Marked bradykinin-induced tissue plasminogen activator release in patients with heart failure maintained on long-term angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy

AbstractObjectivesThe aim of the present study was to assess the contribution of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor therapy to bradykinin-induced tissue-type plasminogen activator (t-PA) release in patients with heart failure (HF) secondary to ischemic heart disease.BackgroundBradykinin is a potent endothelial cell stimulant that causes vasodilatation and t-PA release. In large-scale clinical trials, ACE inhibitor therapy prevents ischemic events.MethodsNine patients with symptomatic HF were evaluated on two occasions: during and following seven-day withdrawal of long-term ACE inhibitor therapy. Forearm blood flow was measured using bilateral venous occlusion plethysmography. Intrabrachial bradykinin (30 to 300 pmol/min), substance P (2 to 8 pmol/min), and sodium nitroprusside (1 to 4 pmol/min) were infused, and venous blood samples were withdrawn from both forearms for estimation of fibrinolytic variables.ResultsOn both study days, bradykinin and substance P caused dose-dependent vasodilatation and release of t-PA from the infused forearm (p < 0.05 by analysis of variance [ANOVA]). Long-term ACE inhibitor therapy caused an increase in forearm vasodilatation (p < 0.05 by ANOVA) and t-PA release (p < 0.001 by ANOVA) during bradykinin, but not substance P, infusion. Maximal local plasma t-PA activity concentrations approached 100 IU/ml, and maximal forearm protein release was ∼4.5 μg/min.ConclusionsLong-term ACE inhibitor therapy augments bradykinin-induced peripheral vasodilatation and local t-PA release in patients with HF due to ischemic heart disease. Local plasma t-PA activity concentrations approached those seen during systemic thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. This may contribute to the primary mechanism of the anti-ischemic effects associated with long-term ACE inhibitor therapy

Global variations in heart failure etiology, management, and outcomes

Importance: Most epidemiological studies of heart failure (HF) have been conducted in high-income countries with limited comparable data from middle- or low-income countries. Objective: To examine differences in HF etiology, treatment, and outcomes between groups of countries at different levels of economic development. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multinational HF registry of 23 341 participants in 40 high-income, upper–middle-income, lower–middle-income, and low-income countries, followed up for a median period of 2.0 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: HF cause, HF medication use, hospitalization, and death. Results: Mean (SD) age of participants was 63.1 (14.9) years, and 9119 (39.1%) were female. The most common cause of HF was ischemic heart disease (38.1%) followed by hypertension (20.2%). The proportion of participants with HF with reduced ejection fraction taking the combination of a β-blocker, renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist was highest in upper–middle-income (61.9%) and high-income countries (51.1%), and it was lowest in low-income (45.7%) and lower–middle-income countries (39.5%) (P &lt; .001). The age- and sex- standardized mortality rate per 100 person-years was lowest in high-income countries (7.8 [95% CI, 7.5-8.2]), 9.3 (95% CI, 8.8-9.9) in upper–middle-income countries, 15.7 (95% CI, 15.0-16.4) in lower–middle-income countries, and it was highest in low-income countries (19.1 [95% CI, 17.6-20.7]). Hospitalization rates were more frequent than death rates in high-income countries (ratio = 3.8) and in upper–middle-income countries (ratio = 2.4), similar in lower–middle-income countries (ratio = 1.1), and less frequent in low-income countries (ratio = 0.6). The 30-day case-fatality rate after first hospital admission was lowest in high-income countries (6.7%), followed by upper–middle-income countries (9.7%), then lower–middle-income countries (21.1%), and highest in low-income countries (31.6%). The proportional risk of death within 30 days of a first hospital admission was 3- to 5-fold higher in lower–middle-income countries and low-income countries compared with high-income countries after adjusting for patient characteristics and use of long-term HF therapies. Conclusions and Relevance: This study of HF patients from 40 different countries and derived from 4 different economic levels demonstrated differences in HF etiologies, management, and outcomes. These data may be useful in planning approaches to improve HF prevention and treatment globally

Evaluating the Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Using Randomized Data From the ISCHEMIA Trial

BACKGROUND: The appropriate use criteria for revascularization of stable ischemic heart disease have not been evaluated using randomized data. Using data from the randomized ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches; July 2012 to January 2018, 37 countries), the health status benefits of an invasive strategy over a conservative one were examined within appropriate use criteria scenarios. METHODS: Among 1833 participants mapped to 36 appropriate use criteria scenarios, symptom status was assessed using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire-7 at 1 year for each scenario and for each of the 6 patient characteristics used to define the scenarios. Coronary anatomy and SYNTAX(Synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with Taxus and cardiac surgery) scores were measured using coronary computed tomography angiography. Treatment effects are expressed as an odds ratio for a better health status outcome with an invasive versus conservative treatment strategy using Bayesian hierarchical proportional odds models. Differences in the primary clinical outcome were similarly examined. RESULTS: The mean age was 63 years, 81% were male, and 71% were White. Diabetes was present in 28% and multivessel disease in 51%. Most clinical scenarios favored invasive for better 1-year health status. The benefit of an invasive strategy on Seattle Angina Questionnaire angina frequency scores was reduced for asymptomatic patients (odds ratio [95% credible interval], 1.16 [0.66-1.71] versus 2.26 [1.75-2.80]), as well as for those on no antianginal medications. Diabetes, number of diseased vessels, proximal left anterior descending coronary artery location, and SYNTAX score did not effectively identify patients with better health status after invasive treatment, and minimal differences in clinical events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Applying the randomization scheme from the ISCHEMIA trial to appropriate clinical scenarios revealed baseline symptoms and antianginal therapy to be the primary drivers of health status benefits from invasive management. Consideration should be given to reducing the patient characteristics collected to generate appropriateness ratings to improve the feasibility of future data collection

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used