Prevention of contrast media-induced renal dysfunction with prostaglandin E1: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Preexisting renal impairment is an all-encompassing risk factor for radiocontrast-associated nephrotoxicity. Renal impairment appears to be associated with the inadequate production of renal prostaglandins at the critical time of radiocontrast administration and for a variable time period afterward. We prospectively studied 130 patients with chronic renal insufficiency (serum creatinine > or =1.5 mg/dL) who were undergoing radiocontrast administration. Using a double-blind, randomized, prospective technique, patients were assigned to either placebo or one of three prostaglandin E1 (PGE1) treatment groups (10, 20, or 40 ng/kg/min). Infusion was started 60 +/- 30 minutes before the administration of radiocontrast and was continued for a total of 6 hours. In the placebo group, radiocontrast administration resulted in a mean increase (+/- SD) in serum creatinine of 0.72 +/- 1.15 mg/dL at 48 hours. This increase was less in each of the PGE1 treatment groups after 48 hours, with a significant difference between placebo and the 20 ng/kg/min PGE1 group (P = 0.01). Using baseline adjusted means, analysis of covariance with baseline serum creatinine as the covariable demonstrated significant differences between the placebo and 20 ng/kg/min PGE1 group (P = 0.03) and between the placebo and 10 ng/kg/min PGE1 group P = 0.047). In a subgroup analysis of the diabetic patients, the increase in serum creatinine was less pronounced in the three PGE1 groups versus the placebo group, and the 20 ng/kg/min PGE1 group had the most favorable outcome. The parenteral administration of PGE1 immediately before radiocontrast exposure and continued for a period of 5 to 5.5 hours significantly reduced the elevation of serum creatinine poststudy. The most effective of the three PGE1 dosing regimens was 20 ng/kg/min.

The TIMI risk score for unstable angina/non-ST elevation MI: A method for prognostication and therapeutic decision making.

CONTEXT: Patients with unstable angina/non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI) (UA/NSTEMI) present with a wide spectrum of risk for death and cardiac ischemic events. OBJECTIVE: To develop a simple risk score that has broad applicability, is easily calculated at patient presentation, does not require a computer, and identifies patients with different responses to treatments for UA/NSTEMI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Two phase 3, international, randomized, double-blind trials (the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction [TIMI] 11B trial [August 1996-March 1998] and the Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in Unstable Angina and Non-Q-Wave MI trial [ESSENCE; October 1994-May 1996]). A total of 1957 patients with UA/NSTEMI were assigned to receive unfractionated heparin (test cohort) and 1953 to receive enoxaparin in TIMI 11B; 1564 and 1607 were assigned respectively in ESSENCE. The 3 validation cohorts were the unfractionated heparin group from ESSENCE and both enoxaparin groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The TIMI risk score was derived in the test cohort by selection of independent prognostic variables using multivariate logistic regression, assignment of value of 1 when a factor was present and 0 when it was absent, and summing the number of factors present to categorize patients into risk strata. Relative differences in response to therapeutic interventions were determined by comparing the slopes of the rates of events with increasing score in treatment groups and by testing for an interaction between risk score and treatment. Outcomes were TIMI risk score for developing at least 1 component of the primary end point (all-cause mortality, new or recurrent MI, or severe recurrent ischemia requiring urgent revascularization) through 14 days after randomization. RESULTS: The 7 TIMI risk score predictor variables were age 65 years or older, at least 3 risk factors for coronary artery disease, prior coronary stenosis of 50% or more, ST-segment deviation on electrocardiogram at presentation, at least 2 anginal events in prior 24 hours, use of aspirin in prior 7 days, and elevated serum cardiac markers. Event rates increased significantly as the TIMI risk score increased in the test cohort in TIMI 11B: 4.7% for a score of 0/1; 8.3% for 2; 13. 2% for 3; 19.9% for 4; 26.2% for 5; and 40.9% for 6/7 (P<.001 by chi(2) for trend). The pattern of increasing event rates with increasing TIMI risk score was confirmed in all 3 validation groups (P<.001). The slope of the increase in event rates with increasing numbers of risk factors was significantly lower in the enoxaparin groups in both TIMI 11B (P =.01) and ESSENCE (P =.03) and there was a significant interaction between TIMI risk score and treatment (P =. 02). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with UA/NSTEMI, the TIMI risk score is a simple prognostication scheme that categorizes a patient's risk of death and ischemic events and provides a basis for therapeutic decision making. JAMA. 2000;284:835-842

Effect of mibefradil, a T-type calcium channel blocker, on morbidity and mortality in moderate to severe congestive heart failure: the MACH-1 study. Mortality Assessment in Congestive Heart Failure Trial.

BACKGROUND: Calcium antagonists have proved disappointing in long-term congestive heart failure (CHF) studies. Mibefradil, a new calcium antagonist that selectively blocks T-type calcium channels, has been shown to be an effective antihypertensive, antianginal, and anti-ischemic agent, and because of its different mechanism of action, it may be beneficial as adjunct therapy in CHF patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind study compared mibefradil with placebo as adjunct to usual therapy in 2590 CHF patients (NYHA class II to IV; left ventricular fraction <35%). The initial 50-mg daily dose of mibefradil was uptitrated to 100 mg after 1 month and continued up to 3 years. Patients were monitored at 1 week; 1, 2, and 3 months; and every 3 months thereafter. All-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular morbidity/mortality were analyzed by use of the log-rank test (alpha=0.05). Substudies included exercise tolerance, plasma hormone and cytokines, echocardiography, and quality of life. Total mortality was similar between mibefradil- and placebo-treated patients (P=0.151). The 14% increased risk of mortality with mibefradil in the first 3 months was not statistically significant (P=0.093). Treatment groups had similar cardiovascular mortality (P=0.246), cardiovascular morbidity/mortality (P=0.783), and reasons for death or hospitalization. Patients comedicated with mibefradil and antiarrhythmics (class I or III), including amiodarone, had a significantly increased risk of death. Substudies demonstrated no significant differences between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: When used as adjunct therapy, mibefradil did not affect the usual outcome of CHF. The potential interaction with antiarrhythmic drugs, especially amiodarone, and drugs associated with torsade de pointes may have contributed to poor outcomes early in the study.

Enoxaparin prevents death and cardiac ischemic events in unstable angina/non-Q-wave myocardial infarction. Results of the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 11B trial.

BACKGROUND: Low-molecular-weight heparins are attractive alternatives to unfractionated heparin (UFH) for management of unstable angina/non-Q-wave myocardial infarction (UA/NQMI). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients (n=3910) with UA/NQMI were randomized to intravenous UFH for >/=3 days followed by subcutaneous placebo injections or uninterrupted antithrombin therapy with enoxaparin during both the acute phase (initial 30 mg intravenous bolus followed by injections of 1.0 mg/kg every 12 hours) and outpatient phase (injections every 12 hours of 40 mg for patients weighing <65 kg and 60 mg for those weighing >/=65 kg). The primary end point (death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization) occurred by 8 days in 14.5% of patients in the UFH group and 12.4% of patients in the enoxaparin group (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00; P=0. 048) and by 43 days in 19.7% of the UFH group and 17.3% of the enoxaparin group (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.00; P=0.048). During the first 72 hours and also throughout the entire initial hospitalization, there was no difference in the rate of major hemorrhage in the treatment groups. During the outpatient phase, major hemorrhage occurred in 1.5% of the group treated with placebo and 2.9% of the group treated with enoxaparin (P=0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Enoxaparin is superior to UFH for reducing a composite of death and serious cardiac ischemic events during the acute management of UA/NQMI patients without causing a significant increase in the rate of major hemorrhage. No further relative decrease in events occurred with outpatient enoxaparin treatment, but there was an increase in the rate of major hemorrhage.

[Prostaglandin E1 for prevention of contrast medium-induced kidney dysfunction]. / Prostaglandin E1 zur Prophylaxe kontrastmittelinduzierter Nierenfunktionsstörungen.

PURPOSE: Acute renal failure is a known complication of contrast media (CM) application in risk patients. Therefore an efficient prevention is highly desirable. The purpose of this pilot study was a) to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of prostaglandin E1 (PGE1 = alprostadil) in the prophylaxis against CM associated renal dysfunction in patients with renal disease, and b) to identify the adequate dose. METHODS: A total of 130 patients with renal dysfunction who were scheduled for intravascular CM administration were enrolled. They received PGE1 (10, 20, or 40 ng/kg/min) or placebo intravenously over a period of six hours (beginning one hour prior to exposure). Efficacy was determined by measuring serum creatinine and creatinine clearance. Safety was assessed by recording adverse experiences throughout the study and close monitoring of vital parameters especially during study drug administration. RESULTS: PGE1 proved to be superior to placebo in all doses. The dose of 20 ng/kg/min was most promising due to the lowest increase of serum creatinine 48 hours after CM administration. With respect to creatinine clearance, no relevant differences between study and control groups were observed. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that intravenously administered PGE1 may be efficient in preventing CM-induced renal dysfunction in patients with renal impairment.

A randomized, placebo-controlled study of loop diuretics in patients with essential hypertension: the bumetanide and furosemide on lipid profile (BUFUL) clinical study report.

This study was conducted to determine whether loop diuretics are more effective than placebo in reducing blood pressure without raising serum lipid levels, and whether bumetanide is more effective than furosemide in this respect. In a double-blind, 24-week placebo-controlled crossover study, 27 patients with essential hypertension were treated in four periods of 6 weeks each, including placebo twice, furosemide 40 mg daily, and bumetanide 1 mg daily. Several metabolic parameters, including serum lipid levels, and blood pressure were assessed. Overall levels of total cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol were 5%, 12.4%, and 4.8% higher, respectively, during loop diuretic therapy than during placebo treatment. Overall systolic and diastolic blood pressure measurements were 12 mmHg and 4 mmHg lower, respectively, during loop diuretic therapy than during placebo treatment. Any added effect of bumetanide on serum lipid levels and blood pressure compared with furosemide, however, could not be confirmed. Our results indicate that the loop diuretics bumetanide and furosemide are effective in reducing blood pressure, and influence serum lipid levels markedly less than do thiazide diuretics or chlorthalidone. In addition, these results indicate that differences in blood pressure reduction and serum lipid levels between the two compounds were small and nonsignificant.

Value of the addition of amlodipine to atenolol in patients with angina pectoris despite adequate beta blockade.

Anginal patients who remain symptomatic despite optimally dosed beta blockade may also be given dihydropyridine calcium antagonists. This treatment regimen was examined in a double-blind parallel, randomized, controlled study in 147 patients with angina and positive bicycle exercise tests despite optimal beta blockade with atenolol (heart rate at rest <60 beats/min). Patients were randomized to atenolol and/or placebo (control), and atenolol and/or amlodipine. The main outcome measurement was exercise tolerance after 8 weeks compared with baseline. After 8 weeks, no significant differences in time to 0.1-mV ST-segment depression, time to chest pain, and time to end of exercise were observed. The number of patients with chest pain during exercise decreased significantly in the amlodipine group (p = 0.04 vs controls). The subgroup of patients with an early (<6 minutes) onset of chest pain at baseline showed a significant increase in time to chest pain after amlodipine (p = 0.0001 vs controls). In the amlodipine group, ST depression and rate-pressure product at submaximum comparable workload decreased to 0.4 mm (0.56) (p = 0.03 vs controls) and 1.223 (2.652) beats/ min x mm Hg (p = 0.01 vs controls). The number of patients in each group with adverse events was not different. The addition of amlodipine to the treatment of patients with myocardial ischemia, despite optimal beta blockade, is well tolerated and may lead to improvement in symptomatic anginal patients, who have a rapid onset of exercise-induced ischemia.

A randomised, double-blind trial comparing mibefradil and amlodipine: two long-acting calcium antagonists with similar efficacy but different tolerability profiles. Mibefradil International Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of mibefradil and amlodipine in patients with uncomplicated mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. DESIGN: A double-blind, randomised, parallel group multicentre trial. METHODS: 239 patients received 50 mg mibefradil or 5 mg amlodipine for 4 weeks, followed by a forced titration to 100 mg mibefradil or 10 mg amlodipine for an additional 8 weeks. Patients then entered a 4-week withdrawal period either on therapy or switched to placebo. RESULTS: Statistically equivalent reductions in trough sitting diastolic blood pressure (SDBP) were observed after 12 weeks of once-daily treatment with 50/100 mg mibefradil (-11.5 +/- 8.2 mm Hg) and 5/10 mg amlodipine (-13.2 +/- 7.9 mm Hg). The number of patients with normalised SDBP (< or = 90 mm Hg) increased 23.3% in the mibefradil group and 19.5% in the amlodipine group (approximately 74% in both groups). Patients on mibefradil or amlodipine during the withdrawal period had significantly larger decreases in SDBP than those on placebo. Patients on mibefradil had a decrease in heart rate of 5.5 bpm. Patients on amlodipine had no change in heart rate; however, cessation of amlodipine was associated with a decrease in heart rate. CONCLUSIONS: Mibefradil was as effective as amlodipine in reducing BP; both compounds were effective treatments of hypertension.

Safety of prostaglandin E1 for the treatment of peripheral arterial occlusive disease in patients with congestive heart failure. The Alprostadil Investigators.

OBJECTIVES: To confirm the safety of prostaglandin E ( 1 ) (PGE ( 1 ) ) when administered in 100 mL normal saline to patients with severe peripheral occlusive disease (PAOD; Fontaine class III or IV) and concomitant compensated chronic congestive heart failure (CHF) and to explore possible hemodynamic benefits of PGE ( 1 ) in CHF. BACKGROUND: PGE ( 1 ) has been found to be effective in the treatment of severe PAOD. The agent may beneficially affect left ventricular performance or hemodynamics in patients with CHF. However, it must be administered intravenously (in saline diluent, adding potential hazard in patients with volume CHF). METHODS: In a randomized, double-blinded protocol, 50 patients received intravenous (i.v.) infusion of either 60 microg PGE ( 1 ) or placebo, each dissolved in 100 mL saline solution administered over 2 hours each day for 14 days. During the succeeding 14 days, i.v. PGE ( 1 ) was administered to all patients in open-label fashion. Safety was assessed by clinical evaluation of symptoms and signs of CHF or other adverse events, by catheter-based and echocardiographic search for objective cardiac functional influences, and by echocardiogram monitoring for cardiac rhythm. PAOD status also was defined. RESULTS: No evidence of clinical or objective cardiac functional influence was detected. With the usual dosage approved in PAOD, no significant influence on cardiac performance was observed. CONCLUSION: PGE ( 1 ) is safe for treatment of PAOD in patients with concomitant chronic, compensated CHF.

Prostaglandin E1 : electrophysiological safety in patients with congestive heart failure and peripheral arterial occlusive disease. The Alprostadil Investigators.

Prostaglandin E ( 1 ) (PGE ( 1 ) ), the active ingredient of the drug alprostadil-alpha-cyclodextrin, has been effective in mitigating the clinical manifestations of peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD). PGE ( 1 ) often is administered to patients with the potential for developing serious arrhythmias, presenting potential safety hazards if the drug caused or potentiated arrhythmias. However, PGE ( 1 ) has antiadrenergic properties and, theoretically, might have an antiarrhythmic action. Therefore, the effect of PGE ( 1 ) on frequency and severity of atrial and ventricular arrhythmias was evaluated from 48-hour electrocardiographic recordings in patients receiving PGE ( 1 ) therapy for severe PAOD. No significant effects on arrhythmia frequency or severity, and no evidence of proarrhythmia, was apparent after PGE ( 1 ) administration.

Nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system versus atenolol in stable angina pectoris. The Netherlands Working Group on Cardiovascular Research (WCN).

The gastrointestinal therapeutic system formulation of nifedipine enables a once-daily dosing resulting in predictable, relatively constant plasma concentrations. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of this formulation and to compare this with the beta-blocker atenolol, we conducted a double-blind, randomised, multi-centre study in 129 male patients with documented exercise induced angina pectoris. After 4 weeks' treatment, nifedipine (60 mg), improved time to onset of 0.1 mV ST-segment depression from 536 s by 72 +/- 117s, time to onset of pain from 619 s by 56 +/- 120 s, and total exercise time from 685 s by 40 +/- 88 s. Atenolol 100 mg, had a comparable effect, time to onset of 0.1 mV ST-segment depression improved from 496 s by 53 +/- 129 s, time to onset of pain from 572 s by 57 +/- 118 s, and total exercise time from 653 s by 33 +/- 99 s. Between group analysis revealed no statistically significant differences for these exercise parameters. Atenolol, but not nifedipine, significantly reduced heart rate and systolic blood pressure at rest and during exercise (P < 0.001 between groups), indicating different modes of action of the drugs. With regard to safety, both drugs were generally well tolerated. There were significantly (P = 0.01) more vasodilation related side effects with nifedipine. These data demonstrate that gastrointestinal therapeutic system formulation of nifedipine and atenolol as once-daily monotherapy are equally effective and safe, but with different effects on exercise parameters.

Evaluating the safety of mibefradil, a selective T-type calcium antagonist, in patients with chronic congestive heart failure.

Mibefradil is a novel calcium antagonist belonging to a new chemical class of benzimidazolyl-substituted tetraline derivatives. The safety of mibefradil in patients with mild-to-moderate chronic congestive heart failure (CHF) due to coronary heart disease was assessed in a randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, multiple-ascending-dose trial in 45 patients. Patients were assigned to receive one of five dose levels (6.25, 12.5, 25, 50, or 100 mg/d) of mibefradil or placebo according to a randomization list. If safety variables remained stable, the subsequent group of patients was randomized to the next higher dose. The safety variables assessed included New York Heart Association class, vital signs, and ejection fraction. Patients were evaluated at baseline and day 8 of the dosing period. Mibefradil did not worsen clinical or cardiac variables. Approximately 23.3% (7 of 30) of the mibefradil-treated patients reported one or more adverse events compared with 13.3% (2 of 15) of the placebo group. The incidence of adverse events was not dose dependent. In summary, short-term oral dosing of mibefradil did not worsen measures of cardiac function in 30 patients with mild-to-moderate CHF.

Effect of mibefradil on left ventricular diastolic function in patients with congestive heart failure.

Calcium antagonists have antihypertensive and antianginal properties. In heart failure, however, their use can be hazardous, as systolic function can deteriorate. This may not be true of the new calcium antagonist mibefradil, which has a new chemical structure. Calcium antagonists may also be beneficial for diastolic left ventricular function in coronary artery disease. To investigate the possible effects of mibefradil on diastolic left ventricular function, we performed the present study as a multicenter, double-blind,placebo-controlled, multiple-dose safety trial. Fifteen patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or III for dyspnea and depressed ejection fraction (<40%) due to a previous myocardial infarction were investigated. The measured nuclear angiographic parameters included ejection fraction (EF), peak ejection rate (PER), and peak filling rate (PFR). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP) and heart rate (HR) were also obtained. Group I (5 patients) received placebo medication; group IIA (6 patients) received mibefradil 6.25, 12.5, or 25 mg/day; and group IIB (4 patients) received mibefradil 50 or 100 mg/day. Measurements were made before and after the first dose and after 1 week of treatment before and after the final dose. Mibefradil clearly decreased HR (repeated-measures analysis of variance p < 0.05). No statistically significant effects of mibefradil were noted on SBP or DBP or on systolic and diastolic left ventricular function. In our study conditions, mibefradil caused no worsening of systolic function and preserved diastolic function in short-term treatment of patients with decreased EF and heart failure.

Antihypertensive properties of the novel calcium antagonist mibefradil (Ro 40-5967): a new generation of calcium antagonists? Mibefradil International Study Group.

Preclinical and initial clinical studies suggest that the novel calcium antagonist mibefradil has a unique combination of properties. Mibefredil was evaluated in a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial. After 4 weeks of a placebo run-in period, 202 eligible patients with mild to moderate hypertension were randomized to receive doses of 25, 50, 100, or 150 mg mibefradil or placebo once a day for 4 weeks. Blood pressure and heart rate were measured repeatedly at trough and peak (24 and 2 to 6 hours postdose, respectively) at the end of each period. Concentration-effect relationships were evaluated at trough on the last treatment day. A significant (P<.01 versus placebo) drop in blood pressure (diastolic and systolic) was observed at trough and peak in all mibefradil groups, with a trough-peak ratio greater than 0.8, high response rate, and a significant dose-response relationship (P<.001). The full antihypertensive effect of mibefradil was achieved within 1 to 2 weeks and was associated with a slight dose-dependent decrease in heart rate and increase in PQ time. Clear dissociation was observed between the effect on blood pressure and PQ time when concentration-effect relationships were evaluated. These results indicate that mibefradil is an effective and well-tolerated antihypertensive compound at doses of 25, 50, and 100 mg once daily. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events observed in the 25-, 50-, and 100-mg dose groups was lower than in the placebo group, but it was slightly higher in the 150-mg dose group, and three patients from this group were prematurely withdrawn because of an adverse event.

The kissing balloon technique with two over-the-wire balloon catheters through a single 8-French guiding catheter.

Some of the newer over-the-wire coronary angioplasty catheters have shaft sizes of 3.0 French (F) or less. The inner diameter of modern 8-F guiding catheters is large enough to accommodate two of such balloon catheters. We report a kissing balloon procedure with two over-the-wire catheters through a single 8-F guiding catheter.

An 8-week double-blind study of amlodipine and diltiazem in patients with stable exertional angina pectoris.

A multicenter, double-blind study was performed to compare the antianginal efficacy and safety of the new dihydropyridine calcium antagonist amlodipine with the benzothiazepine calcium antagonist diltiazem in patients with stable exertional angina pectoris. Following a 2-week placebo run-in period, 39 patients were randomized to receive amlodipine (2.5-10 mg once daily) and 41 patients to receive diltiazem (60-120 mg three times daily) in an 8-week double-blind treatment phase. The study used standardized bicycle exercise testing as a primary efficacy assessment. Patients also recorded angina frequency and nitroglycerin (NTG) tablet consumption/ week. Treatment with amlodipine and diltiazem resulted in an improvement in total exercise time, time to angina and total work, mean ST-segment deviation at maximum common load, median number of angina attacks/week, and NTG tablet consumption/week. The incidence and severity of possibly treatment-related side effects and laboratory test abnormalities were comparable for both drugs. The most frequently reported side effects were dizziness, headache, peripheral edema, and nausea. Two patients withdrew from diltiazem treatment due to pruritus in one case and severe headache and moderate dyspnea in the other. No amlodipine-treated patients withdrew due to side effects. In conclusion, this study demonstrated that the antianginal efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine is equivalent to diltiazem, but amlodipine has the advantage of once-daily dosing.