Effect of Fixed-dose Combination Amlodipine/Valsartan in Comparison to Two Drug Combination Nebivolol/Valsartan on 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure.

BACKGROUND: Nebivolol has a dual mechanism of action, exerting a moderate b- blockade effect and reducing peripheral arterial resistance, as a result, the antihypertensive effect of nebivolol may be higher than that of a potent vasodilator CCB such as amlodipine. AIM: The study evaluated the effect of two nebivolol/valsartan on 24 hour ambulatory blood pressure versus amlodipine/valsartan in grade II or III hypertension patients or having uncontrolled BP despite treatment. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is a powerful method to monitor the changes in blood pressure over the 24 hour. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 74 from 90 patients continued the study. Fourty patients received amlodipine 10 mg/valsartan 160 mg (group I), and thirty-four patients received nebivolol 5 mg/ valsartan 160 mg (group II). Peripheral blood pressure readings were measured at randomization at 6 and 12 weeks. Ambulatory blood pressure was measured at randomization and 12 weeks. RESULTS: Both drug combinations showed high efficacy in reducing peripheral and 24 hour ambulatory BP. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in lowering peripheral systolic and diastolic blood pressure at 6 and 12 weeks. Furthermore, both groups failed to show any significant difference in reducing 24 hour SBP and DBP. Regarding day SBP, the blood pressure dropped by -5.63 ± 14.87 in group I and -6.25 ± 11.59 in group II (p = 0.844). Also, group I reduced the day DBP average by -2.53 ± 9.83 and group II by -3.61 ± 9.78 (p = 0.640). In addition, both drug combinations had no statistically significant difference in lowering night SBP and DBP average. CONCLUSION: Both treatment groups reached the target ambulatory blood pressure, and there was no statistically significant difference between both groups as a regard reduction in all ambulatory blood pressure readings.

Target Blood Pressure and Combination Therapy: Focus on Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Combination with Either Calcium Channel Blockers or Beta Blockers.

BACKGROUND: The target blood pressure has changed many times in the guidelines in past years. However, there is always a question; is it good to lower blood pressure below 120/80 or not? Control of blood pressure in hypertension is very important in reducing hypertension-modified organ damage. So, the guidelines recommend combining more than one antihypertensive drug to reach the target blood pressure goal. RESULTS: Combination therapy is recommended by guidelines to reach the blood pressure goal. The guidelines recommend many combinations, such as the combination of angiotensin receptor blockers with either calcium channel blockers (CCB) or beta-blocker (BB). Angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) combination with CCB has gained superiority over other antihypertension drug combinations because it reduces blood pressure and decreases the incidence of CV events and organ damage. BB combinations are recommended by guidelines in patients with ischemic events but not all hypertensive patients. Unfortunately, the new generation BB, for example, nebivolol, has a vasodilator effect, making it new hope for BB. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy is a must in treating the hypertensive patient. The new generation BBs may change the recommendations of guidelines because they have an effect that is similar to CCBs.

Effect of Amlodipine/Nebivolol combination therapy on central BP and PWV compared to Amlodipine/Valsartan combination therapy.

BACKGROUND: Pulse wave velocity (PWV) and central blood pressure (CBP) have been intoduced into managment of hypertensive patients. PWV is positively correlated with arterial wall stiffness while central aortic pressure becomes better predictor of cardiovascular outcome than peripheral pressure. Reduction in CBP provides protective properties against subclinical organ damage. This work aims to investigate the effect of a new combination therapy of Amlodipine/Nebivolol (A/N) on central BP, peripheral BP and PWV. The results of using this combination will be compared to the well-established fixed-dose combination of Amlodipine/Valsartan (A/V). The study conducted between October 2018 and August 2020. One hundred and two hypertensive patients were assigned for Amlodipine 10 mg/Valsartan 160 mg combination therapy (A/V, n = 52) or Amlodipine 10 mg/Nebivolol 5 mg combination therapy (A/N, n = 50) by simple 1:1 randomization. Office, central blood pressure and PWV were measured on first (0 week), second (4-8 weeks) and third visit (10-12). Difference in BP (in each arm and between arms) was calculated along all visits. RESULTS: No statistical significant difference was found between A/V and A/N regarding age, gender, BMI and CV history. OBP, CBP and PWV were significantly reduced in each arm, but no differences were found when comparing both arm results to each other. Recorded side effects were insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: The new combination therapy Amlodipine/Nebivolol (A/N) affords a significant reduction in CBP, PBP and PWV with minor and tolerable side effects. It has provided comparable results to Amlodipine/Valsartan (A/V) combination therapy.

Clinical and hemodynamic effects of oral sildenafil on biventricular function on patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: We explore the dual benefits of sildenafil on bi-ventricular functions in the form of improvement of ejection fraction, pulmonary vascular resistance and functional capacity of systolic heart failure patients either related to dilated or ischemic cardiomyopathy. AIM OF THE WORK: To evaluate the effect of oral sildenafil on biventricular function in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The prospective randomised case-control study included 80 patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction resulting from dilated or ischemic cardiomyopathy were equally randomised to one of the treatment groups in (1:1) who were collected from the outpatient clinic of cardiac care unit (CCU) of Beni-Suef University hospital; each group contained 40 patients: The first group (control group): received the guideline-recommended treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction which consists of [angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), beta-blockers, aldosterone receptor antagonist, digoxin]. The second group (sildenafil group): received the previously mentioned guideline-recommended treatment in the control group plus sildenafil 25 mg three times per day. All patients were subjected to detailed history taking, baseline transthorathic echocardiography and exercise ECG using the Naughton protocol. Follow-up transthorathic echocardiography and exercise ECG was conducted after 3 months. RESULTS: Sildenafil improves heart failure symptoms such as dyspnea or orthopnea or increasing the functional capacity of myocardium which is measured by estimated metabolic equivalents of task (METS) (P = .017), and exercise duration (P = .013). Sildenafil increased cardiac output (P = .033), which is considered one of the desirable targets in heart failure patients. CONCLUSION: In patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction secondary to dilated or ischemic cardiomyopathy, relatively small doses of sildenafil significantly enhances exercise period and functional ability, with substantial improvement in left ventricular systolic function irrespective of the existence of major pulmonary hypertension.

Safety and Efficacy of Pharmaco-invasive Approach Using Streptokinase Compared With Primary Percutaneous Coronary Angiography.

BACKGROUND: Fibrin-specific fibrinolytics are preferred when they used in STEMI patients (pharmaco-invasive approach). However, streptokinase is still the most common used thrombolytic agent in Egypt because of its cheaper cost. METHODS: 266 STEMI patients were randomly assigned to undergo PPCI or pharmacoinvasive (using streptokinase). Primary end point (death, shock, congestive heart failure, or reinfarction up to 30 d) and secondary end point (ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, or nonintracranial bleeding) were followed for 30 days after reperfusion. In pharmaco-invasive arm, urgent coronary angiography was performed in case of failed reperfusion. Based on the reperfusion time from symptoms onset, patients in both arms were divided into; early (≤3 hrs) and late reperfusion (>3 hrs). RESULTS: No statistical significant difference regarding left ventricular ejection fraction, end diastolic and end systolic diameter in both arms. Early PPCI (≤3 hrs) had highest ejection fraction values (56.9 ± 7.5). Myocardial wall preservation was best achieved in early pharmaco-invasive (≤3 hrs).There was no statistical significant difference in TIMI flow results between all subgroups (early and late of both arms) (P = 0.750). Suction devices and IV Eptifibatide were less frequently used in the pharmaco-invasive comparing to PPCI arm; (P = 0.000 and P = 0.006) subsequently. No statistical significant difference regarding complication incidence in both arms (P = 0.518). Radial access was more commonly used in the pharmaco-invasive arm (P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: Utilizing streptokinase in early re-perfused patients by PI approach (≤3 hrs) seems safe and efficient when PPCI delay (>120 min from symptom onset) is the other option.

Additive value of 3D-echo in prediction of immediate outcome after percutaneous balloon mitral valvuloplasty.

BACKGROUND: Results of percutaneous balloon mitral valvuloplasty (BMV) are basically dependent on suitable patient selection. Currently used two-dimensional (2D) echocardiography (2DE) scores have many limitations. Three-dimensional (3D) echocardiography (3DE)-based scores were developed for better patient selection and outcome prediction. We aimed to compare between 3D-Anwar and 2D-Wilkins scores in mitral assessment for BMV, and investigate the additive value of 3DE in prediction of immediate post-procedural outcome. Fifty patients with rheumatic mitral stenosis and candidates for BMV were included. Patients were subjected to 2D- and real-time 3D-transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) before and immediately after BMV for assessing MV area (MVA), 2D-Wilkins and 3D-Anwar score, commissural splitting, and mitral regurgitation (MR). Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) was also undertaken immediately before and intra-procedural. Percutaneous BMV was performed by either multi-track or Inoue balloon technique. RESULTS: The 2DE underestimated post-procedural MVA than 3DE (p = 0.008). Patients with post-procedural suboptimal MVA or significant MR had higher 3D-Anwar score compared to 2D-Wilkins score (p = 0.008 and p = 0.03 respectively). The 3D-Anwar score showed a negative correlation with post-procedural MVA (r = - 0.48, p = 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for both scores revealed superior prediction of suboptimal results by 3D-Anwar score (p < 0.0001). The 3DE showed better post-procedural posterior-commissural splitting than 2DE (p = 0.004). Results of both multi-track and Inoue balloon were comparable except for favorable posterior-commissural splitting by multi-track balloon (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: The 3DE gave valuable additive data before BMV that may predict immediate post-procedural outcome and suboptimal results.

Effect of Amlodipine/Valsartan Versus Nebivolol/Valsartan Fixed Dose Combinations on Peripheral and Central Blood Pressure.

INTRODUCTION: Although hypertensive drugs may have the same effect on peripheral blood pressure, they vary in their effect on central blood pressure and its indices. AIM: To evaluate efficacy of fixed-dose combination of amlodipine 10 mg/valsartan 160 mg versus nebivolol 5 mg/valsartan 160 mg in grade 2 or more hypertensive patients assessed by peripheral and central blood pressure. METHODS: A prospective, open label, randomized study done in the outpatient cardiology clinic at Beni-Suef University Hospital. A total of 137 patients continued the study; group I (n = 75) received Amlodipine 10 mg/Valsartan 160 mg (A/V) and group II (n = 62) received Nebivolol 5 mg/Valsartan 160 mg (N/V). Peripheral, central blood pressure and its indices were measured at baseline, after 6 and 12 weeks. RESULTS: The two combinations reduced peripheral and central BP (P < 0.0001) after 6 and 12 weeks. A/V combination significantly reduces central Pulse Pressure (PP) after 6 and 12 weeks (- 8.53 ± 13.80 and - 10.17 ± 11.29 (P < 0.0001) respectively), while N/V showed its efficacy in reducing central PP after 12 weeks (- 7.03 ± 13.10, P = 0.005). A/V combination was more effective in reducing Pulse Wave Velocity (PWV) after 6 and 12 weeks; P < 0.0001 vs P = 0.004. After 6 weeks, N/V was more effective in reducing Augmentation Index (AIx) (- 6.00 ± 10.94 (P = 0.002) vs. - 3.44 ± 9.80 (P = 0.026)) while after 12 weeks A/V did not show any significance (P = 0.085). CONCLUSIONS: Both treatment groups lowered patients' peripheral, central blood pressure after 6 and 12 week of treatment, but Amlodipine/Valsartan combination was more effective. Both treatments exerted different effects on central indices.

Transradial artery approach in STEMI patients reperfused early and late by either primary PCI or pharmaco-invasive approach.

The purpose of the study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of transradial artery approach (TRA) in STEMI patients who reperfused early (≤3 h from symptoms onset) or late (>3 h from symptoms onset) by either PPCI or pharmaco-invasive strategy (PI), thrombolysis followed by CA. Therefore, a total 143 STEMI patients (who were presented within 12 h from symptoms onset or 12-24 h with an evidence of ongoing ischemia or suffered from an acute STEMI were randomized for either PI or PPCI. Eighty-two patients were assigned to PI arm while the rest assigned were to PPCI arm. Patients who were taken to a non-PCI capable hospital received streptokinase and were then transferred to our Hospital for CA. TRA was used in the catheterization laboratory for all patients. Each arm was divided according to reperfusion time into early and late subgroups. A primary endpoint was death, shock, congestive heart failure, or reinfarction up to 30 days. There was a non-significant difference regarding LVEF in both arms. Myocardium wall preservation was significant in the early PI arm (P = 0.023). TIMI flow had no discrepancy between both arms (P = 0.569). Mean procedural and fluoroscopic time were 35.1 ± 6.1 and 6.3 ± 0.9 min. There were no reported entry site complications. There was no difference in primary endpoint complications (P = 0.326) considering the different times of patients' reperfusion (early; P = 0.696 vs. late; P = 0.424). In conclusion, it is safe and effective to use TRA in STEMI patients who reperfused by either early or late PPCI or PI. We recommend PI for STEMI patients with delay presentation if PPCI is not available.