详细记录  
题名:L-Arginine Supplementation in Peripheral Arterial Disease. No Benefit and Possible Harm.
作者:Wilson AM, Harada R, Nair N, Balasubramanian N, Cooke JP,
来源:Circulation. 2007 Jun 25;[IF=11.63]
URL :http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.683656
日期:070630
摘要:BACKGROUND: L-Arginine is the precursor of endothelium-derived nitric oxide, an endogenous vasodilator. L-Arginine supplementation improves vascular reactivity and functional capacity in peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in small, short-term studies. We aimed to determine the effects of long-term administration of L-arginine on vascular reactivity and functional capacity in patients with PAD. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Nitric Oxide in Peripheral Arterial Insufficiency (NO-PAIN) study was a randomized clinical trial of oral L-arginine (3 g/d) versus placebo for 6 months in 133 subjects with intermittent claudication due to PAD in a single-center setting. The primary end point was the change at 6 months in the absolute claudication distance as assessed by the Skinner-Gardner treadmill protocol. L-Arginine supplementation significantly increased plasma L-arginine levels. However, measures of nitric oxide availability (including flow-mediated vasodilation, vascular compliance, plasma and urinary nitrogen oxides, and plasma citrulline formation) were reduced or not improved compared with placebo. Although absolute claudication distance improved in both L-arginine- and placebo-treated patients, the improvement in the L-arginine-treated group was significantly less than that in the placebo group (28.3% versus 11.5%; P=0.024). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with PAD, long-term administration of L-arginine does not increase nitric oxide synthesis or improve vascular reactivity. Furthermore, the expected placebo effect observed in studies of functional capacity was attenuated in the L-arginine-treated group. As opposed to its short-term administration, long-term administration of L-arginine is not useful in patients with intermittent claudication and PAD.

================  评  论  部  分=================

重要性:
分类:(参照 Faculty of 1000 的分类体系)


评语:

评论密码:   返回前页  [全部]