+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Is the Tissue Affinity of ACE Inhibitors of Relevance for the Remodeling of the Left Ventricular Wall following Myocardial Infarction?

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Background: Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors have been shown to be of value in the treatment of postinfarction remodeling. The question whether substances with a greater tissue affinity are associated with advantages for the acute and the chronic course is, however, still unclear. Aim: The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of ACE inhibitors with differing tissue affinities on the remodeling of the left ventricular wall in patients recovering from myocardial infarction. Methods: 52 patients (17 women, aged 38–73 years) suffering their first acute myocardial infarction were randomized to receive a daily dose of either 25–75 mg captopril or 10–20 mg fosinopril, beginning on the 7th postinfarction day. 28 patients had an anterior wall infarction and 24 patients an inferior wall infarction. The size of the infarct was determined using the creatine kinase integral method. 50 patients were investigated by cine magnetic resonance imaging 1 and 26 weeks after the infarction. The following parameters were determined: infarct weight and diastolic diameter of the infarcted zone, systolic wall stress, muscle mass, diastolic and systolic diameters, systolic wall thickening, and motility of the noninfarcted myocardium. Results: The infarct weight increased under captopril by 5.7% (p < 0.05) and under fosinopril by 6.1% (p < 0.05). The diastolic diameter of the infarcted zone decreased by 12% under captopril (p < 0.001) and by 11% under fosinopril (p < 0.001). The systolic wall thickness increased by 12.1% (p < 0.001) and the muscle mass by 12.7% (p < 0.001) under captopril and by 15.4% (p < 0.001) and 9.6% (p < 0.01), respectively, under fosinopril. Under captopril, the diastolic diameter increased by 2.3% (p < 0.05) and the systolic diameter by 17.8% (p < 0.01) and under fosinopril by 2.8% (n.s.) and 17.5% (p < 0.001), respectively. The systolic wall thickening increased by 73.9% under captopril (p < 0.001) and by 129.4% under fosinopril (p < 0.001). The motility decreased by 13.8% (p < 0.05) under captopril and by 6.0% (n.s.) under fosinopril. For all parameters, the results seen in anterior wall infarction were appreciably poorer than those seen in inferior wall infarction. All the differences between captopril and fosinopril were not significant. Conclusions: Captopril and fosinopril show no major differences in their influence on left ventricular wall remodeling following myocardial infarction. On the basis of the present results, the tissue affinity of an ACE inhibitor does not appear to be of a significant relevance for postinfarction treatment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 2

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Effect of ramipril on mortality and morbidity of survivors of acute myocardial infarction with clinical evidence of heart failure

            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            GISSI-3: effects of lisiriopril and transdermal glyceryl trinitrate singly and together on 6-week mortality and ventricular function after acute myocardial infarction


              Author and article information

              S. Karger AG
              February 2001
              02 March 2001
              : 94
              : 3
              : 179-187
              aMedizinische Klinik, Marienkrankenhaus Kassel, bMedizinische Klinik II der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Marienhospital Herne, Deutschland
              47314 Cardiology 2000;94:179–187
              © 2001 S. Karger AG, Basel

              Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

              Page count
              Figures: 4, Tables: 2, References: 40, Pages: 9
              Clinical Pharmacology


              Comment on this article