Display options
Cite
Vinik AI, Bloom HL, Colombo J. Differential effects of adrenergic antagonists (Carvedilol vs Metoprolol) on parasympathetic and sympathetic activity: a comparison of measures. Heart Int. 2014;9(1):7-14
Vinik, A. I., Bloom, H. L., & Colombo, J. (2014). Differential effects of adrenergic antagonists (Carvedilol vs Metoprolol) on parasympathetic and sympathetic activity: a comparison of measures. Heart international, 9(1), 7-14.
Vinik, Aaron I, et al. "Differential effects of adrenergic antagonists (Carvedilol vs Metoprolol) on parasympathetic and sympathetic activity: a comparison of measures." Heart international vol. 9,1 (2014): 7-14.
Vinik AI, Bloom HL, Colombo J. Differential effects of adrenergic antagonists (Carvedilol vs Metoprolol) on parasympathetic and sympathetic activity: a comparison of measures. Heart Int. 2014 Aug 22;9(1):7-14. eCollection 2014. PMID: 27004091; PMCID: PMC4774948.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Heart Int. 2014 Aug 22;9(1):7-14. eCollection 2014.

Differential effects of adrenergic antagonists (Carvedilol vs Metoprolol) on parasympathetic and sympathetic activity: a comparison of measures.

Heart international

Aaron I Vinik, Heather L Bloom, Joe Colombo

Affiliations

  1. Professor of Medicine/Pathology/Neurobiology, Director of Research and Neuroendocrine Unit, Department of Medicine, Strelitz Diabetes Center, Norfolk, VA - USA.
  2. Associate Professor of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Director of Electrophysiology, Atlanta Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Decatur GA - USA.
  3. Research Director, Autonomic Laboratory, Department of Cardiology, Drexel University College of Medicine, Medical Director, ANSAR Medical Technologies, Inc., Philadelphia, PA - USA.

PMID: 27004091 PMCID: PMC4774948

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN) is recognized as a significant health risk. Specific and sensitive measures of CAN are needed for early identification and treatment to avoid complications, preferably in the preclinical state.

OBJECTIVES: In this first of two articles, the patient cohort is described and two measures of autonomic function are reviewed: the traditional heart rate variability (HRV)-alone method and the newer parasympathetic and sympathetic (P&S) Method. These systems are then evaluated against known effects of the alpha/beta-adrenergic blocker, Carvedilol, and the selective beta-adrenergic blocker, Metoprolol, on P&S activity.

METHODS: Serial autonomic nervous system test data from 147 type 2 diabetes mellitus patients from eight ambulatory clinics were analyzed. Patients were grouped according to whether a beta-blocker was (1) introduced, (2) discontinued or (3) continued without adjustment. Group 3 served as the control. HRV-alone parameters are computed according to standards. The P&S Method, which is a time-frequency analyses of concurrent respiratory activity and HRV, is elucidated, as developed at MIT and Harvard Medical School (1981).

RESULTS: The HRV-alone demonstrated that introducing either medication increased low frequency (msec(2)) and standard deviation of the beat-to-beat (N-N) interval (msec), as expected. The other HRV parameter responses were not consistent with expectations. Similar inconsistencies occurred when either medication was discontinued. The P&S Method demonstrated that introducing or discontinuing either agent decreased or increased sympathetic activity, respectively, according to expectations. With ongoing treatment, resting parasympathetic activity decreased with Metoprolol but increased with Carvedilol.

CONCLUSION: Autonomic assessment fidelity was significantly higher with the P&S Method as validated by comparison with previously known physiology of the cardiovascular system.

Keywords: Beta-blocker; Cardiac autonomic neuropathy; Heart rate variability; Patient outcomes; Respiratory analysis; Sympathovagal imbalance

References

  1. Coron Artery Dis. 2000 Mar;11(2):129-35 - PubMed
  2. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2001 Jan;37(1):48-54 - PubMed
  3. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2001 Jun;280(6):H2674-88 - PubMed
  4. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2002 Apr;68(1):15-23 - PubMed
  5. Am J Cardiol. 2003 Jan 15;91(2):137-42 - PubMed
  6. Semin Neurol. 2003 Dec;23(4):365-72 - PubMed
  7. Diabetes Care. 2005 Apr;28(4):956-62 - PubMed
  8. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2006 Jan;290(1):H424-33 - PubMed
  9. Clin Neurophysiol. 2006 Apr;117(4):716-30 - PubMed
  10. Circulation. 2007 Jan 23;115(3):387-97 - PubMed
  11. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2007;3(1):31-7 - PubMed
  12. Eur J Heart Fail. 2007 Nov;9(11):1128-35 - PubMed
  13. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2006;1:1776-9 - PubMed
  14. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2007;2007:5047-50 - PubMed
  15. Am J Physiol. 1991 Oct;261(4 Pt 2):H1231-45 - PubMed
  16. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2008 Jul;2(4):645-57 - PubMed
  17. Heart Int. 2014 Aug 22;9(1):15-21 - PubMed
  18. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 1988 Jan;9(1):6-9 - PubMed
  19. Am J Physiol. 1987 Jul;253(1 Pt 2):H176-83 - PubMed
  20. Am J Physiol. 1985 Oct;249(4 Pt 2):H867-75 - PubMed
  21. Diabetes Care. 1985 Sep-Oct;8(5):491-8 - PubMed
  22. Science. 1981 Jul 10;213(4504):220-2 - PubMed
  23. Diabetes. 1995 Dec;44(12):1355-61 - PubMed
  24. J Appl Physiol (1985). 1993 Nov;75(5):2310-7 - PubMed
  25. Circulation. 1996 Mar 1;93(5):1043-65 - PubMed
  26. Neurology. 1996 Mar;46(3):873-80 - PubMed
  27. Circulation. 1997 Nov 4;96(9):3224-32 - PubMed
  28. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998 Mar 1;31(3):593-601 - PubMed
  29. Circulation. 1998 Sep 8;98(10):961-8 - PubMed

Publication Types