Georgianos Panagiotis I, Agarwal Rajiv
Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine and Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Administration Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine and Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Administration Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015 Apr 7;10(4):639-45. doi: 10.2215/CJN.09981014. Epub 2015 Mar 17.
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.
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).
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.
血压降低时动脉顺应性的改善是仅由于血压降低,还是降压药物的多效性作用也有贡献,目前尚不清楚。研究假设是,在血液透析患者中,与β受体阻滞剂(阿替洛尔)相比,基于赖诺普利的治疗方案能更好地降低动脉僵硬度。
设计、地点、参与者及测量方法:在接受阿替洛尔或赖诺普利治疗的血液透析患者高血压试验的200名参与者中,179例在基线时对主动脉脉搏波速度有有效评估的患者(89例随机分配至开放标签的赖诺普利组,90例随机分配至透析后每周三次阿替洛尔组)纳入二次分析。其中,109例患者在6个月时有有效的脉搏波速度测量值。通过加用降压药物和调整干体重,将每月测量的家庭血压目标设定为<140/90 mmHg。分析从基线到6个月主动脉脉搏波速度百分比变化的药物间差异。
与假设相反,相对于赖诺普利,基于阿替洛尔的治疗使主动脉脉搏波速度降低幅度更大(药物间差异为14.8%;95%置信区间为1.5%至28.5%;P = 0.03)。两组间44小时动态收缩压和舒张压的降低无差异(中位数[第25、75百分位数];阿替洛尔:-21.5[-37.7,-7.6]与赖诺普利:-15.8[-28.8,-1.5] mmHg;收缩压P = 0.27;舒张压分别为-14.1[-22.6,-5.3]与-10.9[-18.4,-0.9] mmHg;P = 0.30)。在对年龄、性别、种族、其他心血管危险因素和基线动态收缩压进行调整后,主动脉脉搏波速度变化的药物间差异仍然存在,但在对动态收缩压变化进行调整后消失(11.8%;95%置信区间为-2.3%至25.9%;P = 0.10)。
在透析患者中,阿替洛尔在改善动脉僵硬度方面更具优势。然而,阿替洛尔和赖诺普利在血液透析患者中改善主动脉僵硬度的差异可能由药物的降压作用来解释。