Diltiazem significantly inhibited angiotensin II-induced vasoconstriction in isolated rat afferent arterioles (29% vs 67%, P<0.02) but not in efferent arterioles.
Absolute Event Rate: 29% vs 67%
p-value: p=<0.02
Studies in intact renovascular models have shown that calcium entry blockers inhibit angiotensin (ANG II)-induced vasoconstriction in afferent (AA) but not efferent arterioles (EA), suggesting that increases in smooth muscle cell cytosolic calcium, the initiating intracellular message, result from entry through potential-operated channels in AA, but from organelle storage mobilization or entry through nonpotential-operated channels in EA. The present study examined the effects of diltiazem (10(-5) M) on the constrictor responses to KCl (50 mM) and half-maximal constricting concentrations (EC50) of ANG II and the effects of low-calcium bathing medium on EC50 ANG II responses in isolated rat AA and EA. KCl caused slightly greater decreases in lumen diameter in AA than in EA (P < 0.05) that were completely inhibited by diltiazem in both. Vasoconstriction to ANG II was significantly inhibited by diltiazem (29 +/- 12 vs. 67 +/- 31%; P < 0.02) in AA. However, constrictor response to ANG II in EA was unchanged by diltiazem (42 +/- 32 vs. 41 +/- 31%). Constriction to ANG II of AA in low-calcium medium was significantly attenuated (8 +/- 13 vs. 54 +/- 12%; P < 0.01); however, EA constrictor response was not affected (43 +/- 22 vs. 51 +/- 19%). These data indicate that EC50 ANG II-induced AA constriction requires calcium entry primarily through potential-operated channels. While potential-operated calcium entry channels can be functionally expressed in EA, intracellular calcium mobilization is the primary mechanism for ANG II-induced constriction.
Conger et al. (1993) studied this question. Diltiazem and low-calcium medium vs. Control (no diltiazem / normal calcium medium) was evaluated on Vasoconstriction to angiotensin II in afferent arterioles (p=<0.02). Diltiazem significantly inhibited angiotensin II-induced vasoconstriction in isolated rat afferent arterioles (29% vs 67%, P<0.02) but not in efferent arterioles.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: