Inhalation challenge with carbachol and isoproterenol to predict bronchospastic response to propranolol in COPD

Diagnostic and therapeutic challenges in patients with coexistent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic heart failure

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart failure (CHF) are common conditions. The prevalence of COPD ranges from 20% to 30% in patients with CHF. The diagnosis of CHF can remain unsuspected in patients with COPD, because shortness of breath is attributed to COPD. Measurement of plasma B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels helps to uncover unsuspected CHF in patients with COPD and clinical deterioration. Noninvasive assessment of cardiac function may be preferable to BNP to uncover unsuspected left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction in patients with stable COPD. Patients with COPD or CHF develop skeletal muscle alterations that are strikingly similar. Functional intolerance correlates with severity of skeletal muscle alterations but not with severity of pulmonary or cardiac impairment in COPD and CHF, respectively. Improvement of pulmonary or cardiac function does not translate into relief of functional intolerance in patients with COPD or CHF unless skeletal muscle alterations concomitantly regress. The mechanisms responsible for skeletal muscle alterations are incompletely understood in COPD and in CHF. Disuse and low-level systemic inflammation leading to protein synthesis/degradation imbalance are likely to contribute. The presence of COPD impacts on the treatment of CHF, as COPD is still viewed as a contraindication to beta-blockade. Therefore, COPD often deprives patients with CHF due to LV systolic dysfunction of the most beneficial pharmacologic intervention. A large body of data indicates that patients with COPD tolerate well selective beta-blockade that should not be denied to CHF patients with concomitant COPD.

Esmolol and ventilatory function in cardiac patients with COPD

To assess the effects of acute cardioselective beta blockade on ventilatory function in patients with COPD and active cardiac disorders, 50 patients were studied during intravenous infusion of esmolol. All patients had an obstructive ventilatory component on baseline pulmonary function testing, and 58 percent had a significant bronchodilator response to inhaled albuterol. Esmolol infusion (8 to 24 mg/min) produced large decreases in heart rate (84 +/- 2 to 69 +/- 2 beats/min, p less than 0.01) and SBP (124 +/- 3 to 106 +/- 3 mm Hg, p less than 0.01). Despite this marked hemodynamic response, there was no significant group effect of beta blockade on pulmonary function. No patient experienced dyspnea or wheezing with acute esmolol infusion; however, three patients (6 percent) developed asymptomatic decreases of FEV1. It is concluded that acute beta blockade with esmolol can be achieved in patients with COPD and cardiac disorders with little risk of bronchospasm.

Differences in airway responsiveness in asthma and chronic airflow obstruction

In patients with chronic obstructive lung disease, it is difficult to distinguish clinically between asthma, chronic bronchitis, and emphysema. This is due in part to the fact that the original definitions were not mutually exclusive. Diagnosis has not been helped by the measurement of airway responsiveness to methacholine or histamine, since responsiveness seems to be increased as often in those with chronic airflow obstruction as in asthmatic patients.

Evaluation of the asthmogenicity of propafenone, a new antiarrhythmic drug. Comparison of spirometry with methacholine challenge

Propafenone is a new membrane-stabilizing antiarrhythmic agent that structurally resembles the beta-adrenergic receptor antagonist, propranolol. To determine the potential asthmogenicity of this new drug, pulmonary function, airway reactivity to methacholine, blood pressure, the electrocardiogram, and plasma concentrations were measured in 12 patients with mild intermittent asthma after 48 to 72 hours of treatment with placebo and with oral propafenone in low dosage (150 mg every eight hours) and high dosage (300 mg every eight hours) in a double-blind crossover manner. The forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), forced expiratory flow over the middle half of the FVC (FEF25-75%), heart rate, and blood pressure during the three regimens of treatment were not significantly different; however, the QRS interval on the ECG was significantly widened with both dosages of active drug, and the mean provocative dose of methacholine (+/- SE) required to reduce FEV1 by 20 percent (PD20) decreased from 3.0 +/- 0.6 mg/ml with placebo to 2.1 +/- 0.7 mg/ml with the high dosage of propafenone (p less than 0.01). The mean PD20 on the low-dose regimen was not significantly different from placebo or high-dose therapy. A potentially relevant increase in airway reactivity, as measured by a ratio of less than 0.5 for PD20 after treatment to PD20 after placebo, occurred in seven subjects with high-dose and in one subject during low-dose treatment (p less than 0.01). These data suggest that propafenone should be used with caution in patients with asthma and that bronchial provocation will provide a more sensitive measure of the asthmogenicity of a drug with beta-adrenergic receptor antagonist activity than pulmonary function tests. Moreover, use of bronchial provocation allows the selection of subjects with mild disease, thus reducing the risk of potentially severe bronchospasm.