6.8. | In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? | N/A | |
7. | Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? | Yes | |
7.1. | Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? | Yes | |
7.2. | Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? | Yes | |
7.3. | Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? | Yes | |
7.4. | Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? | Yes | |
7.5. | Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? | Yes | |
7.6. | Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? | ??? | |
7.7. | Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? | Yes | |
8. | Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? | Yes | |
8.1. | Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? | Yes | |
8.2. | Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? | Yes | |
8.3. | Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? | Yes | |
8.4. | Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? | N/A | |
8.5. | Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? | ??? | |
8.6. | Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? | Yes | |
8.7. | If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? | N/A | |
9. | Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? | Yes | |
9.1. | Is there a discussion of findings? | Yes | |
9.2. | Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? | Yes | |
10. | Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? | Yes | |
10.1. | Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? | Yes | |
10.2. | Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? | Yes | |