scholarly journals Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) and non-ACE dependent angiotensin II generation in resistance arteries from patients with heart failure and coronary heart disease

2001 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 1056-1061 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark C Petrie ◽  
Neal Padmanabhan ◽  
John E McDonald ◽  
Chris Hillier ◽  
John M.C Connell ◽  
...  
2002 ◽  
Vol 283 (4) ◽  
pp. H1424-H1429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia G. Lage ◽  
Liliane Kopel ◽  
Caio C. J. Medeiros ◽  
Ricardo T. Carvalho ◽  
Mark A. Creager

Arterial compliance is determined by structural factors, such as collagen and elastin, and functional factors, such as vasoactive neurohormones. To determine whether angiotensin II contributes to decreased arterial compliance in patients with heart failure, this study tested the hypothesis that administration of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor improves arterial compliance. Arterial compliance and stiffness were determined by measuring carotid artery diameter, using high-resolution duplex ultrasonography, and blood pressure in 23 patients with heart failure secondary to idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Measurements were made before and after intravenous administration of enalaprilat (1 mg) or vehicle. Arterial compliance was inversely related to both baseline plasma angiotensin II ( r = −0.52; P = 0.015) and angiotensin-converting enzyme concentrations ( r = −0.45; P = 0.041). During isobaric conditions, enalaprilat increased carotid artery compliance from 3.0 ± 0.4 to 5.0 ± 0.4 × 10−10N−1· m4( P = 0.001) and decreased the carotid artery stiffness index from 17.5 ± 1.8 to 10.1 ± 0.6 units ( P = 0.001), whereas the vehicle had no effect. Thus angiotensin II is associated with reduced carotid arterial compliance in patients with congestive heart failure, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition improves arterial elastic properties. This favorable effect on the pulsatile component of afterload may contribute to the improvement in left ventricular performance that occurs in patients with heart failure treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.


2017 ◽  
Vol 313 (4) ◽  
pp. R410-R417 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo R. Azevedo ◽  
Susanna Mak ◽  
John S. Floras ◽  
John D. Parker

The beneficial effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II (ANG II) receptor antagonists in patients with heart failure secondary to reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are felt to result from prevention of the adverse effects of ANG II on systemic afterload and renal homeostasis. However, ANG II can activate the sympathetic nervous system, and part of the beneficial effects of ACE inhibitors and ANG II antagonists may result from their ability to inhibit such activation. We examined the acute effects of the ACE inhibitor captopril (25 mg, n = 9) and the ANG II receptor antagonist losartan (50 mg, n = 10) on hemodynamics as well as total body and cardiac norepinephrine spillover in patients with chronic HFrEF. Hemodynamic and neurochemical measurements were made at baseline and at 1, 2, and 4 h after oral dosing. Administration of both drugs caused significant reductions in systemic arterial, cardiac filling, and pulmonary artery pressures ( P < 0.05 vs. baseline). There was no significant difference in the magnitude of those hemodynamic effects. Plasma concentrations of ANG II were significantly decreased by captopril and increased by losartan ( P < 0.05 vs. baseline for both). Total body sympathetic activity increased in response to both captopril and losartan ( P < 0.05 vs. baseline for both); however, there was no change in cardiac sympathetic activity in response to either drug. The results of the present study do not support the hypothesis that the acute inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system has sympathoinhibitory effects in patients with chronic HFrEF.


2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 791-799
Author(s):  
M. M. Dolzhenko ◽  
S. A. Bondarchuk

The aim of the work – to analyze the effectiveness of a fixed combination of amlodipine and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (lisinopril) or angiotensin II receptor blocker (valsartan) in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD), post-infarction cardiosclerosis (PIC), arterial hypertension (AH) regarding the blood pressure (BP) control and impact on a composite endpoint. Materials and methods. General clinical examination of 108 patients with PIC and AH was done at the Cardiology Department of Shupyk National Healthcare University of Ukraine within 12 months. Patients were divided into two groups. The first group patients (n = 50) were assigned to receive a fixed combination of valsartan and amlodipine (160 mg and 5 mg, respectively), and the second group patients (n = 58) were treated with a fixed combination of lisinopril and amlodipine (10 mg and 5 mg, respectively). Patients were followed-up for 12 months, including general clinical examination, office BP measurements, 24-hour BP monitoring, echodopplerography, monitoring of the composite endpoint. Exclusion criteria were hemodynamically significant heart valve lesions, permanent or temporary cardiac pacing, acute heart failure and implanted cardioverter-defibrillator, permanent form of atrial fibrillation, acute cerebrovascular disorder, decompensation of severe somatic pathology. Statistical analysis of the data obtained was performed using Microsoft Excel, IBM SPSS Statistics v. 23. Descriptive data were presented as arithmetic mean ± standard deviation (M ± SD) in the case of normal distribution of variables, data with distribution other than normal were presented in Me format (Q25; Q75), where Me was the median, Q25, Q75 – lower and upper quartiles (Q25; Q75), or as a percentage for categorical values with Pearson’s Chi-square (χ2) calculation. Differences in mean values were considered statistically significant at a level of Р < 0.05. Results. According to all statistical criteria, BP indicators did not differ in both patient groups. Systolic office BP in the first group was 133.00 (123.00; 140.25) mm Hg., in the second group – 130.00 (122.00; 140.00) mm Hg. In the first group, diastolic office BP was 81.00 (79.50; 81.00) mm Hg and in the second group – 80.00 (75.00; 86.00) mm Hg. No statistically significant differen­ces were found in the study groups when assessing mean BP levels during the 24-hour monitoring. In the assessment of index values, systolic BP load was higher than normal in 58 % of patients in the first group and in 56.9 % of patients in the second group (χ2 = 0.01; P = 0.53). The assessment of diastolic BP load indices revealed increased diastolic BP index in 72 % of patient in the first group and in 75.9 % – in the second group (χ2 = 0.2; P = 0.4). The number of patients with BP higher or less than 130/80 mm Hg was compared. Systolic BP was above and below 130 mm Hg in 56 % and 44 %, respectively, of the first group patients; the distribution was 37.9 % and 62.1 % in the second group. Therefore, the percentage of patients with target systolic BP was higher in the second group (χ2 = 3.52; P = 0.046). Analyzing the composite endpoint, a statistically significant difference in the Kaplan–Meier curves via the statistical criterion using a log-rank test (P = 0.007) was detected. Conclusions. No statistically significant differences were found in the analysis of office blood pressure and 24-hour blood pressure monitoring between amlodipine with lisinopril and amlodipine with valsartan groups. The detailed analysis revealed a greater percentage of patients with target blood pressure below 130/80 mm Hg among those under 65 years of age receiving amlodipine with lisinopril (χ2 = 3.52; P = 0.046). The better prognostic value of the fixed combination of amlodipine with lisinopril compared to the combination of amlodipine with valsartan (P = 0.007) was demonstrated by the endpoint analysis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document