Why the study?
Does quinapril improve regional blood flow and cardiac function in patients with NYHA FC II-III congestive heart failure?
Does quinapril improve regional blood flow and cardiac function in patients with NYHA FC II-III congestive heart failure?
In a small cohort of patients with NYHA class II-III heart failure, quinapril improved regional blood flow and reduced vascular resistance without altering left ventricular ejection fraction.
May support regional hemodynamic effects of quinapril in NYHA II-III HF; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Quinapril, a nonsulfhydryl ACE inhibitor, was evaluated in ten New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class (FC) II-III CHF patients to determine its effects on regional blood flow [effective renal plasma flow (ERPF), renal blood flow (RBF), renal vascular resistance (RVR), hepatic blood flow (HBF), hepatic vascular resistance (HVR), segmental limb pressure (SLP), creatinine clearance (CRCL)] and cardiac function [left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)]. Previous vasodilator therapy was withdrawn 2 weeks before baseline measurements. Stable regimens of digoxin and diuretics were continued throughout the study. ERPF was assessed using p-aminohippurate (PAH), HBF by indocyanine green (ICG) clearance, and LVEF by radionuclide scintography. Segmental limb pressures were measured by Doppler flow detection. Measurements were performed at baseline (B) and after 4 weeks of quinapril therapy (10 mg BID). Quinapril increased renal (P less than 0.05) and hepatic blood flow (P = 0.06) and significantly reduced renal and hepatic vascular resistance. Glomerular filtration rate and left ventricular ejection fraction were unchanged. Mean arterial pressure and brachial segmental pressures decreased without change in heart rate. Noninvasive cardiovascular assessments indicate that quinapril improves regional blood flow while exhibiting no change in left ventricular ejection fraction, in patients with NYHA FC II-III CHF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Munger et al. (1992) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: