Central Blood Pressure Under Angiotensin and Calcium Channel Blockade

Abstract

HomeHypertensionVol. 54, No. 4Central Blood Pressure Under Angiotensin and Calcium Channel Blockade Free AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBCentral Blood Pressure Under Angiotensin and Calcium Channel Blockade Michel E. Safar, Athanase Protogerou and Jacques Blacher Michel E. SafarMichel E. Safar From the Université Paris Descartes (M.E.S., J.B.), Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôtel-Dieu Centre de Diagnostic et de Thérapeutique, Paris, France; Hypertension Center (A.P.), 3rd Department of Internal Medicine, Sotiria Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. Search for more papers by this author , Athanase ProtogerouAthanase Protogerou From the Université Paris Descartes (M.E.S., J.B.), Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôtel-Dieu Centre de Diagnostic et de Thérapeutique, Paris, France; Hypertension Center (A.P.), 3rd Department of Internal Medicine, Sotiria Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. Search for more papers by this author and Jacques BlacherJacques Blacher From the Université Paris Descartes (M.E.S., J.B.), Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôtel-Dieu Centre de Diagnostic et de Thérapeutique, Paris, France; Hypertension Center (A.P.), 3rd Department of Internal Medicine, Sotiria Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. Search for more papers by this author Originally published10 Aug 2009https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.109.137406Hypertension. 2009;54:704–706Other version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: August 10, 2009: Previous Version 1 Hemodynamic studies have shown that, in healthy subjects, there is a gradual widening of the height of the pressure waveform as it travels from the central (aortic) elastic arteries to the peripheral muscular arteries (brachial artery)1 (Figure). This disparity, which tends to disappear in the presence of vascular disease/aging, does not require any additional energy input within the arterial system, because the mean arterial pressure (MAP) and even the diastolic blood pressure (BP) remain almost unchanged between the 2 arterial sites. This finding is mainly attributed to the gradual increase (ie, amplification) of systolic BP (SBP) or pulse pressure (PP) along the arterial tree and is conventionally quantified as the ratio of the SBP or PP between the 2 sites (eg, SBP arm:SBP aorta)1 (Figure). Download figureDownload PowerPointFigure. Schematic personal representation of the forward and reflected pressure waves in the aorta and the influence of their timing on local PP. The definition of SBP amplification is indicated.In the present issue of Hypertension, Matsui et al2 have shown the superiority of calcium channel blockers (CCBs) over diuretics using the following protocol: the angiotensin receptor blocker olmesartan was combined with the CCB azelnidipine and compared with the same olmesartan associated with the diuretic hydrochlorothiazide. Central SBP was reduced to a greater degree with the CCB than with the hydrochlorothiazide. This resulted in an increase of SBP and PP amplification with the CCB, despite the lack of a significant difference in the brachial SBP reduction between the 2 strategies. In the past, 2 studies3,4 have tested the effects of combined antihypertensive therapies on SBP and PP amplification using an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor associated with a CCB or diuretic versus the β-blocking agent atenolol (either alone or in combination). Before commenting on the beneficial action of CCB, we briefly summarize the pharmacological effect of an angiotensin receptor blocker and/or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor on SBP and PP amplification and, finally, discuss the potential clinical implications of antihypertensive drug treatment focusing on central hemodynamics and on the cardiovascular (CV) outcomes obtained from large clinical trials.Central BP, SBP, and PP Amplification and Angiotensin II BlockadeThe BP curve consists of 2 components: a steady and nonamplifiable component, the MAP, that depends on cardiac output and peripheral arterial resistance (microcirculation) and a pulsatile and amplifiable component (ie, the PP), that depends on large artery stiffness and pressure wave reflection (macrocirculation). It is essential to notice this distinction, because the transduction mechanisms governing MAP and PP differ markedly, involving apparently either focal adhesion kinase for MAP or oxygen free radicals for PP.5Angiotensin II (ANGII) blockade is mainly associated with a reduction of vascular resistance and MAP. In contrast, the effects on central and peripheral PPs have been poorly investigated despite their well-established interactions with oxygen free radicals. Studies on animal models and humans suggest that ANGII blockade is associated with reverse remodeling of both small and large arteries via specific mechanisms, including anti-inflammatory effects and mainly change of arterial attachments linking α5ß1-integrin to its specific ligand fibronectin.6,7 Such effects are important to obtain a significant and selective reduction of central PP and arterial stiffness under ANGII blockade.6 In hypertensive rats on a low-salt diet (but not a high-salt diet), ANGII blockade by valsartan normalizes central PP (<50 mm Hg) but not MAP for the same drug dosage.7 In hypertensive subjects under ANGII blockade, carotid-brachial SBP and PP amplifications are increased. ANGII blockade improves or even normalizes the structure of small resistance arteries and, at the same time, reduces pressure wave reflections, suggesting a cause-and-effect relationship between the 2 factors.3,8 In the study by Matsui et al,2 ANGII inhibition by olmesartan may have greatly contributed to independently lower central PP and aortic stiffness. The same mechanisms are not observed under CCB blockade.6Evidence on the Mechanism of Action of a CCB on Central BP and AmplificationThe amplification phenomenon is a direct result of the distortion (ie, alteration in the morphology) of the pressure waveform as it travels distally, attributed mainly to the existence of an elasticity gradient along the arterial bed and the presence of reflected pressure waves.1 The SBP amplification is inversely related to large artery stiffness, as assessed by carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, and pressure wave reflections, as assessed by the augmentation index, a classic marker of wave reflections. The mechanism by which these parameters affect the SBP amplification is largely related to the “timing synchronization” of the forward and reflected waves and, thus, to heart rate or left ventricular ejection duration (Figure). In a large population of treated hypertensives, it has been shown recently that SBP amplification is primarily modulated by heart rate and large artery stiffness.9In the present study, Matsui et al2 have provided evidence on the mechanism of the reduction of SBP and PP amplification by a CCB, namely by reducing the pulse wave velocity and augmentation index. In line with previous findings showing that aortic stiffness is the major predictor of brachial SBP reduction,10 the present data highlight the predominant role of aortic stiffness as a predictor of central SBP reduction. The CCB is a powerful vasodilating agent, increasing the large artery diameter independent of BP reduction and of any endothelium-dependent effect.6 Reduction of pressure wave reflections is the second important mechanism of central SBP reduction by CCB.2 Although heart rate was decreased in the olmesartan/azelnidipine arm, thus favoring an earlier timing of wave reflections in systole, augmentation index was reduced. This may be explained partly by the prolonged time of return of the reflected wave because of lower pulse wave velocity. Another possibility is that the long-term drug treatment causes regression of arteriolar hypertrophy, as is usually observed under CCB treatment.3 This might cause a distal shift of reflection sites or decrease of the reflection coefficients, thus lowering amplitude of wave reflections.3 The same possibility may be observed with ANGII blockade but not with diuretic or traditional β-blocking agents given alone.3,8 Whether azelnidipine has such effects, most likely via arteriolar vasodilation and structural changes, by altering baroreflex sensitivity, or even by acting synergistically with ANGII blockade, is a possibility that merits additional exploration.Clinical Implications and PerspectivesIn clinical practice, the amplification phenomenon has potentially important clinical implications regarding CV risk assessment, stratification, and treatment.1 First, for a given brachial SBP, higher SBP amplification, per se, is associated with lower CV risk. Second, a large proportion of hypertensive subjects may be misclassified concerning their BP-associated CV risk when based solely on brachial SBP. Third, we have shown that, in treated hypertensive subjects, the effective (even optimal) control of brachial SBP is not constantly associated with normalization of central hemodynamic parameters (eg, SBP amplification, pulse wave velocity, and augmentation index), when compared with untreated normotensive subjects. This process implies the presence of residual CV risk, particularly in the coronary circulation.11Finally, recent studies have clearly indicated that central BP (or its amplification) is superior to brachial BP in terms of risk assessment. However, 2 important questions remain the object of debate. First, what is the most powerful central hemodynamic parameter predicting CV risk? Second, which central parameters might have superiority over peripheral BP in terms of CV risk reduction strategies? The topic of central hemodynamics is emerging, and more studies, particularly regarding CV outcomes, are urgently needed.The opinions expressed in this editorial are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.We thank Dr Anne Safar for helpful and stimulating discussions.DisclosuresNone.FootnotesCorrespondence to Michel E. Safar, Centre de Diagnostic et de Thérapeutique, Hôtel-Dieu, 1 Place du Parvis Notre-Dame, 75181 Paris Cedex 04, France. E-mail [email protected] References 1 Avolio A, Van Bortel L, Boutouyrie P, Cockcroft DW, McEniery CM, Protogerou AD, Roman MJ, Safar ME, Segers P, Smulyan H. The role of pulse pressure amplification in arterial hypertension: experts’ opinion and review of the data. Hypertension. 2009; 54: 375–383.LinkGoogle Scholar2 Matsui Y, Eguchi K, O'Rourke MF, Ishikawa J, Miyashita H, Shimada K, Kario K. Differential effects between a calcium channel blocker and a diuretic when used in combination with angiotensin II receptor blocker on central aortic pressure in hypertensive patients. Hypertension. 2009; 54: 716–723.LinkGoogle Scholar3 London GM, Asmar RG, O'Rourke MF, Safar ME; the REASON Project. Mechanism(s) of selective systolic blood pressure reduction after a low-dose combination of perindopril/indapamide in hypertensive subjects: comparison with atenolol. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 43: 92–99.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4 Williams B, Lacy PS, Thom SM, Cruickshank K, Stanton A, Collier D, Hughes AD, Thurston H, O'Rourke M. Differential impact of blood pressure-lowering drugs on central aortic pressure and clinical outcomes: principal results of the Conduit Artery Function Evaluation (CAFE) Study. Circulation. 2006; 113: 1213–1225.LinkGoogle Scholar5 Lehoux S, Esposito B, Merval R, Tedgui A. Differential regulation of vascular focal adhesion kinase by steady stretch and pulsatility. Circulation. 2005; 111: 643–649.LinkGoogle Scholar6 Kakou A, Bézie Y, Mercier N, Louis H, Labat C, Challande P, Lacolley P, Safar ME. Selective reduction of central pulse pressure under angiotensin blockage in SHR: role of the fibronectin–α5β1 integrin complex. Am J Hypertens. 2009; 22: 711–717.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7 Labat C, Lacolley P, Lajemi M, de Gasparo M, Safar ME, Benetos A. Effects of valsartan on mechanical properties of the carotid artery in spontaneously hypertensive rats under high-salt diet. Hypertension. 2001; 38: 439–443.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8 Agabiti-Rosei E, Heagerty AM, Rizzoni D. Effects of antihypertensive treatment on small artery remodelling. J Hypertens. 2009; 27: 1107–1114.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9 Safar ME, Blacher J, Protogerou A, Achimastos A. Arterial stiffness and central hemodynamics in treated hypertensive subjects according to brachial blood pressure classification. J Hypertens. 2008; 26: 130–137.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10 Protogerou A, Blacher J, Stergiou GS, Achimastos A, Safar ME. Blood pressure response under chronic antihypertensive drug therapy: the role of aortic stiffness in the REASON (Preterax in Regression of Arterial Stiffness in a Controlled Double-Blind) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 53: 445–451.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11 Blacher J, Evans A, Arveiler D, Amouyel P, Ferrieres J, Bingham A, Yarnell J, Haas B, Montaye M, Ruidavets JB, Ducimetieere P. Residual cardiovascular risk in treated hypertension and hyperlipemia: the PRIME Study. J Hum Hypertens. Epub ahead of print May 28, 2009. DOI: 10.1038/jhh.2009.34.Google Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Thomas G and Drawz P (2018) BP Measurement Techniques, Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 10.2215/CJN.12551117, 13:7, (1124-1131), Online publication date: 6-Jul-2018. Fujiwara T, Yano Y, Hoshide S, Kanegae H, Hashimoto J and Kario K (2018) Association Between Change in Central Nocturnal Blood Pressure and Urine Albumin–Creatinine Ratio by a Valsartan/Amlodipine Combination: A CPET Study, American Journal of Hypertension, 10.1093/ajh/hpy078, 31:9, (995-1001), Online publication date: 3-Aug-2018. Joseph J, Sree T, Boobalan C, Sivaprakasam M and Shah M (2014) Image-free evaluation of carotid artery stiffness using ARTSENS: A repeatability study 2014 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 10.1109/EMBC.2014.6944697, 978-1-4244-7929-0, (4799-4802) Takase B and Nagata M (2013) A Low Fixed-dose Combination of Olmesartan and Azelnidipine Significantly Improves Endothelial Function in Uncontrolled Hypertension by Low Dose Amlodipine, Journal of the Japanese Coronary Association, 10.7793/jcoron.19.533, 19:4, (333-338), . Nistala R and Sowers J (2012) Synergy of antihypertensives in elderly patients with CKD, Nature Reviews Nephrology, 10.1038/nrneph.2012.264, 9:1, (13-15), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2013. October 2009Vol 54, Issue 4 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.109.137406PMID: 19667254 Originally publishedAugust 10, 2009 Keywordsantihypertensive therapycentral blood pressurepulse pressure amplificationPDF download Advertisement SubjectsClinical Studies