Panagiotis I Georgianos1, Rajiv Agarwal2. 1. Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine and Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Administration Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana. 2. Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine and Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Administration Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana ragarwal@iu.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Whether improvements in arterial compliance with BP lowering are because of BP reduction alone or if pleiotropic effects of antihypertensive agents contribute remains unclear. It was hypothesized that, among patients on hemodialysis, compared with a β-blocker (atenolol), a lisinopril-based therapy will better reduce arterial stiffness. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Among 200 participants of the Hypertension in Hemodialysis Patients Treated withAtenolol or Lisinopril Trial, 179 patients with valid assessment of aortic pulse wave velocity at baseline (89 patients randomly assigned toopen-label lisinopril and 90 patients randomly assigned to atenolol three times a week after dialysis) were included in the secondary analysis. Among them, 109 patients had a valid pulse wave velocity measurement at 6 months. Monthly measured home BP was targeted to <140/90 mmHg by addition of antihypertensive drugs and dry weight adjustment. The difference between drugs in percentage change of aortic pulse wave velocity from baseline to 6 months was analyzed. RESULTS: Contrary to the hypothesis, atenolol-based treatment induced greater reduction in aortic pulse wave velocity relative to lisinopril (between drug difference, 14.8%; 95% confidence interval, 1.5% to 28.5%; P=0.03). Reduction in 44-hour ambulatory systolic and diastolic BP was no different between groups (median [25th, 75th percentile]; atenolol: -21.5 [-37.7, -7.6] versus lisinopril: -15.8 [-28.8, -1.5] mmHg; P=0.27 for systolic BP; -14.1 [-22.6, -5.3] versus -10.9 [-18.4, -0.9] mmHg, respectively; P=0.30 for diastolic BP). Between-drug difference in change of aortic pulse wave velocity persisted after adjustments for age, sex, race, other cardiovascular risk factors, and baseline ambulatory systolic BP but disappeared after adjustment for change in ambulatory systolic BP (11.8%; 95% confidence interval, -2.3% to 25.9%; P=0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients on dialysis, atenolol was superior in improving arterial stiffness. However, differences between atenolol and lisinopril in improving aortic stiffness among patients on hemodialysis may be explained by BP-lowering effects of drugs.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Whether improvements in arterial compliance with BP lowering are because of BP reduction alone or if pleiotropic effects of antihypertensive agents contribute remains unclear. It was hypothesized that, among patients on hemodialysis, compared with a β-blocker (atenolol), a lisinopril-based therapy will better reduce arterial stiffness. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Among 200 participants of the Hypertension in Hemodialysis Patients Treated with Atenolol or Lisinopril Trial, 179 patients with valid assessment of aortic pulse wave velocity at baseline (89 patients randomly assigned to open-label lisinopril and 90 patients randomly assigned to atenolol three times a week after dialysis) were included in the secondary analysis. Among them, 109 patients had a valid pulse wave velocity measurement at 6 months. Monthly measured home BP was targeted to <140/90 mmHg by addition of antihypertensive drugs and dry weight adjustment. The difference between drugs in percentage change of aortic pulse wave velocity from baseline to 6 months was analyzed. RESULTS: Contrary to the hypothesis, atenolol-based treatment induced greater reduction in aortic pulse wave velocity relative to lisinopril (between drug difference, 14.8%; 95% confidence interval, 1.5% to 28.5%; P=0.03). Reduction in 44-hour ambulatory systolic and diastolic BP was no different between groups (median [25th, 75th percentile]; atenolol: -21.5 [-37.7, -7.6] versus lisinopril: -15.8 [-28.8, -1.5] mmHg; P=0.27 for systolic BP; -14.1 [-22.6, -5.3] versus -10.9 [-18.4, -0.9] mmHg, respectively; P=0.30 for diastolic BP). Between-drug difference in change of aortic pulse wave velocity persisted after adjustments for age, sex, race, other cardiovascular risk factors, and baseline ambulatory systolic BP but disappeared after adjustment for change in ambulatory systolic BP (11.8%; 95% confidence interval, -2.3% to 25.9%; P=0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients on dialysis, atenolol was superior in improving arterial stiffness. However, differences between atenolol and lisinopril in improving aortic stiffness among patients on hemodialysis may be explained by BP-lowering effects of drugs.
Authors: Ian B Wilkinson; Nadia Haj Mohammad; Sian Tyrrell; Ian R Hall; David J Webb; Vince E Paul; Terry Levy; John R Cockcroft Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Martin Hausberg; Markus Kosch; Patrick Harmelink; Michael Barenbrock; Helge Hohage; Klaus Kisters; Karl Heinz Dietl; Karl Heinz Rahn Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-10-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Darren P Casey; Timothy B Curry; Michael J Joyner; Nisha Charkoudian; Emma C Hart Journal: Hypertension Date: 2011-01-17 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Nisha Bansal; Charles E McCulloch; Feng Lin; Arnold Alper; Amanda H Anderson; Magda Cuevas; Alan S Go; Radhakrishna Kallem; John W Kusek; Claudia M Lora; Eva Lustigova; Akinlolu Ojo; Mahboob Rahman; Cassianne Robinson-Cohen; Raymond R Townsend; Jackson Wright; Dawei Xie; Chi-Yuan Hsu Journal: Hypertension Date: 2017-07-03 Impact factor: 10.190