OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the effects of the angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) olmesartan versus the calcium channel blocker (CCB) amlodipine on coronary endothelial dysfunction in patients with hypertension. BACKGROUND:Angiotensin II receptor blockers are thought to have greater beneficial effects than CCBs on coronary vasomotion by directly blocking action of angiotensin II. METHODS:Twenty-six patients with untreated essential hypertension were prospectively assigned to treatment with either olmesartan (27.7 +/- 12.4 mg/day, n = 13) or amlodipine (5.6 +/- 1.5 mg/day, n = 13) for 12 weeks. Changes of corrected myocardial blood flow (DeltaMBF) and coronary vascular resistance (DeltaCVR) from rest to cold pressor were measured by using 15O-water and positron emission tomography before and after treatment. Blood biomarkers including lipids, glucose, insulin, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and superoxide dismutase (SOD) were also measured. RESULTS:Olmesartan and amlodipine reduced blood pressure (BP) to the same extent (-28.7 +/- 16.2 mm Hg vs. -26.7 +/- 10.8 mm Hg). In the olmesartan group, DeltaMBF tended to be greater (-0.15 +/- 0.19 ml/g/min vs. 0.03 +/- 0.17 ml/g/min, p = 0.09 by 2-way analysis of variance), and DeltaCVR was significantly decreased (7.9 +/- 23.5 mm Hg/[ml/g/min] vs. -16.6 +/- 18.0 mm Hg/[ml/g/min], p < 0.05) after treatment, whereas these parameters did not change in the amlodipine group (DeltaMBF: -0.15 +/- 0.12 ml/g/min vs. -0.12 +/- 0.20 ml/g/min; DeltaCVR: 6.5 +/- 18.2 mm Hg/[ml/g/min] vs. 4.8 +/- 23.4 mm Hg/[ml/g/min]). Serum SOD activity tended to increase (4.74 +/- 4.77 U/ml vs. 5.57 +/- 4.74 U/ml, p = 0.07 by 2-way analysis of variance) only in the olmesartan group. CONCLUSIONS:Olmesartan, but not amlodipine, improved endothelium-dependent coronary dilation in hypertensive patients independent of BP reduction. These beneficial effects on coronary vasomotion might be via an antioxidant property of ARBs.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the effects of the angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) olmesartan versus the calcium channel blocker (CCB) amlodipine on coronary endothelial dysfunction in patients with hypertension. BACKGROUND:Angiotensin II receptor blockers are thought to have greater beneficial effects than CCBs on coronary vasomotion by directly blocking action of angiotensin II. METHODS: Twenty-six patients with untreated essential hypertension were prospectively assigned to treatment with either olmesartan (27.7 +/- 12.4 mg/day, n = 13) or amlodipine (5.6 +/- 1.5 mg/day, n = 13) for 12 weeks. Changes of corrected myocardial blood flow (DeltaMBF) and coronary vascular resistance (DeltaCVR) from rest to cold pressor were measured by using 15O-water and positron emission tomography before and after treatment. Blood biomarkers including lipids, glucose, insulin, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and superoxide dismutase (SOD) were also measured. RESULTS:Olmesartan and amlodipine reduced blood pressure (BP) to the same extent (-28.7 +/- 16.2 mm Hg vs. -26.7 +/- 10.8 mm Hg). In the olmesartan group, DeltaMBF tended to be greater (-0.15 +/- 0.19 ml/g/min vs. 0.03 +/- 0.17 ml/g/min, p = 0.09 by 2-way analysis of variance), and DeltaCVR was significantly decreased (7.9 +/- 23.5 mm Hg/[ml/g/min] vs. -16.6 +/- 18.0 mm Hg/[ml/g/min], p < 0.05) after treatment, whereas these parameters did not change in the amlodipine group (DeltaMBF: -0.15 +/- 0.12 ml/g/min vs. -0.12 +/- 0.20 ml/g/min; DeltaCVR: 6.5 +/- 18.2 mm Hg/[ml/g/min] vs. 4.8 +/- 23.4 mm Hg/[ml/g/min]). Serum SOD activity tended to increase (4.74 +/- 4.77 U/ml vs. 5.57 +/- 4.74 U/ml, p = 0.07 by 2-way analysis of variance) only in the olmesartan group. CONCLUSIONS:Olmesartan, but not amlodipine, improved endothelium-dependent coronary dilation in hypertensivepatients independent of BP reduction. These beneficial effects on coronary vasomotion might be via an antioxidant property of ARBs.
Authors: Keiichiro Yoshinaga; Osamu Manabe; Chietsugu Katoh; Li Chen; Ran Klein; Masanao Naya; Robert A deKemp; Kathryn Williams; Rob S B Beanlands; Nagara Tamaki Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-07-13 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Aaron J Trask; Paige S Katz; Amy P Kelly; Maarten L Galantowicz; Mary J Cismowski; T Aaron West; Zachary P Neeb; Zachary C Berwick; Adam G Goodwill; Mouhamad Alloosh; Johnathan D Tune; Michael Sturek; Pamela A Lucchesi Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2012-07-26