Effects of ACE Inhibitors on Cardiac Angiotensin II and Aldosterone in Humans: “Relevance of Lipophilicity and Affinity for ACE”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors differ in their lipophilic/hydrophilic index that determines their tissue bioavailability and affinity to ACE, which may result in major differences in the degree of blockade of cardiac ACE. We evaluated the hypothesis that in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) and activated cardiac renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), lipophilic ACE inhibitors with high affinity for ACE (perindopril and quinapril) will cause marked blockade of cardiac angiotensin (Ang) II and aldosterone generation, but not a hydrophilic ACE inhibitor with low affinity for ACE (lisinopril). METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive perindopril (8 mg/day), quinapril (40 mg/day), or lisinopril (20 mg/day) for 3-4 weeks before cardiac catheterization. The coronary sinus-aortic root gradients for Ang I and II, and aldosterone were determined. RESULTS: A total of 19 patients completed the study. Compared to a healthy control group, all three ACE inhibitors decreased circulating Ang II and aldosterone to a similar extent. There were only minor differences between the three ACE inhibitors for the Ang II gradient between the coronary sinus and aortic root. The gradient for aldosterone tended to be positive in the quinapril group and absent/negative in the lisinopril and perindopril groups. Despite the lowest pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), gradients between the coronary sinus and aortic root for Ang II and aldosterone were actually the highest in the quinapril group. CONCLUSIONS: These findings do not support the concept that a hydrophilic ACE inhibitor is less effective in blocking the cardiac RAAS as compared to lipophilic ACE inhibitors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".