Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33612826›Full record

ArticleHypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension2021

Nebivolol is more effective than atenolol for blood pressure variability attenuation and target organ damage prevention in L-NAME hypertensive rats.

Julieta S Del Mauro, Paula D Prince, Yanina Santander Plantamura, Miguel A Allo, Luciano Parola, Nahuel Fernandez Machulsky, Marcela A Morettón, Eliana P Bin, Germán E González, Facundo M Bertera and 7 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The pharmaco-epigenetics of hypertension: a focus on microRNA.Molecular and cellular biochemistry · 2024
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Julieta S Del MauroUniversidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica, Departamento de Farmacología, Buenos Aires, Argentina. julietadelmauro@gmail.com.
Paula D PrinceUniversidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica, Cátedra de Físicoquímica, Instituto de Bioquímica y Medicina Molecular (IBIMOL), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Yanina Santander PlantamuraUniversidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica, Departamento de Farmacología, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Miguel A AlloUniversidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica, Departamento de Farmacología, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Luciano ParolaUniversidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica, Departamento de Farmacología, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Nahuel Fernandez MachulskyUniversidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica, Departamento de Bioquímica Clínica, Laboratorio de Lípidos y Aterosclerosis, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Marcela A MorettónUniversidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica, Departamento de Tecnología Farmacéutica, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Eliana P BinUniversidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Medicina, Instituto de Fisiopatología Cardiovascular (INFICA), Departamento de Patología, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Germán E GonzálezInstituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas (BIOMED UCA-CONICET), Laboratorio de Patología Cardiovascular Experimental e Hipertensión Arterial, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Facundo M BerteraUniversidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica, Departamento de Farmacología, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Andrea CarranzaUniversidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica, Departamento de Farmacología, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Gabriela BergUniversidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica, Departamento de Bioquímica Clínica, Laboratorio de Lípidos y Aterosclerosis, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Carlos A TairaUniversidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica, Departamento de Farmacología, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Martín DonatoUniversidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Medicina, Instituto de Fisiopatología Cardiovascular (INFICA), Departamento de Patología, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Diego A ChiappettaUniversidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica, Departamento de Tecnología Farmacéutica, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Ariel H PolizioUniversidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica, Departamento de Farmacología, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Christian HöchtUniversidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica, Departamento de Farmacología, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
University of Buenos Aires · ARConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas · ARInstituto de Química y Fisicoquímica Biológicas · AR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

β-Adrenergic blockers are no longer recommended as first-line therapy due to the reduced cardioprotection of traditional β-blockers compared with other antihypertensive drugs. It is unknown whether third-generation β-blockers share the limitations of traditional β-blockers. The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of nebivolol or atenolol on central and peripheral systolic blood pressure (SBP) and its variability and target organ damage (TOD) in N-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester (L-NAME) hypertensive rats. Male Wistar rats were treated with L-NAME for 8 weeks together with oral administration of nebivolol 30 mg/kg (n = 8), atenolol 90 mg/kg (n = 8), or vehicle (n = 8). The control group was composed of vehicle-treated Wistar rats. SBP and its variability, as well as echocardiographic parameters, were assessed during the last 2 weeks of treatment. Tissue levels of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and transforming growth factor β (TGF-β), and histopathological parameters were evaluated in the left ventricle and aorta. Nebivolol had a greater ability than atenolol to decrease central SBP and mid-term and short-term blood pressure variability (BPV) in L-NAME rats. Echocardiographic analysis showed that nebivolol was more effective than atenolol on E/A wave ratio normalization. Compared with atenolol treatment, nebivolol had a greater protective effect on different TOD markers, inducing a decrease in collagen deposition and a reduction in the proinflammatory cytokines IL-6 and TNF-α in the left ventricle and aorta. Our findings suggest that the adverse hemodynamic profile and the reduced cardiovascular protection reported with traditional β-blockers must not be carried forward to third-generation β-blockers.

Indexed as

AtenololHypertensionNebivololAnimalsAntihypertensive AgentsBlood PressureMaleRatsRats, WistarTreatment OutcomeAntihypertensive AgentsAtenololNebivololAtenololBlood pressure variabilityCentral blood pressureNebivololTarget organ damage

Identifiers

PMID33612826
OpenAlexW3131655585

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.