Skip to main content
  • Research Article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Value of haemodynamic profiling to the response of antihypertensive therapy

Abstract

Background

Essential hypertension is characterised by alterations in haemodynamics. Hence haemodynamic profiling could lead to improved blood pressure (BP) control in these patients. We tested if baseline haemodynamic indices predict the BP lowering effects of different classes of antihypertensive drugs in hypertensive patients.

Methods

In this double-blind placebo-controlled crossover study we randomised 53 hypertensive patients to receive doxazosin 4 mg, candesartan 16 mg, bisoprolol 5 mg, isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) 50 mg, and placebo daily for 6 weeks. Brachial and central BP, augmentation index (AIx), aortic pulse wave velocity (aPWV), stroke volume (SV), cardiac output (CO), peripheral vascular resistance (PVR), and pulse pressure amplification (PPA) were measured at baseline and after each drug.

Results

Baseline AIx and PPA determined BP reduction with antihypertensive therapy, particularly with bisoprolol. In patients with low baseline AIx (1.7–28.9%) and high PPA (1.22–1.87), bisoprolol had a weak antihypertensive effect, while the opposite was observed in patients with high AIx (36.3–48.2%) and low PPA (1.05–1.11). With candesartan, BP reduction was the largest, regardless of baseline AIx or PPA levels.

Conclusions

Our study suggests that ARBs reduce BP the most irrespective of the underlying haemodynamic profile. Antihypertensive therapy guided by AIx and PPA may have some merit in the guidance of antihypertensive drug treatment, particularly if beta-blockers are considered for treatment. However, larger studies are needed to confirm these results.

References

  1. Kearney PM, Whelton M, Reynolds K, Muntner P, Whelton PK, He J. Global burden of hypertension: analysis of worldwide data. Lancet 2005; 365: 217–23.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Primatesta P, Brookes M, Poulter NR. Improved hypertension management and control: results from the health survey for England. Hypertension 1998; 2001(38): 827–32.

    Google Scholar 

  3. McEniery CM, Wallace S, Yasmin, Maki-Petaja K, McDonnell B, Sharman JE, et al. Increased stroke volume and aortic stiffness contribute to isolated systolic hypertension in young adults. Hypertension 2005; 46: 221–6.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Franklin SS, Gustin 4th W, Wong ND, Larson MG, Weber MA, Kannel WB, et al. Hemodynamic patterns of age-related changes in blood pressure. The Framingham Heart Study. Circulation 1997; 96: 308–15.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Smith RD, Levy P, Ferrario CM. Consideration of e hemodynamic monitoring to target reduction of blood pressure levels study group. Value of noninvasive hemodynamics to achieve blood pressure control in hypertensive subjects. Hypertension 2006; 47: 771–7.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Conway J. Hypotensive mechanisms of beta blockers. Eur Heart J 1983; 4(Suppl D): 43–51.

  7. Lund-Johansen P, Omvik P. Acute and chronic hemodynamic effects of drugs with different actions on adrenergic receptors: a comparison between alpha blockers and different types of beta blockers with and without vasodilating effect. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 1991; 5: 605–15.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mahmud A, Feely J. Effect of angiotensin II receptor blockade on arterial stiffness: beyond blood pressure reduction. Am J Hypertens 2002; 15: 1092–5.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Stokes GS, Barin ES, Gilfillan KL. Effects of isosorbide mononitrate and AII inhibition on pulse wave reflection in hypertension. Hypertension 2003; 41: 297–301.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wilkinson IB, Fuchs SA, Jansen IM, Spratt JC, Murray GD, Cockcroft JR, et al. Reproducibility of pulse wave velocity and augmentation index measured by pulse wave analysis. J Hypertens 1998; 16: 2079–84.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Nichols WW, O’Rourke MF. McDonald’s blood flow in arteries: theoretical, experimental and clinical principles. London: Arnold; 1998.

  12. Protogerou AD, Stergiou GS, Vlachopoulos C, Blacher J, Achimastos A. The effect of antihypertensive drugs on central blood pressure beyond peripheral blood pressure. Part II: evidence for specific class-effects of antihypertensive drugs on pressure amplification. Curr Pharm Des 2009; 15: 272–89.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gill JS, Zezulka AV, Beevers DG, Davies P. Relation between initial blood pressure and its fall with treatment. Lancet 1985; 1: 567–9.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Agabiti-Rosei E, Mancia G, O’Rourke MF, Roman MJ, Safar ME, Smulyan H, et al. Central blood pressure measurements and antihypertensive therapy: a consensus document. Hypertension 2007; 50: 154–60.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Roman MJ, Devereux RB, Kizer JR, Okin PM, Lee ET, Wang W, et al. High central pulse pressure is independently associated with adverse cardiovascular outcome the strong heart study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54: 1730–4.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mackenzie IS, McEniery CM, Dhakam Z, Brown MJ, Cockcroft JR, Wilkinson IB. Comparison of the effects of anti-hypertensive agents on central blood pressure and arterial stiffness in isolated systolic hypertension. Hypertension 2009; 54: 409–13.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kampus P, Serg M, Kals J, Zagura M, Muda P, Karu K, et al. Differential effects of nebivolol and metoprolol on central aortic pressure and left ventricular wall thickness. Hypertension 2011; 57: 1122–8.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Williams B, Lacy PS, Thom SM, Cruickshank K, Stanton A, Collier D, et al. 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: 1213–25.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Asmar RG, London GM, O’Rourke ME, Safar ME, REASON Project Coordinators and Investigators. Improvement in blood pressure, arterial stiffness and wave reflections with a very-low-dose perindopril/indapamide combination in hypertensive patient: a comparison with atenolol. Hypertension 2001; 38: 922–6.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 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: 445–51.

    Google Scholar 

  21. McEniery CM, McDonnell BJ, So A, Aitken S, Bolton CE, Munnery M, et al. Aortic calcification is associated with aortic stiffness and isolated systolic hypertension in healthy individuals. Hypertension 2009; 53: 524–31.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kim YS, Davis SC, Truijen J, Stok WJ, Secher NH, van Lieshout JJ. Intensive blood pressure control Afffcts cerebral blood flow in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. Hypertension 2011; 57: 738–45.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Serg.

Rights and permissions

This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Serg, M., Graggaber, J., Kampus, P. et al. Value of haemodynamic profiling to the response of antihypertensive therapy. Artery Res 8, 189–196 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artres.2014.07.004

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artres.2014.07.004

Key Words