Randomized controlled trial of vasodilator therapy after myocardial infarction

Vasodilators in acute heart failure - evidence based on new studies

Acute heart failure (AHF) contributes largely to the worldwide burden of heart failure (HF) and is associated with high mortality, poor prognosis and high rehospitalization rate. The pharmacologic therapy of AHF includes diuretics and vasodilators, which are a keystone when fluid overload and congestion are present. However, vasodilators are mainly focused on controlling symptoms, and drugs that also improve long-term mortality and morbidity seem to be in high demand. In this review, we summarize the existing evidence on mortality benefits of IV vasodilators in AHF. There is lack of evidence on the mortality benefits of IV vasodilators in AHF, as well as well-designed and large-scale trials for some of them. The existing trials on nitrates have conflicting results and are insufficient to establish definitive conclusions. Other vasodilators, such as enalaprilat, clevidipine, carperitide, and ularitide, have been evaluated only in a few trials assessing mortality. Levosimendan, nesititide and carperitide are approved by some regulatory agencies; however, data regarding mortality are also conflicting and large-scale post-marketing studies would be important. Serelaxin is a recent therapy with a novel mechanism of action and seemed to be promising; although serelaxin was safe and well tolerated in earlier trials, the results of a larger phase III trial failed to meet the primary endpoints of reduction in cardiovascular death at day 180 and reduction of worsening heart failure at day 5. The absence of definitive mortality benefits and high-quality and large-scale data not allow firm conclusions to be drawn about the role of IV vasodilators in AHF. Well-designed studies are needed to clarify the role of these drugs in the long-term outcome of AHF, as well as new therapies entering the clinical investigation.

Decongestion in acute heart failure

Congestion is a major reason for hospitalization in acute heart failure (HF). Therapeutic strategies to manage congestion include diuretics, vasodilators, ultrafiltration, vasopressin antagonists, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and potentially also novel therapies such as gut sequesterants and serelaxin. Uncertainty exists with respect to the appropriate decongestion strategy for an individual patient. In this review, we summarize the benefit and risk profiles for these decongestion strategies and provide guidance on selecting an appropriate approach for different patients. An evidence-based initial approach to congestion management involves high-dose i.v. diuretics with addition of vasodilators for dyspnoea relief if blood pressure allows. To enhance diuresis or overcome diuretic resistance, options include dual nephron blockade with thiazide diuretics or natriuretic doses of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. Vasopressin antagonists may improve aquaresis and relieve dyspnoea. If diuretic strategies are unsuccessful, then ultrafiltration may be considered. Ultrafiltration should be used with caution in the setting of worsening renal function. This review is based on discussions among scientists, clinical trialists, and regulatory representatives at the 9th Global Cardio Vascular Clinical Trialists Forum in Paris, France, from 30 November to 1 December 2012.

Review of current and investigational pharmacologic agents for acute heart failure syndromes

Acute heart failure syndromes (AHFS) are a major public health problem and present a therapeutic challenge to clinicians. Commonly used agents in the treatment of AHFS include diuretics, vasodilators (eg, nitroglycerin, nitroprusside, nesiritide), and inotropes (eg, dobutamine, dopamine, milrinone). Patients admitted to hospital with AHFS and low cardiac output state (AHFS/LO) represent a subgroup with very high inhospital and postdischarge mortality rates. Most of these patients require intravenous inotropic therapy. However, the use of current intravenous inotropes has been associated with risk for hypotension, atrial and ventricular arrhythmias, and possibly increased postdischarge mortality, particularly in those with coronary artery disease. Consequently, there is an unmet need for new agents to safely improve cardiac performance (contractility and/or active relaxation) in this patient population. This article reviews a selection of current and investigational agents for the treatment of AHFS, with a main focus on the high-risk patient population with AHFS/LO.

Overview of current noninodilator therapies for acute heart failure syndromes

Several treatment strategies exist for patients hospitalized with acute heart failure syndromes (AHFS). These therapies traditionally focus on improving hemodynamics and relieving congestion. This review focuses on noninodilator therapies, including diuretics, nitrovasodilators (nitroprusside and nitroglycerin), vasodilators (nesiritide), digoxin, and intravenous angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. These agents are used based on their associated symptomatic improvements alone. In the hospitalized setting, none of these agents have demonstrated benefits on long-term outcomes. Future work in AHFS should strive to understand the influence of conventional and new pharmacologic therapies on the underlying pathophysiology of AHFS, the processes that lead to myocardial injury and progressive heart failure, and measurable clinical outcomes.

Molecular genetics: cardiac disease and risk-related genes

Molecular genetics is playing an increasing role in the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of cardiac disease. Moreover, most of the genes that may cause cardiac disease or predispose an individual to cardiac disease are anticipated to be identified within the next 10 years. Several genes with risk for heart disease have been identified, such as the ACE genotype DD. Replacement gene therapy as well as use of promoter-specific drugs to act on genetic regulatory elements will encompass the future treatment of cardiovascular disease. This article provides a summary of the potential roles of genetic screening for cardiac risk factors and genetic interventions in cardiovascular disease.

Effect of intravenous nitrates on mortality in acute myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomised trials

About 2000 patients have been randomised in ten trials of intravenous nitroglycerin or nitroprusside in acute myocardial infarction. Taken separately, the individual trials have all been too small to provide a reliable estimate of the effects of treatment on mortality, but collectively they provide strong evidence of benefit. In total there have been 136 nitrate and 193 control deaths, and an appropriate overview of the separate trial results indicated a "typical" reduction of 35% (SD 10) in the odds of death (2p less than 0.001, with 95% confidence limits of about one-sixth to one-half). Both nitroglycerin and nitroprusside reduced mortality, the reduction being non-significantly greater with nitroglycerin than with nitroprusside. The greatest reduction in mortality occurred during the first week or so of follow-up, with a non-significant further reduction after this early period. This suggests that the early benefit is not rapidly lost.

Comparative effects of nitroprusside and pinacidil on myocardial blood flow and infarct size in awake dogs with acute myocardial infarction

The effect of nitroprusside in limiting myocardial infarct was compared with that of pinacidil, a new antihypertensive agent with potent coronary vasodilator properties, in instrumented awake dogs subjected to 4 hr of left anterior descending coronary artery occlusion and 20 hr of reperfusion. Dogs were randomly assigned to receive intravenous normal saline, nitroprusside, or pinacidil beginning 40 min after the onset of coronary artery occlusion and continuing throughout the occlusion and the first hour of reperfusion. Nitroprusside and pinacidil were titrated to decrease mean aortic pressure by 25 mm Hg; normal saline had no effect on mean aortic pressure. Other systemic hemodynamic variables were not significantly altered by normal saline or nitroprusside, and myocardial blood flow did not change during normal saline infusion in normal and ischemic myocardium. In contrast, nitroprusside increased the blood flow and the endocardial/epicardial flow ratio in ischemic myocardium. This increase in ischemic myocardial blood flow was accompanied by a significant reduction in infarct size (40 +/- 3% of region at risk vs 58 +/- 4% in the normal saline group; p less than .05). Pinacidil increased heart rate, cardiac output, and the peak rate of rise of left ventricular pressure. Furthermore, despite causing a threefold to fourfold increase in normal myocardial blood flow, pinacidil had no effect on either blood flow to ischemic myocardium or infarct size (57 +/- 5%). The data indicate that the marked coronary vasodilator effect of pinacidil does not cause an increase in ischemic blood flow or a reduction in infarct size.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Complexity and contradiction in clinical trial research

Randomized clinical trials have become the accepted scientific standard for evaluating therapeutic efficacy. Contradictory results from multiple randomized clinical trials on the same topic have been attributed either to methodologic deficiencies in the design of one of the trials or to small sample sizes that did not provide assurance that a meaningful therapeutic difference would be detected. When 36 topics with conflicting results that included over 200 randomized clinical trials in cardiology and gastroenterology were reviewed, it was discovered that results of randomized clinical trials often disagree because the complexity of the randomized clinical trial design and the clinical setting creates inconsistencies and variation in the therapeutic evaluation. Nine methodologic sources of this variation were identified, including six items concerned with the design of the trials, and three items concerned with interpretation. The design issues include eligibility criteria and the selection of study groups, baseline differences in the available population, variability in indications for the principal and concomitant therapies, protocol requirements of the randomized clinical trial, and management of intermediate outcomes. The issues in interpreting the trials include the regulatory effects of treatments, the frailty of double-blinding, and the occurrence of unexpected trial outcomes. The results of this review suggest that pooled analyses of conflicting results of randomized clinical trials (meta-analyses) may be misleading by obscuring important distinctions among trials, and that enhanced flexibility in strategies for data analysis will be needed to ensure the clinical applicability of randomized clinical trial results.

Hemodynamic abnormalities in acute myocardial infarction

Great strides have been made in the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction since the advent of coronary care units. However, congestive heart failure continues to be the major cause of in-hospital mortality. The accurate diagnosis and classification of hemodynamic abnormalities allow the application of specific therapies for each patient. Because clinicians can now routinely measure left and right ventricular preload, systemic and pulmonary vascular resistance, cardiac output, and arteriovenous oxygen difference, pharmacologic and surgical interventions can be applied in a scientific manner. In addition, mechanical complications can be promptly recognized and aggressively treated. Although the mortality rate for patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction remains high, expert management offers an improved prognosis for many patients.

Management of acute myocardial infarction

This article presents plans of therapy based on current knowledge of pathophysiologic mechanisms, taking into consideration the rapid changes in availability of new drugs (or new experiences with old drugs) and new therapeutic interventions. Persistence of ischemic pain in the acute phase, or its recurrence during early convalescence, is a signal of a high-risk state for additional coronary events, and aggressive measures are required to prevent them. The indications, and the role of invasive hemodynamic monitoring in the treatment of left ventricular failure and/or hypotension, are discussed.

Hemodynamic trial of sequential treatment with diuretic, vasodilator, and positive inotropic drugs in left ventricular failure following acute myocardial infarction

The circulatory effects induced by two sequential intravenous treatment programs with a diuretic, arteriolar or venodilator , and a positive inotropic drug were studied in a randomized between-group trial in 20 male patients with radiographic and hemodynamic evidence of left ventricular (LV) failure following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Furosemide induced a substantial diuresis in both groups of patients, in association with reductions in LV filling pressure (p less than 0.01) and cardiac output (p less than 0.05), without significant change in heart rate or systemic arterial pressure. The addition of isosorbide dinitrate was followed by reductions in the systemic arterial (p less than 0.01) and LV filling pressures (p less than 0.01) without significant change in the heart rate or cardiac output. Hydralazine after furosemide reduced systemic vascular resistance (p less than 0.01), but the fall in mean blood pressure (p less than 0.01) was limited by the increase in cardiac output (p less than 0.01); heart rate was also increased (p less than 0.01) and LV filling pressure fell (p less than 0.05). The final addition of the beta-1 adrenoceptor agonist, prenalterol, increased systemic arterial systolic pressure (p less than 0.05), cardiac output (p less than 0.05), and heart rate (p less than 0.01), and reduced systemic vascular resistance (p less than 0.01) in both groups; these changes were greatest in those pretreated with furosemide and isosorbide dinitrate. In both treatment pathways compared with control the reductions in systemic vascular resistance and left heart filling pressure were accompanied by increases in heart rate and cardiac output without substantial changes in systemic blood pressure. Which of these hemodynamic pathways offers the optimum prognosis awaits further study.

Hemodynamic comparison of primary venous or arteriolar dilatation and the subsequent effect of furosemide in left ventricular failure after acute myocardial infarction

The hemodynamic effect of venous dilatation (intravenous isosorbide dinitrate [ISDN]) and arteriolar dilatation (intravenous hydralazine), both as firstline treatment and then combined with intravenous furosemide, were evaluated in a randomized, between-group comparison in 20 men with severe acute left-sided cardiac failure after myocardial infarction (MI). Both ISDN (50 to 200 micrograms/kg/hour) (Group 1) and hydralazine (0.15 mg/kg) (Group 2) reduced systemic arterial pressure (p less than 0.05) and vascular resistance (p less than 0.05). Pulmonary artery occluded pressure was reduced (p less than 0.01) only by ISDN, whereas heart rate (p less than 0.01), cardiac output (p less than 0.01) and stroke volume (p less than 0.05) were increased only after hydralazine. After ISDN, furosemide (1 mg/kg) decreased left-sided cardiac filling pressure by 1 mm Hg (p greater than 0.05), whereas after hydralazine, furosemide in a similar dose reduced pulmonary artery occluded pressure by 5 mm Hg (p less than 0.01). In both groups of patients, furosemide transiently increased systemic arterial pressure (p less than 0.05). Cardiac output was reduced (p less than 0.05) and systemic vascular resistance increased (p less than 0.05) in Group 1 patients after furosemide. Similar changes in both variables in Group 2 patients did not attain statistical significance. In conclusion, ISDN-induced venous dilatation is preferable to primary arteriolar dilatation by hydralazine as first-line treatment in acute left-sided cardiac failure. However, hydralazine and furosemide in combination were equally effective in reducing pulmonary artery occluded pressure and increasing cardiac output. The influences of each regimen on prognosis await further investigation.

Haemodynamic advantages of isosorbide dinitrate over frusemide in acute heart-failure following myocardial infarction

The immediate haemodynamic effects of intravenous frusemide (1 mg/kg) and intravenous isosorbide dinitrate (50-200 micrograms/kg/h) were compared in a prospective, randomised, between-group study in 28 men with radiographic and haemodynamic evidence of left ventricular failure following acute myocardial infarction. The diuresis induced by frusemide reduced the left heart filling pressure and cardiac output and transiently raised systemic blood-pressure. In contrast, isosorbide dinitrate was accompanied by a reduction in systemic blood-pressure and peripheral resistance with the result that the cardiac output was not decreased despite a large fall in the pulmonary vascular and left heart filling pressures. These results indicate that reduction of excessive preload by venodilatation may be haemodynamically superior to that induced by diuresis in terms of both reducing myocardial oxygen consumption and maintaining peripheral perfusion. The influence of these contrasting treatments on the prognosis of these high-risk patients warrants further study.

Vasodilator therapy for acute myocardial infarction and chronic congestive heart failure

Vasodilator therapy is useful adjunctive therapy in the management of both acute and chronic heart failure. Arteriolar dilators, such as hydralazine, increase cardiac output by decreasing the elevated peripheral vascular resistance that occurs in heart failure. Venodilators, such as nitrates, decrease ventricular filling pressures by redistributing blood so that more is pooled in peripheral veins. Vasodilators that produce both effects (nitro-prusside, prazosin, captopril, for example) are usually helpful in short-term improvement of hemodynamics. Long-term treatment with nonparenteral vasodilators often reduces symptoms and increases exercise tolerance, although there is inconclusive evidence regarding the effects of these agents on mortality. In acute myocardial infarction, intravenous vasodilators frequently improve cardiac performance. Evidence regarding their beneficial effects on infarct size and immediate mortality is encouraging but inconclusive. There is little evidence that they prolong life in patients who survive cardiogenic shock and leave the hospital. Thus, vasodilators can improve hemodynamics and lessen symptoms, but more evidence is needed regarding their long-term effects on survival.

Effect of short-term infusion of sodium nitroprusside on mortality rate in acute myocardial infarction complicated by left ventricular failure: results of a Veterans Administration cooperative study

Eight hundred twelve men with presumed acute myocardial infarction and left ventricular filling pressure of at least 12 mm Hg participated in a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy of a 48-hour infusion of sodium nitroprusside. The mortality rates at 21 days (10.4 per cent in the placebo group and 11.5 per cent in the nitroprusside group) and at 13 weeks (19.0 per cent and 17.0 per cent, respectively) were not significantly affected by treatment. The efficacy of nitroprusside was related to the time of treatment: the drug had a deleterious effect in patients whose infusions were started within nine hours of the onset of pain (mortality at 13 weeks, 24.2 per cent vs. 12.7 per cent; P = 0.025) and a beneficial effect in those whose infusions were begun later (mortality at 13 weeks, 14.4 per cent vs. 22.3 per cent; P = 0.04). Nitroprusside should probably not be used routinely in patients with high left ventricular filling pressures after acute myocardial infarction. However, the results in the patients given late treatment suggest that those with persistent pump failure might receive sustained benefit from short-term nitroprusside therapy.

Effect of sodium nitroprusside on mortality in acute myocardial infarction

We gave sodium nitroprusside by intravenous infusion to 163 randomly selected patients during the first 24 hours after hospitalization for typical acute myocardial infarction, and we studied its effects on mortality at one week, on the incidence of cardiogenic shock, on clinical signs of left ventricular failure, and on peak levels of creatine kinase isoenzyme MB. A control group of 165 patients received standard medical treatment and infusion of 5 per cent glucose. The end point of the study was a significant reduction in mortality in the nitroprusside group; this was reached when five deaths had occurred in this group, as compared with 18 among the controls (P less than 0.05). The incidence of cardiogenic shock, clinical signs of left-heart failure, and mean peak levels of creatine kinase isoenzyme MB were all reduced (P less than 0.05). The results indicate that infusion of nitroprusside in the early phase of acute infarction limits complications, possibly by reducing infarct size. The drug was particularly effective in anterior-wall infarction.