AIMS: In rodent and primate studies, urotensin II is an extremely potent vasoconstrictor peptide with effects in the central aortic and arterial vasculature as well as on cardiac function. The aim of the present study was to assess systemic haemodynamic responses to intravenous urotensin II infusion in humans. METHODS: In 10 healthy male volunteers, intravenous urotensin II (3, 30 and 300 pmol min-1) and saline placebo were given on separate occasions in a single-blind randomized manner. Systemic haemodynamics and arterial stiffness were assessed by sphygmomanometry, transthoracic bioimpedance, and pulse wave analysis. Plasma urotensin II immuno-reactivity was measured by radio-immunoassay. RESULTS: Intravenous urotensin II infusions were well tolerated with no adverse clinical effects and no electrocardiographic changes. Circulating plasma urotensin II immuno-reactivity increased from baseline of 16 +/- 1 to 1460 +/- 82 pmol l-1 (mean +/- s.e. mean) during infusion of urotensin II at 300 pmol min-1 (P < 0.001). However, there were no significant placebo adjusted changes in heart rate (95% confidence intervals: -3.6, + 4.4 min-1), mean arterial pressure (-5.8, + 1.7 mmHg) or cardiac index (-0.1, + 0.4 l min-1 m-2). There were also no changes in augmentation index (-4.1, + 5.2%) or pulse wave velocity (-1.3, + 0.3 m s-1). CONCLUSIONS:Intravenous urotensin II infusion did not affect systemic haemodynamics or arterial stiffness, despite achieving an approximately 100-fold increase in plasma immuno-reactivity. We conclude that urotensin II is unlikely to have a physiological role in the short term regulation of vascular tone or blood pressure in man. Further confirmatory studies with urotensin II receptor antagonists are required.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: In rodent and primate studies, urotensin II is an extremely potent vasoconstrictor peptide with effects in the central aortic and arterial vasculature as well as on cardiac function. The aim of the present study was to assess systemic haemodynamic responses to intravenous urotensin II infusion in humans. METHODS: In 10 healthy male volunteers, intravenous urotensin II (3, 30 and 300 pmol min-1) and saline placebo were given on separate occasions in a single-blind randomized manner. Systemic haemodynamics and arterial stiffness were assessed by sphygmomanometry, transthoracic bioimpedance, and pulse wave analysis. Plasma urotensin II immuno-reactivity was measured by radio-immunoassay. RESULTS: Intravenous urotensin II infusions were well tolerated with no adverse clinical effects and no electrocardiographic changes. Circulating plasma urotensin II immuno-reactivity increased from baseline of 16 +/- 1 to 1460 +/- 82 pmol l-1 (mean +/- s.e. mean) during infusion of urotensin II at 300 pmol min-1 (P < 0.001). However, there were no significant placebo adjusted changes in heart rate (95% confidence intervals: -3.6, + 4.4 min-1), mean arterial pressure (-5.8, + 1.7 mmHg) or cardiac index (-0.1, + 0.4 l min-1 m-2). There were also no changes in augmentation index (-4.1, + 5.2%) or pulse wave velocity (-1.3, + 0.3 m s-1). CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous urotensin II infusion did not affect systemic haemodynamics or arterial stiffness, despite achieving an approximately 100-fold increase in plasma immuno-reactivity. We conclude that urotensin II is unlikely to have a physiological role in the short term regulation of vascular tone or blood pressure in man. Further confirmatory studies with urotensin II receptor antagonists are required.
Authors: Ian B Wilkinson; Jonathan T Affolter; Sanne L de Haas; M Paola Pellegrini; Judith Boyd; Matthew J Winter; Richard J Balment; David J Webb Journal: Cardiovasc Res Date: 2002-02-01 Impact factor: 10.787
Authors: Ari Mosenkis; Radhakrishna R Kallem; Theodore M Danoff; Nambi Aiyar; Jonathan Bazeley; Raymond R Townsend Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2010-07-09 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Valeria Camarda; Martina Spagnol; Wei Song; Raffaella Vergura; Adelheid L Roth; Jonathan P Thompson; David J Rowbotham; Remo Guerrini; Erika Marzola; Severo Salvadori; Paolo Cavanni; Domenico Regoli; Stephen A Douglas; David G Lambert; Girolamo Calò Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 8.739
Authors: Stephen A Douglas; David J Behm; Nambi V Aiyar; Diane Naselsky; Jyoti Disa; David P Brooks; Eliot H Ohlstein; John G Gleason; Henry M Sarau; James J Foley; Peter T Buckley; Dulcie B Schmidt; William E Wixted; Katherine Widdowson; Graham Riley; Jian Jin; Timothy F Gallagher; Stanley J Schmidt; Lance Ridgers; Lisa T Christmann; Richard M Keenan; Steven D Knight; Dashyant Dhanak Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 8.739
Authors: Sheila M Gardiner; Julie E March; Philip A Kemp; Janet J Maguire; Rhoda E Kuc; Anthony P Davenport; Terence Bennett Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 8.739
Authors: Joseph Cheriyan; Timothy J Burton; Timothy J Bradley; Sharon M L Wallace; Kaisa M Mäki-Petäjä; Isla S Mackenzie; Carmel M McEniery; John Brown; Ian B Wilkinson Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Eugen Brailoiu; Xiaohua Jiang; G Cristina Brailoiu; Jun Yang; Jaw Kang Chang; Hong Wang; Nae J Dun Journal: Peptides Date: 2008-01-31 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: David J Behm; Christopher P A Doe; Douglas G Johns; Kristeen Maniscalco; Gerald P Stankus; Alexandra Wibberley; Robert N Willette; Stephen A Douglas Journal: Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol Date: 2004-02-19 Impact factor: 3.000