George G S Sandor1, Mohammed H Alghamdi2, Leslie A Raffin2, Mary T Potts2, Lindsey D Williams2, James E Potts2, Marla Kiess3, Casey van Breemen4. 1. Children's Heart Centre, British Columbia Children's Hospital, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Electronic address: gsandor@cw.bc.ca. 2. Children's Heart Centre, British Columbia Children's Hospital, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, St. Paul's Hospital, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 4. Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Patients with Marfan (MFS) and Loeys-Dietz (LDS) syndromes have been shown to have abnormal aortic biophysical properties. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of 12-months of therapy with atenolol or losartan on vascular function in young patients with MFS and LDS. METHODS:Seventeen patients with MFS or LDS were recruited and randomized to treatment with atenolol, 25-50mg, or losartan, 25mg daily. Prior to treatment and following therapy, echocardiography for left ventricular size, function and aortic root size was performed. Pulse wave velocity (PWV), input (Zi, ZiF) and characteristic (Zc, ZcF) impedances, arterial stiffness (Ep and β-index), total arterial compliance (TAC), mean (Wm) and total (Wt) hydraulic power, efficiency, power cost per unit of forward flow (Wt/CI) and brachial artery flow-mediated dilation (FMD) were measured. RESULTS: The atenolol group consisted of 9 females (17.6years) and the losartangroup 7 males and 1 female (17.0years). Their height, weight, BSA, BMI, systolic and diastolic blood pressures were similar. Baseline to 12-month changes for atenolol and losartan were PWV (20% vs -14%), Zi (-2% vs -27%), Zc (-20% vs -27%), Ep (1%, vs -13%), β-index (10% vs 14%), FMD (11% vs 20%), TAC (3% vs 42%), Wm (-24% vs 15%), Wt (-24% vs 17%), and Wt/CI (3% vs 21%). There was a trend for losartan to decrease PWV and stiffness indexes while atenolol decreased power and power/unit flow. CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that atenolol and losartan may have different mechanisms of action on vascular function. A larger clinical trial is needed to confirm these effects.Clinical trials registration NCT00593710 (ClinicalTrials.gov).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Patients with Marfan (MFS) and Loeys-Dietz (LDS) syndromes have been shown to have abnormal aortic biophysical properties. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of 12-months of therapy with atenolol or losartan on vascular function in young patients with MFS and LDS. METHODS: Seventeen patients with MFS or LDS were recruited and randomized to treatment with atenolol, 25-50mg, or losartan, 25mg daily. Prior to treatment and following therapy, echocardiography for left ventricular size, function and aortic root size was performed. Pulse wave velocity (PWV), input (Zi, ZiF) and characteristic (Zc, ZcF) impedances, arterial stiffness (Ep and β-index), total arterial compliance (TAC), mean (Wm) and total (Wt) hydraulic power, efficiency, power cost per unit of forward flow (Wt/CI) and brachial artery flow-mediated dilation (FMD) were measured. RESULTS: The atenolol group consisted of 9 females (17.6years) and the losartan group 7 males and 1 female (17.0years). Their height, weight, BSA, BMI, systolic and diastolic blood pressures were similar. Baseline to 12-month changes for atenolol and losartan were PWV (20% vs -14%), Zi (-2% vs -27%), Zc (-20% vs -27%), Ep (1%, vs -13%), β-index (10% vs 14%), FMD (11% vs 20%), TAC (3% vs 42%), Wm (-24% vs 15%), Wt (-24% vs 17%), and Wt/CI (3% vs 21%). There was a trend for losartan to decrease PWV and stiffness indexes while atenolol decreased power and power/unit flow. CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that atenolol and losartan may have different mechanisms of action on vascular function. A larger clinical trial is needed to confirm these effects.Clinical trials registration NCT00593710 (ClinicalTrials.gov).
Authors: Alex Pitcher; Enti Spata; Jonathan Emberson; Kelly Davies; Heather Halls; Lisa Holland; Kate Wilson; Christina Reith; Anne H Child; Tim Clayton; Matthew Dodd; Marcus Flather; Xu Yu Jin; George Sandor; Maarten Groenink; Barbara Mulder; Julie De Backer; Arturo Evangelista; Alberto Forteza; Gisela Teixido-Turà; Catherine Boileau; Guillaume Jondeau; Olivier Milleron; Ronald V Lacro; Lynn A Sleeper; Hsin-Hui Chiu; Mei-Hwan Wu; Stefan Neubauer; Hugh Watkins; Hal Dietz; Colin Baigent Journal: Lancet Date: 2022-08-29 Impact factor: 202.731
Authors: Elif Seda Selamet Tierney; Jami C Levine; Lynn A Sleeper; Mary J Roman; Timothy J Bradley; Steven D Colan; Shan Chen; M Jay Campbell; Meryl S Cohen; Julie De Backer; Haleh Heydarian; Arvind Hoskoppal; Wyman W Lai; Aimee Liou; Edward Marcus; Arni Nutting; Aaron K Olson; David A Parra; Gail D Pearson; Mary Ella Pierpont; Beth F Printz; Reed E Pyeritz; William Ravekes; Angela M Sharkey; Shubhika Srivastava; Luciana Young; Ronald V Lacro Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2018-02-13 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Sara L Van Driest; Lynn A Sleeper; Bruce D Gelb; Shaine A Morris; Harry C Dietz; Geoffrey A Forbus; Elizabeth Goldmuntz; Arvind Hoskoppal; Jeanne James; Teresa M Lee; Jami C Levine; Jennifer S Li; Bart L Loeys; Larry W Markham; Josephina A N Meester; Seema Mital; Jonathan D Mosley; Aaron K Olson; Marjolijn Renard; Christian M Shaffer; Angela Sharkey; Luciana Young; Ronald V Lacro; Dan M Roden Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Fabian Emrich; Kiril Penov; Mamoru Arakawa; Nathan Dhablania; Grayson Burdon; Albert J Pedroza; Tiffany K Koyano; Young M Kim; Uwe Raaz; Andrew J Connolly; Cristiana Iosef; Michael P Fischbein Journal: J Cell Mol Med Date: 2019-08-11 Impact factor: 5.310
Authors: Ming Hui Chen; Sangita Choudhury; Mami Hirata; Siri Khalsa; Bernard Chang; Christopher A Walsh Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 2.802