Effects of coadministration of aspirin or clopidogrel on exercise testing in patients with heart failure receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors

Antithrombotics in heart failure

Heart failure is a common clinical condition associated with high morbidity and mortality rate despite significant improvements in pharmacotherapy and implementation of medical procedures. Patients with heart failure are at an increased risk of developing arterial and venous thrombosis, which contribute to the high rate of adverse events and fatal outcomes. Many heart failure patients routinely receive antithrombotic therapy due to the presence of a specific indication for its use, like ischemic heart disease or atrial fibrillation. However, there is no solid evidence to support the routine use of antithrombotic agents in all heart failure patients. This article reviews the evidence for using antithrombotic therapy in heart failure patients.

Thienopyridine derivatives versus aspirin for preventing stroke and other serious vascular events in high vascular risk patients

BACKGROUND

Aspirin is the most widely studied and prescribed antiplatelet agent for preventing serious vascular events, reducing the odds of such events among high vascular risk patients by about a quarter. Thienopyridine derivatives inhibit platelet activation by a different mechanism and so may be more effective.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of thienopyridine derivatives (ticlopidine and clopidogrel) versus aspirin for preventing serious vascular events (stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) or vascular death) in patients at high risk, and specifically in patients with a previous TIA or ischaemic stroke.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the trials registers of the Stroke, Heart and Peripheral Vascular Diseases Cochrane Review Groups (last searched July 2008), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2008), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2008) and EMBASE (1980 to August 2008). We also searched reference lists of relevant papers, and contacted other researchers and the pharmaceutical company Sanofi-BMS (December 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All unconfounded, double blind, randomised trials directly comparing a thienopyridine derivative with aspirin in high vascular risk patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We sought additional data from the principal investigators of the largest trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 trials involving 26,865 high vascular risk patients. The trials were generally of high quality. Aspirin was compared with ticlopidine in nine trials (7633 patients) and with clopidogrel in one trial (19,185 patients). Compared with aspirin, allocation to a thienopyridine produced a modest, just statistically significant, reduction in the odds of a serious vascular event (11.6% versus 12.5%; odds ratio (OR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.99), corresponding to the avoidance of 10 (95% CI 0 to 20) serious vascular events per 1000 patients treated for about two years. However, the wide confidence interval includes the possibility of negligible additional benefit. Compared with aspirin, thienopyridines significantly reduced gastrointestinal adverse effects. However, thienopyridines increased the odds of skin rash and diarrhoea, ticlopidine more than clopidogrel. Allocation to ticlopidine, but not clopidogrel, significantly increased the odds of neutropenia. In patients with TIA/ischaemic stroke, the results were similar to those for all patients combined.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The thienopyridine derivatives are at least as effective as aspirin in preventing serious vascular events in patients at high risk, and possibly somewhat more so. However, the size of any additional benefit is uncertain and could be negligible. Clopidogrel has a more favourable adverse effects profile than ticlopidine and so is the thienopyridine of choice. It should be used as an alternative to aspirin in patients genuinely intolerant of or allergic to aspirin.

Effects of aspirin and clopidogrel on plasma brain natriuretic peptide in patients with heart failure receiving ACE inhibitors

BACKGROUND

By inhibiting prostaglandins, aspirin may be deleterious in heart failure (HF) and/or may counteract angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor efficacy. Conversely, clopidogrel has no effect on prostaglandin metabolism.

AIM

To investigate the effect of aspirin and clopidogrel on brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels in HF patients treated with ACE inhibitors.

METHODS

36 patients with stable HF (65+/-13 years, 24 males/12 females, NYHA class II to IV, ejection fraction <40%, 13 with coronary disease, all treated with ACE inhibitors) were enrolled in this prospective, double-blind study and randomised to aspirin 325 mg/day or clopidogrel 75 mg/day for 14 days. BNP was determined at day 0 and day 14.

RESULTS

19 patients were randomised to aspirin and 17 to clopidogrel. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. BNP levels increased in the aspirin group from day 0 to day 14 (107+/-103 to 144+/-149 pg/ml, p=0.04) whereas clopidogrel had no effect (104+/-107 and 97+/-99 pg/ml respectively, p=0.61).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates an adverse effect of aspirin 325 mg/day on BNP plasma levels in HF patients treated with ACE inhibitors. In contrast clopidogrel 75 mg/day had no effect.

Comparative effect of aspirin and clopidogrel on arterial function in CHF

BACKGROUND

By inhibiting prostaglandins, aspirin may be deleterious in congestive heart failure (CHF) and/or partially counteract the efficacy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI). Conversely, clopidogrel has no effect on prostaglandin metabolism. The aim of this study was to prospectively investigate the effect of aspirin and clopidogrel on arterial functional properties in CHF patients treated with ACEI.

METHODS

Forty-five patients with stable NYHA class II-IV CHF (64.0+/-15.5 years), ejection fraction <40%, were included in this prospective double-blind study and randomized to receive aspirin 325 mg/day or clopidogrel 75 mg/day for 14 days. Reflected wave assessed by radial applanation tonometry and pulse wave velocity (PWV) were measured at day 0 and day 14.

RESULTS

Aspirin resulted in an increase in the augmentation index of the reflected wave (Delta=+3.5+/-5.2%, p=0.005) and the height above the shoulder of the reflected wave (Delta=+1.7+/-3.1 mm Hg, p=0.023), without statistically variation in PWV. Conversely, clopidogrel had no effect on the same parameters (p=0.512, p=0.677 and 0.801, respectively). Overall, variations in the augmentation index of reflected wave significantly differed when compared aspirin with clopidogrel (p=0.0261).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the existence of a negative effect of aspirin 325 mg/day when compared to clopidogrel 75 mg/day on arterial functional properties in CHF patients treated with ACEI.

Antithrombotic therapy for congestive heart failure

Patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) are at increased risk of thromboembolic events. However, there is much debate and uncertainty over the use of antithrombotic therapy in these patients. The evidence for oral anticoagulation is limited, although large randomised trial data are forthcoming. Aspirin may be detrimental for heart failure due to a possible interaction with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, leading to increased hospitalisations from decompensated heart failure. The objective of this review article is to summarise the available evidence regarding the risk of stroke and thromboembolic events in CHF patients, as well as the effectiveness and risks of antithrombotic therapy in these patients.