Skip Navigation

Cardiovascular Research 2001 52(1):161-163; doi:10.1016/S0008-6363(01)00413-8
© 2001 by European Society of Cardiology
This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Barton, M.
Right arrow Articles by Glodny, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Barton, M.
Right arrow Articles by Glodny, B.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Copyright © 2001, European Society of Cardiology

Endothelin receptor blockade and nitric oxide bioactivity

[Cardiovascular Research 2001;49:146–151]

Matthias Barton* and Bernhard Glodny

Medical Policlinic and Clinical Atherosclerosis Research Laboratory, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital, Rämistrasse 100, CH-8091 Zürich, Switzerland

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +41-1-255-5663, ext. 163105; fax: +41-1-255-8747 bartonm{at}swissonline.ch

Received 30 May 2001; accepted 18 July 2001

KEYWORDS Acetylcholine; Atherosclerosis; Endothelial function; Endothelins; Nitric oxide

In a recent paper, Verma et al. reported abnormal endothelium-dependent relaxation to acetylcholine in isolated internal mammary arteries obtained from patients with coronary artery disease [1]. The authors also observed a moderate increase of the maximum response but not of the sensitivity of these relaxations after 20 min of incubation with micromolar concentrations of either bosentan, a non-selective ET receptor antagonist, BQ-123 (an ETA selective compound) or BQ-788 (an ETB selective compound at low concentrations). The improvement of endothelium-dependent relaxation averaged between 10 and 17% of complete relaxation compared to control experiments, and was not present in endothelium-denuded vessels and not evident in response to the endothelium-independent vasodilator sodium nitroprusside according to the authors’ unpublished data. The authors concluded that both ETA and ETB receptors contribute to ‘endothelial dysfunction’ and that blocking both the ETA and the ETB receptor may have endothelial protective effects in human internal mammary arteries. However, there are several issues that must be taken into account when interpreting these data.

First, the clinical characteristics and treatments of the study patients, a considerable number of which were women, deserve mentioning. More than half of the patients had a positive family history for coronary artery disease, were smokers, and/or had hypercholesterolemia. It is surprising to learn that despite the elevated plasma lipids and in view of the beneficial effects of statins in the secondary prevention of coronary artery disease, none of the patients was on statin therapy, a treatment that has also been shown to improve endothelium-dependent vasomotion [2,3].

Second, the authors refer to atherosclerosis of the internal mammary artery (IMA). However, even in patients with atherosclerosis in the coronary circulation, atherosclerotic structural changes rarely occur in the IMA [4,5] making it the conduit of choice for coronary bypass surgery. It is known that atherosclerotic changes may develop after this artery has been grafted as a bypass conduit or in cardiac transplant recipients [6]. Therefore, the authors’ notion that ‘ET-1 is increased in atherosclerotic IMA’ is hard to follow.

Third, endothelium-dependent relaxation in this vessel has been extensively studied, and most studies, including our own, have shown that endothelium-dependent relaxation in response to acetylcholine is preserved in the IMA [7–10]. How can the clearly abnormal relaxant response to acetylcholine, reaching relaxation of only 40% of precontraction, observed in the authors’ experiments be explained? The authors refer to one previous study on endothelium-dependent relaxation in human IMA, which showed relaxant responses between 0 and 70% despite comparable ecNOS immunostaining in histologic sections in the vessels investigated [11]. Not surprisingly, vessel culture for 24 h with sepiapterin or L-arginine had no effect on the relaxant response which was abnormal to begin with [11]. The aforementioned study and the one by Verma et al. are in strong contrast to several other studies by different laboratories demonstrating preserved endothelium-dependent relaxation in response to acetylcholine in human IMA [7–9,12,13].

As correctly pointed out in the editorial by Hoogerwerf [14], careful intraoperative handling of the arteries is of paramount importance for the functional integrity of the vessels as bypass conduits and probably contributes to long-term graft patency [10,15]. Indeed, our previous studies revealed that intraoperative handling of the graft is a crucial determinant of endothelium-dependent responses in the IMA and also in other grafts [8,10]. Using acetylcholine as a stimulus, it has been demonstrated that endothelium-dependent relaxations average between 75 and more than 95% of precontraction in arteries obtained from CAD patients with multiple risk factors [7–9,12,13]. This notion is also supported by a study demonstrating that mechanical manipulation such as distension does indeed impair endothelial-dependent responses to acetylcholine [16].

In their article, the authors repeatedly refer to ‘endothelial dysfunction’ as simply the ‘net balance of endothelium-derived vasoconstriction and vasodilation’. Although attractive, this view does not take into account the complexity of the abnormalities occurring in the injured endothelium [17] determining the endothelial phenotype. Thus, impairment of NO-mediated endothelium-dependent relaxation represents only one aspect of the spectrum of ‘endothelial dysfunction’ which comprises the dysregulation of all endothelial cell functions, including cytokine release, lipid metabolism, morphological cellular changes, disturbances of coagulation, etc. [17,18]. Abnormal endothelium-dependent vasomotion as part of ‘endothelial dysfunction’ not only occurs in atherosclerosis, but also in conditions such as heart failure and pulmonary hypertension. Several previous studies have shown that ET receptor blockade can improve or even reverse this abnormality (reviewed in Ref. [19]).

Finally, the authors claim an ‘equal contribution of both ETA and ETB receptors towards endothelial function in human IMA’ based on their observations of responses to acetylcholine in absence or presence of receptor specific ET antagonists. Moreover, demonstrating a 13% increase in endothelium-mediated relaxation after acute ETB receptor blockade with BQ-788 at a concentration of 1 µmol/l, the authors interpret this finding as: (a) ETB receptors contributing to impairment of ‘NO-mediated’ relaxation in human arteries; and (b) that both ETA and ETB receptors equally impair this relaxation. The first assumption cannot be the case since NO synthase inhibition only in part blocks the relaxant response to acetylcholine in the human IMA [12,20] and acetylcholine also causes endothelium-dependent hyperpolarization in this vessel [21]. Moreover, it is likely that at the concentration used in vitro, BQ-788 loses its selectivity over the ETB receptor. Furthermore, Verma et al. postulate that ETB receptors in the IMA do not mediate relaxation and are not linked to NO bioactivity, referring to a previous publication [22] but without performing the appropriate experiments with an NO-synthase inhibitor. In fact, it has been previously shown that ETB receptor stimulation may cause relaxation in human IMA [23].

It was suggested in the editorial by Hoogerwerf that more animal studies should be done to implement these finding into clinical use [14]. It has been previously shown that blockade of ETA receptors improves NO bioactivity and endothelium-dependent NO-mediated relaxation in the thoracic aorta of atherosclerotic apolipoprotein-deficient E mice [24]. Similarly, indices of increased NO bioactivity have been found after ET blockade in coronary effluents of perfused rat hearts, and similar effects were seen with ETA selective and non-selective ETA/ETB receptor antagonists. Interestingly, no effect was observed with selective ETB receptor blockade alone [25]. In humans ETA blockade improves NO-mediated vascular function in the brachial artery in vivo which can be blocked by ETB receptor blockade [26], and in a recent clinical study, improved acetylcholine-mediated vasomotion in coronary arteries of patients with coronary atherosclerosis after treatment with the ETA receptor antagonist BQ-123 has been demonstrated [27]. Taken together, the results from these studies strongly are consistent with the concept that ETA and not ETB receptors are responsible for increases in NO bioactivity after acute or chronic ET receptor blockade.

As endothelin receptor antagonists are reaching the clinical arena, the therapeutic potential of this new class of drugs must be carefully assessed [28]. Combined ET receptor antagonists, including bosentan, have unquestionably provided a great step in the therapy of patients with advanced congestive heart failure. The majority of studies, experimental ones as well as clinical ones, investigating physiopathologies such as heart failure, endothelium-dependent vasomotion, and hypertension, have shown beneficial effects through blockade of the ETA receptor, in most cases irrespective whether the ETB receptor was blocked or not. The data presented by Verma et al. essentially support this notion, demonstrating comparable effects between the ETA selective antagonist BQ-123 and bosentan on endothelium-dependent vasomotion.


   References
Top
 References
 

  1. Verma S., Lovren F., Dumont A.S., et al. Endothelin receptor blockade improves endothelial function in human internal mammary arteries. Cardiovasc Res (2001) 49:146–151.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Stroes E.S., Koomans H.A., de Bruin T.W., Rabelink T.J. Vascular function in the forearm of hypercholesterolaemic patients off and on lipid-lowering medication. Lancet (1995) 346:467–471.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  3. Anderson T.J., Meredith I.T., Yeung A.C., Frei B., Selwyn A.P., Ganz P. The effect of cholesterol-lowering and antioxidant therapy on endothelium-dependent coronary vasomotion. N Engl J Med (1995) 332:488–493.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Singh R.N. Atherosclerosis and the internal mammary arteries. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol (1983) 6:72–77.[Web of Science][Medline]
  5. Nikkari S.T. Phenotype of smooth muscle cells in internal mammary arteries. Artery (1989) 16:346–352.[Web of Science][Medline]
  6. Berkenboom G., Crasset V., Giot C., Unger P., Vachiery J.L., LeClerc J.L. Endothelial dysfunction of internal mammary artery in patients with coronary artery disease and in cardiac transplant recipients. Am Heart J (1998) 135:488–494.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  7. Lüscher T.F., Diederich D., Siebenmann R., et al. Difference between endothelium-dependent relaxation in arterial and in venous coronary bypass grafts. N Engl J Med (1988) 319:462–467.[Abstract]
  8. Mügge A., Barton M., Cremer J., Frombach R., Lichtlen P.R. Different vascular reactivity of human internal mammary and inferior epigastric arteries in vitro. Ann Thorac Surg (1993) 56:1085–1089.[Abstract]
  9. Pompilio G., Polvani G.L., Antona C., et al. Retention of endothelium-dependent properties in human mammary arteries after cryopreservation. Ann Thorac Surg (1996) 61:667–673.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Cremer J., Mugge A., Schulze M., et al. The inferior epigastric artery for coronary bypass grafting. Functional assessment and clinical results. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg (1993) 7:423–427.[Abstract]
  11. Huraux C., Makita T., Kurz S., et al. Superoxide production, risk factors, and endothelium-dependent relaxations in human internal mammary arteries. Circulation (1999) 99:53–59.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Yang Z.H., von Segesser L., Bauer E., Stulz P., Turina M., Luscher T.F. Different activation of the endothelial L-arginine and cyclooxygenase pathway in the human internal mammary artery and saphenous vein. Circ Res (1991) 68:52–60.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Yang Z., Siebenmann R., Studer M., Egloff L., Luscher T.F. Similar endothelium-dependent relaxation, but enhanced contractility, of the right gastroepiploic artery as compared with the internal mammary artery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg (1992) 104:459–464.[Abstract]
  14. Hoogerwerf N. A role for endothelin receptor blockade in improving the endothelial function of coronary artery grafts? Cardiovasc Res (2001) 49:15–16.[Free Full Text]
  15. Cremer J., Liesmann T., Wimmer-Greinecker G., Abraham C., Mugge A., Haverich A. In vivo comparison of free coronary grafts using the inferior epigastric (IEA), the gastroepiploic (GEA) and the internal thoracic artery (ITA). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg (1994) 8:240–245.[Abstract]
  16. Cooper G.J., Locke T.J. Distension reduces the vasoreactivity of the internal mammary artery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg (1996) 10:26–31.[Abstract]
  17. Ross R. Heart disease. Braunwald E., ed. (1992) 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders. 1106–1124.
  18. Barton M, Haudenschild CC. Endothelium and atherosclerosis: endothelial therapy revisited. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 2001 (in press).
  19. Barton M. Endothelial dysfunction and atherosclerosis: endothelin receptor antagonists as novel therapeutics. Curr Hypertens Rep (2000) 2:84–91.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Qi X., Chen D., Nottin R., Mace L., Herve P., Weiss M. Evidence of L-arginine/nitric oxide pathway in endothelium and smooth muscle of human internal mammary artery. Biochem Biophys Res Commun (1993) 195:90–96.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  21. Liu Z.G., Ge Z.D., He G.W. Difference in endothelium-derived hyperpolarizing factor-mediated hyperpolarization and nitric oxide release between human internal mammary artery and saphenous vein. Circulation (2000) 102:III296–III301.[Medline]
  22. Seo B., Oemar B.S., Siebenmann R., von Segesser L., Luscher T.F. Both ETA and ETB receptors mediate contraction to endothelin-1 in human blood vessels. Circulation (1994) 89:1203–1208.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Liu J.J., Chen J.R., Buxton B.F. Unique response of human arteries to endothelin B receptor agonist and antagonist. Clin Sci (Colch) (1996) 90:91–96.[Medline]
  24. Barton M., Haudenschild C.C., d’Uscio L.V., Shaw S., Munter K., Luscher T.F. Endothelin ETA receptor blockade restores NO-mediated endothelial function and inhibits atherosclerosis in apolipoprotein E-deficient mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (1998) 95:14367–14372.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Goodwin A.T., Amrani M., Gray C.C., Jayakumar J., Yacoub M.H. Role of endogenous endothelin in the regulation of basal coronary tone in the rat. J Physiol (Lond) (1998) 511:549–557.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Verhaar M.C., Strachan F.E., Newby D.E., et al. Endothelin-A receptor antagonist-mediated vasodilatation is attenuated by inhibition of nitric oxide synthesis and by endothelin-B receptor blockade. Circulation (1998) 97:752–756.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Halcox J.P.J., Sharma A., Zalos G., et al. Coronary vasodilation and improved endothelial dysfunction with endothelin ETA receptor blockade. Circulation (2000) 102(suppl. II):1. (abstract).[Medline]
  28. Lüscher T.F., Barton M. Endothelins and endothelin receptor antagonists. Therapeutic considerations for a novel class of cardiovascular drugs. Circulation (2000) 102:2434–2440.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Barton, M.
Right arrow Articles by Glodny, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Barton, M.
Right arrow Articles by Glodny, B.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?