Endothelin-1 and its precursor are strong prognostic markers in cardiovascular disease, and their modulation by specific ACE inhibitors like fosinopril may offer additional therapeutic benefits.
ET-1 elevation may refine mortality risk stratification in MI and HF; leaves open whether fosinopril-mediated normalization improves outcomes.
Endothelin-1 (ET-1) is the most potent vasoconstrictor yet described. The active 21-amino-acid peptide is derived from the conversion of the inactive precursor "Big ET-1" by an enzyme called endothelin-converting enzyme. In addition to its potent action as a vasoconstrictor, endothelin promotes growth and proliferation of smooth muscle and myocardial hypertrophy. ET-1 levels are elevated in acute myocardial infarction (MI), atherosclerosis, renal failure, diabetes, pulmonary hypertension, and congestive heart failure (CHF). ET-1 levels correlate extremely well with the seriousness of the pathophysiologic condition. ET-1 levels at 72 h post MI accurately predict long-term survival. In patients with heart failure, ET-1 levels also predict long-term outcome, with the prognosis being severely compromised in patients with elevated ET-1 levels. Levels of plasma big ET-1 have been demonstrated to predict 1-year mortality and have been shown to be a better predictor of 1-year outcome than plasma atrial natriuretic peptide and norepinephrine, NYHA class, age, and echocardiographic left ventricular parameters. Although a small number of studies have reported beneficial effects of ACE inhibitors on ET-1 levels in animal models, most reports in humans have not found an effect of ACE inhibitors on ET-1 levels. Only one ACE inhibitor, fosinopril, has been shown to be effective in normalizing ET-1 levels in clinically relevant situations, such as the long-term study of patients with CHF. This observation may point to a superior role of fosinopril compared with other ACE inhibitors in CHF patients and may indicate beneficial effects of fosinopril beyond blood pressure control.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
J C Monge (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: