Current perspectives on hydralazine and nitrate therapies in heart failure

Management of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus and Chronic Kidney Disease

Heart failure (HF), diabetes, and chronic kidney disease (CKD) frequently coexist, with one comorbidity worsening the prognosis of another. β-blockers, angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors, mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors all have been shown to reduce mortality in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. However, their uptake in real-world clinical practice remains low, especially among patients who have multiple other comorbidities such as CKD and diabetes. The management of HF in patients with diabetes and CKD can be especially challenging because these patients typically are older, frail, and have multiple other comorbidities, and guideline-directed medical therapy used in HF potentially can affect renal function acutely and chronically. In this article, we discuss the available evidence for each of the foundational HF therapies in patients with diabetes and CKD, emphasizing the current challenges and outlining future directions to optimize the management of HF among these high-risk patients.

Effect of nitrate treatment on functional capacity and exercise time in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

Heart failure (HF) is a common and potentially fatal condition. In 2015, HF affected approximately 40 million people globally. Evidence showing that the use of nitrates can improve clinical outcomes in patients with HF is limited. This study aimed to assess the effect of nitrates on functional capacity and exercise time in patients with HF.

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were reviewed for articles on the use of nitrates and other treatments for patients with HF. The primary endpoints were the 6-minute walk test distance, exercise time, and quality of life. Secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality, arrhythmia, hospitalization, and worsening HF. The weighted mean difference, risk ratio, and 95% confidence interval were calculated.

Results

A total of 14 related studies that comprised 26,321 patients were included. No significant differences were found in the 6-minute walk test distance, exercise time, and quality of life between the nitrate and control treatment groups. There were also no differences in all-cause mortality, the incidence of arrhythmia, hospitalization, and worsening HF between these two groups.

Conclusion

Patients with HF who receive nitrate treatment do not have better quality of life or exercise capacity compared with controls.

The Role of Oxidative Stress in Cardiac Disease: From Physiological Response to Injury Factor

Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are highly reactive chemical species containing oxygen, controlled by both enzymatic and nonenzymatic antioxidant defense systems. In the heart, ROS play an important role in cell homeostasis, by modulating cell proliferation, differentiation, and excitation-contraction coupling. Oxidative stress occurs when ROS production exceeds the buffering capacity of the antioxidant defense systems, leading to cellular and molecular abnormalities, ultimately resulting in cardiac dysfunction. In this review, we will discuss the physiological sources of ROS in the heart, the mechanisms of oxidative stress-related myocardial injury, and the implications of experimental studies and clinical trials with antioxidant therapies in cardiovascular diseases.

Hydralazine and nitrates alone or combined for the management of chronic heart failure: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Hydralazine (H) and nitrates (Ns), when combined, reduced morbidity and mortality in some trials of chronic heart failure (CHF). It is unclear whether either agent used alone provides similar benefits. We aimed to evaluate the effects of H and/or N in patients with CHF.

METHODS

A systematic review of randomised trials assessing the effects of H and N in CHF. For meta-analysis, only the endpoints of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality were considered.

RESULTS

In seven trials evaluating H&N in 2626 patients, combination therapy reduced all-cause mortality (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.55-0.95; p=0.02), and cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.57-0.99; p=0.04) compared to placebo. However, when compared to angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), combination therapy was associated with higher all-cause mortality (OR 1.35; 95% CI 1.03-1.76; p=0.03), and cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.04-1.81; p=0.03). For N alone, ten trials including 375 patients reported all-cause mortality and showed a trend to harm (13 deaths in those assigned to nitrates and 7 to placebo; OR 2.13; 95% CI 0.88-5.13; p=0.09). For H alone, three trials showed no difference in all-cause mortality compared to placebo (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.37-2.47; p=0.93), and two trials suggested inferiority to ACEI (OR 2.28; 95% CI 1.03-5.04; p=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo, H&N reduces mortality in patients with CHF. Whether race or background therapy influences benefit is uncertain, but on direct comparison H&N appears inferior to ACEI. There is little evidence to support the use of either drug alone in CHF.