4.3 Article

LCZ696, Angiotensin II Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor, Ameliorates High-Salt-Induced Hypertension and Cardiovascular Injury More Than Valsartan Alone

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
卷 28, 期 12, 页码 1409-1417

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ajh/hpv015

关键词

angiotensin; blood pressure; cardiovascular protection; dual inhibition; hypertension; neprilysin

资金

  1. Novartis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND LCZ696, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, has recently been demonstrated to exert more beneficial effects on hypertensive or heart failure patients than conventional renin-angiotensin system blockers. However, the mechanism underlying the benefit of LCZ696 remains to be understood. The present study was undertaken to examine the effect of LCZ696 compared with valsartan on hypertension and cardiovascular injury. METHODS (i) Using telemetry, we compared the hypotensive effect of LCZ696 and valsartan in spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR) that were fed a high-salt diet followed by a low-salt diet. (ii) We also examined the comparative effect of LCZ696 and valsartan on salt loaded SHRcp, a model of metabolic syndrome. RESULTS (i) LCZ696 exerted a greater blood pressure (BP) lowering effect than valsartan in SHR regardless of high-salt or low-salt intake. Additive BP reduction by LCZ696 was associated with a significant increase in urinary sodium excretion and sympathetic activity suppression. (ii) LCZ696 significantly ameliorated cardiac hypertrophy and inflammation, coronary arterial remodeling, and vascular endothelial dysfunction in high-salt loaded SHRcp compared with valsartan. CONCLUSIONS LCZ696 caused greater BP reduction than valsartan in SHR regardless of the degree of salt intake, which was associated with a significant enhancement in urinary sodium excretion and sympathetic activity suppression. Furthermore, an additive BP lowering effect of LCZ696 led to greater cardiovascular protection in hypertensive rats.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据