We studied the efficacy of the ACE inhibitor lisinopril in treating overt proteinuria in comparison with the NSAID indomethacin, and evaluated some of the conditions that could influence this antiproteinuric effect. In 12 patients with a proteinuria varying from 3.2 to 10.5 g/24 hr, a diastolic BP ranging from 64 to 105 mm Hg, and a GFR varying from 34 to 127 ml/min, the effect of different lisinopril doses and of changing dietary sodium intake was evaluated. Proteinuria fell by 27 +/- 20% from 6.1 +/- 2.1 to 4.5 +/- 1.9 g/24 hr on a low dose (median 5 mg/day) lisinopril and by 50 +/- 17% to 3.1 +/- 1.4 g/24 hr on a higher dose (median 10 mg/day), irrespective of initial proteinuria, BP, or GFR. This antiproteinuric effect was abolished by increasing salt intake from 50 to 200 mmol/day, and was recovered again by re-instituting the sodium restricted diet. The antiproteinuric effect of 10 mg/day lisinopril was comparable to the reduction in proteinuria (by 57 +/- 21% to 2.8 +/- 2.0 g/24 hr) on 150 mg/day indomethacin, while adverse effects were less and renal hemodynamic effects were more favorable during lisinopril. In some patients it took several weeks before the effect of the ACE inhibitor on proteinuria was stabilized. Thus, the antiproteinuric effect of the ACE inhibitor lisinopril appears to be dose and time related, and is strongly dependent on dietary sodium restriction, whereas it does not depend on initial proteinuria, BP, or GFR. The effect is comparable to that of indomethacin, while adverse effects are less.

Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are known to lower urinary protein excretion in human renal disease. This proteinuria lowering effect of ACE inhibition has been hypothesized to be a result of renal hemodynamic changes due to the inhibition of angiotensin II (Ang II) production. To test this hypothesis we studied the short-term effects of different doses of exogenous Ang II (5%, 10% and 20% of the pressor dose) on renal hemodynamics and urinary protein excretion in comparison with placebo infusion in six non-diabetic normotensive proteinuric patients, both before and after three months treatment with the ACE inhibitor, lisinopril. Lisinopril lowered proteinuria from 7.5 +/- 1.9 to 2.7 +/- 0.6 g/24 hr and induced a fall in blood pressure, renal vascular resistance and filtration fraction, whereas plasma Ang II levels were similar to the pre-treatment values. Ang II infusion induced typical effects which appeared to be similar before and during lisinopril treatment: a dose-related fall in renal plasma flow and rise in systemic blood pressure, renal vascular resistance and filtration fraction, while the glomerular filtration rate remained relatively stable. However, neither before nor during lisinopril therapy did any changes in urinary protein loss occur during the infusions of Ang II, despite the fact that Ang II reversed the long-term systemic and renal hemodynamic changes induced by the ACE inhibitor. We conclude that the long-term antiproteinuric effect of the ACE inhibitor, lisinopril, is neither mediated through changes in circulatory Ang II levels nor influenced by acute changes in systemic and renal hemodynamics, suggesting a non-hemodynamic mechanism of action.

Renal denervation may be more effective if performed distal in the renal artery be cause of smaller distances between the lumen and perivascular nerves. The authors reviewed the angiographic results of 97 patients and compared blood pressure reduc tion in relation to the location of the denervation. No significant differences in blood pressure reduction or complications were found between patient groups divided ac cording to their spatial distribution of the ablations (proximal to the bifurcation in both arteries, distal to the bifurcation in one artery and distal in the other artery, or distal to the bifurcation in both arteries), but systolic ambulatory blood pressure reduction was significantly related to the number of distal ablations. No differences in adverse events were observed. In conclusion, we found no reason to believe that renal denervation distal to the bifurcation poses additional risks over the currently advised approach of proximal denervation, but improved efficacy remains to be conclusively established.

No abstract

No abstract