Azra Mahmud1, John Feely. 1. Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Trinity College Dublin and Hypertension Clinic, St James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is conflicting information with regard to the effect of beta-blockers on arterial stiffness and wave reflection. We compared a vasodilating beta-blocker, nebivolol, with atenolol. METHODS: We randomized 40 subjects with untreated hypertension (mean +/- s.e.m. systolic/diastolic blood pressure (BP) of 160 +/- 3/98 +/- 1 mm Hg, age 49 +/- 1 years) 16 of whom were women, to atenolol 50 mg or nebivolol 5 mg daily for 4 weeks. Arterial stiffness was assessed in terms of carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV, Complior) and arterial wave reflection (augmentation index (AIx) by applanation tonometry, Sphygmocor). RESULTS: Both beta-blockers produced an equal reduction in brachial BP but aortic pulse pressure (PP) was reduced to a greater extent by nebivolol (P < 0.05). PWV was decreased significantly by both therapies (nebivolol: from 11.5 +/- 0.5 to 9.9 +/- 0.5 m/s; atenolol: from 11.1 +/- 0.4 to 9.8 +/- 0.4 m/s; P < 0.01) but only nebivolol significantly reduced AIx (from 35 +/- 5 to 28 +/- 2%, P < 0.05). In addition, whereas PP amplification (PP, mm Hg) decreased with atenolol therapy (from 10 +/- 1 to 7 +/- 1, P < 0.01), it increased with nebivolol therapy (from 8 +/- 1 to 14 +/- 3, P < 0.01). Atenolol reduced heart rate to a greater extent than nebivolol did (14 +/- 3/min reduction by atenolol vs. 8 +/- 2/min reduction by nebivolol, P < 0.05). There was no difference between the two treatments in respect of the effect on transit time. CONCLUSION: The beta-blockers, atenolol and nebivolol, have a similar effect in reducing arterial stiffness in the large elastic aorta, largely secondary to BP reduction. Nebivolol, in contrast to atenolol, has an effect on small muscular arteries, increasing PP amplification and reducing wave reflection, possibly because of increased levels of nitric oxide (NO). Such ancillary properties may impart important distinct hemodynamic effects, and therefore beta-blockers cannot be regarded as a homogeneous group.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: There is conflicting information with regard to the effect of beta-blockers on arterial stiffness and wave reflection. We compared a vasodilating beta-blocker, nebivolol, with atenolol. METHODS: We randomized 40 subjects with untreated hypertension (mean +/- s.e.m. systolic/diastolic blood pressure (BP) of 160 +/- 3/98 +/- 1 mm Hg, age 49 +/- 1 years) 16 of whom were women, to atenolol 50 mg or nebivolol 5 mg daily for 4 weeks. Arterial stiffness was assessed in terms of carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV, Complior) and arterial wave reflection (augmentation index (AIx) by applanation tonometry, Sphygmocor). RESULTS: Both beta-blockers produced an equal reduction in brachial BP but aortic pulse pressure (PP) was reduced to a greater extent by nebivolol (P < 0.05). PWV was decreased significantly by both therapies (nebivolol: from 11.5 +/- 0.5 to 9.9 +/- 0.5 m/s; atenolol: from 11.1 +/- 0.4 to 9.8 +/- 0.4 m/s; P < 0.01) but only nebivolol significantly reduced AIx (from 35 +/- 5 to 28 +/- 2%, P < 0.05). In addition, whereas PP amplification (PP, mm Hg) decreased with atenolol therapy (from 10 +/- 1 to 7 +/- 1, P < 0.01), it increased with nebivolol therapy (from 8 +/- 1 to 14 +/- 3, P < 0.01). Atenolol reduced heart rate to a greater extent than nebivolol did (14 +/- 3/min reduction by atenolol vs. 8 +/- 2/min reduction by nebivolol, P < 0.05). There was no difference between the two treatments in respect of the effect on transit time. CONCLUSION: The beta-blockers, atenolol and nebivolol, have a similar effect in reducing arterial stiffness in the large elastic aorta, largely secondary to BP reduction. Nebivolol, in contrast to atenolol, has an effect on small muscular arteries, increasing PP amplification and reducing wave reflection, possibly because of increased levels of nitric oxide (NO). Such ancillary properties may impart important distinct hemodynamic effects, and therefore beta-blockers cannot be regarded as a homogeneous group.
Authors: Matthew R Nelson; Jan Stepanek; Michael Cevette; Michael Covalciuc; R Todd Hurst; A Jamil Tajik Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Pierre Boutouyrie; Patrick Lacolley; Marie Briet; Véronique Regnault; Alice Stanton; Stéphane Laurent; Azra Mahmud Journal: Drugs Date: 2011-09-10 Impact factor: 9.546
Authors: Maria Perissiou; Tom G Bailey; Mark Windsor; Michael Chi Yuan Nam; Kim Greaves; Anthony S Leicht; Jonathan Golledge; Christopher D Askew Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Darren P Casey; Timothy B Curry; Nisha Charkoudian; Michael J Joyner; Emma C Hart Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2013-01-11 Impact factor: 2.689