Pulsology Reloaded

Abstract

HomeHypertensionVol. 49, No. 6Pulsology Reloaded Free AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBPulsology ReloadedCommentary on Similar Effects of Treatment on Central and Brachial Blood Pressure in Older Hypertensive Subjects Vittorio Palmieri, Riccardo Pini and Maria Chiara Cavallini Vittorio PalmieriVittorio Palmieri From the Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine (V.P.), “Federico II” University Hospital, Naples, Italy; and the Department of Critical Care Medicine and Surgery (R.P., M.C.C.), University of Florence and Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria “Careggi,” Florence, Italy. Search for more papers by this author , Riccardo PiniRiccardo Pini From the Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine (V.P.), “Federico II” University Hospital, Naples, Italy; and the Department of Critical Care Medicine and Surgery (R.P., M.C.C.), University of Florence and Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria “Careggi,” Florence, Italy. Search for more papers by this author and Maria Chiara CavalliniMaria Chiara Cavallini From the Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine (V.P.), “Federico II” University Hospital, Naples, Italy; and the Department of Critical Care Medicine and Surgery (R.P., M.C.C.), University of Florence and Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria “Careggi,” Florence, Italy. Search for more papers by this author Originally published30 Apr 2007https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.107.089953Hypertension. 2007;49:1210–1212Other version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: April 30, 2007: Previous Version 1 The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) Study,1 the Second Australian National Blood Pressure Trial (ANBP2),2 and the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiovascular Outcome Trials3 have shown that different antihypertensive treatments may have different impacts on the rate of events in hypertension while achieving comparable brachial blood pressure (BP) reduction. Thus, although brachial BP estimation by classic Riva–Rocci cuff sphygmomanometer and the Korotkoff auscultatory technique have provided almost all of our knowledge on epidemiology, prognosis, and treatment of hypertension,4,5 recent trials1–3 are revealing intrinsic limitations of the conventional approach, because the real goal of treatment in hypertension is the reduction in the number and the rate of untoward events.More recently, the Conduit Artery Function Evaluation (CAFE) Study6 described higher central BP as a key factor explaining the greater number and rate of events with atenolol than with amlodipine plus perindopril. Central pressure waveform and BP values can be estimated by applanation tonometry, a method supported by solid theoretical principles and modeling studies in experimental settings.7 Analysis of the systolic portion of the carotid pressure waveform allows for obtaining indices of the arterial viscous-elastic properties that correlate with end-organ damage and clinical outcomes in hypertension.8 Therefore, the indices of arterial waveform reflection and mechanics and central BP assessed by applanation tonometry have the potential to add significant information for risk stratification beyond and above brachial BP. In fact, the conclusions of the CAFE Study were well received.9 In addition, applanation tonometry has also been associated with 2D-guided M-mode vascular ultrasonography to assess simultaneously the viscous-elastic properties of the carotid artery, the intima–media thickness, and quantification of atherosclerosis.8 Assessment of cardiovascular target organ damage is curial for a global risk assessment integrating the staging of hypertension by measures of BP.5In this issue of Hypertension, Dart et al10 reported that hydrochlorothiazide and enalapril, at doses that caused comparable brachial BP reduction, had similar impact on central BP. Thus, the authors concluded that central BP was not the factor explaining the better outcome in hypertensive subjects randomly assigned to enalapril than in those randomly assigned to hydrochlorothiazide reported previously in the main ANBP2 Study.2 Dart et al10 evaluated 479 older hypertensive subjects from the larger ANBP2 Study,2 who had paired evaluations of brachial and central BP at baseline after 4 years of antihypertensive treatment.10 Questions arise. How strong is the evidence that different antihypertensive treatments may have substantially different impacts on central and brachial BPs? Furthermore, is central BP the only determinant of different outcome associated with different antihypertensive treatments achieving comparable BP reduction? Is the case of ANPB210 compared with CAFE6 a matter of taking the “blue pill” or the “red pill,” as in the cult movie Matrix?Antihypertensive treatment was significantly different between the CAFE (amlodipine plus perindopril versus atenolol plus bendroflumethiazide potassium6) and the ANBP2 substudy (hydrochlorothiazide versus enalapril10), which may have contributed to the discrepancy. An early study in a small sample of patients with hypertension with age comprised between 65 and 85 years showed that traditional β-1 adrenoreceptor block was able to reduce brachial but not central BP compared with placebo.11 However, another previous small study showed that perindopril and atenolol were both efficacious in reducing central BP, although by different mechanisms.12Notably, Morgan et al used radial applanation tonometry to derive central pressure waveform and estimate central BP,11 whereas Pannier et al12 used carotid applanation tonometry for a direct reproduction of the central pressure waveform. The CAFE Study6 used radial applanation tonometry and pulse wave analysis to back calculate central BP,13 applying the notion that pulse pressure increases from central to periphery.14 In fact, in the CAFE Study, central pulse pressure was lower than its brachial counterpart. In contrast, in the ANBP2, central BP was estimated by carotid applanation tonometry.10,15 Interestingly, in the current study by Dart et al,10 brachial pulse pressure tended to be equal or even lower than central pulse pressure, which may raise concern and certainly fuels debate on the reliability of those measurements. On the other hand, on a theoretical basis, it may be argued that the radial applanation tonometry detects a difference between central and peripheral BP, because it extrapolates central BP by the transfer function13 in which a difference between the 2 BPs is built in. In addition, participants in the ANBP2 substudy by Dart et al10 were, on average, 10 years older than those evaluated in the CAFE Study,6 which may have contributed to the differences in findings between the 2 studies, because it is known that the difference between central and peripheral BP becomes smaller with older age.16 Moreover, end-study brachial BP was significantly lower in the CAFE Study6 than in the ANBP2 substudy10; mean BP contributes to passive arterial stiffness, which may have, in turn, blunted a potential response of central BP to antihypertensive treatments in the ANBP2 substudy.10 Furthermore, the study by Dart et al10 is based on a pairwise design, whereas the CAFE Study6 included patients who reached end points. Previously, Dart et al15 showed that brachial, and not central, BP was related to total fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events in the ANBP2; therefore, the authors commented that the pairwise design did not introduce significant survival effects in the present ANBP2 substudy.10 Notwithstanding, in the present ANBP2 substudy,10 the lack of difference in outcome by study design between the treatment arms might have selected negatively those at higher risk of fatal cardiovascular events because of higher central BP. Thus, at the moment, we have 2 different trials offering 2 different results.A crucial issue is whether central BP is better than brachial BP as a predictor of cardiovascular outcome in hypertension. In the CAFE Study,6 in Cox proportional-hazard models adjusted for age and baseline risk factors, central pulse pressure was only slightly better than brachial pulse pressure as a predictor of the composite end points, including development of renal impairment, a peculiarity of that study. Moreover, in the CAFE Study,6 the augmentation index, a parameter potentially relevant to represent mechanistically the different impact of atenolol versus amlodipine plus perindopril on cardiovascular outcome in hypertension,12 was not stronger than central pulse pressure as a predictor of events. Preliminary data from the Strong Heart Study supported the superiority of central over brachial BP as an independent predictor of cardiovascular outcome.17 Nevertheless, wider brachial pulse pressure was associated with higher cardiovascular mortality independent of traditional risk factors, left ventricular hypertrophy, and depressed ejection fraction in Strong Heart Study participants without overt coronary heart disease.18In hypertension, other factors may help explaining different outcomes with different treatments. Hypertension is associated with cardiovascular organ target damage, in turn related to increased risk of atherothrombosis, that is, stroke and myocardial infarction,19 the most common cardiovascular events associated with higher BP.20 In the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study, only a small part of the benefit of the treatment with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ramipril could be attributed to the magnitude of the brachial BP reduction; it is likely that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors exert additional effects on the cardiovascular system that may include antagonizing the direct effects of angiotensin II on vasoconstriction, the proliferation of vascular smooth muscle cells and rupture of plaques, improving vascular endothelial function, reducing left ventricular and carotid remodeling, and enhancing fibrinolysis.21 In the LIFE Study, losartan was more efficacious than atenolol essentially in stroke prevention,1,22 a typical manifestation of atherothrombosis, particularly in diabetic patients with hypertension, and independent of brachial BP reduction.23 This may relate to mechanisms including more beneficial impact of losartan over atenolol on new-onset diabetes, left ventricular hypertrophy regression, left atrial diameter, new-onset and recurrence of atrial fibrillation, impact on vascular structure and mechanics, thrombus formation, and platelet aggregation.24Therefore, we may need to reload pulsology and wait for more evidence on whether central BP is or is not the factor explaining different outcomes with different antihypertensive treatment above and beyond BP reduction. Meanwhile, we should lower our patients’ brachial BP to the recommended targets and prescribe antihypertensive treatment taking into account hypertension-associated clinical conditions, especially in older patients, patients with diabetes, and in those with known target organ damage,4,5 in whom angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and/or angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers reduce the rate of cardiovascular events beyond and above brachial BP reduction.1–3,6The opinions expressed in this editorial are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.DisclosuresNone.FootnotesCorrespondence to Vittorio Palmieri, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, “Federico II” University Hospital, via Pansini 5, Edificio 1A, Naples, 80131, Italy. E-mail [email protected] References 1 Dahlöf B, Devereux RB, Kjeldsen SE, Julius S, Beevers G, Faire U, Fyhrquist F, Ibsen H, Kristiansson K, Lederballe-Pedersen O, Lindholm LH, Nieminen MS, Omvik P, Oparil S, Wedel H. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol. Lancet. 2002; 359: 995–1003.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2 Wing LM, Reid CM, Ryan P, Beilin LJ, Brown MA, Jennings GL, Johnston CI, McNeil JJ, Macdonald GJ, Marley JE, Morgan TO, West MJ. A comparison of outcomes with angiotensin-converting–enzyme inhibitors and diuretics for hypertension in the elderly. N Engl J Med. 2003; 348: 583–592.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3 Dahlof B, Sever PS, Poulter NR, Wedel H, Beevers DG, Caulfield M, Collins R, Kjeldsen SE, Kristinsson A, McInnes GT, Mehlsen J, Nieminen M, O’Brien E, Ostergren J. Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihypertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding bendroflumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005; 366: 895–906.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4 Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, Cushman WC, Green LA, Izzo JL Jr, Jones DW, Materson BJ, Oparil S, Wright JT Jr, Roccella EJ. Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Hypertension. 2003; 42: 1206–1252.LinkGoogle Scholar5 2003 European Society of Hypertension-European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. J Hypertens. 2003; 21: 1011–1053.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6 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 Scholar7 Kelly R, Karamanoglu M, Gibbs HH, Avolio A, O’Rourke M. Noninvasive carotid artery pressure wave registration as an indicator of ascending aortic pressure. J Vasc Med Biol. 1989; 1: 241–247.Google Scholar8 Boutouyrie P, Tropeano AI, Asmar R, Gautier I, Benetos A, Lacolley P, Laurent S. Aortic stiffness is an independent predictor of primary coronary events in hypertensive patients: a longitudinal study. Hypertension. 2002; 39: 10–15.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9 Oparil S, Izzo JL Jr. Pulsology rediscovered: commentary on the Conduit Artery Function Evaluation (CAFE) study. Circulation. 2006; 113: 1162–1163.LinkGoogle Scholar10 Dart AM, Cameron JD, Gatzka CD, Willson K, Liang Y-L, Berry KL, Wing LMH, Reid CM, Ryan P, Beilin LJ, Jennings GLR, Johnston CI, McNeil JJ, Macdonald GJ, Morgan TO, West MJ, Kingwell BA. Similar effects of treatment on central and brachial blood pressures in older hypertensive subjects in the Second Australian National Blood Pressure Trial. Hypertension. 2007; 49: 1242–1247.LinkGoogle Scholar11 Morgan T, Lauri J, Bertram D, Anderson A. Effect of different antihypertensive drug classes on central aortic pressure. Am J Hypertens. 2004; 17: 118–123.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12 Pannier BM, Guerin AP, Marchais SJ, London GM. Different aortic reflection wave responses following long-term angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition and beta-blocker in essential hypertension. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2001; 28: 1074–1077.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13 Smulyan H, Siddiqui DS, Carlson RJ, London GM, Safar ME. Clinical utility of aortic pulses and pressures calculated from applanated radial-artery pulses. Hypertension. 2003; 42: 150–155.LinkGoogle Scholar14 Hamilton WF, Dow P. An experimental study of the standing waves in the pulse propagation through the aorta. Am J Physiol. 1939; 125: 48–59.Google Scholar15 Dart AM, Gatzka CD, Kingwell BA, Willson K, Cameron JD, Liang YL, Berry KL, Wing LM, Reid CM, Ryan P, Beilin LJ, Jennings GL, Johnston CI, McNeil JJ, Macdonald GJ, Morgan TO, West MJ. Brachial blood pressure but not carotid arterial waveforms predict cardiovascular events in elderly female hypertensives. Hypertension. 2006; 47: 785–790.LinkGoogle Scholar16 Kelly R, Hayward C, Avolio A, O’Rourke M. Noninvasive determination of age-related changes in the human arterial pulse. Circulation. 1989; 80: 1652–1659.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17 Roman MJ, Kizer JR, Ali T, Lee ET, Galloway JM, Fabsitz RR, Henderson JA, Howard BV. Central blood pressure better predicts cardiovascular events than does peripheral blood pressure: the Strong Heart Study. Circulation. 2005; 112: 778(Abstract).LinkGoogle Scholar18 Palmieri V, Devereux RB, Hollywood J, Bella JN, Liu JE, Lee ET, Best LG, Howard BV, Roman MJ. Association of pulse pressure with cardiovascular outcome is independent of left ventricular hypertrophy and systolic dysfunction: the Strong Heart Study. Am J Hypertens. 2006; 19: 601–607.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar19 Palmieri V, Celentano A, Roman MJ, de Simone G, Best L, Lewis MR, Robbins DC, Fabsitz RR, Howard BV, Devereux RB. Relation of fibrinogen to cardiovascular events is independent of preclinical cardiovascular disease: the Strong Heart Study. Am Heart J. 2003; 145: 467–474.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar20 Lewington S, Clarke R, Qizilbash N, Peto R, Collins R. Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies. Lancet. 2002; 360: 1903–1913.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar21 Yusuf S, Sleight P, Pogue J, Bosch J, Davies R, Dagenais G. Effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. N Engl J Med. 2000; 342: 145–153.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar22 Devereux RB, Dahlof B, Kjeldsen SE, Julius S, Aurup P, Beevers G, Edelman JM, de Faire U, Fyhrquist F, Helle BS, Ibsen H, Kristianson K, Lederballe-Pedersen O, Lindholm LH, Nieminen MS, Omvik P, Oparil S, Snapinn S, Wedel H. Effects of losartan or atenolol in hypertensive patients without clinically evident vascular disease: a substudy of the LIFE randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2003; 139: 169–177.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar23 Lindholm LH, Ibsen H, Dahlof B, Devereux RB, Beevers G, de Faire U, Fyhrquist F, Julius S, Kjeldsen SE, Kristiansson K, Lederballe-Pedersen O, Nieminen MS, Omvik P, Oparil S, Wedel H, Aurup P, Edelman J, Snapinn S. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with diabetes in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol. Lancet. 2002; 359: 1004–1010.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar24 Devereux RB, Dahlof B. Potential mechanisms of stroke benefit favoring losartan in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007; 23: 443–457.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails June 2007Vol 49, Issue 6 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.107.089953PMID: 17470715 Originally publishedApril 30, 2007 PDF download Advertisement SubjectsClinical Studies