Effects of long-term antihypertensive treatment with tertatolol on diastolic function in hypertensive patients with and without left ventricular hypertrophy

Myocardial hypertrophy and its role in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is the most common myocardial structural abnormality associated with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). LVH is driven by neurohumoral activation, increased mechanical load, and cytokines associated with arterial hypertension, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and other comorbidities. Here we discuss the experimental and clinical evidence that links LVH to diastolic dysfunction and qualifies LVH as one diagnostic marker for HFpEF. Mechanisms leading to diastolic dysfunction in LVH are incompletely understood, but may include extracellular matrix changes, vascular dysfunction, as well as altered cardiomyocyte mechano-elastical properties. Beating cardiomyocytes from HFpEF patients have not yet been studied, but we and others have shown increased Ca(2+) turnover and impaired relaxation in cardiomyocytes from hypertrophied hearts. Structural myocardial remodeling can lead to heterogeneity in regional myocardial contractile function, which contributes to diastolic dysfunction in HFpEF. In the clinical setting of patients with compound comorbidities, diastolic dysfunction may occur independently of LVH. This may be one explanation why current approaches to reduce LVH have not been effective to improve symptoms and prognosis in HFpEF. Exercise training, on the other hand, in clinical trials improved exercise tolerance and diastolic function, but did not reduce LVH. Thus current clinical evidence does not support regression of LVH as a surrogate marker for (short-term) improvement of HFpEF.

Selective reduction of cardiac mass and central blood pressure on low-dose combination perindopril/indapamide in hypertensive subjects

OBJECTIVE

In hypertension, blockade of the renin-angiotensin system reduces left ventricular mass (LVM) independently of brachial systolic (S), diastolic (D), and mean (M) blood pressure (BP). From central to peripheral arteries, MBP and DBP are practically unchanged, whereas SBP and pulse pressure (PP) increase significantly. The objective was to determine whether changes in LVM under drug treatment was preferentially associated with changes in central or brachial SBP and PP.

DESIGN

A substudy of 146 subjects was selected from 469 hypertensive patients submitted to a double-blind randomized trial comparing the combination of perindopril (2 mg; Per) and indapamide (0.625 mg; Ind) with atenolol (50 mg, one tablet per day).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Before and after 1 year of treatment: LVM (echocardiography) in 146 subjects and, in 52 of them, central (carotid) BP and timing of wave reflections (tonometry).

RESULTS

LVM changes were significantly associated with antihypertensive treatment, with lower LVM with Per/Ind than with atenolol. Changes in SBP and PP, but not in MBP and DBP, were more significantly associated with Per/Ind than with atenolol, with more pronounced effects using central than brachial measurements, and a longer delay in central return of wave reflections under Per/Ind. In the sampling of 52 patients with tonometry, the change in LVM between the two drug regimens was significantly linked to central, but not brachial, PP change.

CONCLUSIONS

This observational study shows a lower LVM under Per/Ind than under atenolol. The greater change in LVM on Per/Ind was linked to central and not brachial blood pressure.

The Effects of Amlodipine on Left Ventricular Mass and Diastolic Function in Concentric and Eccentric Left Ventricular Hypertrophy

BACKGROUND: The effects of the antihypertensive therapy with amlodipine (5-10 mg/day) on left ventricular mass and diastolic function were examined in 30 mild to moderate essential hypertensive patients who have left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and diastolic dysfunction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Each patient's left ventricular mass was measured, and left ventricular diastolic function was assessed by echocardiographic Doppler examination at entry, and at 3 and 6 months after the initiation of the treatment. Amlodipine reduced both blood pressure (from 164 +/- 14/104 +/- 6 mmHg to 134 +/- 9/83 +/- 4 mmHg) and left ventricular mass index (from 160 +/- 30 g/m(2) to 137 +/- 26 g/m(2)) significantly at 3 months and both parameters maintained at these levels for 6 months. When the patients were classified according to the type of the LVH, a significant regression in left ventricular mass index was seen only in the patients who had concentric LVH was a relative wall thickness >/=0.44 (n = 16), but not in the eccentric LVH group (n = 14), although both groups were not significantly different from each other regarding the basal hemodynamic parameters, baseline left ventricular mass index and the decrease in blood pressure in response to amlodipine treatment. The mitral inflow E/A ratio did not show any significant change in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Amlodipine produced significant regression in LVH only in the patients with concentric LVH, but not those with eccentric LVH, while it did not change the diastolic dysfunction. Therefore, the type of LVH seems to be an important feature in determining the effects of antihypertensive treatment on left ventricular mass index.

Effects of the single and repeated administration of benazepril on systemic and forearm circulation and cardiac function in hypertensive patients

The hemodynamic and cardiac effects of the new angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, benazepril, were studied in 28 hypertensives in a double blind, placebo-controlled, between-patient study. Hemodynamic studies were performed noninvasively by means of M-mode echo (central hemodynamics and left ventricular systolic function), 2-D echo-Doppler (left ventricular diastolic function), and pulsed Doppler flowmetry (forearm circulation). Examinations were done at the end of a placebo run-in period and 3 hours after benazepril administration, both on the first day and after 6 weeks of treatment (10 or 20 mg once daily, according to patient response). In comparison with placebo, benazepril reduced systolic (p = 0.04) and diastolic (p = 0.003) blood pressure, because of a significant reduction in systemic vascular resistance (p = 0.03), while cardiac output was unchanged. Forearm vascular resistance was reduced and brachial artery compliance increased, although not to a statistically significant level (both p = 0.07). Both systolic and diastolic left ventricular function were positively influenced by the afterload reduction: End-systolic stress was reduced by 12% (p = 0.07), as was the late diastolic peak flow velocity (p = 0.02). All hemodynamic changes were evident after acute benazepril administration, and no differences was observed between acute and repeated treatment. We conclude that, similar to other ACE-inhibitors, benazepril reduces blood pressure through a reduction in vascular resistance, while cardiac output and heart rate are unaffected. These hemodynamic effects occur as early as after the first administration and exert a favorable influence on left ventricular dynamics.