Why the study?
Does eplerenone improve endothelial function in patients with coronary artery disease and preserved ejection fraction?
Does eplerenone improve endothelial function in patients with coronary artery disease and preserved ejection fraction?
Adding low-dose eplerenone to standard medical therapy does not improve endothelial function or other markers of vascular health in patients with CAD and preserved EF.
Does not support adding eplerenone for endothelial benefit in CAD with preserved EF; challenges vascular pleiotropy hypotheses.
BACKGROUND: Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) reduce morbidity and mortality in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Their role in patients without heart failure, particularly in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and preserved EF, is still a matter of debate. HYPOTHESIS: The MRA eplerenone on top of standard medical therapy improves endothelial dysfunction and other markers of vascular health in CAD patients with preserved EF. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, 42 patients (mean age: 63.5 ± 9.1 years; 37 males) were randomized to 4-week treatment with eplerenone 25 mg daily or placebo. The primary endpoint was difference in endothelial function as assessed by flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) of the brachial artery. Secondary endpoints included 24-hour blood pressure (BP), endothelial progenitor cells, and platelet adhesion. RESULTS: No difference in the primary endpoint FMD was noted after 4 weeks of treatment with eplerenone compared with placebo (FMD: 4.7% ± 2.0% and 4.9% ± 2.1%, respectively; P = 0.77). There were no significant differences between eplerenone and placebo in 24-hour BP (mean systolic BP: 126.9 ± 17.3 and 123.3 ± 9.7 mm Hg, P = 0.41; diastolic BP: 73.3 ± 12.9 and 72.0 ± 7.5 mm Hg, respectively, P = 0.69), number of endothelial progenitor cells, and platelet adhesion. CONCLUSIONS: Adding low-dose eplerenone to standard medical therapy did not improve important markers of vascular health in patients with CAD and preserved EF. Our results may help understand conflicting evidence from larger clinical trials on MRAs in patients with preserved EF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sudano et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: