Why the study?
Does intravenous infusion of adrenomedullin improve hemodynamic, renal, and hormonal parameters in patients with congestive heart failure?
Does intravenous infusion of adrenomedullin improve hemodynamic, renal, and hormonal parameters in patients with congestive heart failure?
Intravenous adrenomedullin infusion produces favorable acute hemodynamic, renal, and hormonal effects in patients with congestive heart failure.
Adrenomedullin was associated with acute hemodynamic effects in CHF; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized trials before any practice consideration.
BACKGROUND: Experimental studies have shown that adrenomedullin (AM) causes vasodilatation, diuresis, and a positive inotropic effect. In humans, however, whether infusion of AM has beneficial effects in congestive heart failure (CHF) remains unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Hemodynamic, renal, and hormonal responses to intravenous infusion of human AM (0.05 microg. kg(-1). min(-1)) were examined in 7 patients with CHF and 7 normal healthy subjects (NL). In NL group, AM significantly decreased mean arterial pressure (-16 mm Hg, P<0. 05) and increased heart rate (+12 bpm, P<0.05). In CHF group, AM also decreased mean arterial pressure (-8 mm Hg, P<0.05) and increased heart rate (+5 bpm, P<0.05), but to a much lesser degree (P<0.05 versus NL). AM markedly increased cardiac index (CHF, +49%; NL, +39%, P<0.05) while decreasing pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (CHF, -4 mm Hg; NL, -2 mm Hg, P<0.05). AM significantly decreased mean pulmonary arterial pressure only in CHF (-4 mm Hg, P<0.05). AM increased urine volume (CHF, +48%; NL, +62%, P<0.05) and urinary sodium excretion (CHF, +42%; NL, +75%, P<0.05). Only in CHF, plasma aldosterone significantly decreased during (-28%, P<0.05) and after (-36%, P<0.05) AM infusion. These parameters remained unchanged in 7 patients with CHF and 6 healthy subjects who received placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous infusion of AM has beneficial hemodynamic and renal effects in patients with CHF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nagaya et al. (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: