Why the study?
Does molsidomine compared to isosorbide-5-mononitrate and placebo improve hemodynamics without tolerance in patients with chronic congestive heart failure?
Does molsidomine compared to isosorbide-5-mononitrate and placebo improve hemodynamics without tolerance in patients with chronic congestive heart failure?
Molsidomine provides longer-lasting hemodynamic benefits compared to isosorbide-5-mononitrate in heart failure, suggesting neurohumoral counterregulation does not play an essential role in nitrate tolerance.
Molsidomine offers sustained hemodynamic relief in chronic heart failure; extends evidence that sydnonimines develop less tolerance than traditional nitrates.
The use of nitrates for treatment of heart failure is encumbered by tolerance, caused by whatever mechanism, which has been reported only in a few instances with sydnonimines. Accordingly, we compared molsidomine (6 mg/h) and isosorbide-5-mononitrate (3.75 mg/h) with respect to maximal hemodynamic effects, rapidity and extent of attenuation, and underlying mechanisms by means of constant infusions over 24 h each in 15 patients with chronic congestive heart failure (NYHA II-III) with a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized, crossover protocol. Hemodynamic measurements and determinations of neurohormones were performed at baseline and at 2, 8, and 24 h after the beginning of infusions. With molsidomine, reductions of diastolic pulmonary artery pressure by 29% (p < 0.001), by 24% (p < 0.01), and by 24% (p < 0.01) versus placebo were found at 2, 8, and 24 h, which amounted to 19% (p < 0.01), 10% (NS), and 14% (NS) with the nitrate. Cardiac output was meaningfully affected only with molsidomine (+5%, NS, at 2 h; +9%, p < 0.05, at 8 h; and +15%, p < 0.05, at 24 h), as was systemic vascular resistance (-13%, p < 0.05; -9%, NS; and -18%, p < 0.01) at the corresponding times. Increases in renin activity amounted to 130% (p < 0.001), 117% (p < 0.001), and 112% (p < 0.001) with molsidomine, and to 14, 16%, and 0 (each NS) with the nitrate at the corresponding times. Hematocrit was reduced by 5% (p < 0.001), 7% (p < 0.001), and 12% (p < 0.01) with molsidomine and by 5% (NS), 5% (p < 0.05), and 5% (NS) with the nitrate. We conclude that neurohumoral counterregulation or fluid shift, which is even more pronounced with molsidomine despite longer-lasting effects, has no essential role in nitrate-tolerance development. With molsidomine, such a role cannot be ruled out, although alternatively, a fluid shift from arterial to the low-pressure arm of circulation during the later course of infusion would be even more likely.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lehmann et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: