TY - JOUR
T1 - Olmesartan, But Not Amlodipine, Improves Endothelium-Dependent Coronary Dilation in Hypertensive Patients
AU - Naya, Masanao
AU - Tsukamoto, Takahiro
AU - Morita, Koichi
AU - Katoh, Chietsugu
AU - Furumoto, Tomoo
AU - Fujii, Satoshi
AU - Tamaki, Nagara
AU - Tsutsui, Hiroyuki
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was supported by grants-in-aid from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, Japan, and from Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd., and by the Research Grant for Cardiovascular Diseases (16C-8) from the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare, Japan.
PY - 2007/9/18
Y1 - 2007/9/18
N2 - Objectives: We aimed to compare the effects of the angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) olmesartan versus the calcium channel blocker (CCB) amlodipine on coronary endothelial dysfunction in patients with hypertension. Background: Angiotensin II receptor blockers are thought to have greater beneficial effects than CCBs on coronary vasomotion by directly blocking action of angiotensin II. Methods: Twenty-six patients with untreated essential hypertension were prospectively assigned to treatment with either olmesartan (27.7 ± 12.4 mg/day, n = 13) or amlodipine (5.6 ± 1.5 mg/day, n = 13) for 12 weeks. Changes of corrected myocardial blood flow (ΔMBF) and coronary vascular resistance (ΔCVR) from rest to cold pressor were measured by using 15O-water and positron emission tomography before and after treatment. Blood biomarkers including lipids, glucose, insulin, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and superoxide dismutase (SOD) were also measured. Results: Olmesartan and amlodipine reduced blood pressure (BP) to the same extent (-28.7 ± 16.2 mm Hg vs. -26.7 ± 10.8 mm Hg). In the olmesartan group, ΔMBF tended to be greater (-0.15 ± 0.19 ml/g/min vs. 0.03 ± 0.17 ml/g/min, p = 0.09 by 2-way analysis of variance), and ΔCVR was significantly decreased (7.9 ± 23.5 mm Hg/[ml/g/min] vs. -16.6 ± 18.0 mm Hg/[ml/g/min], p < 0.05) after treatment, whereas these parameters did not change in the amlodipine group (ΔMBF: -0.15 ± 0.12 ml/g/min vs. -0.12 ± 0.20 ml/g/min; ΔCVR: 6.5 ± 18.2 mm Hg/[ml/g/min] vs. 4.8 ± 23.4 mm Hg/[ml/g/min]). Serum SOD activity tended to increase (4.74 ± 4.77 U/ml vs. 5.57 ± 4.74 U/ml, p = 0.07 by 2-way analysis of variance) only in the olmesartan group. Conclusions: Olmesartan, but not amlodipine, improved endothelium-dependent coronary dilation in hypertensive patients independent of BP reduction. These beneficial effects on coronary vasomotion might be via an antioxidant property of ARBs.
AB - Objectives: We aimed to compare the effects of the angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) olmesartan versus the calcium channel blocker (CCB) amlodipine on coronary endothelial dysfunction in patients with hypertension. Background: Angiotensin II receptor blockers are thought to have greater beneficial effects than CCBs on coronary vasomotion by directly blocking action of angiotensin II. Methods: Twenty-six patients with untreated essential hypertension were prospectively assigned to treatment with either olmesartan (27.7 ± 12.4 mg/day, n = 13) or amlodipine (5.6 ± 1.5 mg/day, n = 13) for 12 weeks. Changes of corrected myocardial blood flow (ΔMBF) and coronary vascular resistance (ΔCVR) from rest to cold pressor were measured by using 15O-water and positron emission tomography before and after treatment. Blood biomarkers including lipids, glucose, insulin, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and superoxide dismutase (SOD) were also measured. Results: Olmesartan and amlodipine reduced blood pressure (BP) to the same extent (-28.7 ± 16.2 mm Hg vs. -26.7 ± 10.8 mm Hg). In the olmesartan group, ΔMBF tended to be greater (-0.15 ± 0.19 ml/g/min vs. 0.03 ± 0.17 ml/g/min, p = 0.09 by 2-way analysis of variance), and ΔCVR was significantly decreased (7.9 ± 23.5 mm Hg/[ml/g/min] vs. -16.6 ± 18.0 mm Hg/[ml/g/min], p < 0.05) after treatment, whereas these parameters did not change in the amlodipine group (ΔMBF: -0.15 ± 0.12 ml/g/min vs. -0.12 ± 0.20 ml/g/min; ΔCVR: 6.5 ± 18.2 mm Hg/[ml/g/min] vs. 4.8 ± 23.4 mm Hg/[ml/g/min]). Serum SOD activity tended to increase (4.74 ± 4.77 U/ml vs. 5.57 ± 4.74 U/ml, p = 0.07 by 2-way analysis of variance) only in the olmesartan group. Conclusions: Olmesartan, but not amlodipine, improved endothelium-dependent coronary dilation in hypertensive patients independent of BP reduction. These beneficial effects on coronary vasomotion might be via an antioxidant property of ARBs.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34548497917&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34548497917&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.06.013
DO - 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.06.013
M3 - Article
C2 - 17868805
AN - SCOPUS:34548497917
SN - 0735-1097
VL - 50
SP - 1144
EP - 1149
JO - Journal of the American College of Cardiology
JF - Journal of the American College of Cardiology
IS - 12
ER -