Clevidipine in acute heart failure: Results of the A Study of Blood Pressure Control in Acute Heart Failure-A Pilot Study (PRONTO).

BACKGROUND: Rapid blood pressure (BP) control improves dyspnea in hypertensive acute heart failure (AHF). Although effective antihypertensives, calcium-channel blockers are poorly studied in AHF. Clevidipine is a rapidly acting, arterial selective intravenous calcium-channel blocker. Our purpose was to determine the efficacy and safety of clevidipine vs standard-of-care intravenous antihypertensive therapy (SOC) in hypertensive AHF. METHODS: This is a randomized, open-label, active control study of clevidipine vs SOC in emergency department patients with AHF having systolic BP ≥160 mm Hg and dyspnea ≥50 on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). Coprimary end points were median time to, and percent attaining, a systolic BP within a prespecified target BP range (TBPR) at 30 minutes. Dyspnea reduction was the main secondary end point. RESULTS: Of 104 patients (mean [SD] age 61 [14.9] years, 52% female, 80% African American), 51 received clevidipine and 53 received SOC. Baseline mean (SD) systolic BP and VAS dyspnea were 186.5 (23.4) mm Hg and 64.8 (19.6) mm. More clevidipine patients (71%) reached TBPR than did those receiving SOC (37%; P = .002), and clevidipine was faster to TBPR (P = .0006). At 45 minutes, clevidipine patients had greater mean (SD) VAS dyspnea improvement than did SOC patients (-37 [20.9] vs -28 mm [21.7], P = .02), a difference that remained significant up to 3 hours. Serious adverse events (24% vs 19%) and 30-day mortality (3 vs 2) were similar between clevedipine and SOC, respectively, and there were no deaths during study drug administration. CONCLUSIONS: In hypertensive AHF, clevidipine safely and rapidly reduces BP and improves dyspnea more effectively than SOC.

Assessment of dyspnea in acute decompensated heart failure: insights from ASCEND-HF (Acute Study of Clinical Effectiveness of Nesiritide in Decompensated Heart Failure) on the contributions of peak expiratory flow.

OBJECTIVES: This study hypothesized that peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) would increase with acute heart failure (AHF) treatment over the first 24 h, related to a Dyspnea Index (DI) change and treatment effect. BACKGROUND: Dyspnea is a key symptom and clinical trial endpoint in AHF, yet objective assessment is lacking. METHODS: In a clinical trial substudy, 421 patients (37 sites) underwent PEFR testing at baseline, 1, 6, and 24 h after randomization to nesiritide or placebo. DI (by Likert scale) was collected at hours 6 and 24. RESULTS: Patients were median age 70 years, and 34% were female; no significant differences between nesiritide or placebo patients existed. Median baseline PEFR was 225 l/min (interquartile range [IQR]: 160 to 300 l/min) and increased to 230 l/min (2.2% increase; IQR: 170 to 315 l/min) by hour 1, 250 l/min (11.1% increase; IQR: 180 to 340 l/min) by hour 6, and 273 l/min (21.3% increase; IQR: 200 to 360 l/min) by 24 h (all p < 0.001). The 24-h PEFR change related to moderate or marked dyspnea improvement by DI (adjusted odds ratio: 1.04 for each 10 l/min improvement [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07 to 1.10]; p < 0.01). A model incorporating time and treatment over 24 h showed greater PEFR improvement after nesiritide compared with placebo (p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: PEFR increases over the first 24 h in AHF and could serve as an AHF endpoint. Nesiritide had a greater effect than placebo on PEFR, and this predicted patients with moderate/marked improvement in dyspnea, thereby providing an objective metric for assessing AHF. (Acute Study of Clinical Effectiveness of Nesiritide in Decompensated Heart Failure [ASCEND-HF]; NCT00475852).

Effect of iodixanol and ioxilan on QT interval and renal function in patients with systolic heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Contrast media (CM) exposure is associated with a substantial risk of arrhythmias and nephrotoxicity. These adverse effects may be exacerbated in high-risk conditions such as heart failure, although no studies have evaluated newer CM agents in this population. This study evaluated the electrophysiologic and renal effects of two newer CM agents, iodixanol and ioxilan, in heart failure patients undergoing angiography. METHODS: Eighty-seven consecutive systolic heart failure patients who received either iso-osmolar iodixanol (n=44) or low-osmolar ioxilan (n=43), stratified for concomitant amiodarone, were evaluated for QT interval and serum creatinine changes in comparison to baseline. QT values were corrected according to three formulae: Bazett's correction, Fridericia formula, and Framingham equation. RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics were not significantly different in the iodixanol versus ioxilan groups, except for myocardial infarction and renal disease. No significant change in mean QTc was observed after exposure to either CM agent compared to baseline. These results were unaffected by amiodarone. A significant improvement in serum creatinine from baseline was observed in the iodixanol group compared to the ioxilan group (-0.121 ± 0.35 mg/dL vs. 0.033 ± 0.23 mg/dL, respectively; p=0.045). CONCLUSIONS: No significant change in QTc interval was observed in patients receiving either iodixanol or ioxilan during angiography. Iodixanol appeared to improve short-term renal function in patients with heart failure and should be further investigated.