Reconsidering the Treatment of Patients with Coronary Artery Disease
Treatment of hypertensive patients with coronary artery disease is still a debated issue. In particular, relatively few controlled clinical trials have prospectively assessed the impact of specific drug classes on adverse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease and, moreover, it is not clear if a more aggressive therapeutic approach aimed to reduce blood pressure values well below 140/90mm Hg might achieve an adjunctive beneficial effect.
There is a general consensus that hypertensive patients with coronary artery disease should receive treatment with an ACE inhibitor. This consensus is based on the results of the HOPE (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation) and EUROPA (EUropean trial on Reduction Of cardiac events with Perindopril in stable coronary Artery disease) studies (testing ramipril and perindopril, respectively) and does not take into account that these trials compared an active treatment with placebo, which basically produced a further decrease in blood pressure values, thereby making it difficult to establish whether the beneficial outcome was related to a specific effect of drugs or to the blood pressure reduction. These positive results were not confirmed by the PEACE (Prevention of Events with Angiotensin Converting Enzyme inhibition) study, which demonstrated that adding trandolapril to the treatment of patients with stable coronary artery disease did not produce a further beneficial effect compared with placebo, therefore demonstrating that the addition of an ACE inhibitor in patients with coronary artery disease does not universally produce a beneficial effect.
More recently, two clinical trials have clearly demonstrated that dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers can determine a beneficial outcome in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease. The ACTION (A Coronary disease Trial Investigating Outcome with Nifedipine GITS) trial demonstrated that long-acting nifedipine was effective in reducing cardiovascular events in patients with stable symptomatic angina and in patients with high blood pressure values, whereas in normotensive patients there was no difference from placebo. The CAMELOT (Comparison of Amlodipine vs Enalapril to Limit Occurrence of Thrombosis) trial demonstrated that amlodipine produced a statistical 31% reduction in cardiovascular events, while enalapril, despite a blood pressure reduction similar to that achieved with the calcium channel blocker, produced a 15.3% reduction in cardiovascular events, which was not statistically significant. It is worth noting that the effect of amlodipine was still evident in patients with blood pressure values within the normal range.
At least part of the beneficial effect of calcium channel blockers on coronary events can be related to the well documented effect of this class of drugs in preventing atherosclerosis. It is well documented that calcium channel blockers can improve endothelial function by an antioxidant effect and several clinical trials have demonstrated that these drugs can inhibit the progression of atherosclerotic plaque. In CAMELOT, this beneficial effect was confirmed in a sub-study indicating that amlodipine, but not enalapril or placebo, was able to completely block the progression of coronary atherosclerosis, as assessed by intravascular ultrasound.
In conclusion, the CAMELOT study supports the possibility that blood pressure reduction to values much lower than those indicated by current guidelines might achieve a further beneficial effect in patients with coronary artery disease.
- 1.European Society of Hypertension — European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. J Hypertens 2003; 21: 1011–53Google Scholar
- 4.Anderson KM, Wilson PW, Odell PM, et al. Updated coronary risk profile. Circulation 1991; 83: 357–63Google Scholar
- 7.Fox KM. Efficacy of perindopril in reduction of cardiovascular events among patients with stable coronary artery disease: randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial (the EUROPA study): EURopean trial On reduction of cardiac events with Perindopril in stable coronary Artery disease Investigators. Lancet 2003; 362: 782–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Poole-Wilson PA, Lubsen J, Kirwan BA, et al. Effect of long-acting nifedipine on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity in patients with stable angina requiring treatment (ACTION trial): randomized controlled trial. A Coronary disease Trial Investigating Outcome with Nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system investigators. Lancet 2004; 364: 849–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Pepine CJ, Handberg EM, Cooper-DeHoff RM, et al. A calcium antagonist vs a non-calcium antagonist hypertension treatment strategy for patients with coronary artery disease. The International Verapamil-Trandolapril Study (INVEST): a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2003; 290: 2805–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Lubsen J, Wagener G, Kirwan BA, et al. Effect of long-acting nifedipine on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity in patients with symptomatic stable angina and hypertension: the ACTION trial (A Coronary disease Trial Investigating Outcome with Nifedipine GITS investigators). J Hypertens 2005; 23: 641–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Zanchetti A, Bond MG, Hennig M, et al. Calcium antagonist lacidipine slows down progression of asymptomatic carotid atherosclerosis: principal results of the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis (ELSA), a randomized, doubleblind, long-term trial. European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis investigators. Circulation 2002; 106: 2422–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Lichtlen PR, Hugenholtz PG, Rafflenbeul W, et al. Retardation of angiographic progression of coronary artery disease by nifedipine: results of the International Nifedipine Trial on Antiatherosclerotic Therapy (INTACT). INTACT group investigators. Lancet 1990; 335: 1109–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar