Why the study?
Does tezosentan improve vascular resistance and cardiac function in patients with stable congestive heart failure?
Does tezosentan improve vascular resistance and cardiac function in patients with stable congestive heart failure?
Tezosentan improves cardiac power and reduces systemic vascular resistance without causing a steep drop in blood pressure in patients with stable heart failure.
Tezosentan yields favorable acute hemodynamics in stable HF without marked hypotension; extends endothelin antagonism data to chronic settings.
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the effect of tezosentan (an intravenous endothelin-1 receptor antagonist) on vascular resistance and cardiac function and determined the dose response in patients with stable congestive heart failure (CHF) due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction. METHODS: In a double-blind fashion, tezosentan or placebo were administered in ascending doses (5, 20, 50, 100 mg h(-1)) to 38 CHF (NYHA class III) patients with ejection fraction <or=35%, cardiac index <or=2.7 l min(-1) m(-2) and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure >or=15 mmHg. Systemic vascular resistance index (SVRi) was estimated as mean arterial blood pressure [(MAP-right atrial pressure)/cardiac index (CI)]. Cardiac function was assessed as cardiac power index (Cpi), calculated as pressure x flow (MAP x CI), where MAP represents pressure and CI represents cardiovascular flow. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Compared to the placebo, tezosentan induced a dose-dependent decrease in SVRi (-32%), an increase in Cpi (+20%) and a small decrease in MAP (-9%). By contrast, patients treated with nitrate vasodilators or nesiritide (a natriuretic peptide) showed a decrease in SVRi not accompanied by a significant increase in Cpi leading to a steep decrease in MAP. CONCLUSIONS: The use of Cpi in the assessment of the hemodynamic effects of tezosentan, provides a useful alternative characterization of the complex influences of vasodilators on cardiac function in patients with CHF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wolfgang et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: