Cardiac hypertrophy, aortic compliance, peripheral resistance, and wave reflection in end-stage renal disease. Comparative effects of ACE inhibition and calcium channel blockade.

BACKGROUND: We wished to assess the respective roles of the antihypertensive and blood pressure (BP)-independent effects of antihypertensive drugs on arterial hemodynamics and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a double-blind study, 24 ESRD patients with LVH were randomized to 12 months' administration of either the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor perindopril (n = 14) or the calcium channel blocker nitrendipine (n = 10). Repeated measurements of the following parameters were performed: BP (mercury sphygmomanometry), left ventricular mass (LVM, echocardiography), cardiac output (aortic cross-section and velocity integral), total peripheral resistance (cardiac output and mean BP), aortic and large-artery compliance (pulse wave velocity, Doppler flowmeter), and arterial wave reflections (augmentation index, applanation tonometry). Radioimmunoassay was used to determine plasma renin activity, aldosterone, and plasma catecholamine levels. Two-way (time-treatment) ANOVA for repeated measures was used for statistical analysis. Perindopril and nitrendipine induced significant and similar decreases in BP, total peripheral resistance (P < .001), aortic and arterial pulse wave velocities (P < .001), and arterial wave reflections (P < .01). At baseline, the two groups had LVH mostly due to increased LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) (perindopril, 54.3 +/- 1.4 and nitrendipine, 54.3 +/ 2.4 mm) with near-normal mean LV wall thickness (perindopril, 11.4 +/- 0.3 and nitrendipine, 11.2 +/- 0.4 mm). A decrease in LVM was observed only in patients receiving perindopril (from 317 +/- 18 to 247 +/- 21 g) (time-treatment interaction, P = .036). Nitrendipine had no significant effect on LVM (314 +/- 29 versus 286 +/- 32 g). The decrease in LVM observed with perindopril was associated with a reduction in LVEDD (49.9 +/- 1.6 versus 54.3 +/- 1.4 mm after 12 months) (time-treatment interaction, P = .04), while the mean LV wall thickness was unchanged (11.4 +/- 0.3 versus 10.5 +/- 0.5 mm). Cardiac alterations were not correlated with changes in BP or with alterations in plasma renin activity or aldosterone or catecholamine levels. CONCLUSIONS: In ESRD patients with LVH, ACE inhibition decreases LVM independently of its antihypertensive effect and of associated alterations in arterial hemodynamics. The decrease in LVM was due primarily to a decrease in LV volume, which may have resulted in these patients from chronic volume overload.