Michael Kindermann1, Ute Seeland, Patrick Ruhnke, Michael Böhm, Christoph Maack. 1. Klinik für Innere Medizin III (Kardiologie, Angiologie, Internistische Intensivmedizin), Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Kirrberger Strasse, 66421, Homburg/Saar, Germany. Michael.Kindermann@t-online.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relevance of the Arg389Gly- and Ser49Gly-β₁-adrenoceptor (AR) polymorphisms for cardiovascular function and pharmacotherapy is controversial. METHODS: Out of 38 healthy male volunteers who were screened for both types of the β₁-AR polymorphism 23 subjects underwent dobutamine stress echocardiography at baseline, after administration of metoprolol succinate (n = 18, 190 mg/day) and 44 h after abrupt termination of the β-blocker (n = 17). Heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SAP), HR-corrected left ventricular circumferential fiber shortening (VCF(C)), cardiac output (CO), systemic vascular resistance (SVR) and left ventricular end-systolic meridional wall stress (EsMWS) were measured. β₁-AR gene polymorphisms were analyzed by TaqMan-PCR. RESULTS: Genotype frequency distributions and allele frequencies of the Gly389Arg and Ser49Gly polymorphisms of the β₁-AR were similar to published data. Although body surface area was similar for Arg/Arg subjects and Gly carriers the latter group revealed smaller left ventricular end-diastolic (-0.4 cm, p = 0.04) and end-systolic LV dimensions (-0.4 cm, p = 0.01). During dobutamine stimulation before, during and after termination of metoprolol coadministration no significant effect of the Arg389Gly-β₁-AR polymorphism on HR, SAP, CO and VCF(c) was detected. In contrast, SVR (p = 0.01) and EsMWS (p = 0.04) were significantly higher in Arg/Arg subjects. The VCF(C)-EsMWS regressions were similar for both groups, but revealed a minutely higher baseline contractility in the Arg/Arg group (p < 0.01). The β₁-AR Ser49Gly polymorphism had no effect on any of the measured parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Although the Arg389Gly-β₁-AR polymorphism has only minor relevance for LV contractility it may impact left ventricular size and afterload. The Ser49Gly-β₁-AR polymorphism has no relevant effect on LV geometry or function.
BACKGROUND: The relevance of the Arg389Gly- and Ser49Gly-β₁-adrenoceptor (AR) polymorphisms for cardiovascular function and pharmacotherapy is controversial. METHODS: Out of 38 healthy male volunteers who were screened for both types of the β₁-AR polymorphism 23 subjects underwent dobutamine stress echocardiography at baseline, after administration of metoprolol succinate (n = 18, 190 mg/day) and 44 h after abrupt termination of the β-blocker (n = 17). Heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SAP), HR-corrected left ventricular circumferential fiber shortening (VCF(C)), cardiac output (CO), systemic vascular resistance (SVR) and left ventricular end-systolic meridional wall stress (EsMWS) were measured. β₁-AR gene polymorphisms were analyzed by TaqMan-PCR. RESULTS: Genotype frequency distributions and allele frequencies of the Gly389Arg and Ser49Gly polymorphisms of the β₁-AR were similar to published data. Although body surface area was similar for Arg/Arg subjects and Gly carriers the latter group revealed smaller left ventricular end-diastolic (-0.4 cm, p = 0.04) and end-systolic LV dimensions (-0.4 cm, p = 0.01). During dobutamine stimulation before, during and after termination of metoprolol coadministration no significant effect of the Arg389Gly-β₁-AR polymorphism on HR, SAP, CO and VCF(c) was detected. In contrast, SVR (p = 0.01) and EsMWS (p = 0.04) were significantly higher in Arg/Arg subjects. The VCF(C)-EsMWS regressions were similar for both groups, but revealed a minutely higher baseline contractility in the Arg/Arg group (p < 0.01). The β₁-AR Ser49Gly polymorphism had no effect on any of the measured parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Although the Arg389Gly-β₁-AR polymorphism has only minor relevance for LV contractility it may impact left ventricular size and afterload. The Ser49Gly-β₁-AR polymorphism has no relevant effect on LV geometry or function.
Authors: K Bengtsson; O Melander; M Orho-Melander; U Lindblad; J Ranstam; L Råstam; L Groop Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-07-10 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Lu Chen; Deborah Meyers; George Javorsky; Darryl Burstow; Pakorn Lolekha; Margaret Lucas; Annalese B T Semmler; Santiyagu M Savarimuthu; Kwun M Fong; Ian A Yang; John Atherton; Andrew J Galbraith; William A Parsonage; Peter Molenaar Journal: Pharmacogenet Genomics Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: C L Aquilante; H N Yarandi; L H Cavallari; T E Andrisin; S G Terra; J F Lewis; K K Hamilton; J A Johnson Journal: Pharmacogenomics J Date: 2008-02-05 Impact factor: 3.550
Authors: Karl Werdan; Anja Oelke; Stefan Hettwer; Sebastian Nuding; Sebastian Bubel; Robert Hoke; Martin Russ; Christine Lautenschläger; Ursula Mueller-Werdan; Henning Ebelt Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2011-02-11 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Michael Huntgeburth; Karl La Rosée; Henrik ten Freyhaus; Michael Böhm; Petra Schnabel; Martin Hellmich; Stephan Rosenkranz Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2011-02-11 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Vincenzo De Santis; Domenico Vitale; Anna Santoro; Aurora Magliocca; Andrea Giuseppe Porto; Cecilia Nencini; Luigi Tritapepe Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2012-10-14 Impact factor: 5.460