Jekell Andreas, Kalani Majid, Kahan Thomas
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, 182 88, Stockholm, Sweden.
Department of Cardiology, Danderyd University Hospital Corp, Stockholm, Sweden.
Heart Vessels. 2019 Mar;34(3):484-495. doi: 10.1007/s00380-018-1265-7. Epub 2018 Sep 22.
There are several non-invasive methods to study endothelial function, but their interrelation and association to cardiovascular risk have not been well evaluated. We studied macrovascular and microvascular endothelial function simultaneously in different vascular beds in relation to cardiovascular mortality risk (Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation, SCORE) and hypertension induced cardiac organ damage, and their interrelationship. The study investigated 71 hypertensive patients by forearm post-ischemic flow-mediated vasodilation, pulse wave analysis (applanation tonometry) and beta 2-adrenoceptor agonist stimulation for changes in reflection index, skin microvascular reactivity by laser Doppler fluxmetry with iontophoresis and heat-induced hyperaemia, and coronary microvascular function by subendocardial viability ratio (derived from pulse wave analysis). Flow mediated vasodilation related inversely to SCORE (r = 0.34, P = 0.011). Adding microalbuminuria and pulse wave velocity strengthened the associations. Pulse wave reflection changes did not relate to SCORE. Skin microvascular reactivity related inversely to SCORE (peak flux change to sodium nitroprusside r = 0.29, P = 0.033, and to heating r = 0.31, P = 0.018). Subendocardial viability ratio did not relate to SCORE. Endothelial function indices showed no consistent relation to cardiac target organ damage. The agreement between the different methods for evaluating indices of macrovascular and microvascular endothelial function was weak. In conclusion, indices of macrovascular and microvascular endothelial function relate to cardiovascular mortality risk. Their use may improve cardiovascular risk prediction in hypertension. However, methods representing different vascular beds show little interrelationship and are not interchangeable, which may depend on different pathogenetic mechanisms representing different aspects of future cardiovascular risk.Trial registry: NCT02901977.
有几种非侵入性方法可用于研究内皮功能,但它们之间的相互关系以及与心血管风险的关联尚未得到充分评估。我们同时研究了不同血管床的大血管和微血管内皮功能与心血管死亡风险(系统性冠状动脉风险评估,SCORE)以及高血压所致心脏器官损害之间的关系及其相互关系。该研究通过前臂缺血后血流介导的血管舒张、脉搏波分析(压平式眼压测量法)以及β2肾上腺素能受体激动剂刺激以观察反射指数的变化、采用离子电渗疗法和热诱导充血的激光多普勒血流仪测量皮肤微血管反应性,以及通过心内膜下存活比率(源自脉搏波分析)评估冠状动脉微血管功能,对71例高血压患者进行了研究。血流介导的血管舒张与SCORE呈负相关(r = -0.34,P = 0.011)。加入微量白蛋白尿和脉搏波速度后,这种关联得到加强。脉搏波反射变化与SCORE无关。皮肤微血管反应性与SCORE呈负相关(硝普钠引起的峰值血流变化r = -0.29,P = 0.033,加热引起的r = -0.31,P = 0.018)。心内膜下存活比率与SCORE无关。内皮功能指标与心脏靶器官损害之间未显示出一致的关系。评估大血管和微血管内皮功能指标的不同方法之间的一致性较弱。总之,大血管和微血管内皮功能指标与心血管死亡风险相关。它们的应用可能会改善高血压患者的心血管风险预测。然而,代表不同血管床的方法之间相互关系甚微且不可互换,这可能取决于代表未来心血管风险不同方面的不同发病机制。试验注册号:NCT02901977。