Laura Weber

A prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover study to compare the efficacy and safety of chronic nifedipine therapy with that of isosorbide dinitrate and their combination in the treatment of chronic congestive heart failure.

We performed a prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover study to compare the efficacy and safety of vasodilation with the calcium entry blocker nifedipine with that of isosorbide dinitrate (ISDN) and their combination as treatment for heart failure. Twenty-eight patients with New York Heart Association Functional class II or III chronic heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction were studied. All patients were maintained on a constant dose of digitalis and diuretics throughout the study. Eight weeks of therapy with nifedipine alone or in combination with ISDN resulted in a significantly higher incidence of heart failure deterioration necessitating hospitalizations and/or additional diuretics. Twenty-four percent of patients required hospitalization during nifedipine therapy and 26% required hospitalization during nifedipine-ISDN combination therapy in comparison to 0% requiring hospitalization during ISDN therapy alone. The total number of heart failure-worsening episodes was nine among patients on nifedipine, three among patients on ISDN (p less than 0.09 versus nifedipine), and 21 among patients on nifedipine-ISDN combination (p less than 0.001 versus nifedipine, p less than 0.0001 versus ISDN). Premature discontinuation of drug administration due to clinical deterioration or other side effects occurred in 29% of patients during nifedipine therapy, 5% of patients during ISDN therapy (p = 0.05 versus nifedipine), and 19% of patients during the combination therapy. A comparison of eight patients who demonstrated clinical deterioration on nifedipine with the remainder of the patients demonstrated no significant difference in left ventricular ejection fraction (0.24 +/- 0.06 versus 0.23 +/- 0.07) or maximal oxygen uptake during exercise (13 +/- 3 versus 14 +/- 2 ml/kg/min).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Spectrum of acute hemodynamic effects of nifedipine in severe congestive heart failure

The acute hemodynamic effects of 20 to 50 mg of orally administered nifedipine were evaluated in 31 patients with severe chronic congestive heart failure (CHF) and the results were analyzed according to the response of the cardiac index (CI). Although the group mean value of CI increased significantly after nifedipine treatment (from 2.1 +/- 0.5 to 2.4 +/- 0.8 liters/min/m2, p less than 0.001), the individual response was variable. Twenty of the patients had 15% or greater increase in CI (group A) and 11 patients had less than a 15% increase or a decrease in CI (group B). Marked differences were also noted in the effects of nifedipine on other hemodynamic variables. Stroke volume increased 29 +/- 14% in group A and decreased 11 +/- 18% in group B (p less than 0.001). Systemic vascular resistance decreased 34 +/- 11% in group A (p less than 0.001) and increased slightly, 2 +/- 28%, in group B. Left ventricular (LV) stroke work index increased 11 +/- 19% in group A (p less than 0.001) and decreased markedly in Group B (21 +/- 20%). Six group B patients had a substantial worsening (20% or more) of one or more hemodynamic measurements, including CI, stroke volume index, LV stroke work index and mean pulmonary artery wedge pressure. A comparison of control hemodynamic values at rest, LV ejection fraction, associated coronary artery disease, nifedipine dose, and concomitant diuretic therapy revealed no significant differences between the 2 groups. This study confirms, in a large group of patients with severe CHF, the variable hemodynamic effects of nifedipine therapy.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Acute hemodynamic effect of oral nifedipine in severe chronic congestive heart failure

The temporal hemodynamic effects of oral nifedipine after a single dose of 20 to 40 mg were evaluated in 11 patients with severe chronic congestive heart failure (left ventricular ejection fraction 0.22 +/- 0.7 [mean +/- standard deviation]). Nifedipine significantly reduced systemic vascular resistance, from 1,850 +/- 493 to 1,315 +/- 398 dynes s cm-5 at 1 hour (29%), to 1,410 +/- 246 at 3 hours and to 1,523 +/- 286 at 6 hours (p less than 0.05). Cardiac index increased 21%, from 2.07 +/- 0.46 to 2.51 +/- 0.83 liters/min/m2 at 1 hour, to 2.38 +/- 0.53 liters/min/m2 at 3 hours (p less than 0.05) and to 2.24 +/- 0.41 liters/min/m2 at 6 hours. The group response of stroke volume to nifedipine was smaller. A peak increase of 17% was seen 3 hours after initiation of therapy (22.6 +/- 7.2 versus 25.5 +/- 6.1 ml/m2). This difference did not reach statistical significance. Mean blood pressure declined significantly, from 94 +/- 20 to 80 +/- 13 mm Hg at 1 hour, to 83 +/- 15 mm Hg at 3 hours and to 86 +/- 17 mm Hg at 6 hours (p less than 0.05) and was associated with no significant change in heart rate. The marked decrease in blood pressure resulted in a decrease in rate-pressure product from 12,272 +/- 4,230 to 10,500 +/- 2,074 mm Hg/min at 1 hour, to 10,374 +/- 2,735 mm Hg/min at 3 hours and to 11,047 +/- 3,813 mm Hg/min at 6 hours (p less than 0.05).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Hemodynamic and hormonal effects of high-dose transdermal nitroglycerin in patients with chronic congestive heart failure

The hemodynamic effect of a large dose of nitroglycerin (NTG) (90 mg) given transdermally using a reservoir system was studied in 10 patients with severe, long-standing congestive heart failure. Serial hemodynamic measurements over 24 hours revealed a mild decrease in mean pulmonary artery wedge pressure. However, the change from baseline was significant only at 2 hours (19 +/- 9 vs 27 +/- 6 mm Hg). Mean right atrial pressure fell 1 hour after initiation of therapy, from 12 +/- 7 to 8 +/- 5 mm Hg. However, the change from control was not statistically significant. No significant changes were noted in heart rate, mean blood pressure, cardiac index, and systemic and pulmonary vascular resistance. Individual analysis of the effect of transdermal NTG on pulmonary artery wedge pressure demonstrated at 20% or greater reduction in 8 of 10 patients. However, persistent effect (longer than 8 hours) was seen in only 4 patients. Removal of NTG patches at 24 hours did not result in hemodynamic rebound. Serum catecholamine levels and renin concentration did not change 2 hours and 24 hours after initiation of NTG therapy or after removal of NTG patches. Thus, a large dose (90 mg) of transdermal NTG using a reservoir system results in mild and mostly statistically insignificant hemodynamic effect in patients with chronic severe congestive heart failure. Although a reduction in pulmonary artery wedge pressure is seen in most patients, rapid attenuation of this response is found in many patients and the effect only rarely lasts for 24 hours.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Comparison of hemodynamic responses to nifedipine and nitroprusside in severe chronic congestive heart failure.

The hemodynamic effects of 20 to 40 mg of oral nifedipine were compared with those of intravenous nitroprusside in 11 patients with severe chronic congestive heart failure (CHF). In each patient, both drugs were administered to produce similar reduction of systemic vascular resistance (SVR) (29 +/- 13% with nifedipine and 29 +/- 12% with nitroprusside, difference not significant [NS]). At this comparable decrease in systemic vascular resistance, significant differences in hemodynamic responses to both drugs were noted: Nifedipine caused a smaller increase in cardiac index (20 +/- 20% vs 40 +/- 24%, p less than 0.02) and a larger decrease in mean blood pressure than nitroprusside (16 +/- 9% vs 8 +/- 10%, p less than 0.05). In addition, nifedipine produced a smaller decrease in mean pulmonary artery wedge pressure (13 +/- 24% vs 36 +/- 21%, p less than 0.001) and pulmonary vascular resistance than nitroprusside (6 +/- 42% vs 26 +/- 46%, NS). Mean right atrial pressure decreased with nitroprusside, from 10 +/- 7 to 5 +/- 3 mm Hg (p less than 0.05), but not with nifedipine (10 +/- 7 mm Hg before and after nifedipine administration, NS). Left ventricular stroke work index increased with nitroprusside (20 +/- 8 to 27 +/- 9 g-m/m2, p less than 0.05), but did not change with nifedipine (21 +/- 9 vs 21 +/- 10 g-m/m2, NS). These data show that nifedipine has an arteriolar dilatatory action in patients with CHF. However, compared with nitroprusside, nifedipine had a significantly larger hypotensive effect and had a lesser effect on right and left ventricular filling pressure, cardiac output and left ventricular function.

Isometric exercise in patients with chronic advanced heart failure: hemodynamic and neurohumoral evaluation.

We evaluated the hemodynamic effects of isometric exercise in 53 patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) and compared them with those found in 10 normal subjects. In both groups, isometric exercise increased heart rate and blood pressure. Systemic resistance increased in patients with CHF (1862 +/- 520 vs 2126 +/- 642 dyne-sec-cm-5; p less than .001) but not in normal subjects (1359 +/- 268 vs 1380 +/- 252 dyne-sec-cm-5). Cardiac index and stroke volume index increased mildly but not significantly in the normal subjects (2.8 +/- 0.5 vs 3.1 +/- 0.7 liters/min/m2 and 46 +/- 8 vs 47 +/- 7 ml/m2) and showed a significant fall in the patients with CHF (2.1 +/- 0.6 to 1.9 +/- 0.6 liters/min/m2, p less than .01 and 23 +/- 7 vs 20 +/- 7 ml/m2, p less than .01). Mean pulmonary arterial wedge pressure increased in patients with CHF from 26 +/- 7 to 30 +/- 8 mm Hg (p less than .001). Although no significant change was found in mean value for stroke work index (21 +/- 9 vs 20 +/- 9 g-m/m2), the individual changes were variable, with marked decrease (greater than 15%) in 17 of the patients. This hemodynamic deterioration could not be predicted from resting hemodynamics, left ventricular ejection fraction, or functional classification. Isometric exercise resulted in no significant change in circulatory catecholamine levels or plasma renin concentration in our 10 normal subjects.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Renal Hemodynamic Effects of Vasodilation With Nifedipine and Hydralazine in Patients With Heart Failure

The central and renal hemodynamic effects of nifedipine were evaluated in nine patients with severe chronic congestive heart failure. Oral nifedipine (34 +/- 22 mg, mean +/- standard deviation) was associated with a decrease in systemic vascular resistance from 1,748 +/- 436 to 1,321 +/- 302 dynes . s . cm-5 (p less than 0.001) and mean arterial blood pressure from 96 +/- 11 to 87 +/- 6 mm Hg (p less than 0.05) and with an increase in cardiac output from 4.2 +/- 1.1 to 4.9 +/- 1.2 liters/min (p less than 0.001). Although renal vascular resistance decreased from 11,988 +/- 2,256 to 10,286 +/- 3,011 dynes . s . cm-5 (p less than 0.05), no significant change was seen in renal blood flow (599 +/- 120 to 640 +/- 162 ml/min), glomerular filtration rate (62 +/- 18 to 62 +/- 17 ml/min), filtration fraction (18 +/- 5 to 17 +/- 6%), the ratio of renal/systemic vascular resistance (7.0 +/- 1.0 to 7.9 +/- 1.8) and the ratio of renal blood flow/cardiac output (0.15 +/- 0.02 to 0.13 +/- 0.03). Intravenous hydralazine (10 +/- 5 mg), given to eight of the patients in a randomized crossover design, resulted in a larger increase in cardiac output than did nifedipine (38 +/- 7 versus 19 +/- 10%, p less than 0.001) and in an increase in total renal blood flow from 570 +/- 152 to 645 +/- 174 ml/min (p less than 0.001). Renal vascular resistance decreased from 12,080 +/- 2,934 to 10,153 +/- 2,372 dynes . s . cm-5 (p less than 0.001).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Differences in hemodynamic response to vasodilation due to calcium channel antagonism with nifedipine and direct-acting agonism with hydralazine in chronic refractory congestive heart failure

The hemodynamic response to a similar reduction of systemic vascular resistance after nifedipine and hydralazine administration was compared in a randomized crossover protocol in patients with severe chronic congestive heart failure (CHF). All 15 patients showed a 25% or greater reduction in vascular resistance with intravenous hydralazine (5 to 30 mg) and 11 patients showed a similar response with oral nifedipine (20 to 50 mg). In the latter 11 patients, despite similar reductions in systemic vascular resistance (35 +/- 2% with nifedipine and 36 +/- 4% with hydralazine, difference not significant), nifedipine resulted in a smaller increase in stroke volume index (from 23 +/- 2 to 30 +/- 2 ml/m2 and from 24 +/- 2 to 34 +/- 2 ml/m2 with hydralazine, p less than 0.05), cardiac index (from 2.0 +/- 0.1 to 2.6 +/- 0.2 liters/min/m2 with nifedipine and from 2.0 +/- 0.1 to 2.8 +/- 0.2 liters/min/m2 with hydralazine, p less than 0.05) and stroke work index (from 25 +/- 3 to 27 +/- 3 gm/m2 with nifedipine and from 26 +/- 2 to 32 +/- 2 gm/m2 with hydralazine, p less than 0.05). The decrease in blood pressure after nifedipine was slightly but not significantly larger than that with hydralazine (13 +/- 3% vs 8 +/- 2%). The changes in right atrial pressure, pulmonary artery wedge pressure and pulmonary vascular resistance were similar. The 4 patients who did not reduce their systemic vascular resistance by at least 25% with nifedipine had a worsening of their hemodynamic state as evidenced by 1 or more of the following findings: elevation of vascular resistance, decrease in cardiac index and increase in pulmonary artery wedge pressure.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Neurohumoral consequences of vasodilator therapy with hydralazine and nifedipine in severe congestive heart failure

We evaluated the effects of intravenous hydralazine (5 to 30 mg) and oral nifedipine (20 to 80 mg) on plasma catecholamines, renin, and aldosterone in 18 patients with severe chronic heart failure. Both drugs resulted in a significant decrease in systemic vascular resistance and mean systemic blood pressure, and led to an increase in cardiac output. Baseline plasma norepinephrine concentration was elevated in most patients; however, augmentation of cardiac output with both drugs did not decrease the values of this hormone (from 870 +/- 128 to 946 +/- 161 pg/ml with hydralazine and from 1088 +/- 260 to 1106 +/- 187 pg/ml with nifedipine). Plasma epinephrine level was also elevated at baseline and did not change significantly following nifedipine therapy (164 +/- 44 vs 199 +/- 54 pg/ml), but increased in most patients following the administration of hydralazine (from 105 +/- 45 to 153 +/- 27 pg/ml, p less than 0.01). The renin-aldosterone system was activated in our patients and also demonstrated a different response to both drugs. Hydralazine therapy did not change either the plasma renin concentration (30 +/- 7 vs 28 +/- 7 ng/ml/hr) or the aldosterone level (24 +/- 7 vs 22 +/- 5 ng/dl). In contrast, nifedipine increased the plasma renin concentration (22 +/- 7 to 29 +/- 8 ng/ml/hr, p less than 0.05). This change did not correlate with changes in systemic blood pressure (r = 0.03) and was probably the result of previously shown calcium blockade-mediated stimulation of renin release from the juxtaglomerular cells of the kidney.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Effect of diltiazem on renal clearance and serum concentration of digoxin in patients with cardiac disease

The effect of diltiazem on digoxin serum concentration was evaluated in 9 patients who had been treated chronically for heart disease with digoxin, 0.25 mg/day. The indications for digoxin therapy were arrhythmias in 5 patients and mild heart failure in the other 4. Renal digoxin clearance was also evaluated in 8 of these patients. Serum digoxin concentration was measured at control, 7 +/- 2 days after initiation of 120 mg/day of diltiazem and 11 +/- 5 days after increasing the dose of diltiazem to 240 mg/day. Serum digoxin concentration was 0.9 +/- 0.4 ng/ml at control, 0.8 +/- 0.4 ng/ml with 120 mg/day of diltiazem, and 0.8 +/- 0.3 ng/ml during therapy with 240 mg/day. The differences between these values were not significant. Renal digoxin clearance also did not show a significant change after diltiazem therapy (44 +/- 15 ml/min before diltiazem and 46 +/- 13 ml/min with 240 mg/day of diltiazem). This study shows no effect of diltiazem in doses of 120 to 240 mg/day on serum digoxin concentration or renal digoxin clearance in patients who are treated chronically for heart disease with digoxin. In this dose range, diltiazem has advantages over verapamil, which markedly elevates digoxin levels.