Effect of low dose aspirin on cardiorenal function and acute hemodynamic response to enalaprilat in a canine model of severe heart failure

Management of Chronic Congestive Heart Failure Caused by Myxomatous Mitral Valve Disease in Dogs: A Narrative Review from 1970 to 2020

Simple Summary

Myxomatous mitral valve disease (MMVD) is the most common acquired cardiovascular disease in dogs. The progression of the disease and the increasing severity of valvular regurgitation cause a volume overload of the left heart, leading to left atrial and ventricular remodeling and congestive heart failure (CHF). The treatment of chronic CHF secondary to MMVD in dogs has not always been the same over time. In the last fifty years, the drugs utilized have considerably changed, as well as the therapeutic protocols. Some drugs have also changed their intended use. An analysis of the literature concerning the therapy of chronic heart failure in dogs affected by this widespread degenerative disease is not available; a synthesis of the published literature on this topic and a description of its current state of art are needed. To the authors’ knowledge, a review of this topic has never been published in veterinary medicine; therefore, the aim of this study is to overview the treatments of chronic CHF secondary to MMVD in dogs from 1970 to 2020 using the general framework of narrative reviews.

Abstract

The treatment of chronic congestive heart failure (CHF), secondary to myxomatous mitral valve disease (MMVD) in dogs, has considerably changed in the last fifty years. An analysis of the literature concerning the therapy of chronic CHF in dogs affected by MMVD is not available, and it is needed. Narrative reviews (NRs) are aimed at identifying and summarizing what has been previously published, avoiding duplications, and seeking new study areas that have not yet been addressed. The most accessible open-access databases, PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar, were chosen, and the searching time frame was set in five decades, from 1970 to 2020. The 384 selected studies were classified into categories depending on the aim of the study, the population target, the pathogenesis of MMVD (natural/induced), and the resulting CHF. Over the years, the types of studies have increased considerably in veterinary medicine. In particular, there have been 43 (24.29%) clinical trials, 41 (23.16%) randomized controlled trials, 10 (5.65%) cross-over trials, 40 (22.60%) reviews, 5 (2.82%) comparative studies, 17 (9.60%) case-control studies, 2 (1.13%) cohort studies, 2 (1.13%) experimental studies, 2 (1.13%) questionnaires, 6 (3.40%) case-reports, 7 (3.95%) retrospective studies, and 2 (1.13%) guidelines. The experimental studies on dogs with an induced form of the disease were less numerous (49–27.68%) than the studies on dogs affected by spontaneous MMVD (128–72.32%). The therapy of chronic CHF in dogs has considerably changed in the last fifty years: in the last century, some of the currently prescribed drugs did not exist yet, while others had different indications.

Treatment of Heart Failure with Abnormal Left Ventricular Systolic Function in Older Adults

Heart failure (HF) with abnormal left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction should be identified and treated. Treat hypertension with diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and β-blockers. Treat myocardial ischemia with nitrates and β-blockers. Treat volume overload and HF with diuretics. Treat HF with ACE inhibitors and β-blockers. Sacubitril/valsartan may be used instead of an ACE inhibitor or ARB in chronic symptomatic HF and abnormal LV ejection fraction. Add isosorbide dinitrate/hydralazine in African Americans with class II to IV HF treated with diuretics, ACE inhibitors, and β-blockers. Exercise training is recommended. Indications for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy are discussed.

Update of treatment of heart failure with reduction of left ventricular ejection fraction

Underlying and precipitating causes of heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) should be identified and treated when possible. Hypertension should be treated with diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and β-blockers. Diuretics are the first-line drugs in the treatment of patients with HFrEF and volume overload. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and β-blockers (carvedilol, sustained-release metoprolol succinate, or bisoprolol) should be used in treatment of HFrEF. Use an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) (candesartan or valsartan) if intolerant to ACE inhibitors because of cough or angioneurotic edema. Sacubitril/valsartan may be used instead of an ACE inhibitor or ARB in patients with chronic symptomatic HFrEF class II or III to further reduce morbidity and mortality. Add an aldosterone antagonist (spironolactone or eplerenone) in selected patients with class II-IV HF who can be carefully monitored for renal function and potassium concentration. (Serum creatinine should be ≤ 2.5 mg/dl in men and ≤ 2.0 mg/dl in women. Serum potassium should be < 5.0 mEq/l). Add isosorbide dinitrate plus hydralazine in patients self-described as African Americans with class II-IV HF being treated with diuretics, ACE inhibitors, and β-blockers. Ivabradine can be used in selected patients with HFrEF.

Treatment of Heart Failure with Abnormal Left Ventricular Systolic Function in the Elderly

This article summarizes the four stages of heart failure (HF) as defined by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association and discusses the treatments for elderly patients with HF and abnormal left ventricular systolic function. The article explains the important role of diuretics, the first-line drugs in the treatment of older patients with HF and volume overload. Other treatments described include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, beta-blockers, aldosterone antagonists, isosorbide dinitrate plus hydralazine, digoxin, and calcium channel blockers. The article explains the role each of these plays and reports on studies that have examined and compared various treatments.

Treatment of Heart Failure with Abnormal Left Ventricular Systolic Function in the Elderly

This article summarizes the four stages of heart failure (HF) as defined by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association and discusses the treatments for elderly patients with HF and abnormal left ventricular systolic function. The article explains the important role of diuretics, the first-line drugs in the treatment of older patients with HF and volume overload. Other treatments described include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, beta-blockers, aldosterone antagonists, isosorbide dinitrate plus hydralazine, digoxin, and calcium channel blockers. The article explains the role each of these plays and reports on studies that have examined and compared various treatments.

Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, Prognosis, and Treatment of Systolic and Diastolic Heart Failure

Underlying causes, risk factors, and precipitating causes of heart failure (HF) should be treated. Drugs known to precipitate or aggravate HF such as nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs should be stopped. Patients with HF and a low left ventricular ejection fraction (systolic heart failure) or normal ejection fraction (diastolic HF) should be treated with diuretics if fluid retention is present, with an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker if the patient cannot tolerate an ACE inhibitor because of cough, angioneurotic edema, rash, or altered taste sensation, and with a beta blocker unless contraindicated. If severe systolic HF persists, an aldosterone antagonist should be added. If HF persists, isosorbide dinitrate plus hydralazine should be added. Calcium channel blockers should be avoided if systolic HF is present. Digoxin should be avoided in men and women with diastolic HF if sinus rhythm is present and in women with systolic HF. Digoxin should be given to men with systolic HF if symptoms persist, but the serum digoxin level should be maintained between 0.5 and 0.8 ng/mL.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in the therapy of renal diseases

Renal diseases, especially chronic renal failure (CRF), are common in canine and feline medicine. The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) plays a pivotal role in these conditions in the development of renal lesions and the progression of kidney dysfunction. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) are currently considered as the most efficient agents in therapeutic strategies. The benefit of an ACEI treatment can be explained by at least three mechanisms: ACEI limit systemic and glomerular capillary hypertension, have an antiproteinuric effect, and retard the development of glomerulosclerosis and tubulointerstitial lesions. These effects have been studied in dogs and cats, and there is now some evidence to support the recommendation of ACEI therapy in dogs and cats with CRF. Nevertheless the prescription of ACEI in such patients should take into account the potential influence of renal impairment on ACEI disposition, and adverse effects on the renal function itself (especially hypotension and acute reductions in glomerular filtration rate). The risk of drug interaction with diuretics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and anesthetics, should not be overestimated. Furthermore, hypotension may occur in patients on a low sodium diet.

Should aspirin be used with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in patients with chronic heart failure?

Aspirin and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are widely used in combination to treat a wide spectrum of cardiac disorders. Theoretically, a rationale for interaction between these two agents exists in the possible counterbalancing prostaglandin inhibiting actions of aspirin and the vasodilatory prostaglandin promoting effects of ACE inhibitors. Animal and human studies suggest such an interaction, but most are plagued by small numbers or retrospective designs. Large-scale trials are in progress to address this issue. Until then, the key factor in deciding whether a patient with ischemic heart disease on ACE inhibitor therapy should be placed on aspirin therapy may largely depend on the severity of heart failure. The more severe the heart failure, the more likely an appreciable interaction between aspirin and ACE inhibitors will occur. Treatment with either low-dose aspirin or with alternative agents, such as warfarin or clopidogrel, may be the best therapeutic approach for patients with severe systolic heart failure.

Epidemiology, pathophysiology, prognosis, and treatment of systolic and diastolic heart failure in elderly patients

American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association class I recommendations for treating patients with heart failure (HF) and abnormal left ventricular ejection fraction are diuretics in patients with fluid retention, an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor unless contraindicated, a beta-blocker unless contraindicated, digoxin for the treatment of symptoms of HF, and withdrawal of drugs known to precipitate or aggravate HF such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, calcium channel blockers, and most antiarrhythmic drugs. Class II(a) recommendations for treating HF with abnormal left ventricular ejection fraction are spironolactone in patients with class IV symptoms, preserved renal function, and normal serum potassium; exercise training as an adjunctive approach to improve clinical status in ambulatory patients; an angiotensin receptor blocker in patients who cannot be given an ACE inhibitor because of cough, rash, altered taste sensation, or angioedema; and hydralazine plus nitrates in patients being treated with diuretics, a beta-blocker, and digoxin who cannot be given an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker because of hypotension or renal insufficiency. Patients with diastolic HF should be treated with cautious use of diuretics and with a beta-blocker. An ACE inhibitor should be added if HF persists or an angiotensin receptor blocker if the patient cannot tolerate an ACE inhibitor because of cough, angioedema, rash, or altered taste sensation. Isosorbide dinitrate plus hydralazine should be added if HF persists. A calcium channel blocker should be added if HF persists. Digoxin should be avoided in diastolic HF if sinus rhythm is present.

Treatment of heart failure in older persons. Dilemmas with coexisting conditions: diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and arthritis

Diabetes mellitus is a risk factor for congestive heart failure. Diabetics with congestive heart failure should have good glycemic control, treatment of hypertension and dyslipidemia, and treatment with diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and beta blockers as well as digoxin, if the left ventricular ejection fraction is abnormal. Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease may have left ventricular failure because of a coexistent cardiac disorder or right ventricular failure from pulmonary hypertension. An acute respiratory tract infection may precipitate right ventricular failure and should be treated. Alveolar hypoxia should be corrected by improving alveolar ventilation through relieving airflow obstruction with bronchodilators and by increasing inspired oxygen concentration. Loop diuretics should be used cautiously. Beta blockers may be given to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and left ventricular failure if bronchospasm is not present. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors should be used to treat left ventricular failure. Digitalis should not be used in patients with right ventricular failure due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are contraindicated in patients with congestive heart failure. There are controversial data about the negative interaction between aspirin and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in patients with congestive heart failure. Patients with arthritis and congestive heart failure needing large doses of aspirin for pain relief may be treated instead with acetaminophen, tramadol, or Percocet if necessary for chronic severe pain.

Controversies in heart failure. Are beneficial effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors attenuated by aspirin in patients with heart failure?

To whatever extent the improvement in symptoms and survival rendered by treatment with ACE inhibitors is attributable to their effects on the circulation and the kidneys, this benefit can be rescinded by concomitant administration of aspirin. Although some useful prostaglandin-independent actions may persist, shutting down the entire prostaglandin system and trading off a substantial portion of the potential risk reduction with forfeit of salutary hemodynamic and renal effects is a high price to pay just to suppress production of TXA2. In patients requiring treatment for heart failure, if possible, aspirin should be avoided and the integrity of prostaglandin metabolism respected; the severer the heart failure the more compelling. There are other ways to inhibit platelet aggregation, some equally effective or even better than aspirin. Orally active platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists, which may be more efficient than aspirin, have been developed and are now in clinical testing. Ticlopidine and clopidogrel, although more expensive than aspirin, are as easy to use and at least as effective as aspirin. Finally, because patients with severer heart failure are likely to be those with very low ejection fractions, these patients are good candidates for oral anticoagulation even though this treatment requires additional monitoring.

The angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and aspirin interaction in congestive heart failure: fear or reality?

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors have become the cornerstone of therapy for congestive heart failure (CHF). Because ischemic heart disease is the most common cause of CHF, aspirin is frequently given concomitantly with ACE inhibitors in patients with CHF. Increased bradykinin levels, with the consequent enhanced synthesis of vasodilatory prostaglandins, appear to mediate a significant benefit of ACE inhibitor therapy in these patients. In contrast, aspirin inhibits cyclooxygenase, and thereby suppresses prostaglandin production. Thus, these counteracting effects on prostaglandins may result in antagonism between ACE inhibitor and aspirin therapy in heart failure patients. Several early reports questioned the safety of aspirin in CHF, and the potential antagonistic interaction between ACE inhibitors and aspirin in patients with heart failure has become the focus of both increasing research and intense debate. This article briefly highlights the theoretic considerations underlying this interaction, and reviews the available evidence for such an interaction from clinical trials.

Interaction between Aspirin and ACE Inhibitors in Patients with Heart Failure

Both aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) and ACE inhibitors are often used concomitantly, especially in patients with both heart failure and ischaemic heart disease, which is the most common underlying cause of heart failure. The safety of the association has been questioned because both drugs affect a related prostaglandin-mediated pathway. Thanks to their vasodilating properties, prostaglandins play an important role in heart failure where peripheral vasoconstriction occurs. Some of the beneficial effects of ACE inhibitors might be related to reduced degradation of bradykinin that enhances the synthesis of prostaglandins, while aspirin, through inhibiting the enzyme cyclo-oxygenase, inhibits the production of prostaglandins. To date no prospective study has been conducted to investigate the effect of long term aspirin treatment in the postinfarction period allowing the possible impact of the interaction between aspirin and ACE inhibitors upon survival to be confirmed or negated. However, the practitioner needs to know how to optimise the treatment of his or her patients. In order to stimulate arguments for and against the use of aspirin in patients with heart failure receiving ACE inhibitors, we searched MEDLINE from 1960 to 2000 using the key words heart failure, aspirin, and ACE inhibitors for English language articles and conducted a review of the available data. We report on the potential mechanisms of the interaction and the results of experimental studies on haemodynamic parameters. Results of retrospective clinical studies, subgroup analysis that were undertaken to evaluate the overall action upon haemodynamic parameters and survival of the association are summarised. Conflicting conclusions have been reported in the literature. Many explanations can be advanced to try to understand these conflicting conclusions: differences in study design (results of retrospective trials have to be interpreted with caution); differences in the choice of the evaluation parameter (problem of the clinical relevance of haemodynamic parameters); differences in the characteristics of the patient (different underlying cardiopathy, e.g. heart failure, hypertension or ischaemic cardiopathy); and differences in the type and the dosage of each treatment (especially ACE inhibitors and aspirin since an interaction might occur more often with dosage of aspirin greater than 250mg).

Possible interaction between aspirin and ACE inhibitors: update on unresolved controversy

The widespread use of aspirin and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in patients with coronary artery disease contributes significantly to the reduction in morbidity and mortality from this common health problem. These agents are widely and concomitantly used, and they share mechanisms that may interact in negative or positive pathways. Data derived from in vitro preparations, animal studies, human studies, and case-control studies are inconsistent. No study has established firm evidence regarding the safety or adverse effect of aspirin on patients who are on ACE inhibitors. The efficacy and safety of aspirin in combination with ACE inhibitors has been questioned and debated. If a negative interaction does exist, it will affect daily practice in treating patients with coronary artery disease and heart failure. This article reviews the available data regarding the safety of combined aspirin and ACE-inhibitor treatment among patients with ischemic heart disease, to assess the possible interaction between the two drugs and to discuss the significance and implications of the data. (c)2000 by CHF, Inc.

Acute hemodynamic interaction of aspirin and ticlopidine with enalapril: results of a double-blind, randomized comparative trial

BACKGROUND

Coprescription of aspirin and ACE inhibitors is frequent in heart failure caused by coronary artery disease. Negative interaction between aspirin and enalapril has been reported, presumably through inhibition by aspirin of ACE inhibitor-induced prostaglandin synthesis. Ticlopidine is a potent antiplatelet agent without interaction with prostaglandin synthesis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The objective of this study was to compare the influence of a coadministration of ticlopidine or aspirin on the hemodynamic effects of an ACE inhibitor (enalapril) in patients with chronic heart failure. Twenty patients with severe heart failure were enrolled in a double-blind comparative trial and allocated to ticlopidine (500 mg daily, 12 patients) or aspirin (325 mg daily, 8 patients). Hemodynamic evaluation was performed after 7 days of treatment, every hour for 4 hours after an oral administration of 10 mg of enalapril. Significant reductions in systemic vascular resistance were observed in the ticlopidine group, in contrast to no significant decrease in the aspirin group. A significant (P=0.03) time-by-treatment interaction indicated significant aspirin-enalapril drug interaction. Total pulmonary resistance decreased significantly in both groups, with no difference between patients assigned to aspirin or ticlopidine.

CONCLUSIONS

Enalapril reduced systemic vascular resistance more effectively when given in combination with ticlopidine than with aspirin. In contrast, the reduction in total pulmonary resistance is similar when enalapril is administered in combination with aspirin or ticlopidine. Negative aspirin-enalapril interaction on prostaglandin synthesis presumably alters vasodilatation in systemic vessels, whereas prostaglandin-independent actions of ACE inhibition such as pulmonary arterial vasodilatation are maintained.

Effects of aspirin on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition and left ventricular dilation one year after acute myocardial infarction

There are conflicting reports on the interaction of aspirin with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in heart failure and systemic hypertension. A post hoc analysis of the Captopril and Thrombolysis Study (CATS) study was conducted. At randomization, 94 patients (31.5%) took aspirin. In patients who took aspirin, the cumulative alpha-hydroxy butyrate dehydrogenase release was 1,151 +/- 132 IU/L in patients randomized to captopril compared with 1,401 +/- 136 IU/L in patients randomized to placebo (difference -250 +/- 189 [95% confidence interval (CI) -620 to 120]). This difference was comparable to the difference in patients who did not use aspirin (-199 +/- 147 [95% CI -488 to 897]). One year after acute myocardial infarction, an increase in left ventricular end-diastolic volume index of 2.2 +/- 3.0 ml/m2 in captopril-treated and 1.9 +/- 2.9 ml/m2 in placebo-treated patients was observed in patients who took aspirin (difference 0.4 +/- 4.2 [95% CI -8.2 to 8.9]). This difference was also comparable to the difference in patients who did not take aspirin (2.2 +/- 3.8 [95% CI -5.2 to 9.7]). One year after acute myocardial infarction, patients who did take aspirin had a mean change in LV end-diastolic volume index of 2.1 +/- 2.1 ml/m2 compared with 8.4 +/- 1.9 ml/m2 in patients who did not use aspirin (p = 0.02). Thus, aspirin does not attenuate the acute and long-term effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition after acute myocardial infarction, but independently reduces LV dilation after myocardial infarction.

Antiplatelet agents and survival: a cohort analysis from the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD) trial

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to evaluate the relation between antiplatelet agent (APA) use and survival and morbidity from cardiac disease in patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction.

BACKGROUND

APAs play an important role in the prevention and treatment of coronary disease. Their effects in patients with LV systolic dysfunction are unknown.

METHODS

We reviewed data on APA use in 6,797 patients enrolled in the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD) trial and analyzed the relation between their use and all-cause mortality as well as the combined end point of death or hospital admission for heart failure (HF). We used Cox regression to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics and to test for the interaction between APA use and selected patient variables in relation to outcome.

RESULTS

APA use (46.3% of patients) was associated with significantly reduced mortality from all causes (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73 to 0.92, p = 0.0005) and reduced risk of death or hospital admission for HF (adjusted HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.89, p < 0.0001) but was not influenced by trial assignment, gender, LV ejection fraction, New York Heart Association class or etiology. A strong interaction was observed among APA use, randomization group and all-cause mortality. The association between APA use and survival was not observed in the enalapril group, nor was an enalapril benefit on survival detectable in patients receiving APAs at baseline. However, randomization to enalapril therapy significantly reduced the combined end point of death or hospital admission for HF in APA users.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with LV systolic dysfunction, use of APAs is associated with improved survival and reduced morbidity. This association is retained after adjustment for baseline characteristics. APA use is associated with retained but reduced benefit from enalapril.

Comparison of changes in respiratory function and exercise oxygen uptake with losartan versus enalapril in congestive heart failure secondary to ischemic or idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy

In congestive heart failure (CHF), some of the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, such as an increase in exercise oxygen uptake (VO2), are mediated through prostaglandins. Angiotensin (AT1) receptor blockers apparently do not share potentiation of this biosystem. We tested whether losartan improves exercise VO2 in CHF and if the effect is the same as for enalapril. Sixteen men with CHF and 8 volunteers, all nonsmokers and not taking ACE, AT1 receptor, or cyclooxygenase inhibitors, were randomized to receive placebo, enalapril (10 mg 2 times daily), losartan (50 mg/day), each of these 2 drugs plus aspirin (325 mg/day), aspirin, or the same preparations in a reverse order, each for 3 weeks, with a 3-week washout period between treatments. Pulmonary function and VO2 were assessed at the end of each treatment. In CHF, losartan and enalapril caused a similar improvement of VO2 and exercise tolerance, which was absent in controls and was counteracted by aspirin (prostaglandin inhibition) when obtained with enalapril and not with losartan. While on enalapril, we also detected an increase in the diffusing lung capacity for carbon monoxide, which correlated with changes in VO2 and was antagonized by aspirin, suggesting the possibility that a prostaglandin-mediated functional improvement of the alveolar capillary membrane contributes to the rise in VO2. Thus, losartan is as effective as enalapril for exercise VO2 and exercise tolerance, but the mechanism seems to be dissociated from a prostaglandin biosystem activation. Losartan may represent an advancement in CHF because its efficacy on VO2 is similar to that of enalapril, but is not antagonized by aspirin.

Repolarization abnormalities, arrhythmia and sudden death in canine tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine whether the canine model of tachycardia-induced heart failure (HF) is an effective model for sudden cardiac death (SCD) in HF.

BACKGROUND

Such a well established HF model that also exhibits arrhythmias and SCD, along with repolarization abnormalities that could trigger them, may facilitate the study of SCD in HF, which still eludes effective treatment.

METHODS

Twenty-five dogs were VVI-paced at 250 beats/min for 3 to 5 weeks. Electrocardiograms were obtained, and left ventricular endocardial monophasic action potentials (MAPs) were recorded at six sites at baseline and after HF. Weekly Holter recordings were made with pacing suspended for 24 h.

RESULTS

Six animals (24%) died suddenly, one with Holter-documented polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT). Holter recordings revealed an increased incidence of VT as HF progressed. Repolarization was significantly (p < 0.05) prolonged, as indexed by a corrected QT interval (mean [+/-SD] 311 +/- 25 to 338 +/- 25 ms) and MAP duration measured at 90% repolarization (MAPD90) (181 +/- 19 to 209 +/- 28 ms), and spatial MAPD90 dispersion rose by 40%. We further tested whether CsCl inhibition of repolarizing K+ currents, which are reportedly downregulated in HF, might preferentially prolong the MAPD90 in HF. With 1 mEq/kg body weight of CsCl, MAPD90 rose by 86 +/- 100 ms in dogs with HF versus only 28 +/- 16 ms in control animals (p = 0.002). Similar disparities in CsCl sensitivity were observed in myocytes isolated from normal and failing hearts.

CONCLUSIONS

Tachycardia-induced HF exhibits malignant arrhythmia and SCD, along with prolonged, heterogeneous repolarization and heightened sensitivity to CsCl at chamber and cellular levels. Thus, it appears to be a useful model for studying mechanisms and therapy of SCD in HF.

Improvement of alveolar-capillary membrane diffusing capacity with enalapril in chronic heart failure and counteracting effect of aspirin

BACKGROUND

KII ACE, the enzyme that converts angiotensin I and inactivates bradykinin, is highly concentrated in the lungs; its blockade reduces exposure to angiotensin II and enhances exposure to prostaglandins generated by local kinin hyperconcentration. Our hypothesis is that ACE inhibitors improve pulmonary function in chronic heart failure (CHF) by readjusting lung vessel tone and permeability or alveolar-capillary membrane diffusion.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In 16 CHF patients and 16 normal volunteers or mild untreated hypertensives, pulmonary function and exercise tests with respiratory gas analysis were assessed on placebo, enalapril (10 mg BID), enalapril plus aspirin (325 mg/d), or aspirin, in random order and double blind, for 15 days each. In CHF, enalapril increased pulmonary carbon monoxide diffusion (DLCO), oxygen consumption (VO2), and exercise tolerance and reduced the ratio of dead space to tidal volume (VD/VT) and the ventilatory equivalent for carbon dioxide production (VE/VCO2). On enalapril, VO2 (r = .80, P < .0001) and VD/VT (r = -.69, P = .003) changes from placebo correlated with those in DLCO. These effects were inhibited by aspirin and were absent in control subjects. In 8 additional patients, hydralazine-isosorbide dinitrate, as an alternative treatment for reducing pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) and increasing exercise capacity, were more effective than enalapril for the PCWP but did not affect DLCO and VE/VCO2; amelioration in VO2 and VD/VT was unrelated to DLCO and was not modified by aspirin.

CONCLUSIONS

ACE inhibition improved pulmonary diffusion in CHF. Hydralazine-isosorbide dinitrate failed to provide this result. Counteraction by aspirin, a prostaglandin inhibitor, bespeaks prostaglandin participation while on enalapril that might readjust capillary permeability or alveolar-capillary membrane diffusion.

The renin-angiotensin system in left ventricular remodeling

Left ventricular remodeling is a dynamic process that occurs in reaction to an insult to the myocardium. The response to either loss of cells, as may occur following myocardial infarction, or to hemodynamic overload, as may occur in aortic stenosis, is an attempt to maintain cardiac output and normalize wall tension. This is accomplished through the activation of the renin-angiotensin system and hypertrophy of noninfarcted segments of the myocardium. in the case of moderate or large infarctions these mechanisms fail to normalize wall stress. The stimulus to further remodeling remains, viable myocytes hypertrophy (with greater increases in cell length than width), the mass-to-volume ratio increases, and an exponential increase in wall stress results. This increase in myocyte tension has been associated with premature myocyte cell death. Thus, a vicious cycle is established wherein overstretch of the myocardium while sustaining cardiac output leads to progressive myocyte loss and left ventricular dilation. The renin-angiotensin system plays an integral role in this process. Its inhibition by angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors both chronically and immediately after myocardial infarction has been shown to decrease left ventricular volumes and reduce mortality. Controversy exists regarding the mechanism through which ACE inhibitors exert their effects. ACE inhibitors reduce afterload/preload, circulating angiotensin II levels, and raise circulating levels of bradykinin. It is not yet clear which mechanism is responsible for the greatest impact on left ventricular dilation and mortality. inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system is clearly beneficial to cardiac performance as well as morbidity and mortality when myocardium is lost and heart failure ensues. Specific modes of action require further definition, including local and systemic effects. Possible benefits of angiotensin receptor blockade versus augmentation of bradykinin requires definition, setting the stage for further study, while the beneficial therapeutic use of these agents continues.