Changes in the haemodynamics of large arteries induced by single doses of nicardipine, enalapril, atenolol and urapidil

Abstract

Haemodynamic changes in the carotid and brachial arteries produced by single doses of four anti-hypertensive drugs (nicardipine, enalapril, atenolol, and urapidil) have been studied in 12 patients with essential hypertension. Measurements were performed noninvasively using a mechanographic method and B-mode pulsed Doppler ultrasonography. Within 7 h all of the drugs had caused a significant reduction in blood pressure, whereas heart rate showed a significant change only after atenolol. All the drugs produced a marked reduction in brachial pulse-wave velocity. Only nicardipine caused a significant reduction in vessel wall tension both in the carotid and brachial arteries, while brachial peripheral resistance was significantly reduced by all the drugs except atenolol. Neither atenolol nor enalapril caused any significant reduction in carotid peripheral resistance. The results show that all four antihypertensive drugs led to a beneficial increase in arterial compliance despite their different effects on peripheral resistance.

Comparison of non‐invasive methods for the assessment of haemodynamic drug effects in healthy male and female volunteers: sex differences in cardiovascular responsiveness.

“…While some of these procedures seem to be particularly suited for the detection of even small drug-induced changes, as they have been shown to be sensitive and reproducible, no single technique has proved universally applicable to describe cardiovascular drug effects [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. In addition, the reproducibility, day-to-day variability, and sensitivity of some techniques have not been rigorously evaluated.…”

“…In addition, we compared results from laser interferometry measurements with those from finger pulse plethysmography and Doppler sonography of the radial artery. These techniques have been repeatedly reported to describe changes in peripheral haemodynamics [1,2,4,6,7], but, to our knowledge, have not been rigorously evaluated and are not generally accepted.…”