Skip to main content
  • American Heart Association
  • Science Volunteer
  • Warning Signs
  • Advanced Search
  • Donate

  • Home
  • About this Journal
    • General Statistics
    • Editorial Board
    • Editors
    • Information for Advertisers
    • Author Reprints
    • Commercial Reprints
    • Customer Service and Ordering Information
  • All Issues
  • Subjects
    • All Subjects
    • Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research
    • Critical Care and Resuscitation
    • Epidemiology, Lifestyle, and Prevention
    • Genetics
    • Heart Failure and Cardiac Disease
    • Hypertension
    • Imaging and Diagnostic Testing
    • Intervention, Surgery, Transplantation
    • Quality and Outcomes
    • Stroke
    • Vascular Disease
  • Browse Features
    • AHA Guidelines and Statements
    • Acknowledgment of Reviewers
    • Clinical Implications
    • Clinical-Pathological Conferences
    • Controversies in Hypertension
    • Editors' Picks
    • Guidelines Debate
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Recent Advances in Hypertension
    • SPRINT Trial: the Conversation Continues
  • Resources
    • Instructions to Reviewers
    • Instructions for Authors
    • →Article Types
    • → Submission Guidelines
      • Research Guidelines
        • Minimum Information About Microarray Data Experiments (MIAME)
      • Abstract
      • Acknowledgments
      • Clinical Implications (Only by invitation)
      • Conflict(s) of Interest/Disclosure(s) Statement
      • Figure Legends
      • Figures
      • Novelty and Significance: 1) What Is New, 2) What Is Relevant?
      • References
      • Sources of Funding
      • Tables
      • Text
      • Title Page
      • Online/Data Supplement
    • →Tips for Easier Manuscript Submission
    • → General Instructions for Revised Manuscripts
      • Change of Authorship Form
    • → Costs to Authors
    • → Open Access, Repositories, & Author Rights Q&A
    • Permissions to Reprint Figures and Tables
    • Journal Policies
    • Scientific Councils
    • AHA Journals RSS Feeds
    • International Users
    • AHA Newsroom
  • AHA Journals
    • AHA Journals Home
    • Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology (ATVB)
    • Circulation
    • → Circ: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • → Circ: Genomic and Precision Medicine
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Imaging
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Interventions
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Quality & Outcomes
    • → Circ: Heart Failure
    • Circulation Research
    • Hypertension
    • Stroke
    • Journal of the American Heart Association
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

  • My alerts
  • Sign In
  • Join

  • Advanced search

Header Publisher Menu

  • American Heart Association
  • Science Volunteer
  • Warning Signs
  • Advanced Search
  • Donate

Hypertension

  • My alerts
  • Sign In
  • Join

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Home
  • About this Journal
    • General Statistics
    • Editorial Board
    • Editors
    • Information for Advertisers
    • Author Reprints
    • Commercial Reprints
    • Customer Service and Ordering Information
  • All Issues
  • Subjects
    • All Subjects
    • Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research
    • Critical Care and Resuscitation
    • Epidemiology, Lifestyle, and Prevention
    • Genetics
    • Heart Failure and Cardiac Disease
    • Hypertension
    • Imaging and Diagnostic Testing
    • Intervention, Surgery, Transplantation
    • Quality and Outcomes
    • Stroke
    • Vascular Disease
  • Browse Features
    • AHA Guidelines and Statements
    • Acknowledgment of Reviewers
    • Clinical Implications
    • Clinical-Pathological Conferences
    • Controversies in Hypertension
    • Editors' Picks
    • Guidelines Debate
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Recent Advances in Hypertension
    • SPRINT Trial: the Conversation Continues
  • Resources
    • Instructions to Reviewers
    • Instructions for Authors
    • →Article Types
    • → Submission Guidelines
    • →Tips for Easier Manuscript Submission
    • → General Instructions for Revised Manuscripts
    • → Costs to Authors
    • → Open Access, Repositories, & Author Rights Q&A
    • Permissions to Reprint Figures and Tables
    • Journal Policies
    • Scientific Councils
    • AHA Journals RSS Feeds
    • International Users
    • AHA Newsroom
  • AHA Journals
    • AHA Journals Home
    • Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology (ATVB)
    • Circulation
    • → Circ: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • → Circ: Genomic and Precision Medicine
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Imaging
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Interventions
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Quality & Outcomes
    • → Circ: Heart Failure
    • Circulation Research
    • Hypertension
    • Stroke
    • Journal of the American Heart Association
Editorial Commentaries

Rate-Limiting Step

Can Different Effects of Antihypertensives on Central Blood Pressure Be Translated Into Outcomes?

Laurie A. Tomlinson, Viknesh Selvarajah, Ian B. Wilkinson
Download PDF
https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.111.172908
Hypertension. 2011;57:1047-1048
Originally published May 18, 2011
Laurie A. Tomlinson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Viknesh Selvarajah
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ian B. Wilkinson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters

Jump to

  • Article
    • Disclosures
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
Loading

See related article, pp 1122–1128

Whether individual classes of antihypertensives have specific benefits for prevention of cardiovascular disease, over and above blood pressure reduction, has been the subject of long and often heated debate. Meta-analyses of many studies, involving thousands of patients, suggest minimal or no additional benefit from specific antihypertensive regimens.1,2 However, this view has been challenged recently following evidence that β-blockers may be less efficacious that other agents.3 Importantly, this evidence is based on comparisons of blood pressure measured at the brachial artery, which may not accurately reflect pressure in the aorta. Indeed, pressure varies throughout the arterial system because of changes in vessel compliance and wave reflections. Brachial blood pressure is considerably higher than aortic pressure in young individuals, a phenomenon known as pulse pressure amplification, which declines with age. The degree of pressure amplification also varies considerably between individuals and depends on a number of factors, such as heart rate, height, and sex. However, the heart, brain, and kidneys are exposed to aortic (or central) pressure rather than brachial pressure. Central blood pressure, either assessed in the carotid artery or estimated from radial artery waveforms using applanation tonometry and a transfer function, is more closely related to target organ damage and outcome than brachial blood pressure.4,5 Accumulating data also suggest that antihypertensives may have differential effects on central pressure, providing an explanation for the “benefits beyond blood pressure reduction” paradox.

The Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT) demonstrated superiority in cardiovascular outcomes from primary treatment of hypertension with calcium-channel blockers (amlodipine) compared with β-blockers (atenolol).6 The results of the Conduit Artery Function Evaluation substudy of ASCOT provided one potential mechanism for these outcome differences, because central aortic pressure was substantially lower in the calcium channel blocker compared with the β-blocker treatment arm, despite only small differences in brachial blood pressure.7 A number of other studies, before and after Conduit Artery Function Evaluation, have reported similar findings with β-blockade when compared against a range of other agents.8,9 In this respect, β-blockers appear to stand out from other standard antihypertensive agents in reducing aortic pressure less for a given fall in brachial pressure. However, β-blockers vary considerably in their chemical and pharmacodynamics properties and also appear to differ in their relative effects on central and peripheral pressure. Atenolol, used in the majority of outcome studies, is relatively selective for β-1 adrenoceptors and has little direct effect of peripheral vascular tone. Although nebivolol is more β-1 selective, it also has substantial vasodilating properties, because of endothelial nitric oxide production,10 and previous data indicate that it reduces central systolic pressure more than atenolol despite similar reductions in peripheral blood pressure.11 This “preferential” effect on central pressure is also seen with other nitrovasodilators, and small doses of nitrate may reduce central systolic pressure without lowering peripheral blood pressure measurably.12 The likely mechanism is reduced wave reflection because of dilatation of the small preresistance arteries, which improves impedance mismatch and moves the reflectance site distally.

In this issue of Hypertension, a carefully conducted study by Kampus et al13 brings new evidence to this debate. In this randomized, double-blind study of 80 treatment-naive hypertensive patients followed for a year, the authors compare the effects of nebivolol and the β-1 selective agent metoprolol on several hemodynamic parameters. Both drugs reduced heart rate and brachial blood pressure to the same extent, but there was a fall in brachial pulse pressure and central blood pressure only in the nebivolol group. For the first time, this study suggests that the fall in central blood pressure may translate to a reduction in target organ damage, with a reduction in echocardiographic markers of left ventricular wall thickness observed only in the nebivolol arm. In addition, the changes in left ventricular parameters were more closely correlated with the change in central rather than peripheral blood pressure.

The limitations of this study need some consideration. Metoprolol has a shorter duration of action than nebivolol, so once-daily dosing may have led to inferior blood pressure control over 24 hours. There were also nonsignificant trends to older age, higher blood pressure, and greater left ventricular dimensions at baseline in the nebivolol-treated group. Finally, a higher percentage of people in the nebivolol group received a second agent (hydrochlorothiazide) to meet study blood pressure targets. These factors taken together may have contributed to the results, but nonetheless this study underlines the importance of understanding the effects of antihypertensive treatments on central hemodynamics.

Taking the results of this study forward will not be easy, but we believe that sufficient evidence now exists to support a large outcome study of nebivolol in hypertension. In such a trial it will be vital, although challenging, to ensure that there is a comparator agent that provides a matched reduction in brachial blood pressure, because interpretation will otherwise be impossible. Similar trials are also warranted with other nitrovasodilators such as isosorbide mononitrate, which lowers central and peripheral blood pressure14 but has never been subject to outcome trials. The data from such studies will be invaluable in establishing whether central pressure estimation is useful in routine clinical practice. However, the real paradigm shift will only come if and when studies demonstrate that selective reduction in central pressure reduces cardiovascular events.

Disclosures

None.

Footnotes

  • The opinions expressed in this editorial are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.

  • © 2011 American Heart Association, Inc.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Turnbull F
    . Effects of different blood-pressure-lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events: results of prospectively-designed overviews of randomised trials. Lancet. 2003;362: 1527–1535.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Law MR,
    2. Morris JK,
    3. Wald NJ
    . Use of blood pressure lowering drugs in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: meta-analysis of 147 randomised trials in the context of expectations from prospective epidemiological studies. BMJ. 2009;338: b1665.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Lindholm LH,
    2. Carlberg B,
    3. Samuelsson O
    . Should β-blockers remain first choice in the treatment of primary hypertension? A meta-analysis. Lancet. 2005;366: 1545–1553.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Roman MJ,
    2. Devereux RB,
    3. Kizer JR,
    4. Lee ET,
    5. Galloway JM,
    6. Ali T,
    7. Umans JG,
    8. Howard BV
    . Central pressure more strongly relates to vascular disease and outcome than does brachial pressure: the Strong Heart Study. Hypertension. 2007;50: 197–203.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Vlachopoulos C,
    2. Aznaouridis K,
    3. O'Rourke MF,
    4. Safar ME,
    5. Baou K,
    6. Stefanadis C
    . Prediction of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality with central haemodynamics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2010;31: 1865–1871.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Dahlof B,
    2. Sever PS,
    3. Poulter NR,
    4. Wedel H,
    5. Beevers DG,
    6. Caulfield M,
    7. Collins R,
    8. Kjeldsen SE,
    9. Kristinsson A,
    10. McInnes GT,
    11. Mehlsen J,
    12. Nieminen M,
    13. O'Brien E,
    14. Ostergren J
    . Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihypertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding bendroflumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;366: 895–906.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Williams B,
    2. Lacy PS,
    3. Thom SM,
    4. Cruickshank K,
    5. Stanton A,
    6. Collier D,
    7. Hughes AD,
    8. Thurston H,
    9. O'Rourke M
    . 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: 1213–1225.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Mackenzie IS,
    2. McEniery CM,
    3. Dhakam Z,
    4. Brown MJ,
    5. Cockcroft JR,
    6. Wilkinson IB
    . Comparison of the effects of antihypertensive agents on central blood pressure and arterial stiffness in isolated systolic hypertension. Hypertension. 2009;54: 409–413.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Boutouyrie P,
    2. Achouba A,
    3. Trunet P,
    4. Laurent S
    . Amlodipine-valsartan combination decreases central systolic blood pressure more effectively than the amlodipine-atenolol combination: the EXPLOR Study. Hypertension. 2010;55: 1314–1322.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Wilkinson IB,
    2. Qasem A,
    3. McEniery CM,
    4. Webb DJ,
    5. Avolio AP,
    6. Cockcroft JR
    . Nitric oxide regulates local arterial distensibility in vivo. Circulation. 2002;105: 213–217.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Dhakam Z,
    2. Yasmin,
    3. McEniery CM,
    4. Burton T,
    5. Brown MJ,
    6. Wilkinson IB
    . A comparison of atenolol and nebivolol in isolated systolic hypertension. J Hypertens. 2008;26: 351–356.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Jiang XJ,
    2. O'Rourke MF,
    3. Jin WQ,
    4. Liu LS,
    5. Li CW,
    6. Tai PC,
    7. Zhang XC,
    8. Liu SZ
    . Quantification of glyceryl trinitrate effect through analysis of the synthesised ascending aortic pressure waveform. Heart. 2002;88: 143–148.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Kampus P,
    2. Serg M,
    3. Kals J,
    4. Zagura M,
    5. Muda P,
    6. Karu K,
    7. Zilmer M,
    8. Eha J
    . Differential effects of nebivolol and metoprolol on central aortic pressure and left ventricular wall thickness. Hypertension. 2011:57:1122–1128.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Stokes GS,
    2. Ryan M,
    3. Brnabic A,
    4. Nyberg G
    . A controlled study of the effects of isosorbide mononitrate on arterial blood pressure and pulse wave form in systolic hypertension. J Hypertens. 1999;17: 1767–1773.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

This Issue

Hypertension
June 2011, Volume 57, Issue 6
  • Table of Contents
Previous ArticleNext Article

Jump to

  • Article
    • Disclosures
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters

Article Tools

  • Print
  • Citation Tools
    Rate-Limiting Step
    Laurie A. Tomlinson, Viknesh Selvarajah and Ian B. Wilkinson
    Hypertension. 2011;57:1047-1048, originally published May 18, 2011
    https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.111.172908

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
  • Article Alerts
    Log in to Email Alerts with your email address.
  • Save to my folders

Share this Article

  • Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Hypertension.

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Rate-Limiting Step
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from Hypertension
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the Hypertension web site.
  • Share on Social Media
    Rate-Limiting Step
    Laurie A. Tomlinson, Viknesh Selvarajah and Ian B. Wilkinson
    Hypertension. 2011;57:1047-1048, originally published May 18, 2011
    https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.111.172908
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Related Articles

Cited By...

Subjects

  • Intervention, Surgery, Transplantation
    • Treatment
  • Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research
    • Clinical Studies

Hypertension

  • About Hypertension
  • Instructions for Authors
  • AHA CME
  • Guidelines and Statements
  • Permissions
  • Journal Policies
  • Email Alerts
  • Open Access Information
  • AHA Journals RSS
  • AHA Newsroom

Editorial Office Address:
7272 Greenville Ave.
Dallas, TX 75231
email: hypertension@heart.org

Information for:
  • Advertisers
  • Subscribers
  • Subscriber Help
  • Institutions / Librarians
  • Institutional Subscriptions FAQ
  • International Users
American Heart Association Learn and Live
National Center
7272 Greenville Ave.
Dallas, TX 75231

Customer Service

  • 1-800-AHA-USA-1
  • 1-800-242-8721
  • Local Info
  • Contact Us

About Us

Our mission is to build healthier lives, free of cardiovascular diseases and stroke. That single purpose drives all we do. The need for our work is beyond question. Find Out More about the American Heart Association

  • Careers
  • SHOP
  • Latest Heart and Stroke News
  • AHA/ASA Media Newsroom

Our Sites

  • American Heart Association
  • American Stroke Association
  • For Professionals
  • More Sites

Take Action

  • Advocate
  • Donate
  • Planned Giving
  • Volunteer

Online Communities

  • AFib Support
  • Garden Community
  • Patient Support Network
  • Professional Online Network

Follow Us:

  • Follow Circulation on Twitter
  • Visit Circulation on Facebook
  • Follow Circulation on Google Plus
  • Follow Circulation on Instagram
  • Follow Circulation on Pinterest
  • Follow Circulation on YouTube
  • Rss Feeds
  • Privacy Policy
  • Copyright
  • Ethics Policy
  • Conflict of Interest Policy
  • Linking Policy
  • Diversity
  • Careers

©2018 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited. The American Heart Association is a qualified 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization.
*Red Dress™ DHHS, Go Red™ AHA; National Wear Red Day ® is a registered trademark.

  • PUTTING PATIENTS FIRST National Health Council Standards of Excellence Certification Program
  • BBB Accredited Charity
  • Comodo Secured