Search

Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the addition of intravenous (IV) tezosentan to standard therapy for patients with pulmonary edema.Background: Tezosentan is an IV nonselective endothelin (ET)-1 antagonist that yields favorable hemodynamic effects in patients with acute congestive heart failure (CHF).Methods: Pulmonary edema was defined as acute CHF leading to respiratory failure, as evidenced by an oxygen saturation (SO(2)) <90% by pulse oxymeter despite oxygen treatment. All patients received oxygen 8 l/min through a face mask, 3 mg of IV morphine, 80 mg of furosemide, and 1 to 3 mg/h continuous drip isosorbide-dinitrate according to their blood pressure level and were randomized to receive a placebo or tezosentan (50 or 100 mg/h) for up to 24 h.Results: Eighty-four patients were randomized. The primary end point, the change in SO(2) from baseline to 1 h, was 9.1 +/- 6.3% in the placebo arm versus 7.6 +/- 10% in the tezosentan group (p = NS). The incidence of death, recurrent pulmonary edema, mechanical ventilation, and myocardial infarction during the first 24 h of treatment was 19% in both groups. Reduced baseline SO(2), lower echocardiographic ejection fraction, high baseline mean arterial blood pressure (MAP), and inappropriate vasodilation (MAP reduction at 30 min of <5% or >30%) correlated with worse outcomes. A post-hoc analysis revealed that the outcome of patients who received only 50 mg/h tezosentan was better than patients in the placebo group whereas patients receiving 100 mg/h had the worst outcomes.Conclusions: In the present study, tezosentan (an ET-1 antagonist) did not affect the outcome of pulmonary edema, possibly because of the high dose used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study investigated the effect of tezosentan (an intravenous endothelin-1 receptor antagonist) on vascular resistance and cardiac function and determined the dose response in patients with stable congestive heart failure (CHF) due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction.Methods: In a double-blind fashion, tezosentan or placebo were administered in ascending doses (5, 20, 50, 100 mg h(-1)) to 38 CHF (NYHA class III) patients with ejection fraction or=15 mmHg. Systemic vascular resistance index (SVRi) was estimated as mean arterial blood pressure [(MAP-right atrial pressure)/cardiac index (CI)]. Cardiac function was assessed as cardiac power index (Cpi), calculated as pressure x flow (MAP x CI), where MAP represents pressure and CI represents cardiovascular flow.Results and Discussion: Compared to the placebo, tezosentan induced a dose-dependent decrease in SVRi (-32%), an increase in Cpi (+20%) and a small decrease in MAP (-9%). By contrast, patients treated with nitrate vasodilators or nesiritide (a natriuretic peptide) showed a decrease in SVRi not accompanied by a significant increase in Cpi leading to a steep decrease in MAP.Conclusions: The use of Cpi in the assessment of the hemodynamic effects of tezosentan, provides a useful alternative characterization of the complex influences of vasodilators on cardiac function in patients with CHF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The safety and tolerability of mibefradil, a selective T-type calcium channel antagonist, were evaluated in 3,430 patients with essential hypertension and chronic stable angina pectoris treated in 15 double-blind placebo and active-controlled clinical trials and 2 open-label, long-term safety studies. Of these patients, 2,636 were treated with the recommended doses of mibefradil (50 and 100 mg) and form the basis of this report. With the 50-mg dose of mibefradil, the incidence of each adverse event was similar to, or lower than, that observed in the placebo-treated patients. Treatment with the 100-mg dose was associated with a slightly higher incidence compared to placebo of dizziness (2.1% vs 1.8%), leg edema (3.5% vs 1.4%), fatigue (2.1% vs 1.4%), and lightheadedness (2.1% vs 0.4%). The incidence of headache (4.6%) and angina pectoris (1.1%) was more frequent in patients treated with placebo. In active-controlled trials, a lower incidence of pedal edema (5.1%) was observed with mibefradil compared to amlodipine (25.7%), diltiazem SR/CD (9.4%), or nifedipine SR/GITS (17.4%). Overall, mibefradil was better tolerated than amlodipine and nifedipine SR/GITS and was as well tolerated as diltiazem SR/CD. Rates of premature discontinuation due to clinically adverse experiences with the 50- and 100-mg doses were 2.5% and 3.5%, respectively, compared with placebo (3.5%). No consistent pattern of laboratory adverse experiences were observed for mibefradil. Sinus bradycardia (heart rate <45 beats/minute) and first-degree atrioventricular block were the only relevant treatment-emergent electrocardiographic changes that occurred more frequently with mibefradil than with placebo. No evidence of first-dose effects was observed in mibefradil-treated patients, and withdrawal effects were not observed in clinical trials. There were no clinically important differences in safety profiles in the demographic subgroups for age, gender, or race. The results of this comprehensive safety analysis indicate that treatment with the recommended doses of mibefradil is well tolerated and safe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An abstract of the study "The Role of Cardiac Power and Systemic Vascular Resistance in the Pathophysiology and Diagnosis of Patients With Acute Congestive Heart Failure," by G. Cotter and colleagues is presented.