Atenolol and eprosartan: differential effects on central blood pressure and aortic pulse wave velocity

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist treatment improved arterial stiffness in patients with primary aldosteronism: a cohort study compared with adrenalectomy

Background

Elevated arterial stiffness in patients with primary aldosteronism (PA) can be reversed after adrenalectomy; however, the effect of medical treatment with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRAs) is unknown.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of MRAs and compare both treatment strategies on arterial stiffness in PA patients.

Design

Prospective cohort study.

Methods

We prospectively enrolled PA patients from 2006 to 2019 who received either adrenalectomy or MRA treatment (spironolactone). We compared their baseline and 1-year post-treatment biochemistry characteristics and arterial pulse wave velocity (PWV) to verify the effects of treatment and related determinant factors.

Results

A total 459 PA patients were enrolled. After 1:1 propensity score matching for age, sex and blood pressure (BP), each group had 176 patients. The major determinant factors of baseline PWV were age and baseline BP. The adrenalectomy group had greater improvements in BP, serum potassium level, plasma aldosterone concentration, and aldosterone-to-renin ratio. The MRA group had a significant improvement in PWV after 1 year of treatment (1706.2 ± 340.05 to 1613.6 ± 349.51 cm/s, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in post-treatment PWV (p = 0.173) and improvement in PWV (p = 0.579) between the adrenalectomy and MRA groups. The determinant factors for an improvement in PWV after treatment were hypertension duration, baseline PWV, and the decrease in BP.

Conclusion

The PA patients who received medical treatment with MRAs had a significant improvement in arterial stiffness. There was no significant difference in the improvement in arterial stiffness between the two treatment strategies.

Effect of Amlodipine/Nebivolol combination therapy on central BP and PWV compared to Amlodipine/Valsartan combination therapy

Background

Pulse wave velocity (PWV) and central blood pressure (CBP) have been intoduced into managment of hypertensive patients. PWV is positively correlated with arterial wall stiffness while central aortic pressure becomes better predictor of cardiovascular outcome than peripheral pressure. Reduction in CBP provides protective properties against subclinical organ damage. This work aims to investigate the effect of a new combination therapy of Amlodipine/Nebivolol (A/N) on central BP, peripheral BP and PWV. The results of using this combination will be compared to the well-established fixed-dose combination of Amlodipine/Valsartan (A/V). The study conducted between October 2018 and August 2020. One hundred and two hypertensive patients were assigned for Amlodipine 10 mg/Valsartan 160 mg combination therapy (A/V, n = 52) or Amlodipine 10 mg/Nebivolol 5 mg combination therapy (A/N, n = 50) by simple 1:1 randomization. Office, central blood pressure and PWV were measured on first (0 week), second (4–8 weeks) and third visit (10–12). Difference in BP (in each arm and between arms) was calculated along all visits.

Results

No statistical significant difference was found between A/V and A/N regarding age, gender, BMI and CV history. OBP, CBP and PWV were significantly reduced in each arm, but no differences were found when comparing both arm results to each other. Recorded side effects were insignificant.

Conclusions

The new combination therapy Amlodipine/Nebivolol (A/N) affords a significant reduction in CBP, PBP and PWV with minor and tolerable side effects. It has provided comparable results to Amlodipine/Valsartan (A/V) combination therapy.

Differential impact of antihypertensive drugs on cardiovascular remodeling: a review of findings and perspectives for HFpEF prevention

Heart failure (HF) is an important health problem worldwide whose stages have traditionally been classified from A to D. In addition, HF can be categorized as that with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and that with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Hypertension and arterial stiffness in stage A HF are major drivers of the progression to left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), a criterion of stage B HF. Although the pathogenesis of HFpEF is heterogeneous, affected patients tend to be older than HFrEF patients and have a greater prevalence of hypertension, which is closely associated with arterial stiffness and LVH. Thus, to treat HFpEF, the optimal intervention for improving prognosis is an aggressive approach to early-stage, i.e., Stage A and B, HF. This paper reviews the findings on arterial stiffness and LVH using conventional antihypertensive drugs such as angiotensin receptor II blockers (ARBs) and a new drug class for HF, ARB/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi). Previous studies have suggested that the combination of an ARB with an L-T-type calcium channel blocker might be recommended for the improvement of arterial stiffness and regression of LVH. More recent research has shown that ARNi also improves central BP, which leads to a reduced afterload and a significant reduction in LVH. For optimal treatment of HFpEF, drug therapy should directly address arterial stiffness as well as hypertension.

Nitric oxide in the Marfan vasculature: Friend or foe?

Marfan syndrome (MFS) is a connective tissue disorder caused by mutations in the FBN1 gene, which encodes fibrillin-1, a protein essential for the formation and stabilization of elastic fibers as well as signaling homeostasis. Progressive aortic root widening is the most serious manifestation of MFS as it can lead to aortic dissection, aneurysm formation and rupture. However, despite their ability to decrease the hemodynamic stress the aorta is subjected to, anti-hypertensive medications often lead to underwhelming reductions in the rate of aortic root dilation, which illustrates how fragmental our understanding of MFS-associated aortic remodeling is. This manuscript summarizes recent evidence that document nitric oxide (NO) synthase (NOS)-related changes to the vasculature during the pathogenesis of MFS and how they result in a unique state of vascular dysfunction that likely plays a causal role in the aortic root widening process. We also review how clinic-approved and experimental therapies as well lifestyle approaches may promote aortic root stability by correcting NO homeostasis, which if properly optimized may improve outcomes in this population afflicted by a notoriously refractory type of aortopathy.

Central blood pressure lowering effect of telmisartan-rosuvastatin single-pill combination in hypertensive patients combined with dyslipidemia: A pilot study

This multicenter, phase 4, Prospective Randomized Open, Blinded End‐point (PROBE) study aimed to evaluate safety and efficacy of telmisartan/rosuvastatin single‐pill combination (SPC) therapy on lowering central blood pressure (BP) compared with telmisartan monotherapy in hypertensive patients with dyslipidemia in Korea. Study was terminated earlier than planned due to COVID‐19 pandemic, thus should be considered as a pilot study. Among 125 patients who met the inclusion criteria of hypertension and dyslipidemia (defined as 10‐year Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease risk score over 5%), 80 patients went through 4‐week single‐group run‐in period with telmisartan 40–80 mg, then randomized to telmisartan 80 mg + rosuvastatin (10 or 20 mg) SPC group or telmisartan 80 mg monotherapy group. The central/brachial BP, brachial‐ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV), and augmentation index (AIx) were assessed at baseline and 16 weeks later. Mean brachial SBP changed from 135.80 ± 14.22 mmHg to 130.69 ± 13.23 mmHg in telmisartan/rosuvastatin group and from 134.37 ± 12.50 mmHg to 133.75 ± 12.30 mmHg in telmisartan monotherapy group without significant difference (between‐group difference p = .149). Mean central SBP were reduced significantly in the telmisartan/rosuvastatin group with change from 126.72 ± 14.44 mmHg to 121.56 ± 14.56 mmHg while telmisartan monotherapy group showed no significant change (between‐group difference p = .028). BaPWV changed from 1672.57 ± 371.72 m/s to 1591.75 ± 272.16 m/s in telmisartan/rosuvastatin group and from 1542.85 ± 263.70 m/s to 1586.12 ± 297.45 m/s in telmisartan group with no significance (between‐group difference p = .078). Change of AIx had no significant difference (between‐group difference p = .314). Both groups showed excellent compliance rate of 96.9 ± 4.5% with no significant difference in adverse rate. Telmisartan/rosuvastatin SPC therapy was more effective in lowering central BP compared with the telmisartan monotherapy. The results of this study showed benefit of additive statin therapy in hypertensive patients combined with dyslipidemia.

The Effect of Nebivolol on Office Blood Pressure of Blacks Residing in Sub-Saharan Africa (A Pilot Study)

Introduction: There is substantial clinical evidence that monotherapy with beta-blockers are less effective in reducing blood pressure among hypertensive Black patients compared to Whites. The highly selective beta-1 agents like nebivolol and bisoprolol have, however, been reported to be effective in reducing blood pressure in African Americans. However, results in African Americans cannot be extrapolated to native Africans because of genetic admixture and gene-environment interaction. There is, therefore, the need for us to generate data that are applicable to Africans residing in sub-Saharan Africa. We therefore decided to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of highly selective beta-1 agent nebivolol in hypertensive Black patients residing in sub-Saharan Africa. Materials and Methods: The nebivolol study was a multicenter, prospective, observational program among hypertensive patients with 4- and 8-week follow up which was conducted in 5 cities in Nigeria of Abuja, Calabar, Enugu, Oghara, and Port Harcourt. Dosages of nebivolol used in keeping with local prescribing information were 5 and 10 mg once daily each. The effectiveness of treatment was assessed by change from baseline in mean office systolic and diastolic blood pressures, and the proportion of patients achieving the therapeutic goal of <140/90 mmHg. Safety and tolerability of this medication were also assessed. Results: We report the results of the 140 patients studied. The mean age and body mass index were 46.9 ± 7.3 years and 22.3 ± 5.8 kg/m², respectively, and 57.1% were female. Nebivolol reduced SBP and DBP by 7.6 and 6.6 mmHg, respectively, in 4 weeks, and by 11.1 and 8.0 mm Hg, respectively, in 8 weeks. Blood pressure control was achieved in 54.8% of the patients in 4 weeks and increased to 60.4% in 8 weeks. There was no change in metabolic profile between randomization and at 8 weeks, and erectile dysfunction occurred in 1.3% of the study population. Conclusions: Nebivolol 5 and 10 mg appear efficacious in Nigerian Africans with no negative metabolic effect and minimal side effect profile. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, Study Identification: NCT03598673.

Optimal Organ Protection and Blood Pressure Control with the Single Pill Combination Lisinopril, Amlodipine and Indapamide in Arterial Hypertension

Aim. To evaluate the single pill combination with lisinopril, amlodipine and indapamide ability in additional angioprotection achievement in patients with arterial hypertension and high pulse wave velocity (PWV) regardless on previous antihypertensive therapy (AHT).Material and methods. To the open non-randomized study duration 12 weeks 40 patients were included taking triple AHT during 6 months. All participants underwent ambulatory 24 hour blood pressure (BP) monitoring, applanation tonometry (augmentation index and central BP), pulse wave velocity assessment, laboratory tests (HbA1c, serum uric acid, high sensitive C-reactive protein [hsCRP], serum uric acid).Results. We observed additional systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) reduction by 16.9% and 22.11% on lisinopril, amlodipine and indapamide single pill combination. Lisinopril, amlodipine and indapamide single pill combination decreased 24 h mean SBP by 16.77%, and 24 h mean DBP -23.5% (ABPM data), PWV by 19.7%, augmentation index by 14.81%, central SBP by 11.9% (p<0,05). There were positive changes in hsCRP level (-13.0%, p<0.05) and serum uric acid (-9.0%, p<0.05).Conclusion. Lisinopril, amlodipine and indapamide single pill combination provided control BP, arterial elastic properties improving (augmentation index, PWV, central BP) and favorable influence on inflammation and serum uric acid level.

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

Since noninvasive central blood pressure (BP) measuring devices are readily available, central BP has gained growing attention regarding its clinical application in the management of hypertension. The disagreement between central and peripheral BP has long been recognized. Some previous studies showed that noninvasive central BP may be better than the conventional brachial BP in association with target organ damages and long-term cardiovascular outcomes. Recent studies further suggest that the central BP strategy for confirming a diagnosis of hypertension may be more cost-effective than the conventional strategy, and guidance of hypertension management with central BP may result in less use of medications to achieve BP control. Despite the use of central BP being promising, more randomized controlled studies comparing central BP-guided therapeutic strategies with conventional care for cardiovascular events reduction are required because noninvasive central and brachial BP measures are conveniently available. In this brief review, the rationale supporting the utility of central BP in clinical practice and relating challenges are summarized.

Multiscale mathematical modeling vs. the generalized transfer function approach for aortic pressure estimation: a comparison with invasive data

We aimed to evaluate the performance of a mathematical model and currently available non-invasive techniques (generalized transfer function (GTF) method and brachial pressure) in the estimation of aortic pressure. We also aimed to investigate error dependence on brachial pressure errors, aorta-to-brachial pressure changes and demographic/clinical conditions. Sixty-two patients referred for invasive hemodynamic evaluation were consecutively recruited. Simultaneously, the registration of the aortic pressure using a fluid-filled catheter, brachial pressure and radial tonometric waveform was recorded. Accordingly, the GTF device and mathematical model were set. Radial invasive pressure was recorded soon after aortic measurement. The average invasive aortic pressure was 141.3 ± 20.2/76 ± 12.2 mm Hg. The simultaneous brachial pressure was 144 ± 17.8/81.5 ± 11.7 mm Hg. The GTF-based and model-based aortic pressure estimates were 133.1 ± 17.3/82.4 ± 12 and 137 ± 21.6/72.2 ± 16.7 mm Hg, respectively. The Bland-Altman plots showed a marked tendency to pressure overestimation for increasing absolute values, with the exclusion of mathematical model diastolic estimations. The systolic pressure was increased from the aortic to radial locations (7.5 ± 19 mm Hg), while the diastolic pressure was decreased (3.8 ± 9.8 mm Hg). The brachial pressure underestimated the systolic and overestimated diastolic intra-arterial radial pressure. GTF errors were independently correlated with the variability in pulse pressure amplification and with the brachial error. Errors of the mathematical model were related to only demographic and clinical conditions. Neither a multiscale mathematical model nor a generalized transfer function device substantially outperformed the oscillometric brachial pressure in the estimation of aortic pressure. Mathematical modeling should be improved by including further patient-specific conditions, while the variability in pulse pressure amplification may hamper the performance of the GTF method in patients at the risk of coronary artery disease.

New insights into arterial stiffening: does sex matter?

This review discusses sexual dimorphism in arterial stiffening, disease pathology interactions, and the influence of sex on mechanisms and pathways. Arterial stiffness predicts cardiovascular mortality independent of blood pressure. Patients with increased arterial stiffness have a 48% higher risk for developing cardiovascular disease. Like other cardiovascular pathologies, arterial stiffness is sexually dimorphic. Young women have lower stiffness than aged-matched men, but this sex difference reverses during normal aging. Estrogen therapy does not attenuate progressive stiffening in postmenopausal women, indicating that currently prescribed drugs do not confer protection. Although remodeling of large arteries is a protective adaptation to higher wall stress, arterial stiffening increases afterload to the left ventricle and transmits higher pulsatile pressure to smaller arteries and target organs. Moreover, an increase in aortic stiffness may precede or exacerbate hypertension, particularly during aging. Additional studies are needed to elucidate the mechanisms by which females are protected from arterial stiffness to provide insight into its mechanisms and, ultimately, therapeutic targets for treating this pathology.

Serum leptin is a predictor for central arterial stiffness in hypertensive patients

AIM

Serum adipokines have a role in the development of arterial stiffness. We aimed to investigate the risk factors of developing arterial stiffness and the association of leptin and arterial stiffness in hypertensive (HTN) patients.

METHODS

There were 101 HTN patients enrolled. Fasting blood samples and baseline characteristics were obtained and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) was measured with the SphygmoCor system. A cfPWV > 10 m/s was defined as high arterial stiffness, and ≤ 10 m/s as low arterial stiffness.

RESULT

Forty-seven patients (46.5 %) had high arterial stiffness, and had a higher percentage of diabetes (P = 0.044), , older age (P < 0.001), higher pulse pressure (P = 0.049), and higher serum blood urea nitrogen (P = 0.029), creatinine (P = 0.027), intact parathyroid hormone (P = 0.004), serum leptin level (P = 0.002), C-reactive protein (P < 0.001), but lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (P = 0.006) compared to patients with low arterial stiffness. After adjusting for factors significantly associated with arterial stiffness by multivariate logistic regression analysis, it revealed that leptin (aOR = 1.037, 95% CI = 1.007-1.067, P = 0.014), having DM (aOR = 4.885, 95% CI = 1.590-15.006, P = 0.006), and elevated CRP (aOR = 1.503, 95% CI = 1.110-2.0371,P = 0.009) were significant independent predictors of arterial stiffness in HTN patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Serum leptin level could be a predictor for arterial stiffness in HTN patients.

Long-Term Consumption of Cuban Policosanol Lowers Central and Brachial Blood Pressure and Improves Lipid Profile With Enhancement of Lipoprotein Properties in Healthy Korean Participants

Metabolic syndrome is closely associated with higher risk of hypertension, cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes and stroke. The aim of the present study was to investigate the long-term effects of policosanol supplementation on blood pressure (BP) and the lipid profile in healthy Korean participants with pre-hypertension (systolic 120–139 mmHg, diastolic 85–89 mmHg). This randomized, double-blinded, and placebo-controlled trial included 84 healthy participants who were randomly assigned to three groups receiving 10 mg of policosanol, 20 mg of policosanol, or placebo for 24 weeks. The BP, lipid profile, and anthropometric factors were measured pre- and post-intervention and then compared. Based on an average of three measurements of brachial BP, the policosanol 20 mg group showed the most significant reduction in average systolic BP (SBP) from 138 ± 12 mmHg at week 0 to 126 ± 13 mmHg at week 24 (p < 0.0001). The policosanol 20 mg group also showed significant reductions in aortic SBP and DBP up to 9% (p = 0.00057) and 8% (p = 0.004), respectively compared with week 0. Additionally, blood renin and aldosterone levels were significantly reduced in the policosanol 20 mg group up to 63% (p < 0.01) and 42% (p < 0.05), respectively, at week 24. For the blood lipid profile, the policosanol 10 mg and 20 mg groups showed significant reductions in total cholesterol (TC) of around 8% (p = 0.029) and 13% (p = 0.0004), respectively, at week 24 compared with week 0. Serum HDL-C level significantly increased up to 16% and 12% in the policosanol 10 mg (p = 0.002) and 20 mg (p = 0.035) group, respectively. The study results suggest that long-term policosanol consumption simultaneously reduces peripheral BP as well as aortic BP accompanied by elevation of HDL-C and % HDL-C in TC in a dose-dependent manner.

The Role of Central Blood Pressure Monitoring in the Management of Hypertension

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Central blood pressure is a novel predictor of cardiovascular risk that can be measured in the clinical setting using currently available technology. This paper will review current available methods of central blood pressure monitoring as well as its impact in cardiac and renal disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Both aortic and carotid systolic blood pressure are independently associated with cardiovascular mortality and serious cardiac events. Furthermore, studies show that systolic aortic blood pressure has been shown to be superior predictor of cardiovascular as compared to brachial blood pressure. Inhibitors of the renin angiotensin axis may have a beneficial effect on central blood pressure; however, long term studies evaluating the impact of lowering central blood pressure on clinical outcomes are lacking. Central blood pressure is a good predictor of cardiovascular risk. As more studies emerge demonstrating the value of central blood pressure as a therapeutic target, it is possible that targeting central blood pressure may become an important part of the armamentarium to lower cardiovascular risk.

Central and cerebral haemodynamic changes after antihypertensive therapy in ischaemic stroke patients: A double-blind randomised trial

Central and cerebral haemodynamic parameters can vary under similar brachial blood pressure (BP). We aimed to investigate the effects of antihypertensive agents on central and cerebral haemodynamic parameters in hypertensive patients with ischaemic stroke. The Fimasartan, Atenolol, and Valsartan On haemodynamic paRameters (FAVOR) study was conducted in a prospective, double-blinded manner. One hundred five patients were randomly administered atenolol, valsartan, or fimasartan during 12 weeks. We measured brachial, central, cerebral haemodynamic parameters and plasma N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels at baseline and after 12-week. Baseline haemodynamic parameters were balanced among the three groups. Even with similar brachial BP reduction, significantly lower central systolic BP (atenolol; 146.5 ± 18.8 vs. valsartan; 133.5 ± 20.7 vs. fimasartan; 133.6 ± 19.8 mmHg, p = 0.017) and augmentation index values (89.8 ± 13.2 vs. 80.6 ± 9.2 vs. 79.2 ± 11.6%; p = 0.001) were seen in the angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) groups. The pulsatility index on transcranial Doppler was significantly reduced in valsartan (p = 0.002) and fimasartan group (p = 0.008). Plasma NT-proBNP level was also significantly decreased in ARB groups, especially for the fimasartan group (37.8 ± 50.6 vs. 29.2 ± 36.9 vs.19.2 ± 27.8 pg/mL; p = 0.006). These findings suggest that short-term ARB administration would be favourable for ischaemic stroke patients with hypertension, permitting effective reduction of central pressure and dampening of cerebral pulsatility.

Determinant Factors for Arterial Hemodynamics in Hypertension: Theoretical Insights From a Computational Model-Based Study

Hypertension is a well-documented predictive factor for cardiovascular events. Clinical studies have extensively demonstrated the differential hemodynamic consequences of various antihypertensive drugs, but failed to clearly elucidate the underlying mechanisms due to the difficulty in performing a quantitative deterministic analysis based on clinical data that carry confounding information stemming from interpatient differences and the nonlinearity of cardiovascular hemodynamics. In the present study, a multiscale model of the cardiovascular system was developed to quantitatively investigate the relationships between hemodynamic variables and cardiovascular properties under hypertensive conditions, aiming to establish a theoretical basis for assisting in the interpretation of clinical observations or optimization of therapy. Results demonstrated that heart period, central arterial stiffness, and arteriolar radius were the major determinant factors for blood pressures and flow pulsatility indices both in large arteries and in the microcirculation. These factors differed in the degree and the way in which they affect hemodynamic variables due to their differential effects on wave reflections in the vascular system. In particular, it was found that the hemodynamic effects of varying arteriolar radius were considerably influenced by the state of central arterial stiffness, and vice versa, which implied the potential of optimizing antihypertensive treatment by selecting proper drugs based on patient-specific cardiovascular conditions. When analyzed in relation to clinical observations, the simulated results provided mechanistic explanations for the beneficial pressure-lowering effects of vasodilators as compared to β-blockers, and highlighted the significance of monitoring and normalizing arterial stiffness in the treatment of hypertension.

Association of central blood pressure and cardiovascular diseases in diabetic patients with hypertension

To evaluate association of central blood pressure (BP) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in diabetic patients with hypertension.This was a cross-section study and 360 participants were enrolled. Baseline characteristics were collected and indices of central BP including central systolic/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP), augmentation index adjusted for 75 beats per minute of heart rate (AIx@75) were measured. Participants were separated into with and without CVD groups and between-group differences were assessed. Linear regression analysis was used to evaluate potential risk factors for increased AIx@75. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate association between central SBP and AIx@75 with CVD.Mean age was 50.6 years and male participants accounted for 57.8%. Thirty-five and 43 participants had coronary heart disease and ischemic stroke. Compared with participants without CVD, those with CVD were more likely to be male and smokers and had higher glycated hemoglobin level. Additionally, participants with CVD had significantly higher central SBP and AIx@75 compared with those without CVD. Ageing, male gender, and presence of coronary heart disease and ischemic stroke were associated with increased AIx@75, whereas renin-angiotensin-axis inhibitor was associated with reduced AIx@75. After adjusted for traditional risk factors including brachial SBP, both central SBP, and AIx@75 remained significantly associated with CVD, with odds ratio and 95% confidence interval of 1.09 (1.08-1.31) and 1.20 (1.15-1.42), respectively.Diabetic patients with hypertension, ageing, male gender, and presence of CVD are independent risk factors of central BP increase; and increased central SBP and AIx@75 are significantly associated with CVD.

Chlorthalidone Plus Amiloride Reduces the Central Systolic Blood Pressure in Stage 1 Hypertension Patients

BACKGROUND

Hypertension reduction strategies use blood pressure in the brachial artery as the primary endpoint. Individuals who achieve the target blood pressure reduction with antihypertensive treatment have residual cardiovascular risk attributed to the difference in pressure between the aorta and brachial artery. Antihypertensive treatment affects the intrinsic properties of the vascular wall and arterial stiffness markers and consequently the central pressure. Recent publications stress the importance of adequate control of the central compared to peripheral blood pressure. Related clinical implications suggest that individuals with normal peripheral but high central blood pressure should not receive antihypertensive drugs that act on the central pressure. Therefore, they are at greater cardiovascular risk. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of treatment with a thiazide diuretic versus losartan on the central blood pressure in stage 1 hypertensive patients.

METHODS

Twenty-five patients were randomized to the chlorthalidone 25 mg/amiloride 5 mg group (q.d.) and 25 patients received losartan 50 mg (b.i.d). The central systolic blood pressure (CSBP) and augmentation index (AIx 75) were assessed using applanation tonometry. The paired t-test was used to compare the systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), pulse pressure (PP), CSBP and AIx 75 between the thiazide and losartan groups at baseline and after 6 months of treatment.

RESULTS

Significant reductions in CSBP (123.3 ± 14.2 vs. 113.4 ± 111.4, P = 0.0103) and AIx 75 (87.7 ± 9.6 vs. 83.8 ± 8.9, P = 0.0289) were observed after 6 months of drug treatment with chlorthalidone 25 mg/amiloride 5 mg (q.d.). The administration of losartan 50 mg (b.i.d) did not reduce the CSBP and there were insignificant changes in the AIx 75.

CONCLUSIONS

Six-month treatment of chlorthalidone/amiloride but not losartan reduces the CSBP and AIx 75 in adults with stage 1 hypertension.

In silico analysis of the anti-hypertensive drugs impact on myocardial oxygen balance

Hypertension is a very common pathology, and its clinical treatment largely relies on different drugs. Some of these drugs exhibit specific protective functions in addition to those resulting from blood pressure reduction. In this work, we study the impact of commonly used anti-hypertensive drugs (RAAS, [Formula: see text] and calcium channel blockers) on myocardial oxygen supply-consumption balance, which plays a crucial role in type 2 myocardial infarction. To this aim, 42 wash-out hypertensive patients were selected, a number of measured data were used to set a validated multi-scale cardiovascular model to subject-specific conditions, and the administration of different drugs was suitably simulated. Our results ascribe the well-known major cardioprotective efficiency of [Formula: see text] blockers compared to other drugs to a positive change of myocardial oxygen balance due to the concomitant: (1) reduction in aortic systolic, diastolic and pulse pressures, (2) decrease in left ventricular work, diastolic cavity pressure and oxygen consumption, (3) increase in coronary flow and (4) ejection efficiency improvement. RAAS blockers share several positive outcomes with [Formula: see text] blockers, although to a reduced extent. In contrast, calcium channel blockers seem to induce some potentially negative effects on the myocardial oxygen balance.

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

BACKGROUND

Comparing the relationships of antihypertensive medications with brachial blood pressure (BP) and aortic waveform parameters may help clinicians to predict the effect on the latter in brachial BP-based antihypertensive therapy. We aimed to make such comparisons with new waveform measures and a wider range of antihypertensive regimens than examined previously.

METHODS

Cross-sectional analysis of 2933 adults (61% male; aged 50-84years): 1637 on antihypertensive treatment and 1296 untreated hypertensives. Sixteen medicine regimens of up to 4 combinations of drugs from 6 antihypertensive classes were analysed. Aortic systolic BP, augmentation index (AIx), excess pressure integral (EPI), backward pressure amplitude (Pb), reflection index (RI) and pulse wave velocity (PWV) were calculated from aortic pressure waveforms derived from suprasystolic brachial measurement.

RESULTS

Forest plots of single-drug class comparisons across regimens with the same number of drugs (for between 1- and 3-drug regimens) revealed that AIx, Pb, RI and/or loge(EPI) were higher (maximum difference=5.6%, 2.2mmHg, 0.0192 and 0.13 loge(mmHg⋅s), respectively) with the use of a beta-blocker compared with vasodilators and diuretics, despite no brachial systolic and diastolic BP differences. These differences were reduced (by 34-57%) or eliminated after adjustment for heart rate, and similar effects occurred when controlling for systolic ejection period or diastolic duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Beta-blocker effects on brachial BP may overestimate effects on aortic waveform parameters. Compared to other antihypertensives, beta-blockers have weaker associations with wave reflection measures and EPI; this is predominantly due to influences on heart rate.

Antihypertensive treatment decreases arterial stiffness at night but not during the day. Results from the Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial

The main Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial (HYVET) demonstrated a very marked reduction in cardiovascular events by treating hypertensive participants 80 years or older with a low dose, sustained release prescription of indapamide (indapamide SR, 1.5 mg) to which was added a low dose of an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor in two-thirds of cases (perindopril 2-4 mg). This report from the ambulatory blood pressure sub-study investigates whether changes in arterial stiffness and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) could both explain the benefits observed in the main trial. A total of 139 participants were randomized to placebo [67] and to active treatment [72] and had both day and night observations of BP and arterial stiffness as determined from the Q wave Korotkoff diastolic (QKD) interval. The QKD interval was 5.6 ms longer (p = 0.017) in the actively treated group at night than in the placebo group. This was not true for the more numerous daytime readings so that 24-h results were similar in the two groups. The QKD interval remained longer at night in the actively treated group even when adjusted for systolic pressure, heart rate and height. The reduced arterial stiffness at night may partly explain the marked benefits observed in the main trial.

Selective Heart Rate Reduction With Ivabradine Increases Central Blood Pressure in Stable Coronary Artery Disease

Abstract—

Heart rate (HR) lowering by β-blockade was shown to be beneficial after myocardial infarction. In contrast, HR lowering with ivabradine was found to confer no benefits in 2 prospective randomized trials in patients with coronary artery disease. We hypothesized that this inefficacy could be in part related to ivabradine’s effect on central (aortic) pressure. Our study included 46 patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease who were randomly allocated to placebo (n=23) or ivabradine (n=23) in a single-blinded fashion for 6 months. Concomitant baseline medication was continued unchanged throughout the study except for β-blockers, which were stopped during the study period. Central blood pressure and stroke volume were measured directly by left heart catheterization at baseline and after 6 months. For the determination of resting HR at baseline and at follow-up, 24-hour ECG monitoring was performed. Patients on ivabradine showed an increase of 11 mm Hg in central systolic pressure from 129±22 mm Hg to 140±26 mm Hg ( P =0.02) and in stroke volume by 86±21.8 to 107.2±30.0 mL ( P =0.002). In the placebo group, central systolic pressure and stroke volume remained unchanged. Estimates of myocardial oxygen consumption (HR×systolic pressure and time-tension index) remained unchanged with ivabradine.The decrease in HR from baseline to follow-up correlated with the concomitant increase in central systolic pressure ( r =−0.41, P =0.009) and in stroke volume ( r =−0.61, P <0.001). In conclusion, the decrease in HR with ivabradine was associated with an increase in central systolic pressure, which may have antagonized possible benefits of HR lowering in coronary artery disease patients.

Clinical Trials—URL:

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier NCT01039389.

Association of serum leptin levels with central arterial stiffness in coronary artery disease patients

Background

Serum adipokines have roles in the development of arterial stiffness. Our aim was to investigate the relationship of leptin and the surrogate marker carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients.

Methods

Fasting blood samples were obtained from 105 CAD patients. cfPWV was measured with the SphygmoCor system. A cfPWV > 10 m/s was defined as high arterial stiffness, and ≤ 10 m/s as low arterial stiffness.

Results

Thirty-seven patients (35.2 %) had high arterial stiffness, and had a higher percentage of diabetes (P = 0.001), hypertension (P = 0.010), older age (P = 0.001), and higher systolic blood pressure (SBP) (P < 0.001), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (P = 0.021), pulse pressure (P = 0.014), and serum leptin level (P = 0.002) compared to patients with low arterial stiffness. Serum leptin levels correlated with the number of angiographically documented stenotic coronary artery vessels (P < 0.001). After adjusting for factors significantly associated with arterial stiffness, multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that leptin (odds ratio = 1.026, 95 % confidence interval: 1.002–1.051, P = 0.037) was a significant independent predictor of arterial stiffness.

Conclusions

Increasing serum concentration of leptin correlated positively with the total number of stenotic coronary arteries, and serum leptin level may predict the development of arterial stiffness in CAD patients.

Impact of Antihypertensive Agents on Central Systolic Blood Pressure and Augmentation Index: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

New evidence suggests that central systolic blood pressure (cSBP) and augmentation index (AI) are superior predictors of adverse cardiovascular outcomes compared to peripheral systolic BP (pSBP). We performed a meta-analysis assessing the impact of antihypertensives on cSBP and AI.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched until September 2014 to identify eligible articles. A DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model was used to calculate the weighted mean difference (WMD) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). Fifty-two and 58 studies incorporating 4,381 and 3,716 unique subjects were included for cSBP and AI analysis, respectively.

RESULTS

Overall, antihypertensives reduced pSBP more than cSBP (WMD 2.52 mm Hg, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.69; I (2) = 21.9%). β-Blockers (BBs) posed a significantly greater reduction in pSBP as compared to cSBP (WMD 5.19 mm Hg, 95% CI 3.21 to 7.18). α-Blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, calcium channel blockers, diuretics, renin-angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors and nicorandil reduced cSBP and pSBP in a similar manner. The overall reduction in AI from baseline was 3.09% (95% CI 2.28 to 3.90; I (2) = 84.5%). A significant reduction in AI was seen with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, calcium channel blockers, diuretics, renin-angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors, BBs, α-blockers (ABs), nicorandil, and moxonidine reduced AI nonsignificantly.

CONCLUSIONS

BBs are not as beneficial as the other antihypertensives in reducing cSBP and AI.

Effect of angiotensin receptor blockade on central aortic systolic blood pressure in hypertensive Asians measured using radial tonometry: an open prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Central aortic systolic pressure (CASP) has been shown to be a stronger predictor of cardiovascular events than brachial blood pressure (BP). Different classes of drugs have differential effects on CASP and brachial BP. This open prospective cohort study aimed to observe changes in CASP (measured using radial tonometry) among hypertensive Asians after 12 weeks of treatment with valsartan, an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

METHODS

Patients with treatment-naïve hypertension or uncontrolled hypertension who were on non-ARB therapy were eligible for inclusion. Patients with uncontrolled BP (i.e. ≥ 140/90 mmHg) received valsartan for 12 weeks. The patients' brachial systolic and diastolic BP (SBP and DBP), and CASP changes were monitored using the BPro® watch.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 44 enrolled patients was 35 years. At baseline, the mean BP and CASP were 150.2/91.4 ± 10.6/9.4 mmHg and 136.3 ± 12.2 mmHg, respectively. Valsartan reduced SBP, DBP and CASP by 14.9 ± 10.7 mmHg, 10.9 ± 8.4 mmHg and 15.3 ± 10.9 mmHg, respectively (all p < 0.001). Every 1.0-mmHg reduction in brachial SBP resulted in a 0.8-mmHg reduction in CASP (p < 0.001). A CASP cut-off of 122.5 mmHg discriminated between controlled and uncontrolled BP (sensitivity 74%, specificity 88%).

CONCLUSION

Using radial tonometry, we demonstrated good correlation between CASP and brachial SBP reductions after 12 weeks of treatment with valsartan in our study cohort. Correlation analysis between CASP and SBP reductions may be useful for demonstrating whether a drug is able to lower CASP beyond lowering SBP.

Effects of β-Blockers With and Without Vasodilating Properties on Central Blood Pressure

β-Blockers are less effective than other antihypertensive drug classes in reducing central systolic blood pressure (cSBP) as compared with peripheral SBP (pSBP). Whether this effect is less pronounced with vasodilating β-blockers (VBB) when compared with nonvasodilating β-blockers (NVBB) remains unsettled. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials exploring the effects of β-blockers on both pSBP and cSBP in hypertension. We selected 20 studies, for a total of 32 treatment arms (n=21 for NVBB, n=11 for VBB) and 1263 participants (n=962 for NVBB, n=301 for VBB). pSBP decreased from 150 to 133 mm Hg for NVBB and from 145 to 134 mm Hg for VBB. cSBP decreased from 137 to 126 mm Hg for NVBB and from 132 to 123 mm Hg for VBB. SBP amplification (pSBP–cSBP) decreased significantly under VBB (−5.6 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, −7.8, −3.4 mm Hg), but not under NVBB (−1.1 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, −3.4, +1.2 mm Hg; P <0.01 versus NVBB). There was high heterogeneity both within and between β-blockers subclasses. In a meta-regression model, the weighted difference in treatment-induced changes in SBP amplification between NVBB and VBB lost its significance after adjustment for mean age and baseline pSBP and heart rate (−2.9±2.3 mm Hg; P =0.22) and was almost abolished after adjustment for treatment-induced heart rate changes (−0.1±0.5 mm Hg; P =0.78). In conclusion, NVBBs, but not VBBs, determine a lower reduction in cSBP than in pSBP. However, the difference in treatment-induced SBP amplification changes between NVBB and VBB is nearly abolished after accounting for differences in heart rate changes.

The Beneficial Effect of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Blockade in Marfan Syndrome Patients after Aortic Root Replacement

PURPOSE

In this study, we evaluated the long term beneficial effect of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System (RAAS) blockade therapy in treatment of Marfan aortopathy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed Marfan syndrome (MFS) patients who underwent aortic root replacement (ARR) between January 1996 and January 2011. All patients were prescribed β-blockers indefinitely. We compared major aortic events including mortality, aortic dissection, and reoperation in patients without RAAS blockade (group 1, n=27) to those with (group 2, n=63). The aortic growth rate was calculated by dividing the diameter change on CT scans taken immediately post-operatively and the latest scan available.

RESULTS

There were no differences in clinical parameters except for age which was higher in patients with RAAS blockade. In group 1, 2 (7%) deaths, 5 (19%) aortic dissections, and 7 (26%) reoperations occurred. In group 2, 3 (5%) deaths, 2 (3%) aortic dissections, and 3 (5%) reoperations occurred. A Kaplan-Meier plot demonstrated improved survival free from major aortic events in group 2. On multivariate Cox, RAAS blockade was an independent negative predictor of major aortic events (hazard ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.30-0.43, p=0.002). Mean diameter change in descending thoracic and supra-renal abdominal aorta was significantly higher in patients without RAAS blockade (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

In MFS patients who underwent ARR, the addition of RAAS blockade to β-blocker was associated with reduction of aortic dilatation and clinical events.

Soluble receptor for advanced glycation end products and increased aortic stiffness in the general population

It has been suggested that accumulation of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) is involved in several pathophysiological processes in the vessel wall. We hypothesized that low levels of the soluble receptor for AGEs (sRAGE) might be associated with increased arterial stiffness, a manifestation of vascular ageing in the general population. Using a cross-sectional design, we analyzed 1077 subjects from the Czech post-MONICA study. The aortic pulse wave velocity (aPWV) was measured using a Sphygmocor device. sRAGE concentrations were assessed in frozen samples using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay methods (R&D Systems). aPWV significantly (P<0.0001) increased across the sRAGE quartiles. An aPWV of 1 m s(-1) was associated with a 37% increase in the risk of low sRAGE (<918 pg ml(-1), bottom quartile; P-value=0.018). In a categorized manner, subjects in the bottom sRAGE quartile had an odds ratio of an increased aPWV (⩾9.3 m s(-1)), adjusted for all potential confounders of 2.05 (95% confidence interval: 1.26-3.32; P=0.004), but this was only the case for non-diabetic hypertensive patients. In contrast, a low sRAGE was rejected as an independent predictor of an increased aPWV in normotensive or diabetic subjects using similar regression models. In conclusion, low circulating sRAGE was independently associated with increased arterial stiffness in a general population-based sample, but this was only observed in hypertensive non-diabetic patients.

Positive correlation of serum adipocyte fatty acid binding protein levels with carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity in geriatric population

Background

Adipocyte fatty acid binding protein (A-FABP) is a novel fat-derived circulating protein, which is independently and positively associated with atherosclerosis. The present study evaluated the relationship between fasting serum A-FABP and central arterial stiffness in geriatric adults.

Methods

Fasting blood samples were obtained from 87 geriatric patients and the serum A-FABP levels were measured using an enzyme immunoassay. Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) was determined using the SphygmoCor system. cfPWV values of >10 m/s represented the high arterial stiffness group, while values ≤10 m/s defined the low arterial stiffness group.

Results

High arterial stiffness group comprised of 42 geriatric adults (48.3 %). When compared to those in the low arterial stiffness group, the high arterial stiffness group had a higher rate of diabetes mellitus (P = 0.044) and hypertension (P = 0.043). Body weight (P = 0.027), waist circumference (P = 0.035), body mass index (P = 0.001), systolic blood pressure (P = 0.005), diastolic blood pressure (P = 0.045), pulse pressure (P = 0.038), and serum A-FABP level (P < 0.001) were also higher in the high arterial stiffness group than in the low arterial stiffness group. Multivariate logistic regression analysis of the factors significantly associated with arterial stiffness revealed that A-FABP (odds ratio: 1.833, 95 % confidence interval 1.123–2.993, P = 0.015) was an independent predictor of arterial stiffness in geriatric adults.

Conclusions

Serum A-FABP levels constitute a major risk factor in the development of central arterial stiffness in the geriatric population.

Distinct effects of losartan and atenolol on vascular stiffness in Marfan syndrome

We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial of losartan (100 mg QD) versus atenolol (50 mg QD) for 6 months in adults with Marfan syndrome. Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV), central augmentation index (AIx), aortic diameter and left ventricular (LV) function were assessed with arterial tonometry and echocardiography. Thirty-four subjects (18 female; median age 35 years, IQR 27, 45) were randomized. Central systolic and diastolic blood pressure decreased comparably with atenolol and losartan (p = 0.64 and 0.31, respectively); heart rate decreased with atenolol (p = 0.02), but not with losartan. PWV decreased in patients treated with atenolol (-1.15 ± 1.68 m/s; p = 0.01), but not in those treated with losartan (-0.22 ± 0.59 m/s; p = 0.15; between-group difference p = 0.04). In contrast, AIx decreased in the losartan group (-9.6 ± 8.6%; p < 0.001) but not in the atenolol group (0.9 ± 6.2%, p = 0.57; between-group difference p < 0.001). There was no significant change in aortic diameters or LV ejection fraction in either treatment group. In adults with Marfan syndrome, 6 months of treatment with atenolol improves PWV, whereas losartan reduces the AIx. By improving vascular stiffness via distinct mechanisms of action, there is physiologic value to considering the use of both medications in individuals with Marfan syndrome.

Effect of lisinopril and atenolol on aortic stiffness in patients on hemodialysis

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.

Vascular stiffening in pulmonary hypertension: cause or consequence? (2013 Grover Conference series)

Recent studies have indicated that systemic arterial stiffening is a precursor to hypertension and that hypertension, in turn, can perpetuate arterial stiffening. Pulmonary artery (PA) stiffening is also well documented to occur in pulmonary hypertension (PH), and there is evidence that pulmonary vascular stiffness (PVS) may be a better predictor of outcome than pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR). We have hypothesized that the decreased flow-damping function of elastic PAs in PH likely initiates and/or perpetuates dysfunction of pulmonary microvasculature. Recent studies have shown that large-vessel stiffening increases flow pulsatility in the distal pulmonary vasculature, leading to endothelial dysfunction within a proinflammatory, vasoconstricting, and profibrogenic environment. The intricate role of stiffening-stimulated high pulsatile flow in endothelial cell dysfunction includes stepwise molecular events underlying PA hypertrophy, inflammation, endothelial-mesenchymal transition, and fibrosis. In addition to contributing to microenvironmental alterations of the distal vasculature, disordered proximal-distal PA coupling likely also plays a role in increasing ventricular afterload, ultimately causing right ventricle (RV) dysfunction and death. Current therapeutic treatments do not provide a realistic approach to destiffening arteries and, thus, to potentially abrogating the effects of high pulsatile flow on the distal pulmonary vasculature or the increased work imposed by stiffening on the RV. Scrutinizing the effect of PA stiffening on high pulsatile flow-induced cellular and molecular changes, and vice versa, might lead to important new therapeutic options that abrogate PA remodeling and PH development. With a clear understanding that PA stiffening may contribute to the progression of PH to an irreversible state by contributing to chronic microvascular damage in lungs, future studies should be aimed first at defining the underlying mechanisms leading to PA stiffening and then at improved treatment approaches based on these findings.

Beta-blockers for preventing stroke recurrence

BACKGROUND

Stroke affects 15 million people per year worldwide. Despite recent developments in acute stroke treatment, prevention remains very important. Stroke has a high rate of recurrence; therefore secondary prevention is also important. Many clinical approaches to control risk factors have been proposed. One of these approaches is the prescription of beta-blockers that have effects beyond the reduction of blood pressure, which can reduce the recurrence of stroke.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of beta-blockers for preventing stroke recurrence and for reducing death and major vascular events in people with a previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA), and to determine their safety, particularly with regard to the development of diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (May 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 5), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (May 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2014), EMBASE (1980 to May 2014), and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to May 2014). We also searched ongoing trials registers and reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included participants with previous stroke or TIA due to arterial thrombosis or embolism. The intervention was any beta-blocker versus control, or beta-blocker plus other treatment versus other treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the trials identified, appraised quality, and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two RCTs involving 2193 participants in the review. Both studies randomised participants to either beta-blocker (atenolol 5 mg) or placebo and were of a high methodological quality. We noted no statistical differences among the groups in risks of fatal and non-fatal stroke (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.18). For other outcomes analysed (major vascular events, death from all causes, death from cardiovascular causes) , we observed no significant differences between the groups. There were minor blood pressure reductions in the intervention group. Neither of the included studies reported the occurrence of diabetes among their outcomes or assessed quality of life. Adverse events were significantly more frequent in participants taking atenolol than in those given placebo, and were the most common reason given for discontinuing treatment (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.35).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

To date, no available evidence supports the routine use of beta-blockers for secondary prevention after stroke or TIA. More studies with larger samples are needed.

Arterial stiffness and cardiovascular therapy

The world population is aging and the number of old people is continuously increasing. Arterial structure and function change with age, progressively leading to arterial stiffening. Arterial stiffness is best characterized by measurement of pulse wave velocity (PWV), which is its surrogate marker. It has been shown that PWV could improve cardiovascular event prediction in models that included standard risk factors. Consequently, it might therefore enable better identification of populations at high-risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The present review is focused on a survey of different pharmacological therapeutic options for decreasing arterial stiffness. The influence of several groups of drugs is described: antihypertensive drugs (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, calcium channel blockers, beta-blockers, diuretics, and nitrates), statins, peroral antidiabetics, advanced glycation end-products (AGE) cross-link breakers, anti-inflammatory drugs, endothelin-A receptor antagonists, and vasopeptidase inhibitors. All of these have shown some effect in decreasing arterial stiffness. Nevertheless, further studies are needed which should address the influence of arterial stiffness diminishment on major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE).

Destiffening effect of valsartan and atenolol: influence of heart rate and blood pressure

OBJECTIVE

We investigated data in 373 patients from the EXPLOR trial to determine the influence of heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) on aortic stiffness in response to beta-blockade or angiotensin 2 type 1 receptor antagonism, administered during 24 weeks.

METHODS

Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) was measured with aplanation tonometry (Sphygmocor ) after 8 (W8) and 24 weeks (W24) of treatment by the single-pill combination valsartan-amlodipine (80/5  mg, then 160/10  mg) or an atenolol-amlodipine combination (50/5  mg, then 100/10  mg) in a prospective, randomized, parallel-groups multicenter trial with PROBE design. Drugs were up-titrated at W8. We analyzed the changes in PWV in relation with the changes in BP and HR, and major covariates, using mixed models in each treatment arm.

RESULTS

The unadjusted reductions in mean BP and PWV were not significantly different between groups. HR was significantly reduced in the atenolol group, but not in the valsartan group. After adjustment on BP and HR, PWV significantly decreased with valsartan [-0.37  m/s (-0.70 to -0.08) at W8 and -0.43 (-0.76 to -0.10) m/s at W24], whereas no significant change was observed after atenolol [-0.16  m/s (-0.49 to 0.17) at W8 and -0.05 (-0.35 to 0.44) m/s at W24].

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that the reduction in PWV observed after atenolol could be explained by changes in BP and HR, whereas in patients treated by valsartan, about half of the decrease in aortic stiffness was BP-independent.

Central blood pressure: current evidence and clinical importance

Pressure measured with a cuff and sphygmomanometer in the brachial artery is accepted as an important predictor of future cardiovascular risk. However, systolic pressure varies throughout the arterial tree, such that aortic (central) systolic pressure is actually lower than corresponding brachial values, although this difference is highly variable between individuals. Emerging evidence now suggests that central pressure is better related to future cardiovascular events than is brachial pressure. Moreover, anti-hypertensive drugs can exert differential effects on brachial and central pressure. Therefore, basing treatment decisions on central, rather than brachial pressure, is likely to have important implications for the future diagnosis and management of hypertension. Such a paradigm shift will, however, require further, direct evidence that selectively targeting central pressure, brings added benefit, over and above that already provided by brachial artery pressure.

Beta-Blockers in the Management of Hypertension and/or Chronic Kidney Disease

This minireview provides current summaries of beta-blocker use in the management of hypertension and/or chronic kidney disease. Accumulated evidence suggests that atenolol is not sufficiently effective as a primary tool to treat hypertension. The less-than-adequate effect of beta-blockers in lowering the blood pressure and on vascular protection, and the unfavorable effects of these drugs, as compared to other antihypertensive agents, on the metabolic profile have been pointed out. On the other hand, in patients with chronic kidney disease, renin-angiotensin system blockers are the drugs of first choice for achieving the goal of renal protection. Recent studies have reported that vasodilatory beta-blockers have adequate antihypertensive efficacy and less harmful effects on the metabolic profile, and also exert beneficial effects on endothelial function and renal protection. However, there is still not sufficient evidence on the beneficial effects of the new beta-blockers.

Effects of Various Antihypertensive Drugs on Arterial Stiffness and Wave Reflections

We reviewed trials that tested the efficacy of antihypertensive drugs in reducing arterial stiffness and wave reflections as assessed by pulse wave velocity and augmentation index, respectively. Regardless of cross-over or parallel-group comparison design, placebo-controlled trials demonstrated that antihypertensive drugs were effective in reducing pulse wave velocity. In actively-controlled parallel-group comparison studies, this effect on arterial stiffness was more evident for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers than other classes of antihypertensive drugs, particularly when brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity was measured. Regardless of cross-over or parallel-group comparison or placebo- or actively-controlled design, the reviewed trials showed that β-blockers were inferior to all the other classes of antihypertensive drugs in reducing augmentation index. However, these studies had a small sample size and a short follow-up time and did not link the changes in measurements of arterial function with cardiovascular events. Whether the superiority or inferiority is clinically relevant for cardiovascular protection and prevention remains to be investigated.

Comparative effectiveness of a fixed-dose combination of losartan + HCTZ versus bisoprolol + HCTZ in patients with moderate-to-severe hypertension: results of the 6-month ELIZA trial

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy of losartan 100 mg + hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg versus bisoprolol 10 mg + HCTZ 25 mg and their influence on arterial stiffness and central blood pressure (BP).

Methods

Of 60 patients with a mean BP of 173.3 ± 1.7/98.4 ± 1.2 mmHg, 59 were random-ized to losartan + HCTZ (n = 32) or bisoprolol + HCTZ (n = 27). Amlodipine was added if target BP was not achieved at 1 month, and doxazosin was added if target BP was not achieved after 3 months. Body mass index, office and 24-hour ambulatory BP, pulse wave velocity (carotid-femoral [PWVE] and radial [PWVM]), noninvasive central systolic BP, augmentation index (AIx), laboratory investigations, and electrocardiography were done at baseline and after 6 months of treatment.

Results

Losartan + HCTZ was as effective as bisoprolol + HCTZ, with target office BP achieved in 96.9% and 92.6% of patients and target 24-hour BP in 75% and 66.7% of patients, respectively, after 6 months. Effective treatment of BP led to significant lowering of central systolic BP, but this was decreased to a significantly (P < 0.05) greater extent by losartan + HCTZ (−23.0 ± 2.3 mmHg) than by bisoprolol + HCTZ (−15.4 ± 2.9 mmHg) despite equal lowering of brachial BP. Factors correlated with central systolic BP and its lowering differed between the treatment groups. Losartan + HCTZ did not alter arterial stiffness patterns significantly, but bisoprolol + HCTZ significantly increased AIx. We noted differences in ΔPWVE, ΔPWVM, and ΔAIx between the groups in favor of losartan + HCTZ. Decreased heart rate was associated with higher central systolic BP and AIx in the bisoprolol + HCTZ group, but was not associated with increased AIx in the losartan + HCTZ group.

Conclusion

Although both treatments decreased both office and 24-hour BP, losartan + HCTZ significantly decreased central systolic BP and had a more positive influence on pulse wave velocity, with a less negative effect of decreased heart rate on AIx and central systolic BP.

Effects of nebivolol and atenolol on central aortic pressure in hypertensive patients: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study

INTRODUCTION

The main objective was to compare the mean change in augmentation index of hypertensive patients treated with nebivolol or atenolol.

METHODS

Multicenter, double-blind randomized study conducted in six Spanish centers. We enrolled outpatients between the ages of 40 and 65 years with mild or moderate essential hypertension (systolic blood pressure, SBP ≥ 140 mmHg to ≤ 179 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure, DBP ≥ 90 mmHg to ≤ 109 mmHg after a 2-week run-in placebo period). Patients received nebivolol 5 mg or atenolol 50 mg once daily. At week 3, atenolol could be titrated up to 100 mg qd for non-responders. Additionally, patients not achieving normal blood pressure after 6 weeks could be treated with 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide. Follow-up visits were at 3, 6 and 10 weeks.

RESULTS

The final study population of 138 patients (58% men; median age 52.6 years, range 40-67 years) was randomized into two groups of 69 patients each. Baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. At the screening visit, 69% presented with mild hypertension. Nebivolol modified the mean augmentation index to a lesser extent than atenolol after 10 weeks (mean difference 3.1%, 95% CI 0.55-5.69; p = 0.027). A higher proportion of patients in the atenolol group required a diuretic. Reductions in central aortic pressure and peripheral arterial pressure were similar for both treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The study confirms that nebivolol produces a less pronounced impact on augmentation index than atenolol.

Efficacy of losartan and carvedilol on central hemodynamics in hypertensives: a prospective, randomized, open, blinded end point, multicenter study

Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers have shown clinical outcomes superior to those of the beta (β)-blocker atenolol, despite similar reductions in the peripheral blood pressure (BP), perhaps because of different impacts on central hemodynamics. However, few comparative studies of RAS blockers and newer vasodilating β-blockers have been performed. We compared the central hemodynamic effects of losartan and carvedilol in a prospective, randomized, open, blinded end point study. Of the 201 hypertensive patients enrolled, 182 (49.6±9.9 years, losartan group=88 and carvedilol group=94) were analyzed. Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV), aortic augmentation index (AIx), AIx corrected for a heart rate (HR) of 75 beats per minute (AIx@HR75) and central BP were measured noninvasively at baseline and after a 24-week treatment regimen with losartan or carvedilol. After 24 weeks, there were no between-group differences in the brachial BP, cfPWV, AIx@HR75 or central BP changes, except for a more favorable AIx effect with losartan. The changes in all measured metabolic and inflammatory parameters were also not significantly different between the two groups, except for uric acid. Losartan and carvedilol showed generally comparable effects on central hemodynamic indices, metabolic profile, inflammatory parameters and peripheral arterial pressure with a 24-week treatment.

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

AIMS

Brachial systolic blood pressure (bSBP) exceeds aortic pressure by a variable amount, and estimated central systolic blood pressure (cSBP) may be a better indicator of cardiovascular risk than bSBP. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effect of single and multiple antihypertensive agents on bSBP, cSBP and augmentation index (AIx).

METHODS

A random effects meta-analysis was performed on 24 randomized controlled trials of antihypertensives with measurements of bSBP, cSBP and/or AIx. Separate analyses were performed for drug comparisons with or without placebo, and drug combinations.

RESULTS

In the placebo vs. drug meta-analysis, antihypertensive therapy reduced bSBP more than cSBP and there was no statistically significant evidence of heterogeneity by drug class, although the number of individual studies was small. In placebo-adjusted drug vs. drug comparison, treatment with β-blockers, omapatrilat and thiazide diuretics lowered cSBP significantly less than bSBP (i.e. central to brachial amplification decreased), whereas other monotherapies lowered cSBP and bSBP to similar extents. Sample sizes were too small and effect estimates insufficiently precise to allow firm conclusions to be made regarding comparisons between individual drug classes. Antihypertensive combinations that included β-blockers decreased central to brachial amplification. β-Blockers increased AIx, whereas all other antihypertensive agents reduced AIx to similar extents.

CONCLUSIONS

A reduction in central to brachial amplification by some classes of antihypertensive drug will result in lesser reductions in cSBP despite achievement of target bSBP. This effect could contribute to differences in outcomes in randomized clinical trials when β-blocker- and/or diuretic-based antihypertensive therapy are compared with other regimens.

Effects of antihypertensive drugs on central blood pressure in humans: a preliminary observation

BACKGROUND

Central blood pressure (BP) is considered a better predictor of cardiovascular events than brachial BP. Modifications of central, beyond brachial BP, can be assessed by pressure amplification, a potential new cardiovascular risk factor. Comparison between drugs' effect on central hemodynamics has been poorly studied. Our aim was to assess the hemodynamic effect of a 12-week treatment with amlodipine 5mg, or candesartan 8mg, or indapamide sustained-release 1.5mg, in comparison with placebo.

METHODS

We analyzed 145 out-patients with essential hypertension in primary prevention enrolled in the Natrilix SR Versus Candesartan and Amlodipine in the Reduction of Systolic Blood Pressure in Hypertensive Patients (X-CELLENT) study, a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. Arterial stiffness, central BP, pressure amplification, and wave reflection were measured by applanation tonometry.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics of patients were homogeneous between groups. After treatment, we found that active drugs produced similar reduction of both central and peripheral BPs, with no significant interdrug differences (all P < 0.05; excluded peripheral pulse pressure, compared with placebo). Second, amlodipine (1.9% ± 15.3%), candesartan (3.0% ± 14.6%) and indapamide (4.1% ± 14.4%) all increased pulse pressure amplification, but only indapamide was statistically different from placebo (P = 0.02). Finally, no significant changes were observed on pulse wave velocity, heart rate, and augmentation index.

CONCLUSIONS

The 3 antihypertensive drugs similarly reduced peripheral and central BP, as compared with placebo, but a significant increase in pulse pressure amplification was obtained only with indapamide, independently of arterial stiffness modifications.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

3283161 by BIOPHARMA.

Comparison of the SphygmoCor and Omron devices in the estimation of pressure amplification against the invasive catheter measurement

BACKGROUND

We previously tested the accuracy of the SphygmoCor and Omron HEM-9000AI devices in the estimation of central blood pressure. In the present study, we investigated these two devices in the estimation of central-to-brachial pressure amplification against the invasive catheter measurement.

METHODS

In 33 individuals undergoing cardiac catheterization, we measured central blood pressure simultaneously by the invasive catheter and each of the two noninvasive devices and brachial blood pressure by the invasive catheter and an automated oscillometric blood pressure monitor of the Omron device. Pressure amplification was calculated as central-to-brachial systolic pressure difference and pulse pressure difference and ratio. The agreement between each of these two noninvasive devices and the invasive catheter was evaluated using the Student's t-test, intraclass correlation analysis, and the Bland-Altman method.

RESULTS

The mean central-to-brachial systolic pressure difference and pulse pressure difference and ratio estimated by Omron were significantly lower than those measured by the catheter (P < 0.001), whereas no difference was observed for SphygmoCor (P ≥ 0.07). Nonetheless, the intraclass correlation coefficients for systolic pressure difference and pulse pressure difference and ratio between the noninvasive and invasive catheter measurements were similar for the two devices, being 0.11 (P = 0.56), 0.38 (P = 0.03), and 0.40 (P = 0.02), respectively, for SphygmoCor, and 0.15 (P = 0.41), 0.23 (P = 0.20), and 0.53 (P = 0.002), respectively, for Omron.

CONCLUSION

If the invasive catheter measurement would be considered as standard, the two noninvasive devices have similar accuracy in the estimation of pressure amplification, but apparently require device-specific criteria for diagnosis. Pulse pressure ratio seems to be a more consistent measure of central-to-brachial pressure amplification.