Why the study?
Does rosuvastatin prevent ischemia-reperfusion-induced endothelial dysfunction in healthy volunteers?
Does rosuvastatin prevent ischemia-reperfusion-induced endothelial dysfunction in healthy volunteers?
Unlike acute administration, chronic rosuvastatin therapy does not protect against ischemia-reperfusion-induced endothelial dysfunction in healthy humans, suggesting a loss of the preconditioning effect over time.
Chronic rosuvastatin loses acute endothelial preconditioning; challenges sustained pleiotropy and warrants timing-specific trials in at-risk patients.
Studies have demonstrated that the acute administration of 3-hydroxy-3 methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors has protective effects in the setting of ischemia-reperfusion (IR). Previously, we demonstrated that a single dose of rosuvastatin prevented IR-induced endothelial dysfunction in humans through a cyclooxygenase-2-dependent mechanism. Whether the chronic administration of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors provides similar protection remains controversial and is unknown in humans. Eighteen male volunteers were randomized to receive a single dose of rosuvastatin (20 mg) or placebo. Twenty-four hours later, endothelium-dependent, radial artery flow-mediated dilation (FMD) was measured before and after IR (15 min of upper arm ischemia followed by 15 min of reperfusion). In a separate protocol, 30 healthy volunteers were randomized in a double-blind fashion to receive oral rosuvastatin (20 mg/day) and placebo, rosuvastatin, and celecoxib (100 mg bid) or placebo alone, all for 21 days. Twenty-four hours after the final administration of study medication, FMD was measured before and after IR. Pre-IR FMD was similar between groups in both protocols. In the acute administration protocol, rosuvastatin significantly prevented the blunting of FMD associated with IR (FMD pre-IR: 8.4 ± 1.3%; post-IR: 6.2 ± 1.3%; P = 0.01 ANOVA, treatment group interaction). In the daily administration protocol, IR significantly blunted FMD in the placebo group (FMD pre-IR: 7.5 ± 0.9%; post-IR: 3.3 ± 0.7%; P < 0.001). Chronic treatment with rosuvastatin did not modify this ischemic injury (FMD pre-IR: 6.9 ± 0.4%; post-IR: 1.6 ± 1.0%; P < 0.001; P = NS ANOVA, treatment group interaction). Similarly, FMD responses post-IR in volunteers receiving rosuvastatin and celecoxib did not significantly differ from placebo (FMD pre-IR: 8.3 ± 0.9%; post-IR: 2.1 ± 0.8%; P < 0.001; P = NS ANOVA, treatment group interaction). In contrast to acute administration, chronic rosuvastatin does not prevent the development of IR-induced endothelial dysfunction in normal humans.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liuni et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: