Propafenone shows class Ic and class II antiarrhythmic effects.

AIMS: Propafenone is a well-known Class Ic antiarrhythmic agent. It has the typical chemical structure of a beta-blocker, but human studies on its beta-blocking effects revealed conflicting results. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twelve healthy males received single oral doses of 600 mg propafenone and placebo according to a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over protocol. Four hours following drug intake, heart rate and blood pressure were measured, and plasma concentrations of propafenone were determined at rest, during exercise and after recovery. At exercise, propafenone significantly decreased heart rate (-6%, P < 0.05), systolic blood pressure (-6%, P < 0.05), and the rate-pressure product (-11%, P < 0.05). Plasma concentrations of propafenone increased during exercise (+23%, P < 0.05) and decreased during recovery (-33%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both effects on heart rate and blood pressure as well as the changes of plasma concentrations of propafenone during exercise represent two particular features of beta-blockers. Therefore, we conclude that propafenone is both a Class Ic and a Class II antiarrhythmic agent, and 600 mg propafenone, i.e. the dose recommended in current guidelines for cardioversion of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, cause clinically significant beta-blockade. Thus, single oral doses of 600 mg propafenone appear also suitable for cardioversion of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in patients with structural heart disease since beta-blockers are explicitly indicated in the treatment of both coronary artery disease and heart failure.

[Austrian Consensus on High Blood Pressure 2019]. / Österreichischer Blutdruckkonsens 2019.

Elevated blood pressure remains a major cause of cardiovascular disease, disability, and premature death in Austria, with suboptimal rates of detection, treatment and control also in recent years. Management of hypertension is a common challenge for physicians with different spezializations. In an attempt to standardize diagnostic and therapeutic strategies and, ultimately, to increase the rate of patients with controlled blood pressure and to decrease the burden of cardiovascular disease, 13 Austrian medical societies reviewed the evidence regarding prevention, detection, workup, treatment and consequences of high blood pressure in general and in various clinical scenarios. The result is presented as the first national consensus on blood pressure. The authors and societies involved are convinced that a joint national effort is needed to decrease hypertension-related morbidity and mortality in our country.

Pericardiocentesis Guided by Contrast Echocardiography.

Although pericardiocentesis is a relatively safe procedure, there are some hazards, particularly when hemorrhagic fluid is aspirated. Having the opportunity to outline the space from which the fluid is withdrawn is of particular interest in this situation. A current technique of echocardiography with contrast enhancement involves injection of a few milliliters of agitated saline solution or reinjection of blood-stained fluid. Performing this procedure, we repeatedly observed a weak and inhomogeneous echo contrast; therefore, we evaluated the applicability of the ultrasound contrast medium SH U 454 (Echovist Schering, Berlin, Germany) for contrast enhancement in hemorrhagic pericardiocentesis. In all patients, pericardiocentesis was performed in a supine position by a subxiphoid approach. A Teflon catheter/needle unit attached to a syringe containing a few milliliters of contrast medium was introduced in the usual way. On the return of hemorrhagic fluid, 1-2 ml of Echovist was injected to provide contrast from the space from which it had been aspirated. We observed excellent contrast clearly outlining the pericardial space through the injection of 1-2 ml of contrast medium. No adverse or side effects were seen resulting from Echovist injection to the pericardial sac. In conclusion, contrast echocardiography appears to be a useful tool to secure the correct position of the needle during pericardiocentesis of hemorrhagic or loculated effusions. It is suggested that injection of Echovist should be considered whenever the contrast obtained by the conventional technique is poor and inconclusive.

No evidence of nitrate tolerance caused by nebivolol.

BACKGROUND: Continuous long-term treatment with nitrates may cause nitrate tolerance. Nebivolol is a highly selective beta1-adrenergic antagonist with additional nitric oxide (NO)-mediated vasodilatory effects. However, there have been no investigations into whether or not the long-term administration of nebivolol might cause nitrate tolerance. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study in 16 healthy men. Subjects received 5 mg nebivolol or placebo once daily for 8 days in random order divided by a drug-free interval of 2 weeks. Forearm blood flow (FBF) was measured by venous occlusion plethysmography 3 h after oral intake of the first and last doses of nebivolol and placebo, respectively. FBF was measured again following the intravenous administration of 4 µg nitroglycerin/kg body weight/min for 5 min. RESULTS: Following 8 days of continuous intake of placebo, nitroglycerin increased FBF by 54% (p < 0.05), whereas nitroglycerin increased FBF by 96% (p < 0.01) following 8 days of continuous intake of nebivolol, and the increase after 8 days of nebivolol was significantly (p < 0.05) more pronounced than after 8 days of placebo. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate no evidence of nitrate tolerance caused by long-term administration of nebivolol. On the contrary, long-term intake of nebivolol increases rather than decreases the NO-mediated vasodilating effects.

Differential effects of urapidil and doxazosin on heart rate.

OBJECTIVE: Although alpha-blockers are effective in lowering blood pressure, they may increase heart rate, an unwanted effect that could negatively affect outcome. However, the alpha-blocker urapidil might not increase heart rate due to its additional effect on 5-HT1A receptors. Therefore, we compared the effects of urapidil on heart rate with those of another alpha-blocker, doxazosin. METHODS: We performed a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study in 12 healthy males who received single oral doses of 60 mg urapidil, 4 mg doxazosin and placebo. Four hours following drug intake, heart rate and blood pressure were measured at rest and during exercise. RESULTS: Both doxazosin and urapidil decreased blood pressure to the same extent. Compared to placebo, resting heart rate was significantly increased by doxazosin (+25%, P < 0.05) but not by urapidil (+12%, n.s.). Resting heart rate with doxazosin was significantly higher than with urapidil (P < 0.05). Similarly, the rate pressure product (RPP) at rest was increased by doxazosin (+17%, P < 0.05) but not by urapidil (+6%, n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the increase in heart rate caused by urapidil is less pronounced than that with doxazosin, a property that might favour urapidil in the treatment of arterial hypertension. In addition, only doxazosin (but not urapidil) increased the RPP at rest, a finding that might be helpful to explain why this drug was never shown to improve outcome in the treatment of arterial hypertension.

Comparing beta-blocking effects of bisoprolol, carvedilol and nebivolol.

OBJECTIVE: Bisoprolol, carvedilol and nebivolol have been shown to be effective in the treatment of heart failure. However, the beta-blocking effects of these drugs have never been compared directly. METHODS: Therefore, we performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial in 16 healthy males. Subjects received 10 mg bisoprolol, 50 mg carvedilol, 10 mg nebivolol and placebo on the first morning followed by 5 mg bisoprolol once daily, 25 mg carvedilol twice daily, 5 mg nebivolol once daily and placebo for 1 week. Heart rate and blood pressure were measured at rest and exercise 3 and 24 h following intake of the first dose, and immediately before and 3 hours following intake of the last dose of each drug. In addition, effects of the drugs on nocturnal melatonin release were determined, and quality of life (QOL) was evaluated. RESULTS: Heart rate at exercise was decreased at 3 h following intake of the first single dose of each drug by bisoprolol (-24%), carvedilol (-17%) and nebivolol (-15%), and at 24 h following intake of the respective last dose of each drug following 1 week of chronic administration by bisoprolol (-14%), carvedilol (12 h; -15%) and nebivolol (-13%) (p < 0.05 in all cases). Thus, trough-to-peak-ratios at long-term were as follows: Bisoprolol, 58%; carvedilol (12 h), 85%; nebivolol, 91%. Nocturnal melatonin release was decreased by bisoprolol (-44%, p < 0.05) whereas nebivolol and carvedilol had no effect. QOL with carvedilol was slightly but significantly lower than with the other drugs, whereas bisoprolol and nebivolol did not alter QOL. CONCLUSIONS: These data show that peak beta-blocking effects of bisoprolol appear stronger than those of nebivolol and carvedilol. On the other hand, nebivolol exerts the highest trough-to-peak-ratio. However, beta-blocking effects of all the three drugs are similar at trough. Only bisoprolol but neither nebivolol nor carvedilol decreased nocturnal melatonin release, a feature which might cause sleep disturbances. Finally, only carvedilol slightly decreased QOL, whereas nebivolol and bisoprolol did not affect QOL. We conclude that different beta-blockers may exert clinically relevant different effects.

Different effects of exercise on plasma concentrations of nebivolol, bisoprolol and carvedilol.

BACKGROUND: In-vitro studies have shown that beta-blockers are taken up into and released from adrenergic cells together with epinephrine and norepinephrine. Consequently, studies in humans revealed an increase in plasma concentrations of propranolol and atenolol, whereas those of carvedilol were not affected by physical exercise. However, nebivolol and bisoprolol never were investigated on this issue. METHODS: Ten healthy males received oral doses of 5 mg nebivolol, 5 mg bisoprolol, and 50 mg carvedilol daily for one week in a cross-over fashion. Exercise was performed at 3 hours following oral intake of the respective last drugs on the eighth day. Blood samples were taken at rest, during the last minute of exercise, and after 15 min of recovery. RESULTS: At rest and during exercise, heart rates were as follows: Nebivolol, 57 +/- 7 and 137 +/- 11 beats/min; bisoprolol, 55 +/- 5 and 139 +/- 14 beats/min; carvedilol, 56 +/- 5 and 135 +/- 13 beats/min, with no significant differences between the drugs. Plasma concentrations were as follows: Nebivolol-rest 0.273 +/- 0.029 ng/ml, exercise 0.274 +/- 0.035 ng/ml, recovery 0.272 +/- 0.035 ng/ml (n.s.). Bisoprolol-rest 4.99 +/- 2.73 ng/ml, exercise 6.49 +/- 5.58 ng/ml, recovery 4.90 +/- 3.06 ng/ml ( p < 0.01). Carvedilol-rest 10.3 +/- 9.3 ng/ml, exercise 9.7 +/- 8.2 ng/ml, recovery 6.5 +/- 5.6 ng/ml ( p < 0.05). DISCUSSION: Plasma concentrations of bisoprolol increased during exercise and returned to baseline during recovery, a behaviour which would have been predicted according to present knowledge. However, exercise had no effect on plasma concentrations of nebivolol and carvedilol, a finding that is in contrast to previous results with other beta-blockers such as propranolol and atenolol. We conclude that both nebivolol and carvedilol are not taken up into and released from adrenergic nerves during exercise, a feature that clearly distinguishes these drugs from other beta-blockers so far investigated.

Unpredicted lack of effect of exercise on plasma concentrations of carvedilol.

In vitro studies have shown that beta-blockers are taken up into and released from adrenergic cells together with epinephrine and norepinephrine. Consequently, studies in humans revealed an increase in plasma concentrations of propranolol and atenolol during physical exercise. However, carvedilol has not been investigated in a similar fashion. Eleven hypertensive patients on long-term treatment (4 months) with carvedilol followed an exercise regimen. Plasma concentrations of carvedilol were determined at rest (9.7 +/- 3.4 ng/ml), during exercise (9.0 +/- 3.2 ng/ml), and after 15 min of recovery (9.1 +/- 2.7 ng/ml). Contrary to predictions, exercise had no effect on plasma concentrations of carvedilol, a finding that is in contrast to other beta-blockers. We conclude that carvedilol is not taken up into and released from adrenergic nerves during exercise, a feature that clearly distinguishes carvedilol from all other beta-adrenergic antagonists so far investigated.

Exercise does not affect plasma concentrations of (R)- and (S)-carvedilol.

PURPOSE: In vitro studies have shown that beta-blockers are taken up into and released from adrenergic cells. As a consequence, plasma concentrations of beta-blockers increase during exercise together with those of epinephrine and norepinephrine. However, effects of exercise on plasma concentrations of (R)- and (S)-carvedilol are unknown. METHODS: Twelve healthy males received oral single doses of 12.5 mg (R)-carvedilol, 12.5 mg (S)-carvedilol and 25 mg (R,S)-carvedilol in a cross-over fashion; 11 patients with essential arterial hypertension were given 25 mg (R,S)-carvedilol. Exercise was performed 3 hours following drug intake, and blood samples were taken at rest, at the end of exercise, and after 15 min of recovery. Plasma concentrations of (R)- and (S)-carvedilol were determined by HPLC. RESULTS: Plasma concentrations of (R)-carvedilol were 2- to 3-fold higher than those of (S)-carvedilol (p < 0.05 in all cases). Plasma concentrations of both (R)- and (S)-carvedilol remained unaffected during exercise and recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to all other beta-blockers so far investigated, exercise had no effect on plasma concentrations of (R)- and (S)-carvedilol. We conclude that neither (R)- nor (S)-carvedilol is released from adrenergic cells during exercise, a feature that clearly distinguishes carvedilol from other beta-blockers. Thus, the human organism appears to handle (R)- and (S)-carvedilol differently than other beta-adrenoceptor antagonists. This finding deserves further investigation on a molecular and cellular level in order to clarify these differences between the pharmacokinetics of carvedilol and other beta-blockers.