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

What underlies sex differences in heart failure onset within the first year after a first myocardial infarction?

Background

Women are more likely to develop heart failure (HF) after myocardial infarction. However, diagnosis and reperfusion are often delayed.

Objectives

To compare the prevalence of HF after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI)-treated ST segment myocardial infarction (STEMI) between sexes and to study its associations with comorbidities, infarct size, and left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic dysfunctions (DD).

Methods

The patients with PPCI-treated anterior STEMI, from the CIRCUS study cohort, were followed up for 1 year and HF events were recorded. Evaluation of ejection fraction (LVEF) and DD were performed at baseline and at 1 year. The elevated LV filling pressure (LVFP) included Grades 2 and 3 DD.

Results

Of the 791 patients from the CIRCUS study, 135 were women. At 1 year, the proportion of patients who developed HF was 21% among men and 34% among women (p = 0.001). In the subset of 407 patients with available diastolic parameters, the rate of HF was also higher in women. HF during the initial hospitalization was comparable between the sexes. However, women had a higher incidence of rehospitalization for HF within the first year after STEMI (14.1% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.005). Women were older with a higher prevalence of hypertension. The infarct size and LVEF were similar between the sexes. Elevated LVFP was observed more frequently in women than in men during the initial hospitalization and at 1 year (26% vs. 12%, p = 0.04, and 22% vs. 12%, p = 0.006, respectively). Interestingly, only initial elevated LVFP (HR 5.9, 95% CI: 2.4-14.5, p < 0.001), age, and hypertension were independently associated with rehospitalization for HF.

Conclusions

After PPCI-treated anterior STEMI, despite comparable infarct size and LVEF, women presented a higher proportion of rehospitalization for HF than men. That was likely due to a greater DD associated with older age and hypertension.

Targeting elevated left ventricular end-diastolic pressure following primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction – a phase one safety and feasibility study

Introduction:

Elevated left ventricular end diastolic pressure (LVEDP) is an independent predictor of mortality and heart failure in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Whether lowering elevated LVEDP improves outcomes remains unknown.

Methods:

This non-randomized, single blinded study with prospective enrolment and sequential group allocation recruited patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI with LVEDP ⩾ 20 mmHg measured immediately after primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The intervention arm (n=10) received furosemide 40 mg intravenous bolus plus escalating doses of glyceryl trinitrate (100 µg per min to a maximum of 1000 µg) during simultaneous measurement of LVEDP. The control group (n=10) received corresponding normal saline boluses with simultaneous measurement of LVEDP (10 readings over 10 min). Efficacy endpoints were final LVEDP achieved, and the dose of glyceryl trinitrate needed to reduce LVEDP by ⩾ 20%. Safety endpoint was symptomatic hypotension (systolic blood pressure &lt; 90 mmHg).

Results:

From 1 April 2017 to 23 August 2017 we enrolled 20 patients (age: 64±9 years, males: 60%, n=12, anterior STEMI: 65%, n=13). The mean LVEDP for the whole cohort (n=20) was 29±4 mmHg (intervention group: 28±3 mmHg vs. control group: 31±5 mmHg; p=0.1). The LVEDP dropped from 28±3 to 16±2 mmHg in the glyceryl trinitrate + furosemide group (p &lt;0.01) but remained unchanged in the control group. The median dose of glyceryl trinitrate required to produce ⩾ 20% reduction in LVEDP in the intervention group was 200 µg (range: 100–800). One patient experienced asymptomatic decline in systolic blood pressure to below 90 mmHg. There was no correlation between LVEDP and left ventricular ejection fraction.

Conclusion:

The administration of glyceryl trinitrate plus furosemide in patients with elevated LVEDP following primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI safely reduces LVEDP.

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.

Methylprednisolone as an Intervention Following Myocardial Infarction

Results of early studies support the concept that steroid treatment may reduce mortality from acute myocardial infarction. This double-blind, randomized, 1118-patient study was performed to determine if methylprednisolone sodium succinate (MPSS, Solu-Medrol(R) Sterile Powder, The Upjohn Company) reduced 28-day mortality following myocardial infarction complicated by cardiac failure. Treatment with 30 mg/kg intravenous MPSS (maximum dose, 3 g) resulted in 28-day mortality rates of 11.7% with MPSS and 9.9% with placebo when treatment was initiated within six hours of the onset of chest pain (Group 1). Mortality rates at 28 days were 10.4% with MPSS and 14.7% with placebo when the treatment was inititated 6–12 hours after onset of chest pain (Group 2). In the late-treatment group, six-month mortality rates were 13.7% with MPSS and 20.3% with placebo (p=0.08)

Analysis of data by life table methods showed similar survival rates between MPSS- and placebo-treated patients in Group 1. In Group 2, survival rates were increased in MPSS-treated patients in the intervals from 48 hours through seven days (p=0.04) and from three months through six months (p=0.03). A Cox regression analysis showed that the relative risk of death for Group 1 patients was similar, regardless of treatment; Group 2 patients on MPSS had a significantly decreased relative risk of death (p<0.01).

MPSS treatment was not associated with increased incidence of myocardial rupture, cardiac aneurysm, early malignant ventricular arrhythmias, or other adverse cardiac events.

Syndromes of Acute Left Ventricular Failure

The syndrome of acute left ventricular failure, manifesting as pulmonary edema and/or cardiogenic shock, occurs in many different clinical settings, has many different causes, and variable treatment strategies. Most commonly it is seen as a complication of acute myocardial infarction where loss of myocardial tissue results in ineffective systolic performance of the left ventricle. Urgent percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty may have a significant impact on outcome in this setting. Other complicating events following myocardial infarction may also precipitate left ventricular failure including papillary muscle dysfunction and ventricular septal defect. The syndrome of acute left ventricular failure is also commonly seen in patients with chronic congestive cardiac failure whereby myocardial infarction, arrhythmia and even minor increases in salt intake can precipitate acute decompensation. Other conditions such as fulminant myocarditis, bacterial endocarditis and disease processes characterized by diastolic dysfunction can all cause acute left ventricular failure. Moreover, cardiac function may be depressed in septic shock by the presence of cardiodepressant factors. In summary, acute left ventricular failure is a syndrome with a diverse etiology. Specific diagnosis of the particular cause is crucial to appropriate management.

Pharmacological reasons that may explain why randomized clinical trials have failed in acute heart failure syndromes

Acute heart failure (AHF) represents a clinical challenge as it encloses a heterogeneous group of syndromes (AHFS) with different pathophysiology, clinical presentations, prognosis and response to therapy. In the last 25years multiple therapeutic targets have been identified and numerous new drugs were evaluated but, up to now, all failed to demonstrate a consistent benefit on clinical outcomes. Moreover, a repeated finding has been the poor correlation between the encouraging results of preclinical and early clinical trials and the lack of effect on outcomes observed in phase III trials. We review several possible pharmacological reasons that may explain the lack of success to develop new drugs and the pharmacological challenges to overcome in the future to develop new more effective and safer drugs for the treatment of AHFS.

Nitrates for the Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes, A Systematic Review

Intravenous nitrates are widely used in the management of acute heart failure syndrome (AHFS) yet with lack of robust evidence to support their use. We therefore sought to analyze all randomized studies that evaluated the effects of nitrates on clinical outcomes in patients with AHFS. In total, 15 relevant trials comparing nitrates and alternative interventions in 1824 patients were identified. All but 3 were conducted before 1998. No trials demonstrated a beneficial effect on mortality, apart from 1 trial reporting a reduction in mortality, which was related to the time of treatment. Retrospective review suggests that there is a lack of data to draw any firm conclusions concerning the use of nitrates in patients with AHFS. More studies are needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of these agents in the modern era of guideline-directed use of heart failure therapy.

Agents with vasodilator properties in acute heart failure: how to design successful trials

Agents with vasodilator properties (AVDs) are frequently used in the treatment of acute heart failure (AHF). AVDs rapidly reduce preload and afterload, improve left ventricle to aorta and right ventricle to pulmonary artery coupling, and may improve symptoms. Early biomarker changes after AVD administration have suggested potentially beneficial effects on cardiac stretch, vascular tone, and renal function. AVDs that reduce haemodynamic congestion without causing hypoperfusion might be effective in preventing worsening organ dysfunction. Existing AVDs have been associated with different results on outcomes in randomized clinical trials, and observational studies have suggested that AVDs may be associated with a clinical outcome benefit. Lessons have been learned from past AVD trials in AHF regarding preventing hypotension, selecting the optimal endpoint, refining dyspnoea measurements, and achieving early randomization and treatment initiation. These lessons have been applied to the design of ongoing pivotal clinical trials, which aim to ascertain if AVDs improve clinical outcomes. The developing body of evidence suggests that AVDs may be a clinically effective therapy to reduce symptoms, but more importantly to prevent end-organ damage and improve clinical outcomes for specific patients with AHF. The results of ongoing trials will provide more clarity on the role of AVDs in the treatment of AHF.

Hypertensive Emergencies in the Emergency Department

Hypertension affects approximately one-third of Americans. An additional 30% are unaware that they harbor the disease. Significantly increased blood pressure constitutes a hypertensive emergency that could lead to end-organ damage. When organs such as the brain, heart, or kidney are affected, an intervention that will lower the blood pressure in several hours is indicated. Several pharmacologic options are available for treatment, with intravenous antihypertensive therapy being the cornerstone, but there is no standard of care. Careful consideration of each patient's specific complaint, history, and physical examination guides the emergency physician through the treatment algorithm.

Editor's Choice-Recent therapeutic trials on fluid removal and vasodilation in acute heart failure

Recent therapeutic trials regarding the management of acute heart failure (AHF) failed to demonstrate the efficacy of newer therapeutic modalities and agents. Low- versus high-dose and continuous administration of furosemide were shown not to matter. Ultrafiltration was not found to be more efficacious than sophisticated diuretic therapy including dose-adjusted intravenous furosemide and metolazone. Dopamine and nesiritide were not shown to be superior to current therapy. Tezosentan and tovalptan had no effect on mortality. The development of rolofylline was terminated due to adverse effect (seizures). Lastly, preliminary experience with serelaxin indicates a mortality improvement at six months that remains to be confirmed. The disappointing findings of these recent trials may reflect the lack of efficacy of newer therapeutic modalities and agents. Alternatively the disappointing findings of these recent trials may be in part due to methodological issues. The AHF syndrome is complex with many clinical phenotypes. Failure to match clinical phenotypes and therapeutic modalities is likely to be partly responsible for the disappointing findings of recent AHF trials.

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.

Pharmacological treatment of acute heart failure: current treatment and new targets

Acute heart failure (AHF) is defined as the rapid onset of, or changes in, the symptoms and signs of heart failure (HF). It is a life-threatening situation in which diagnosis and initiation of therapy are crucial. The treatment aims are to stabilize the patient, improve clinical symptoms, and increase long-term survival rates. Few treatments have been investigated in clinical trials. This review summarizes the principles of pharmacologic treatment, the underlying clinical trials, and new pharmacologic targets.

Perioperative hypertension: defining at-risk patients and their management

Hypertension is an extremely pervasive condition that affects a large percentage of the world population. Although guidelines exist for the treatment of the patient with elevated blood pressure, there remains a paucity of literature and accepted guidelines for the perioperative evaluation and care of the patient with hypertension who undergoes either cardiac or noncardiac surgery. Of particular importance is defining the patients most vulnerable to complications and the indications for immediate and rapid antihypertensive treatment and/or cancellation of surgery to reduce these risks in each of the three perioperative settings: preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative. This review also examines the parenteral antihypertensive medications most commonly administered in the perioperative setting.

Pharmacological management of hypertensive emergencies and urgencies: focus on newer agents

INTRODUCTION

Hypertensive crises are categorized as hypertensive emergencies and urgencies depending on the presence of acute target-organ damage; the former are potentially life-threatening medical conditions, requiring urgent treatment under close monitoring. Although several short-acting intravenous antihypertensive agents are approved for this purpose, until recently little evidence from proper trials on the relative merits of different therapies was available.

AREAS COVERED

This article discusses in brief the pathophysiology, epidemiology and diagnostic approach of hypertensive crises and provides an extensive overview of established and emerging pharmacological agents for the treatment of patients with hypertensive emergencies and urgencies.

EXPERT OPINION

Agents such as sodium nitroprusside, nitroglycerin and hydralazine have been used for many years as first-line options for patients with hypertensive emergencies, although their potential adverse effects and difficulties in use were well known. With time, equally potent and less toxic alternatives, including nicardipine, fenoldopam, labetalol and esmolol are increasingly used worldwide. Recently, clevidipine, a third-generation dihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker with unique pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties was added to our therapeutic armamentarium and was shown in clinical trials to reduce mortality when compared with nitroprusside. In view of such evidence, a change in pharmacological treatment practices for hypertensive crises toward newer and safer agents is warranted.

Hypertensive emergencies: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Systemic hypertension (HTN) is a common medical condition affecting over 1 billion people worldwide. One to two percent of patients with HTN develop acute elevations of blood pressure (hypertensive crises) that require medical treatment. However, only patients with true hypertensive emergencies require the immediate and controlled reduction of blood pressure with an intravenous antihypertensive agent.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although the mortality from hypertensive emergencies has decreased, the prevalence and demographics of this disorder have not changed over the last 4 decades. Clinical experience and reported data suggest that patients with hypertensive urgencies are frequently inappropriately treated with intravenous antihypertensive agents, whereas patients with true hypertensive emergencies are overtreated with significant complications.

SUMMARY

Despite published guidelines, most patients with hypertensive crises are poorly managed with potentially severe outcomes.

Management of the Patient for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in the Perioperative Period

Aortic stenosis is a prevalent valvular disease among aging patients, and surgical correction is the most definitive treatment. Yet many elderly patients are deemed to be “inoperable” or at excessive risk to undergo open surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), either through a transfemoral or transapical approach, has become a potential option for these high-risk patients. Although TAVI technology will continue to be developed and perfected, most studies at this time reveal that symptoms are improved and that 1-year morbidity and mortality are similar to those for open surgical AVR. Anesthetic management for patients undergoing TAVI involves maintaining hemodynamic stability during periods of rapidly changing conditions and providing echocardiographic guidance and assessment. Postoperative care includes a variety of challenges such as managing pain control, monitoring for potential complications, and providing hemodynamic management.

Narrative review: the management of acute decompensated heart failure

Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is the most common reason for hospitalization in Western nations. The prognosis of patients admitted to hospital with ADHF is poor, with up to 64% being readmitted within the first 90 days after discharge and with a 1-year mortality approximating 20%. Epidemiological studies suggest that the majority of patients hospitalized with ADHF receive treatment that is inadequate and which is not based on scientific evidence. Furthermore, emerging data suggest that the "conventional" therapeutic interventions for ADHF including morphine, high-dose diuretics, and inotropic agents may be harmful. The goal of this review is to provide evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of ADHF.

Hypertensive crisis

Hypertension is a common chronic medical condition affecting over 65 million Americans. Uncontrolled hypertension can progress to a hypertensive crisis defined as a systolic blood pressure >180 mm Hg or a diastolic blood pressure >120 mm Hg. Hypertensive crisis can be further classified as a hypertensive urgency or hypertensive emergency depending on end-organ involvement including cardiac, renal, and neurologic injury. The prompt recognition of a hypertensive emergency with the appropriate diagnostic tests and triage will lead to the adequate reduction of blood pressure, ameliorating the incidence of fatal outcomes. Severely hypertensive patients with acute end-organ damage (hypertensive emergencies) warrant admission to an intensive care unit for immediate reduction of blood pressure with a short-acting titratable intravenous antihypertensive medication. Hypertensive urgencies (severe hypertension with no or minimal end-organ damage) may in general be treated with oral antihypertensives as an outpatient. Rapid and short-lived intravenous medications commonly used are labetalol, esmolol, fenoldopam, nicardipine, sodium nitroprusside, and clevidipine. Medications such as hydralazine, immediate release nifedipine, and nitroglycerin should be avoided. Sodium nitroprusside should be used with caution because of its toxicity. The risk factors and prognosticators of a hypertensive crisis are still under recognized. Physicians should perform complete evaluations in patients who present with a hypertensive crisis to effectively reverse, intervene, and correct the underlying trigger, as well as improve long-term outcomes after the episode.

Acute heart failure: multiple clinical profiles and mechanisms require tailored therapy

Acute heart failure (HF) is the most common diagnosis at discharge in patients aged >65years. It carries a dismal prognosis with a high in-hospital mortality and very high post-discharge mortality and re-hospitalization rates. It is a complex clinical syndrome that cannot be described as a single entity as it varies widely with respect to underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms, clinical presentations and, likely, treatments. It is the aim of this paper to describe some of the main clinical presentations of acute HF. Amongst them, we will consider de novo HF versus acutely decompensated chronic HF, HF caused, and/or worsened, by myocardial ischemia, acute HF with low, normal, or high systolic blood pressure, acute HF caused by lung congestion or fluid retention or fluid redistribution to the lungs, and acute HF with comorbidities (diabetes, anemia, renal insufficiency, etc.). Different pathophysiologic mechanisms and clinical presentations may coexist in the same patient. Identification and, whenever possible, treatment of underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms may become important for acute HF management.

Acute hypertensive pulmonary edema: a new paradigm

Although acute hypertensive pulmonary edema is sometimes regarded as the most severe form of heart failure, at the peak of symptoms, hearts perform well above resting levels and cannot be said to be failing. Another characteristic of the condition, the rapidity of its onset and reversal when properly treated, suggests positive feedback as a causal mechanism. It is proposed that the syndrome results from a feedback loop with increased sympathetic tone as the efferent output, increased pulmonary vascular pressure as the stimulus to increased sympathetic tone, and positive feedback occurring because elevated sympathetic tone constricts systemic veins, thereby transferring blood from peripheral veins to the pulmonary vasculature. Evidence for the proposed mechanism derives from all the empirical treatments that have evolved. All remove blood from the pulmonary circuit, and all but the oldest, bloodletting, do so by transferring blood from the pulmonary circuit to the peripheral veins.