Beta-adrenergic blockade decreases norepinephrine release in humans

Neurogenic hyperadrenergic orthostatic hypotension: a newly recognized variant of orthostatic hypotension in older adults with elevated norepinephrine (noradrenaline)

Patients with neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (OH) typically have impaired sympathetic nervous system tone and therefore low levels of upright plasma norepinephrine (NE) (noradrenaline). We report a subset of patients who clinically have typical neurogenic OH but who paradoxically have elevated upright levels of plasma NE. We retrospectively studied 83 OH patients evaluated at the Vanderbilt Autonomic Dysfunction Center between August 2007 and May 2013. Based on standing NE, patients were dichotomized into a hyperadrenergic OH group [hyperOH: upright NE ≥ 3.55 nmol/l (600 pg/ml), n=19] or a non-hyperadrenergic OH group [nOH: upright NE < 3.55 nmol/l (600 pg/ml), n=64]. Medical history and data from autonomic testing, including the Valsalva manoeuvre (VM), were analysed. HyperOH patients had profound orthostatic falls in blood pressure (BP), but less severe than in nOH [change in SBP (systolic blood pressure): -53 ± 31 mmHg compared with -68 ± 33 mmHg, P=0.050; change in DBP (diastolic blood pressure): -18 ± 23 mmHg compared with -30 ± 17 mmHg, P=0.01]. The expected compensatory increase in standing heart rate (HR) was similarly blunted in both hyperOH and nOH groups [84 ± 15 beats per minute (bpm) compared with 82 ± 14 bpm; P=0.6]. HyperOH patients had less severe sympathetic failure as evidenced by smaller falls in DBP during phase 2 of VM and a shorter VM phase 4 BP recovery time (16.5 ± 8.9 s compared with 31.6 ± 16.6 s; P<0.001) than nOH patients. Neurogenic hyperOH patients have severe neurogenic OH, but have less severe adrenergic dysfunction than nOH patients. Further work is required to understand whether hyperOH patients will progress to nOH or whether this represents a different disorder.

Cardiac-specific norepinephrine mass transport and its relationship to left ventricular size and systolic performance

Objectives of this study were to develop a technique for quantifying cardiac-specific norepinephrine (NE) mass transport and determine whether cardiac NE kinetic modeling parameters were related to physiological variables of left ventricular (LV) size and systolic performance in nine patients with chronic mitral regurgitation. Biplane contrast cineventriculograms were used to determine LV size and ejection fraction (EF), micromanometer LV pressures and radionuclide LV volumes from a range of loading conditions to calculate LV end-systolic elastance, and [(3)H]NE infusions with LV and coronary sinus sampling for [(3)H]NE and endogenous NE during and after termination of infusions to model NE mass transport. Total NE release rate into cardiac interstitial fluid (M(IF)(R)) averaged 859 +/- 214 and NE released de novo into cardiac interstitial fluid (M(IF)(u,r,en)) averaged 546 +/- 174 pmol/min. Both M(IF)(R) and M(IF)(u,r,en)correlated directly with LV end-systolic volume (r = 0.84, P = 0.005; r = 0.86, P = 0.003); inversely with LV EFs (r = -0.75, P = 0.02; r = -0.81, P = 0.008); and inversely with LV end-systolic elastance values, optimally fit by a nonlinear function (r = 0.89, P = 0.04; r = 0.96, P = 0.01). We conclude that total and newly released NE into interstitial fluid of the heart, determined by regional mass transport kinetic model, are specific measures of regional cardiac-specific sympathetic nervous system activity and are strongly related to measures of LV size and systolic performance. These data support the concept that this new model of organ-specific NE kinetics has physiological relevance.

Intense exercise has unique effects on both insulin release and its roles in glucoregulation: implications for diabetes

In intense exercise (>80% VO(2max)), unlike at lesser intensities, glucose is the exclusive muscle fuel. It must be mobilized from muscle and liver glycogen in both the fed and fasted states. Therefore, regulation of glucose production (GP) and glucose utilization (GU) have to be different from exercise at <60% VO(2max), in which it is established that the portal glucagon-to-insulin ratio causes the less than or equal to twofold increase in GP. GU is subject to complex regulation by insulin, plasma glucose, alternate substrates, other humoral factors, and muscle factors. At lower intensities, plasma glucose is constant during postabsorptive exercise and declines during postprandial exercise (and often in persons with diabetes). During such exercise, insulin secretion is inhibited by beta-cell alpha-adrenergic receptor activation. In contrast, in intense exercise, GP rises seven- to eightfold and GU rises three- to fourfold; therefore, glycemia increases and plasma insulin decreases minimally, if at all. Indeed, even an increase in insulin during alpha-blockade or during a pancreatic clamp does not prevent this response, nor does pre-exercise hyperinsulinemia due to a prior meal or glucose infusion. At exhaustion, GU initially decreases more than GP, which leads to greater hyperglycemia, requiring a substantial rise in insulin for 40--60 min to restore pre-exercise levels. Absence of this response in type 1 diabetes leads to sustained hyperglycemia, and mimicking it by intravenous infusion restores the normal response. Compelling evidence supports the conclusion that the marked catecholamine responses to intense exercise are responsible for both the GP increment (that occurs even during glucose infusion and postprandially) and the restrained increase of GU. These responses are normal in persons with type 1 diabetes, who often report exercise-induced hyperglycemia, and in whom the clinical challenge is to reproduce the recovery period hyperinsulinemia. Intense exercise in type 2 diabetes requires additional study.

Old antihypertensive agents-diuretics and beta-blockers: do we know how and in whom they lower blood pressure?

Morbidity and mortality data that increasingly favor the use of diuretics and beta-blockers continue to accumulate. Nonetheless, the use of these agents particularly diuretics is viewed as a dated practice. The issue of which antihypertensive drug to use will remain complex and confusing as the marketing juggernauts of the pharmaceutical industry vigorously promote drug classes such as angiotensin- converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor antagonists, and calcium-channel blockers. A pharmacologic middle ground will probably be reached in the form of fixed-dose combination therapy. Diuretics and b-blockers are mechanistically rational when combined with numerous other drugs; thus, the issue of which drug should be used to begin treatment will be settled by a truce, albeit an uneasy one, favoring the increased use of fixed-dose combination antihypertensive therapy.