Table 5.
Effect of intravenous NaNO2 on brachial and central hemodynamics
| Baseline value | Change from baseline to last hour of infusion | p t-test | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brachial systolic BP (mmHg) | |||
| Placebo | 115 (111;119) | −2.63 (− 4.41;-0.85) | .007 |
| Allopurinol | 115 (111;119) | − 3.07 (−5.12;-1.01) | .006 |
| Enalapril | 110 (107;114)† | −3.84 (−5.32;-2.35) | <.001 |
| Acetazolamide | 114 (111;118) | −3.79 (−5.85;-1.74) | .001 |
| pRM ANOVA | .272 | ||
| Brachial diastolic BP (mmHg) | |||
| Placebo | 60 (57;62) | −1.50 (−3.28;0.28) | .093 |
| Allopurinol | 60 (56;63) | −1.22 (−3.14;0.70) | .196 |
| Enalapril | 56 (53;59)† | −1.18 (−2.40;0.03) | .054 |
| Acetazolamide | 60 (58;63) | −1.58 (−3.04;-0.12) | .035 |
| pRM ANOVA | .923 | ||
| Brachial MAP (mmHg) | |||
| Placebo | 78 (76;81) | −1.88 (−3.39;-0.37) | .018 |
| Allopurinol | 78 (75;81) | −1.84 (−3.63;-0.04) | .046 |
| Enalapril | 74 (72;77)† | −2.07 (−3.28;-0.86.) | .002 |
| Acetazolamide | 78 (76;81) | −2.32 (−3.88;-0.76) | .006 |
| pRM ANOVA | .848 | ||
| Heart rate (beats per minute) | |||
| Placebo | 55 (52;58) | 3.37 (1.95;4.79) | <.001 |
| Allopurinol | 55 (52;59) | 1.70 (0.12;3.28)† | .037 |
| Enalapril | 56 (52;60) | 2.21 (0.97;3.45) | .002 |
| Acetazolamide | 57 (53;61) | 1.30 (0.11;2.50)† | .035 |
| pRM ANOVA | .050 | ||
| Central systolic BP (mmHg) | |||
| Placebo | 98 (89;106) | −1.38 (−6.03;3.26) | .528 |
| Allopurinol | 99 (91;107) | −4.51 (−8.95;-0.07) | .047 |
| Enalapril | 97 (88;106) | −4.04 (−8.13;0.05) | .053 |
| Acetazolamide | 101 (90;112) | −2.69 (− 8.30;2.91) | .320 |
| pRM ANOVA | .804 | ||
Effect of intravenous NaNO2 on heart rate, brachial and central blood pressure (BP) in 16 healthy subjects after 4 days pretreatment with allopurinol, enalapril, acetazolamide, or placebo. Data are means with 95% confidence interval in brackets. Baseline values are an average of measurements in the one-hour period prior to infusion. The baseline values were compared to an average of measurements during the last hour of NaNO2 infusion. Pairwise comparisons were performed using Student’s t-test. One-way repeated measures (RM) ANOVA was used for comparison of effects between pretreatments
†: p < .05 vs. placebo