Enantioselective analysis of R- and S-propafenone in plasma by HPLC applying column switching and liquid-liquid extraction.

Two HPLC methods are described for the enantioselective analysis of R- and S-propafenone in plasma. In a column switching approach, centrifuged plasma was injected onto a silica-based strong acid cation-exchanger and the fraction containing propafenone was switched on-line onto an enantioselective Chiralcel column for separation of the enantiomers. In another approach, propafenone was extracted from plasma by liquid-liquid extraction at pH 11.4. The extracted components were transferred into aqueous medium and separated on a Chiralcel ODR. Both methods were validated and showed comparable performance. Within-day and between-day precision was better than 5% for both methods. Linear calibration functions were obtained (r(2)>0.999), and the limit of detection for each enantiomer was 0.2 microg/mL for column switching and 0.55 microg/mL for liquid-liquid extraction. The analysis methods were applied for the determination of the effect of physical exercise on the enantiomeric ratio of R- and S-propafenone in plasma of healthy volunteers. During exercise, the concentration of both enantiomers reached a maximum, followed by a significant decrease during recovery.

The acute coronary syndrome--pre-hospital diagnostic quality.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In the Austrian emergency medical service (EMS), emergency medical technician-staffed and physician-staffed vehicles are in operation. Patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are treated in the pre-hospital phase and transported to the hospital by an emergency physician (EP). This study evaluates the diagnostic performance of EPs in ACS and the impact of this emergency system on the outcome of ACS in an urban area. DESIGN: Retrospective case control study. METHODS: All protocol sheets from the emergency physicians were searched for the diagnosis of ACS. The database of the emergency department (ED) was searched for patients with ACS as an admission diagnosis or ACS as discharge diagnosis. For patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU), the medical history from the ICU was reviewed. According to the diagnosis and the aggressiveness of therapy, patients were divided in five categories of severity at each stage of care (pre-hospital category, ED category, ICU category). RESULTS: A total of 3585 patients was analysed. Only 17.8% of the patients with ACS as the admission diagnosis and 20.3% of the patients with ACS as the discharge diagnosis were transported by an EP. 46.8% of the ACS diagnosis by EPs were confirmed in hospital. Patients transported by EPs showed a higher all-cause mortality in hospital (1.6% vs. 0.6%; p=0.011). There was no significant correlation between the pre-hospital category of patients treated by EPs and the ED category. When a 12-lead-electrocardiogram was recorded, the correlation improved slightly (rho: 0.139; p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of ACS patients transported to hospital by an EP is very low, and EPs seem to be "over-aware" in the diagnosis of ACS.

[Efficiency and safety of ACE-inhibiting imidapril in patients with essential hypertension]. / Effektivität und Nebenwirkungsspektrum des ACE-Hemmers Imidapril bei Patienten mit essentieller Hypertonie.

In a survey including 2224 patients with essential hypertension we investigated efficacy and tolerability of the new ACE-inhibitor Imidapril. Mean blood pressure at baseline was 172 +/- 19/98 +/- 10 mmHg. Treatment with Imidapril 5-20 mg once daily caused a decrease in BP by 21 +/- 17/11 +/- 10 mmHg (p < 0.01/0.01). Systolic BP was reduced by > 15 mmHg in 71% diastolic BP by > 10 mmHg in 64% of patients. 29% of patients achieved the treatment goal of a blood pressure < or = 140/90 within an average of 26 days. Imidapril decreased pulse-pressure (one of the most important risk markers in hypertension) by 18% (74 +/- 17 to 61 +/- 11 mmHg, p < 0.01). ACE-inhibitor related adverse effects (cough, vertigo, headache, pruritus, tachycardia, orthostatic dysregulation or nausea) were observed in 38 patients (< 2%). Efficacy of treatment was graded by the physician in charge of the patient care by means of a questionnaire. Gradings were excellent or good in 96% of patients, moderate in 3% and poor in < 1%. In summary, the effects of Imidapril on blood pressure were comparable to those of other ACE-inhibitors. However, the frequency of adverse effects was low and similar to that of angiotensin-II-antagonists.

Stereoselective effects of (R)- and (S)-carvedilol in humans.

Carvedilol is currently used as the racemic mixture, (R,S)-carvedilol, consisting of equal amounts of (R)-carvedilol, an alpha-blocker, and (S)-carvedilol, an alpha- and beta-blocker, which have never been tested in their optically pure forms in human subjects. We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study in 12 healthy male volunteers. Subjects received single oral doses of 25 mg (R,S)-carvedilol, 12.5 mg (R)-carvedilol, 12.5 mg (S)-carvedilol, and placebo at 8 AM as well as at 8 PM. Exercise was performed at 11 AM, and heart rate and blood pressure were measured at rest and after 10 min of exercise. Urine was collected between 10 AM and 6 PM, as well as between 10 PM and 6 AM, and the amounts of urinary 6-hydroxy-melatonin sulfate (aMT6s) were determined by RIA. Compared to placebo, (R)-carvedilol increased heart rate during exercise (+4%, P < 0.05) and recovery (+10%, P < 0.05); (S)-carvedilol decreased heart rate during exercise (-14%, P < 0.05) and recovery (-6%, P < 0.05), and systolic blood pressure during exercise (-12%, P < 0.05); (R,S)-carvedilol decreased heart rate during exercise (-11%, P < 0.05), and systolic blood pressure at rest (-7%, P < 0.05) and during exercise (-10%, P < 0.05). None of the agents had any significant effect on the release of aMT6s. Our results indicate that only (S)-carvedilol causes beta-blockade, whereas (R)-carvedilol appears to increase sympathetic tone, presumably as a physiological reaction to the decrease of blood pressure caused by alpha-blockade. None of the drugs had any influence on melatonin release. The weak clinical net effect of beta-blockade of (R,S)-carvedilol at rest might be one reason why this drug causes fewer side effects than other beta-blockers, such as a reduction of nocturnal melatonin release.

Differing beta-blocking effects of carvedilol and metoprolol.

BACKGROUND: Metoprolol is a beta(1)-selective beta-adrenergic antagonist while carvedilol is a non-selective beta-blocker with additional blockades of alpha(1)-adrenoceptors. Administration of metoprolol has been shown to cause up-regulation of beta-adrenoceptor density and to decrease nocturnal melatonin release, whereas carvedilol lacks these typical effects of beta-blocking drugs. AIMS: To compare beta-blocking effects of metoprolol and carvedilol when applied orally in healthy subjects. METHODS: We investigated the effects of single oral doses of clinically recommended amounts of metoprolol (50, 100 and 200 mg) and carvedilol (25, 50 and 100 mg) to those of a placebo in a randomised, double-blind, cross-over study in 12 healthy male volunteers. Two hours after oral administration of the drugs heart rate and blood pressure were measured at rest, after 10 min of exercise, and after 15 min of recovery. RESULTS: Metoprolol tended to decrease heart rate during exercise (-21%, -25% and -24%) to a greater extent than carvedilol (-16%, -16% and -18%). At rest, increasing doses of metoprolol caused decreasing heart rates (62, 60 and 58 beats/min) whereas increasing doses of carvedilol caused increasing heart rates (62, 66 and 69 beats/min), 50 and 100 mg carvedilol failed to differ significantly from the placebo (71 beats/min). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that clinically recommended doses of carvedilol cause a clinically relevant beta-blockade in humans predominantly during exercise where it appears to be slightly (although not significantly) less effective than metoprolol. On the other hand, the effects of carvedilol on heart rate at rest appear rather weak, particularly in subjects with a low sympathetic tone. This might be caused by a reflex increase on sympathetic drive secondary to peripheral vasodilation resulting from the alpha-blocking effects of the drug. These results might be helpful in explaining why carvedilol, in contrast to metoprolol, may fail to cause up-regulation of beta-adrenoceptor density and does not decrease nocturnal melatonin release. This, in turn, may be a reason for the weak side-effects of carvedilol resulting from the beta-blockade. In addition, our data might be of interest in the interpretation of the forthcoming results of the COMET trial, although it has to be emphasised that they were derived from healthy subjects and, therefore, cannot be directly extrapolated to patients with heart failure.

Dynamic renal function testing by compartmental analysis: assessment of renal functional reserve in essential hypertension.

BACKGROUND: In essential hypertension, acute haemodynamic changes due to dietary protein load cause patterns of acute changes in renal function that are fundamentally different from changes in normal controls. METHODS: Renal clearances of sinistrin, an inulin-like polyfructosan, and p-aminohippurate were determined before and after protein ingestion. These tests were performed in healthy controls and in patients with essential hypertension (mean arterial pressure of 112+/-2 mmHg, age, 52+/-2 years; mean+/-SEM) within a washout period, and after long-term treatment with carvedilol and fosinopril, respectively. RESULTS: In 15 healthy volunteers, protein ingestion increased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) from 110.3+/-3.6 to 120. 6+/-4.4 ml/min (P=0.0006; two-tailed pairwise t-test). In contrast, it led to an acute decrease in GFR in 16 hypertensive patients, from 111.8+/-2.9 to 103.6+/-3.3 ml/min (P=0.0010). The eight patients who were randomized to receive carvedilol improved in their renal response to protein (GFR increased from 101.4+/-6.4 to 107.1+/-5.4 ml/min; P=0.04), whereas the eight other patients randomized to receive fosinopril exhibited no change in GFR (final value 105+/-4.9 ml/min). In the patients, the acute shifts in renal plasma flows were not significant. Mean arterial blood pressure of the patients decreased from 112+/-2 to 100+/-3 mmHg (P=0.0015). CONCLUSIONS: In essential hypertension an acute protein load induces a decrease in GFR that may normalize under antihypertensive treatment. The acute changes in GFR can be reliably monitored by the here-described compartmental analysis method of renal functional reserve.

Segmental degradation of left ventricular wall motion after persistent coronary fistula in a posttransplantation patient: a case report and short review of literature.

A 50-year-old man received an orthotopic heart transplant because of severe coronary heart disease and congestive heart failure. Two years after the transplantation, a continuous murmur occurred at the left sternal edge after repeated endomyocardial biopsies. Echocardiography and coronary angiography revealed a dilated left anterior descending artery with a fistula to the right ventricle. The circumflex was large with an equally postero-lateral branch, and the right coronary artery was rather small with collaterals to the distal part of the left anterior descending branch. The patient had refused any intervention to close the fistula. The left ventricular levogram was normal. Two years later, in a follow-up angiogram, the left ventricular ejection fraction had decreased as a result of hypo- and akinesis of the apex and posterior wall. We suggest that this local wall motion disturbance derives from a steal phenomenon rather than being a sequela of rejection. The decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction was associated with shortness of breath upon moderate exercise. Standard heart failure medication relieved the patient's symptoms. The observation of local wall motion disturbances in this case, as well as conflicting views in the literature, raises the question whether postbiopsy coronary fistulas in transplant patients should be closed.

Enantioselective analysis of (R)- and (S)-atenolol in urine samples by a high-performance liquid chromatography column-switching setup.

An HPLC column-switching method for the enantioselective determination of (R,S)-atenolol in human urine was developed and validated. Diluted urine samples were injected onto a LiChrospher ADS restricted access column and atenolol was separated from most of the matrix components using 0.01 M Tris buffer. The atenolol peak was sharpened by a step gradient of 30% acetonitrile and the atenolol-containing fraction was switched onto an enantioselective column. Separation of the atenolol enantiomers was carried out on a Chirobiotic T (Teicoplanin) column using acetonitrile-methanol-acetic acid-triethylamine (55:45:0.3:0.2, v/v/v/v) as eluent. Detection of the effluent was performed by fluorescence measurement. Several experiments were carried out to suppress the high blank reading, which was efficiently achieved using Tris buffer in the first dimension. For the enantioselective analysis of (R)- and (S)-atenolol in plasma under the same conditions the sample capacity of the ADS column is considerably lower.

Decreased melatonin synthesis in patients with coronary artery disease.

AIMS: Decreased night-time plasma levels of melatonin were recently reported in patients with coronary artery disease, and it was postulated that melatonin production may be impaired, due to a lack of synthesizing enzymes. However, since artefacts possibly influencing the release pattern were not taken into account, this interpretation was strongly criticized. We therefore carefully investigated night-time melatonin production in patients with coronary artery disease using an appropriate experimental approach. Furthermore, we examined the effect of beta-blockers, a frequently used drug in coronary artery disease therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-eight male patients with angiographically documented severe coronary artery disease, 24 of them taking beta-blockers daily in therapeutic dosages, were included. Eighteen age-matched men, with no evidence of coronary sclerosis, served as controls. To determine melatonin production, 6-sulfatoxymelatonin (aMT6s) was measured radioimmunologically from overnight urine. Urinary aMT6s concentration was significantly decreased in patients, and beta-blocker treatment did not further suppress melatonin production. CONCLUSIONS: The data obtained using this investigative approach provide clearcut evidence that melatonin production in patients with coronary artery disease is decreased. Whether a decreased melatonin level may be a predisposing factor for coronary artery disease, or whether the occurrence of coronary artery disease decreases melatonin synthesis remains to be determined.

Influence of beta-blockers on melatonin release.

OBJECTIVE: Melatonin is a mediator in the establishment of the circadian rhythm of biological processes. It is produced in the pineal gland mainly during the night by stimulation of adrenergic beta1- and alpha1-receptors. Sleep disturbances are common side-effects of beta-blockers. The influence of specific beta-blockade as well as that of combined alpha-and beta-blockade on melatonin production has not been investigated in humans before. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study in 15 healthy volunteers. Subjects received single oral doses of 40 mg (R)-propranolol, 40 mg (S)-propranolol, 50 mg (R)-atenolol, 50 mg (S)-atenolol, 25 mg (R,S)-carvedilol, 120 mg (R,S)-verapamil or placebo at 1800 hours. Urine was collected between 2200 hours and 0600 hours, and 6-sulfatoxy-melatonin (aMT6s), the main metabolite of melatonin which is almost completely eliminated in urine, was determined by radioimmunoassay (RIA). RESULTS: Mean nocturnal excretion of aMT6s in urine after intake of the drugs was as follows (in microg): placebo 26; (R)-propranolol 24 (-7%, NS); (S)-propranolol 5 (-80%, P < 0.001); (R)-atenolol 27 (+7%, NS); (S)-atenolol 4 (-86%, P < 0.01); (R,S)-carvedilol 23 (-10%, NS); (R,S)-verapamil 29 (+14%, NS). These data show that only the specifically beta-blocking (S)-enantiomers of propranolol and atenolol decrease the nocturnal production of melatonin whereas the non-beta-blocking (R)-enantiomers have no effect. Unexpectedly, (R,S)-carvedilol which inhibits both alpha- and beta-adrenoceptors does not decrease melatonin production. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that beta-blockers decrease melatonin release via specific inhibition of adrenergic beta1-receptors. Since lower nocturnal melatonin levels might be the reason for sleep disturbances, further clinical studies should investigate whether or not oral administration of melatonin might avoid this well-known side-effect of beta-blockers. The reason why (R,S)-carvedilol does not influence melatonin production remains to be determined.

Treatment of left ventricular hypertrophy in hypertensive patients with a combination of verapamil and captopril--a multicenter study.

UNLABELLED: The regression of left ventricular hypertrophy in hypertensive patients was evaluated in a multicenter study with a combination therapy of verapamil 120 mg and captopril 25 mg given once or twice daily. The degree of left ventricular hypertrophy was assessed using echocardiography, while hypertension was evaluated by means of twice daily blood pressure self-measurements and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. RESULTS: An overall of 61 patients was evaluated. Left ventricular mass had decreased by 13.5% during the 6-month treatment period. This reduction neither correlated with the baseline left ventricular mass nor with the extent of blood pressure decrease. CONCLUSION: The combination therapy-verapamil 120 mg plus captopril 25 mg--is well tolerated by hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy and produced a decrease of left ventricular mass that is independent of the extent of blood pressure decrease.

[Beta blockers--1997 update]. / Beta-Blocker--Update 1997.

Beta blockers have been used as first-line drugs in the treatment of numerous cardiovascular disorders such as hypertension and ischemic heart disease, as well as for certain non-cardiovascular diseases for more than 30 years. However, the administration of these safe and effective drugs declined during the 1980s, whereas the use of others such as calcium antagonists and ACE inhibitors increased for these indications, frequently without convincing evidence of any clinical advantages of these agents in hard end points. During the past two or three years there has been a renaissance of beta adrenoceptor antagonists, most probably due to increasing awareness that beta blockers have been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality when compared with other therapeutic agents or placebo in numerous diseases. Furthermore, congestive heart failure has changed from being a contraindication to an indication, and suspected side effects were not confirmed on further investigation. Last but not least the reasonable costs of beta blocking drugs may have become a more important consideration than before. The trend back to beta blockers may also be due to the fact that physicians attach more importance to effects on the hard end points, namely a decrease in morbidity and mortality, than to surrogate end points. According to the present state of the art, beta blockers should be recognized as the drugs of choice, particularly in the treatment of arterial hypertension and coronary artery disease (especially after myocardial infarction), unless contraindications are present or unacceptable side effects occur. Congestive heart failure, peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and diabetes mellitus are no longer considered absolute contraindications.