4.5 Article

Sympathoinhibition by Atorvastatin in Hypertensive Patients

期刊

CIRCULATION JOURNAL
卷 74, 期 12, 页码 2622-2626

出版社

JAPANESE CIRCULATION SOC
DOI: 10.1253/circj.CJ-10-0427

关键词

Hypertension; Statins; Sympathetic nervous system

资金

  1. ZonMw of the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development
  2. Clinical Research Fellowship
  3. NIDDK [NIDDK-DK 069881]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Experimental animal data suggest that 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (statins) might reduce enhanced sympathetic activity, a hallmark of hypertensive patients. This hypothesis was tested for the first time in patients with primary hypertension. Methods and Results: Using a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, cross-over design, a proof-of-principle trial was performed in 13 patients with mild to moderate primary hypertension, who were randomly assigned to a regimen of atorvastatin (80 mg/day) for 3 weeks, followed by placebo for 3 weeks or to a regimen of placebo for 3 weeks, followed by atorvastatin (80 mg/day) for 3 weeks. Microneurography was used at the end of each treatment period to measure sympathetic nervous system activity (muscle sympathetic nerve activity MSNA). Heart rate variability (HRV) and plasma norepinephrine concentrations were also measured. Additionally, effects on blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) were assessed by 24-h ambulatory BP measurement. Atorvastatin reduced postganglionic MSNA (atorvastatin 35.0+/-2.0 vs placebo 39.2+/-1.5 bursts/min, P=0.008) and heart frequency corrected MSNA (atorvastatin 58.5+/-2.0 vs placebo 64.7+/-3.0 bursts/100 beats, P=0.02). Atorvastatin had no significant effect on plasma norepinephrine levels, HRV, BP or HR. Conclusions: In patients with mild to moderate hypertension, atorvastatin reduces postganglionic MSNA, which supports the hypothesis that HMG-CoA reductase plays a role in sympathetic nervous system activity. (Circ J 2010; 74: 2622-2626)

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

4.5
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