Literature DB >> 19704107

Differences in the magnitude of wave reflection account for differential effects of amlodipine- versus atenolol-based regimens on central blood pressure: an Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcome Trial substudy.

Charlotte H Manisty1, Andrew Zambanini, Kim H Parker, Justin E Davies, Darrel P Francis, Jamil Mayet, Simon A McG Thom, Alun D Hughes.   

Abstract

Antihypertensive agents may differ in their effects on central systolic blood pressure, and this may contribute to treatment-related differences in cardiovascular outcomes. In a substudy of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcome Trial, we investigated whether directly measured carotid systolic blood pressure differed between people randomized to amlodipine- and atenolol-based therapies and whether this is accounted for by differences in wave reflection patterns. Additional analysis was undertaken to establish whether differences in carotid systolic blood pressure predicted left ventricular mass, accounting for between-treatment differences in left ventricular mass index. Blood pressure and flow velocity were measured in the right carotid artery of 259 patients. Wave intensity analysis was used to separate and quantify forward and backward waves. Brachial blood pressure did not differ significantly between groups, but carotid systolic blood pressure (127 [12] versus 133 [15] mm Hg; P<0.001), the ratio of backward:forward pressure (0.48 [0.17] versus 0.53 [0.19]; P=0.01), and wave reflection index (19.8% [10.9%] versus 23.3% [13.3%]; P=0.02) were significantly lower in patients randomized to amlodipine-based therapy. Left ventricular mass index was also lower in this group, and adjustment for carotid blood pressure attenuated treatment differences to a greater extent than brachial blood pressure. Carotid systolic blood pressure was also a significant independent predictor of left ventricular mass index in a multivariate model. Carotid systolic blood pressure is lower in people randomized to amlodipine-based compared with atenolol-based treatment despite there being no significant difference in brachial blood pressure. This difference is attributable to a lesser magnitude of wave reflection in patients randomized to the amlodipine-based regimen.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19704107     DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.108.125740

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hypertension        ISSN: 0194-911X            Impact factor:   10.190


  25 in total

Review 1.  Meta-analysis of the comparative effects of different classes of antihypertensive agents on brachial and central systolic blood pressure, and augmentation index.

Authors:  Charlotte H Manisty; Alun D Hughes
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.335

2.  Role of RAAS Inhibition in the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease.

Authors:  Henry A Tran; Arthur Schwartzbard; Howard S Weintraub
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2011-08

3.  Human common carotid wall shear stress as a function of age and gender: a 12-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Concetta Irace; Claudio Carallo; Maria Serena De Franceschi; Federico Scicchitano; Marianna Milano; Cesare Tripolino; Faustina Scavelli; Agostino Gnasso
Journal:  Age (Dordr)       Date:  2011-10-12

Review 4.  Pulsatile arterial haemodynamics in heart failure.

Authors:  Thomas Weber; Julio A Chirinos
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2018-11-14       Impact factor: 29.983

5.  Association of left ventricular structural and functional abnormalities with aortic and brachial blood pressure variability in hypertensive patients: the SAFAR study.

Authors:  C Chi; S-K Yu; R Auckle; A A Argyris; E Nasothimiou; C Tountas; E Aissopou; J Blacher; M E Safar; P P Sfikakis; Y Zhang; A D Protogerou
Journal:  J Hum Hypertens       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 3.012

6.  Central blood pressure for the management of hypertension: Is it a practical clinical tool in current practice?

Authors:  Hao-Min Cheng; Shao-Yuan Chuang; Tzung-Dau Wang; Kazuomi Kario; Peera Buranakitjaroen; Yook-Chin Chia; Romeo Divinagracia; Satoshi Hoshide; Huynh Van Minh; Jennifer Nailes; Sungha Park; Jinho Shin; Saulat Siddique; Jorge Sison; Arieska Ann Soenarta; Guru Prasad Sogunuru; Apichard Sukonthasarn; Jam Chin Tay; Boon Wee Teo; Yuda Turana; Narsingh Verma; Yuqing Zhang; Ji-Guang Wang; Chen-Huan Chen
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2019-12-16       Impact factor: 3.738

7.  Estimation of coronary wave intensity analysis using noninvasive techniques and its application to exercise physiology.

Authors:  Christopher J Broyd; Sukhjinder Nijjer; Sayan Sen; Ricardo Petraco; Siana Jones; Rasha Al-Lamee; Nicolas Foin; Mahmud Al-Bustami; Amarjit Sethi; Raffi Kaprielian; Punit Ramrakha; Masood Khan; Iqbal S Malik; Darrel P Francis; Kim Parker; Alun D Hughes; Ghada W Mikhail; Jamil Mayet; Justin E Davies
Journal:  Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol       Date:  2015-12-18       Impact factor: 4.733

Review 8.  Central blood pressure: current evidence and clinical importance.

Authors:  Carmel M McEniery; John R Cockcroft; Mary J Roman; Stanley S Franklin; Ian B Wilkinson
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2014-01-23       Impact factor: 29.983

Review 9.  A review of wave mechanics in the pulmonary artery with an emphasis on wave intensity analysis.

Authors:  J Su; O Hilberg; L Howard; U Simonsen; A D Hughes
Journal:  Acta Physiol (Oxf)       Date:  2016-09-29       Impact factor: 6.311

10.  Different associations between beta-blockers and other antihypertensive medication combinations with brachial blood pressure and aortic waveform parameters.

Authors:  John D Sluyter; Alun D Hughes; Andrew Lowe; Kim H Parker; Carlos A Camargo; Bernhard Hametner; Siegfried Wassertheurer; Robert K R Scragg
Journal:  Int J Cardiol       Date:  2016-06-15       Impact factor: 4.164

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.