Polónia Jorge, Barbosa Loide, Silva José Alberto, Bertoquini Susana
Faculdade de Medicina do Porto, Hospital Pedro Hispano, Matosinhos, Porto, Portugal.
Blood Press Monit. 2010 Oct;15(5):235-9. doi: 10.1097/MBP.0b013e32833c8a64.
It is unclear whether the assumed inferiority of atenolol to reduce central (aortic) blood pressure (BP) extends to other β-blockers with vasodilating properties and, within that scope, how these drugs differ from the angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs).
In a retrospective study, we compared three groups of hypertensive patients (aged 35-65 years) chronically treated with either ARBs (n=83, group 1), carvedilol/nebivolol (n=75, 25+25 mg/day/5 mg/day, group 2) or atenolol (n=84, 50-100 mg/day, group 3), matched for age (mean 52 years), sex (61% female), brachial BP and concomitant use of diuretics (75-81%)and dihydropyridine calcium antagonists (27-33%). We measured aortic stiffness by pulse wave velocity (Complior), and central BP, central-peripheral pulse pressure amplification, wave reflection [augmentation index (AIx) corrected for heart rate] and augmentation pressure (Sphygmocor).
For similar age, sex distribution, brachial BP levels (145/85±11/10 mmHg) and pulse wave velocity (10±2 m/s), the atenolol group showed significantly (P<0.03 analysis of variance) higher central systolic BP (139±9 mmHg) versus group 2 (135±10 mmHg) and group 1 (132±11 mmHg), higher AIx (34±12%) versus group 2 (27±7%) and group 1 (23.0±9%), lower pulse pressure amplification (1.16±0.09) versus group 2 (1.22±0.10) and group 1 (1.31±0.11) and lower heart rate beats/min (61±9) versus group 2 (69±11) and group 1 (82±11). The differences on these values, between group 2 and group 1, were also significant (P<0.04). After adjustment for the heart rate, AIx became similar in groups 2 and 1, but still lower (P<0.04) than the atenolol group.
These findings suggest that, for similar brachial BP and aortic stiffness, treatment with either vasodilating β-blockers or angiotensin receptor blockers associates with lower central systolic BP and wave reflections than treatment with atenolol. These findings may suggest that the vasodilating β-blockers may exert more favourable central haemodynamic effects, compared with atenolol, which are more alike, although not completely equal, to those of the ARBs.
阿替洛尔在降低中心(主动脉)血压方面是否逊于其他具有血管舒张特性的β受体阻滞剂尚不清楚,在此范围内,这些药物与血管紧张素受体阻滞剂(ARB)有何不同也不明确。
在一项回顾性研究中,我们比较了三组年龄在35 - 65岁的高血压患者,他们长期接受ARB治疗(n = 83,第1组)、卡维地洛/奈必洛尔治疗(n = 75,25 + 25毫克/天/5毫克/天,第2组)或阿替洛尔治疗(n = 84,50 - 100毫克/天,第3组)。三组患者在年龄(平均52岁)、性别(61%为女性)、肱动脉血压以及利尿剂(75 - 81%)和二氢吡啶类钙拮抗剂(27 - 33%)的联合使用情况方面相匹配。我们通过脉搏波速度(Complior)测量主动脉僵硬度,并测量中心血压、中心 - 外周脉压放大、波反射[经心率校正的增强指数(AIx)]和增强压(Sphygmocor)。
对于年龄、性别分布、肱动脉血压水平(145/85±11/10 mmHg)和脉搏波速度(10±2 m/s)相似的患者,阿替洛尔组的中心收缩压(139±9 mmHg)显著高于第2组(135±10 mmHg)和第1组(132±11 mmHg)(方差分析,P<0.03),AIx高于第2组(27±7%)和第1组(23.0±9%)(34±12%),脉压放大低于第2组(1.22±0.10)和第1组(1.31±0.11)(1.16±0.09),心率低于第2组(69±11)和第1组(82±11)(61±9次/分钟)。第2组和第1组在这些值上的差异也具有统计学意义(P<0.04)。在对心率进行校正后,第2组和第1组的AIx变得相似,但仍低于阿替洛尔组(P<0.04)。
这些发现表明,对于相似的肱动脉血压和主动脉僵硬度,与阿替洛尔相比,使用血管舒张性β受体阻滞剂或血管紧张素受体阻滞剂治疗与更低的中心收缩压和波反射相关。这些发现可能表明,与阿替洛尔相比,血管舒张性β受体阻滞剂可能产生更有利的中心血流动力学效应,虽然与ARB不完全相同,但更相似。