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.