Structural abnormality of resistance arteries is a characteristic pathophysiological phenomenon in essential hypertension and can be assessed in vitro as an increase in the media: lumen ratio (M: L) of isolated small arteries. We have investigated whether M: L is a risk predictor in uncomplicated essential hypertensive patients. Recently, high M: L was demonstrated as a prognostic marker in patients at high cardiovascular risk, including normotensive type 2 diabetic patients. Since diabetes is associated with pressure-independent changes in M: L, the relevance of this finding to essential hypertension has been uncertain. We conducted a follow-up survey of 159 essential hypertensive patients, who had previously been submitted to a M: L evaluation while participating in a clinical trial. They composed a homogeneous moderate-risk group, with no concomitant diseases, and represented 1661 years of follow-up. Thirty patients suffered a documented predefined cardiovascular event during follow-up. Increased relative risk (RR) was associated with M: L >or= 0.083 (mean level of the hypertensive cohort), RR = 2.34 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-4.95], and with M: L >or= 0.098 (mean level of a normotensive control group + 2SD), RR = 2.49 (95% CI 1.21-5.11). Both results remained significant (RR = 2.19, 95% CI 1.04-4.64, and RR = 2.20, 95% CI 1.06-4.56, respectively) when adjusted for Heart Score level (10-year mortality risk-estimate, integrating age, gender, systolic blood pressure, cholesterol and smoking). Abnormal resistance artery structure independently predicts cardiovascular events in essential hypertensive patients at moderate risk.

Background Myocardial perfusion during adenosine-induced hyperemia is used both in clinical diagnosis of coronary heart disease and for scientific investigations of the myocardial microcirculation. The objective of this study was to clarify whether adenosine-induced hyperemia is dependent on endothelial NO production or is influenced by adrenergic mechanisms. Methods and Results In 12 healthy men, myocardial perfusion was measured with PET in 2 protocols performed in random order, each including 3 perfusion measurements. First, perfusion was measured at rest. Second, either saline or the NO synthase inhibitorN^G-nitro-l-arginine methyl ester (L-NAME, 4 mg/kg) was infused, and perfusion during adenosine-induced hyperemia was determined. Last, in both protocols, the α-receptor blocker phentolamine was infused, and perfusion during adenosine-induced hyperemia was determined again. Resting perfusion was similar in the 2 protocols (0.69±0.14 and 0.66±0.18 mL · min⁻¹· g⁻¹). L-NAME increased mean arterial blood pressure by 12±7 mm Hg (P<0.01) and reduced heart rate by 16±7 bpm (P<0.01). Adenosine-induced hyperemia (1.90±0.33 mL · min⁻¹· g⁻¹) was attenuated by L-NAME (1.50±0.55 mL · min⁻¹· g⁻¹,P<0.01). The addition of phentolamine had no effect on the adenosine-induced hyperemia (2.10±0.34 mL · min⁻¹· g⁻¹,P=NS). In the presence of L-NAME, however, when the adenosine response was attenuated, phentolamine was able to increase hyperemic perfusion (2.05±0.44 mL · min⁻¹· g⁻¹,P<0.05). Conclusions Inhibition of endogenous NO synthesis attenuates myocardial perfusion during adenosine-induced hyperemia, indicating that coronary vasodilation by adenosine is partly endothelium dependent. α-Adrenergic blockade has no effect on adenosine-induced hyperemia unless NO synthesis is inhibited.

Renal denervation (RDN), treating resistant hypertension, has, in open trial design, been shown to lower blood pressure (BP) dramatically, but this was primarily with respect to office BP. We conducted a SHAM-controlled, double-blind, randomized, single-center trial to establish efficacy data based on 24-h ambulatory BP measurements (ABPM). Inclusion criteria were daytime systolic ABPM at least 145 mmHg following 1 month of stable medication and 2 weeks of compliance registration. All RDN procedures were carried out by an experienced operator using the unipolar Medtronic Flex catheter (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California, USA). We randomized 69 patients with treatment-resistant hypertension to RDN (n = 36) or SHAM (n = 33). Groups were well balanced at baseline. Mean baseline daytime systolic ABPM was 159 ± 12 mmHg (RDN) and 159 ± 14 mmHg (SHAM). Groups had similar reductions in daytime systolic ABPM compared with baseline at 3 months [-6.2 ± 18.8 mmHg (RDN) vs. -6.0 ± 13.5 mmHg (SHAM)] and at 6 months [-6.1 ± 18.9 mmHg (RDN) vs. -4.3 ± 15.1 mmHg (SHAM)]. Mean usage of antihypertensive medication (daily defined doses) at 3 months was equal [6.8 ± 2.7 (RDN) vs. 7.0 ± 2.5 (SHAM)].RDN performed at a single center and by a high-volume operator reduced ABPM to the same level as SHAM treatment and thus confirms the result of the HTN3 trial. Further, clinical use of RDN for treatment of resistant hypertension should await positive results from double-blinded, SHAM-controlled trials with multipolar ablation catheters or novel denervation techniques.

To study effects of statins on human bone, 82 postmenopausal women were randomized to 1-year treatment with simvastatin 40 mg/day or placebo. The study showed no effect of simvastatin on biochemical bone markers or on BMD at the hip or spine. Thus, our results do not support a general beneficial effect of simvastatin on bone. Introduction: Statins have been reported to cause bone anabolic as well as antiresorptive effects, and therefore statins have been suggested as potential agents in treatment of osteoporosis. Materials and Methods: In a double-blinded design, 82 healthy postmenopausal women with osteopenia were randomized to 1-year simvastatin treatment 40 mg/day or placebo. BMD and plasma levels of cholesterol, parathyroid hormone (PTH), and biochemical bone markers were measured at baseline, after 1 year of treatment (week 52), and 26 weeks after withdrawal of treatment (week 78). Calcium supplements (400 mg/day) were administrated during the entire 1.5-year study period. Results: Seventy-eight women completed the 1-year treatment. After 1 year, simvastatin but not placebo caused reduced plasma cholesterol (−27% versus +1%, p < 0.001) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels (−43% versus +1%, p < 0.001). After withdrawal of treatment, cholesterol and LDL levels returned to baseline levels and no longer differed from the placebo group. However, plasma levels of PTH and biochemical bone markers did not differ between groups at week 52 or 78. Compared with placebo, simvastatin caused no changes in BMD at the lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, or whole body at week 52 or 78. However, a significant increase in BMD was found in response to simvastatin at the forearm. Within the simvastatin group, changes in cholesterol levels did not correlate to BMD changes at any site. Conclusions: Our results do not support a general beneficial effect of simvastatin on bone.

Hypertension is associated with reduced coronary vasodilatory capacity, possibly caused by structural changes in the coronary resistance vessels. Because vasodilatory treatment may correct abnormal structure better than nonvasodilating treatment, we compared whether long-term angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition has a greater effect on coronary reserve and cardiovascular structure than β-blockade in patients with essential hypertension. Thirty previously untreated hypertensive patients were randomized in a double-blind design to treatment for 1 year with either perindopril (4 to 8 mg per day, n=15) or atenolol (50 to 100 mg per day, n=15) and furthermore compared with normotensive controls. Cardiac output and left ventricular mass were measured with echocardiography and resistance artery structure was determined in vitro. Using positron emission tomography, myocardial perfusion (MP) was determined at rest and during dipyridamole-induced hyperemia while still on medication. Perindopril reduced left ventricular mass by 14±4% ( P <0.01), peripheral vascular resistance by 12±6% ( P <0.01), and media thickness-to-lumen diameter ratio of resistance arteries by 16±4% ( P <0.05), whereas atenolol had no effect. Resting MP was decreased both by perindopril (−11±4%, P <0.01) and by atenolol (−25±4%, P <0.01) in parallel to the reduction in rate pressure product. Hyperemic MP was unaltered by perindopril (+2±6%, P =NS), but reduced by atenolol (−32±5%, P <0.01). Compared with atenolol, perindopril treatment resulted in higher coronary reserve ( P <0.05). We conclude that compared with β-blockade, ACE inhibition increases coronary reserve and results in regression of hypertensive resistance artery structure and left ventricular hypertrophy. Vasodilating may thus be superior to nonvasodilating treatment in repairing the hypertensive myocardial microcirculation.