No abstract

BackgroundChronic atrial fibrillation (AF), coexisting with a history of recent coronary angioplasty with stent (PCI-S), represents an encoded indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC) with warfarin plus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT).MethodsUsing a retrospective cohort study, we determined the respective impacts on cardiovascular outcomes of three different pharmacologic regimens, i.e., triple therapy (TT) with warfarin + clopidogrel and aspirin, dual therapy (DT) with warfarin + clopidogrel or aspirin, and DAPT with clopidogrel + aspirin. Outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, ischemic cardiac events, ischemic cerebral events, and bleeding events. The inclusion criterion was the coexistence of an indication for OAC (e.g., chronic AF) with an indication for DAPT due to recent PCI-S.ResultsAmong the 98 patients enrolled, 48 (49%), 31 (31.6%), and 19 (19.4%) patients were prescribed TT, DT, and DAPT, respectively. Throughout a mean follow-up of 378 ± 15.7 days, there were no significant differences between the three regimens for all abovementioned outcomes. In particular, the total frequency of major bleeding was similar in the three groups: five cases (10.4%) in TT, one case (3.22%) in DT and no case in DAPT groups (Chi-square test, P = 0.1987).ConclusionsTT, DT and DAPT displayed similar efficacy and safety. Although the superiority of OAC vs. DAPT for stroke prevention in AF patients has been demonstrated by previous randomized trials, a smaller frequency of high thromboembolic risks’ features in DAPT group of the present study may have prevented the observation of a higher incidence of ischemic stroke in this group.

BackgroundIn recent years, some observational studies suggested that pramipexole, a non-ergot dopamine agonist (DA) used for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease (PD), may increase the risk of heart failure (HF). However, the limitations inherent in observational studies made it difficult to determine whether the excess of incident HF was related to the drug or to other determinants. Thus, some concerns remained regarding the increased putative HF risk associated with non-ergot DAs as a class or individually.MethodsIn our meta-analysis, primary endpoint was the risk of incident HF in patients with PD treated with non-ergot DAs compared to those treated with monotherapy with levodopa. Secondary outcome measures were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events. For these purposes, only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were considered, provided that they offered complete outcome data pertaining to the incident HF, all-cause mortality and risk of cardiovascular events. Systematic searches were performed in the databases of PubMed, Embase and ClinicalTrial.gov up to May 2015. The effect size was estimated using the pooled relative risk (RR) of non-ergot DAs versus placebo on incident HF as well as on all-cause mortality or cardiovascular events.ResultsSix out of 27 RCTs reported at least one case of incident HF; therefore, we included them in the RR estimate, whereas 13 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis for mortality rates and 22 RCTs were included to evaluate cardiovascular events. Treatment with non-ergot DAs did not reveal an increase in the risk of incident HF as compared with the placebo group (pooled RR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.30 - 2.90; P = 0.893). Similarly, patients treated with non-ergot DAs did not show any significant differences compared to controls with regard to all-cause mortality (pooled RR: 0.617; 95% CI: 0.330 - 1.153; P = 0.13) as well as with regard to cardiovascular events (pooled RR: 1.067; 95% CI: 0.663 - 1.717; P = 0.789).ConclusionsThe use of non-ergot DAs in PD patients was not associated with an increased risk of incident HF, nor was it shown to increase the overall mortality or the risk of cardiovascular events compared to the PD patients taking monotherapy with levodopa alone. However, larger studies are warranted to confirm the cardiovascular safety of non-ergot DAs for PD management.

In the congestive heart failure (CHF) setting, chronic hyponatremia is very common. The present review aims at addressing topics relevant to the pathophysiology of hyponatremia in the course of CHF as well as its optimal treatment, including the main advantages and the limitations resulting from the use of the available dietary and pharmacological measures approved for the treatment of this electrolytic trouble. A narrative review is carried out in order to represent the main modalities of therapy for chronic hyponatremia that frequently complicates CHF. The limits of usual therapies implemented for CHF-related chronic hyponatremia are outlined, while an original analysis of the main advancements achieved with the use of vasopressin receptor antagonists (VRAs) is also executed. The European regulatory restrictions that currently limit the use of VRAs in the management of CHF are substantially caused by financial concerns, i.e., the high costs of VRA therapy. A thoughtful reworking of current restrictions would be warranted in order to enable VRAs to be usefully associated to loop diuretics for decongestive treatment of CHF patients with hyponatremia.

BackgroundAldosterone receptor antagonists (ARAs) have been associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFREF), but not in those with heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF). With the aim to study this topic more deeply, we carried out a meta-analysis of selective and non-selective ARAs in HFREF and HFpEF.MethodsWe searched PubMed and Scopus databases. We decided to incorporate in the meta-analysis only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ARAs in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) if they met the following criteria: experimental groups included patients with CHF treated with ARAs in addition to the conventional therapy; control groups included patients with CHF receiving conventional therapy without ARAs. Outcomes of interest were all-cause death, hospitalizations from cardiovascular cause, hyperkalemia, or gynecomastia.ResultsWe detected 15 studies representing 15,671 patients. ARAs were associated with a reduced odds of all-cause death (odds ratio (OR): 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73 - 0.87) and hospitalizations from cardiovascular cause (OR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.61 - 0.89). However, subgroup analysis showed that these advantages were limited to HFREF (all-cause death: OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.69 - 0.84; hospitalizations from cardiovascular cause: OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.51 - 0.85), but they did not affect the HFpEF group (all-cause death: OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.76 - 1.1; hospitalizations from cardiovascular cause: OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.7 - 1.09). ARAs increased the risk of hyperkalemia (OR: 2.17; 95% CI: 1.88 - 2.5). Non-selective ARAs, but not selective ARAs, increased the risk of gynecomastia (OR: 8.22, 95% CI: 4.9 - 13.81 vs. OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.43 - 1.27).ConclusionsARAs reduced the risk of adverse cardiac events in HFREF but not HFpEF. In particular, ARA use in HFpEF patients is questionable, since in this CHF type, no significant improvement in all-cause death and cardiovascular hospitalizations was demonstrated with ARA treatment, in the face of the well-known risks of hyperkalemia and/or gynecomastia that chronic ARA therapy entails. Selective ARAs were equally effective as non-selective ARAs, without the risk of gynecomastia.

In this brief review, the pathophysiology of hyponatremia and its clinical significance in the course of chronic heart failure (CHF) are illustrated. Moreover, issues concerning the optimal treatment for hyponatremia during CHF are addressed and discussed. In addition, advantages and limitations resulting from the use of vasopressin receptor antagonists, drugs that have recently emerged as the best available resource against hyponatremia, are highlighted.