AIMS: To assess the haemodynamic effects of organic vs. inorganic nitrate administration among patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed carotid and aortic pressure-flow relations non-invasively before and after the administration of 0.4 mg of sublingual nitroglycerin (n = 26), and in a separate sub-study, in response to 12.9 mmoL of inorganic nitrate (n = 16). Nitroglycerin did not consistently reduce wave reflections arriving at the proximal aorta (change in real part of reflection coefficient, 1st harmonic: -0.09; P = 0.01; 2nd harmonic: -0.045, P = 0.16; 3rd harmonic: +0.087; P = 0.05), but produced profound vasodilatation in the carotid territory, with a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (133.6 vs. 120.5 mmHg; P = 0.011) and a marked reduction in carotid bed vascular resistance (19 580 vs. 13 078 dynes · s/cm5 ; P = 0.001) and carotid characteristic impedance (3440 vs. 1923 dynes · s/cm5 ; P = 0.002). Inorganic nitrate, in contrast, consistently reduced wave reflections across the first three harmonics (change in real part of reflection coefficient, 1st harmonic: -0.12; P = 0.03; 2nd harmonic: -0.11, P = 0.01; 3rd harmonic: -0.087; P = 0.09) and did not reduce blood pressure, carotid bed vascular resistance, or carotid characteristic impedance (P = NS). CONCLUSIONS:Nitroglycerin produces marked vasodilatation in the carotid circulation, with a pronounced reduction in blood pressure and inconsistent effects on central wave reflections. Inorganic nitrate, in contrast, produces consistent reductions in wave reflections, and unlike nitroglycerin, it does so without significant hypotension or cerebrovascular dilatation. These haemodynamic differences may underlie the different effects on exercise capacity and side effect profile of inorganic vs. organic nitrate in HFpEF.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: To assess the haemodynamic effects of organic vs. inorganic nitrate administration among patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed carotid and aortic pressure-flow relations non-invasively before and after the administration of 0.4 mg of sublingual nitroglycerin (n = 26), and in a separate sub-study, in response to 12.9 mmoL of inorganic nitrate (n = 16). Nitroglycerin did not consistently reduce wave reflections arriving at the proximal aorta (change in real part of reflection coefficient, 1st harmonic: -0.09; P = 0.01; 2nd harmonic: -0.045, P = 0.16; 3rd harmonic: +0.087; P = 0.05), but produced profound vasodilatation in the carotid territory, with a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (133.6 vs. 120.5 mmHg; P = 0.011) and a marked reduction in carotid bed vascular resistance (19 580 vs. 13 078 dynes · s/cm5 ; P = 0.001) and carotid characteristic impedance (3440 vs. 1923 dynes · s/cm5 ; P = 0.002). Inorganic nitrate, in contrast, consistently reduced wave reflections across the first three harmonics (change in real part of reflection coefficient, 1st harmonic: -0.12; P = 0.03; 2nd harmonic: -0.11, P = 0.01; 3rd harmonic: -0.087; P = 0.09) and did not reduce blood pressure, carotid bed vascular resistance, or carotid characteristic impedance (P = NS). CONCLUSIONS:Nitroglycerin produces marked vasodilatation in the carotid circulation, with a pronounced reduction in blood pressure and inconsistent effects on central wave reflections. Inorganic nitrate, in contrast, produces consistent reductions in wave reflections, and unlike nitroglycerin, it does so without significant hypotension or cerebrovascular dilatation. These haemodynamic differences may underlie the different effects on exercise capacity and side effect profile of inorganic vs. organicnitrate in HFpEF.
Authors: Julio A Chirinos; Patrick Segers; Thierry C Gillebert; Amit K Gupta; Marc L De Buyzere; Dirk De Bacquer; Martin St John-Sutton; Ernst R Rietzschel Journal: Hypertension Date: 2012-06-04 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Julio A Chirinos; Patrick Segers; Ernst R Rietzschel; Marc L De Buyzere; Muhammad W Raja; Tom Claessens; Dirk De Bacquer; Martin St John Sutton; Thierry C Gillebert Journal: Hypertension Date: 2013-01-02 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: S Kobayashi; M Yano; M Kohno; M Obayashi; Y Hisamatsu; T Ryoke; T Ohkusa; K Yamakawa; M Matsuzaki Journal: Circulation Date: 1996-12-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Marcelo F Montenegro; Michaela L Sundqvist; Filip J Larsen; Zhengbing Zhuge; Mattias Carlström; Eddie Weitzberg; Jon O Lundberg Journal: Hypertension Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Sami A Omar; Henry Fok; Katharina D Tilgner; Ashok Nair; Joanne Hunt; Benyu Jiang; Paul Taylor; Phil Chowienczyk; Andrew J Webb Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-12-22 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Henry Fok; Antoine Guilcher; Ye Li; Sally Brett; Ajay Shah; Brian Clapp; Phil Chowienczyk Journal: Hypertension Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Vinaya Mulkareddy; Susan B Racette; Andrew R Coggan; Linda R Peterson Journal: Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Basis Dis Date: 2018-09-24 Impact factor: 5.187
Authors: Ninette Shenouda; Joseph M Stock; Jordan C Patik; Julio A Chirinos; David G Edwards Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2021-03-12 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Oliver M Shannon; Chris Easton; Anthony I Shepherd; Mario Siervo; Stephen J Bailey; Tom Clifford Journal: BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil Date: 2021-06-07