Possibilities of Azilsartan Medoxomil for Preparation for Planned Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Aim. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of azilsartan medoxomil for preoperative preparation and improving the long-term prognosis of elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD), arterial hypertension (AH), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM).

Material and methods. The study sample included patients with type 2 DM referred for elective PCI who had poor blood pressure (BP) control according to 24-hour BP monitoring (24-BPM) (mean daily systolic BP ≥130 mmHg, mean daily diastolic BP ≥80 mmHg). The data were collected from 2018 through 2020. A total of 75 patients was included and distributed by simple randomization into two groups: group 1 (main, n=37) received azilsartan medoxomil as an antihypertensive drug at a dose of 40 mg/day (previously prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) were discontinued); group 2 (control, n=38) continued on their previous antihypertensive therapy. The follow-up period was 6 months. During each of 5 consecutive follow-up visits, the patient was examined, 24-BPM was recorded, and urinary markers of renal dysfunction (glomerular filtration rate, GFR; neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, NGAL; urine albumin-creatinine ratio, UACR; kidney injury molecule, KIM-1; and interleukin-18, IL-18) were measured.

Results. During the azilsartan treatment, GFR decreased by 7.4%, while in the control group, it decreased by 18.9% (p<0.001). For 6 months of follow-up, no changes in the NGAL concentration were found in the main group, while the NGAL concentration in the control group increased by 12.9%. With azilsartan, there was a decrease in the urinary concentration of IL-18 (16.9%), while in patients of the control group, IL-18 increased (7.14%). Proteinuria progressed in both groups, which was expectable given the presence of DM; however, in patients receiving azilsartan, the UACR value increased by 37.5%, while in patients of the control group, it increased by 96.15%. These differences were statistically significant. No statistically significant differences were found in the concentrations of cystatin C and KIM-1.

Conclusion. This study demonstrated two important facts: the possibility for diagnosing contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) using new, more sensitive markers of kidney damage, which is important for assessing the effectiveness of prevention, and the possibility of using ARBs, in particular azilsartan, for the prevention of CI-AKI in patients with IHD in combination with AH and DM.

1. Belyalov F.I. Ischemic Heart Disease and Renal Dysfunction. Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology. 2017;13(3):409–15. [Russian: Белялов Ф.И. Ишемическая болезнь сердца и нарушение функции почек. Рациональная фармакотерапия в кардиологии. 2017;13(3):409-15]. DOI: 10.20996/1819-6446-2017-13-3-409-415

2. Smirnov A.V., Vatazin A.V., Dobronravov V.A., Bobkova I.N., Vetchinnikova O.N., Volgina G.V. et al. Clinical recommendations. Chro nic kidney disease (CKD). Nephrology. 2021;25(5):10–84. DOI: 10.36485/1561-6274-2021-25-5-10-84

3. Yao Z, Shen H, Tang M, Yan Y, Ge J. A novel risk assessment model of contrast‐induced nephropathy after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with diabetes. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology. 2021;128(2):305–14. DOI: 10.1111/bcpt.13501

4. Cho E, Ko G-J. The Pathophysiology and the Management of Radiocontrast-Induced Nephropathy. Diagnostics. 2022;12(1):180. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12010180

5. Tsai TT, Patel UD, Chang TI, Kennedy KF, Masoudi FA, Matheny ME et al. Validated Contemporary Risk Model of Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: Insights From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Cath‐PCI Registry. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2014;3(6):e001380. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.114.001380

6. Wang J, Zhang C, Liu Z, Bai Y. Risk factors of contrast-induced nephropathy after percutaneous coronary intervention: a retrospective analysis. Journal of International Medical Research. 2021;49(4):030006052110059. DOI: 10.1177/03000605211005972

7. Adil M, Khan I, Hassan Z, Habib SA, Jibran MS, Nawaz T. One Year Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Diabetics With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: A Single-Center Comparative Study. Cureus. 2021;13(1):e12731. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.12731

8. Poznyak AV, Sadykhov NK, Kartuesov AG, Borisov EE, Sukhorukov VN, Orekhov AN. Atherosclerosis Specific Features in Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD). Biomedicines. 2022;10(9):2094. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10092094

9. Troitskaya E.A., Starostina E.S., Kobalava Zh.D. Efficacy of azilsartan medoxomil on the daily profile of peripheral and central arterial pressure and arterial stiffness in hypertensives with type 2 diabetes. Cardiovascular Therapy and Prevention. 2017;16(1):74–81. DOI: 10.15829/1728-8800-2017-1-74-81

10. Huang C, Li S-X, Mahajan S, Testani JM, Wilson FP, Mena CI et al. Development and Validation of a Model for Predicting the Risk of Acute Kidney Injury Associated With Contrast Volume Levels During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. JAMA Network Open. 2019;2(11):e1916021. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.16021

11. Khwaja A. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guidelines for Acute Kidney Injury. Nephron Clinical Practice. 2012;120(4):c179–84. DOI: 10.1159/000339789

12. Ouzounian M, Buth KJ, Valeeva L, Morton CC, Hassan A, Ali IS. Impact of Preoperative Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor Use on Clinical Outcomes After Cardiac Surgery. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2012;93(2):559–64. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.10.058