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.

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.

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.