4.2 Article

The relationship of chronic angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor use and coronary collateral vessel development

期刊

INTERNATIONAL HEART JOURNAL
卷 48, 期 4, 页码 435-442

出版社

INT HEART JOURNAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1536/ihj.48.435

关键词

ACE inhibitors; coronary occlusion; coronary collateral vessels

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Angiotensin 11 induces various growth factors such as vascular endothelial growth factor, platelet-derived growth factor, and fibroblast growth factor, and recent studies suggest that the expression of these growth factors promotes collateral growth. We hypothesized that the blockage of angiotensin 11 production by ACE inhibitors might interfere with collateral development in patients with coronary occlusion. Methods: The study group consisted of 187 patients (114 males, mean ages, 62 I I years) who had chronic (> 1 month) coronary occlusion (TIMI flow grade <= 1) in one of 3 epicardial coronary arteries. Collaterals were graded using the Rentrop classification, and the patients were divided into 2 groups according to having good (grade 2 and 3) or poor (grade 0 and 1) collaterals (n = 127 and 60, respectively). Clinical and angiographic characteristics were compared in the 2 groups. Results: ACE inhibitor use (52% versus 35%, P = 0.04) and the prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) (43% versus 27%, P = 0.02) was higher in patients with poor collaterals. Patients with poor collaterals had a higher frequency of circumflex artery (Cx) occlusion, worse wall motion, and lower ejection fraction. In multivariate analysis, ACE inhibitor use (OR: 2.4; 95% CI = 1.23-4.68, P = 0.01) and the occlusion of Cx (OR: 3.3, 95% CI; 1.33-8.12, P = 0.01) were found to be independent predictors for poor collateral development, whereas there was a trend for DM as a predictor for poor collaterals (OR: 1.9, 95% CI = 0.97-3.8, P = 0.06). Conclusion: The findings suggest that ACE inhibitor therapy may contribute to poor collateral development in patients with coronary occlusion.

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

4.2
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