Selection of optimal therapy for chronic stable angina

The risk of cardiovascular side effects with anti-anginal drugs

INTRODUCTION

Angina pectoris is a common presenting symptom of underlying coronary artery disease or reduced coronary flow reserve. Patients with angina have impaired quality of life; and need to be treated optimally with antianginal drugs to control symptoms and improve exercise performance. A wide range of antianginal medications are approved for the treatment of angina, and often more than one class of antianginal drugs are used to adequately control the symptoms. This expert opinion highlights the likely cardiac adverse effects of available antianginal drugs, and how to minimize these in individual patients and especially during combination treatment. Areas covered: All approved antianginal drugs, including the older and newly approved medications with different mechanism of action to the older drugs as well as some of the unapproved herbal medications. The safety profiles and potential cardiac side effects of these medications when used as monotherapy or as combination therapy are discussed and highlighted. Expert opinion: Because of the different cardiac safety profiles and possible side effects, we recommend selection of initial drug or adjustment of therapy based on the resting heart rate; blood pressure, hemodynamic status; and resting left ventricular function, concomitant medications and any associated comorbidities.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation induces vasodilation in healthy controls but not in refractory angina patients

CONTEXT

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is an effective treatment option to relieve ischemic pain in refractory angina pectoris (RAP). In healthy persons, TENS enhances local blood flow, but the mechanism responsible for the anti-ischemic effect in RAP seems to be different.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present investigation was to compare the difference in blood flow and vasodilatory response to TENS between angina patients and healthy controls and evaluate how vascular response in these groups is affected by amperage dosage above and below motor threshold levels.

METHODS

Our study evaluated upper limb vascular responses to low- and high-dose TENS (below and above motor threshold) in RAP patients compared with healthy controls. TENS was applied on the nondominating forearm. Forearm blood flow (FBF) was measured by venous occlusion plethysmography. Forearm vascular resistance (FVR) was determined (mean arterial pressure [MAP]/FBF). Measurements were done during baseline, low-dose TENS, high-dose TENS, and during recovery.

RESULTS

A significant dose-dependent increase in FBF in response to TENS stimulation was seen in controls (n=18) but not in RAP (n=23) (P=0.008). There was no significant difference in FVR ratio (FVR(stim)/FVR(ctrl)) between control (n=7) and RAP (n=23) groups at low dose (controls, 5.7+/-21%; RAP, 9.7+/-20%) or recovery (controls, -4.6+19%; RAP, 5.9+25%). High-dose TENS resulted in a significantly reduced FVR ratio (-16.8+/-11%) in controls (n=7) compared with RAP (1.6+/-32%, n=23) (P=0.02).

CONCLUSION

High-dose TENS induces forearm vasodilation in healthy subjects but not in patients with RAP. These findings suggest that TENS has different vascular effects in patients with severe coronary artery disease compared with healthy controls.

Perioperative beta-blockers for major noncardiac surgery: Primum Non Nocere

Recent studies have called into question the benefit of perioperative beta blockade, especially in patients at low to moderate risk of cardiac events. Once considered standard of care, the role of beta-blocker therapy now lies mired in conflicting data that are difficult to apply to the at-risk patient. We provide an overview of the evolution of perioperative beta blockade, beginning with the physiology of the adrenergic system, with emphasis on the biologic rationale for the perioperative implementation of beta-blockers. Although initial studies were small in size and statistically limited, early data showed cardiac benefit with the use of perioperative beta-blockers. However, larger, more recent studies now suggest a lack of benefit and potential harm from this practice. This paradigm holds true especially in those at low-to-moderate cardiovascular risk profiles. Potential explanations for these paradoxical results are discussed, stressing the key differences between earlier and current studies that may explain these divergent outcomes. We conclude by commenting on performance measures as they relate to perioperative beta-blockers and make recommendations for the continued safe implementation of this practice.

Structure-activity studies on the protection of Trimetazidine derivatives modified with nitroxides and their precursors from myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury

Trimetazidine, the known anti-anginal and anti-ischemic drug, was modified by pyrroline and tetrahydropyridine nitroxides and their hydroxylamine and sterically hindered secondary amine precursors. The synthesized new compounds proved to be better superoxide scavenger molecules compared to the parent Trimetazidine in an in vitro experiment. This reactive oxygen species (ROS) scavenging activity was further supported by ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) studies on Langendorff-perfused rat hearts pretreated with Trimetazidine and with the modified Trimetazidine derivatives before ischemia. Two of the investigated compounds, containing 2,2,5,5-tetramethyl-2,5-dihydro-1H-pyrrole and 4-phenyl-2,2,5,5-tetramethyl-2,5-dihydro-1H-pyrrole substituents on the piperazine ring, provided significant protection from the cardiac dysfunction caused by I/R. The protective effect could be attributed to the combined anti-ischemic and antioxidant effects.