-
Vascular Health and Risk Management
-
About Dovepress
Open access peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals.
-
Open Access
Dove Medical Press is now a member of the Open Access Initiative
-
An Author's Guide
A guide to help authors get their paper published.
-
Advocacy
Support Open Access and Dove Press
-
Reprints
Promotional Article Monitoring - further details
-
Favored Author Program
Real benefits for authors, including fast-track processing of papers.
Irbesartan improves arterial compliance more than lisinopril
Original Research
(2743) Views (718) Full article downloads
Authors: Khalid Ali, Chakravarthi Rajkumar, Francesco Fantin, Rebekah Schiff, Christopher J Bulpitt
Published Date July 2009
Volume 2009:5 Pages 587 - 592
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/VHRM.S5690
Khalid Ali,1 Chakravarthi Rajkumar,1 Francesco Fantin,2 Rebekah Schiff,3 Christopher J Bulpitt3
1Academic Department of Geriatrics, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK; 2Department of Geriatrics, University of Verona, Italy; 3Section of Geriatric Medicine, Imperial College School of Medicine, London, UK
Background: Antihypertensive agents can reduce arterial stiffness. We hypothesized that an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) irbesartan and an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) lisinopril improved arterial compliance.
Methods: A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, controlled crossover trial. Fifteen hypertensive patients, mean age 65.5 ± 8.9 years (mean ± SD) were given irbesartan (150 to 300 mg/day) or lisinopril (10 to 20 mg/day) for 12 weeks and then crossed over for 12 weeks. Pulse wave velocity (PWV) in the carotid-femoral (CF), carotid-radial (CR), and femoral dorsalis-pedis (FD) were measured using a Complior® PWV system.
Results: After 12 weeks, systolic blood pressure (SBP) decreased from 162.4 ± 12.9 to 134.5 ± 14.8 with irbesartan and to 145.2 ± 25 mmHg with lisinopril. Irbesartan and lisinopril reduced PWV (CF) in the elastic arterial system from 15.1 ± 5 to 13.3 ± 2.6 (p < 0.005) and to 14 ± 4.7 (p < 0.05) m/s respectively (p = 0.345). Irbesartan reduced PWV (CR) and PWV (FD), whereas lisinopril did not. The difference between treatments was significant after SBP adjustment (p = 0.037 for PWV (CR) and p < 0.001 for PWV (FD)).
Conclusions: Irbesartan improved arterial compliance in elastic and muscular arteries, whereas lisinopril improved it only in elastic arteries.
Keywords: arterial compliance, angiotensin receptor blockers, ACE inhibitors, hypertension
Readers of this article also read:
Role of aliskiren in cardio-renal protection and use in hypertensives with multiple risk factors
Arterial stiffness, hypertension, and rational use of nebivolol
Berberine: metabolic and cardiovascular effects in preclinical and clinical trials
Comparison of prasugrel and clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention
Comparative assessment of angiotensin receptor blockers in different clinical settings
Significance of initial blood pressure and comorbidity for the efficacy of a fixed combination of an angiotensin receptor blocker and hydrochlorothiazide in clinical practice
Endothelial function, blood pressure control, and risk modification: impact of irbesartan alone or in combination
Update on the role of candesartan in the optimal management of hypertension and cardiovascular risk reduction
Long-term use and tolerability of irbesartan for control of hypertension
- Join ISVH
Be part of the World's leading experts in vascular health by joining the International Society of Vascular Health (ISVH)
- Testimonials
"... I was impressed at the rapidity of publication from submission to final acceptance." Dr Edwin Thrower, PhD, Yale University
- The western diet and lifestyle and diseases of civilization
- Stiffness of the large arteries in individuals with and without Down syndrome
- Effects of Azelnidipine plus OlmesaRTAn versus amlodipine plus olmesartan on central blood pressure and left ventricular mass index: the AORTA study
- Vascular effects of rapid-acting insulin analogs in the diabetic patient: a review




