4.7 Article

The effect of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and a K+ATP channel opener on warm up angina

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 26, 期 6, 页码 598-606

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehi082

关键词

angina; exercise; ACE-inhibitor; K-ATP(+) channel; ischaemic preconditioning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims In various models, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and K-ATP(+) channel openers can potentiate and mimic ischaemic preconditioning, respectively. Our aim was to determine whether these characteristics are shared by the phenomenon of warm up in angina, often regarded as a surrogate of ischaemic preconditioning. Methods and results Twenty patients with ischaemic heart disease were assigned in a double blind, randomized cross-over design to equivalent pressor doses of nicorandil 20 mg bid, enalapril 10 mg bid, losartan 25 mg bid, or placebo for 3 days. Patients underwent three consecutive exercise tolerance tests on each medication separated by a 1-week interval. Each patient underwent 12 exercise tests in total and 13 patients completed the study. On each medication the second exercise was separated from the first by 15 min of rest and the third exercise was performed 90 min after the second to control for training. The time to 0.1 mV ST depression and rate pressure product at 0.1 mV ST depression increased significantly in all. groups during exercise two compared with exercise one. Nicorandil reduced angina but did not attenuate this warm up effect. This benefit of first exercise waned by test three with placebo, losartan, and nicorandil, but not with enalapril. Conclusion In contrast to predictions based on ischaemic preconditioning the magnitude of the warm up was apparently unaltered by nicorandil, losartan, or enalapril, however its duration seemed to be extended by enalapril. Thus ischaemic preconditioning and warm up angina are likely to have differing pharmacological profiles suggesting a diverse underlying mechanism.

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

4.7
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