Vasodilator Therapy in Acute Heart Failure

Curfman, Gregory D.

doi:10.1001/jama.2019.20285

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, there was only one RCT study involving omecamtiv mecarbil that met our inclusion criteria and the results of the study may be biased. Within 30 days, the rates of all-cause rehospitalization, the rates of HF-related rehospitalization, the rates of adverse events, and the rates of serious adverse events, showed no significant differences associated with the effects of each drug, which was the same as the previous results (Curfman 2019). The difference is that we have provided the risk probability of each drug to the research outcome and this has reference value for clinicians.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Efficacy of pharmacologic therapies in patients with acute heart failure: A network meta-analysis

Dai

Wang

et al. 2022

Front. Pharmacol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A network meta-analysis (NMA) of the current recommended drugs for the treatment of acute heart failure (AHF), was performed to compare the relative efficacy.Methods: We used PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, and Web of Science systems to search studies of randomized controlled trials (RCT) for the treatment of AHF recommended by the guidelines and expert consensus until 1 December 2020. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 30 days. The secondary outcomes included 30-days all-cause rehospitalization, rates of HF-related rehospitalization, rates of adverse events, and rates of serious adverse events. A Bayesian NMA based on random effects model was performed.Results: After screening 14,888 citations, 23 RCTs (17,097 patients) were included, focusing on nesiritide, placebo, serelaxin, rhANP, omecamtiv mecarbil, tezosentan, KW-3902, conivaptan, tolvaptan, TRV027, chlorothiazide, metolazone, ularitide, relaxin, and rolofylline. Omecamtiv mecarbil had significantly lower all-cause mortality rates than the placebo (odds ratio 0.04, 0.01–0.22), rhANP (odds ratio 0.03, 0–0.40), serelaxin (odds ratio 0.05, 0.01–0.38), tezosentan (odds ratio 0.04, 0–0.22), tolvaptan (odds ratio 0.04, 0.01–0.30), and TRV027 (odds ratio 0.03, 0–0.36). No drug was superior to the other drugs for the secondary outcomes and safety outcomes.Conclusion: No drug was superior to the other drugs for the secondary outcomes and safety outcomes. Current drugs for AHF show similar efficacy and safety.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Efficacy of pharmacologic therapies in patients with acute heart failure: A network meta-analysis

Dai

Wang

et al. 2022

Front. Pharmacol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4 These findings are consistent with the neutral effects seen with other vasodilators, like serelaxin, nesiritide or ularitide, in patients with AHF. 5 We agree that our findings should not be generalized to all patients with AHF, for instance those with severe systemic hypertension. As we wrote in our paper, vasodilators might be used for 2-3 h for patients with severe breathlessness due to pulmonary oedema, in order to reduce left atrial pressure on the theoretical assumption that this will reduce lung water.…”

supporting

confidence: 60%

Reply to ‘Vasodilators in congestive heart failure: The perfect weapon aiming just off the target?’

Pellicori,

Felker,

Cleland

2024

European J of Heart Fail

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Имеются отдельные клинические исследования, свидетельствующие о том, что левосимендан в сравнении с добутамином может оказаться более эффективным в отношении влияния на маркеры почечной и печеночной дисфункции без значимого положительного влияния на конечные точки [7,10]. Аналогичным образом, имеющиеся на настоящий момент альтернативные вазодилататоры в клинических исследованиях не показали преимуществ по сравнению с нитратами и стандартной диуретической терапией [11,12]. Результаты мета-анализа показывают, что если назначение вазоактивной терапии неизбежно, то независимо от её типа, чем раньше она назначена, тем лучше оказывается прогноз пациента (оптимально -в течение первых 6 часов от момента поступления в стационар) [13].…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Leading predictors of early and late hospital mortality among patients with acute decompensated heart failure and ways to improve prognosis

Поляков

Фомин

Vinogradova

et al. 2021

jour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: to analyze the leading causes of early (first two days) and late (after the second day) hospital mortality among of patients with acute decompensated heart failure.Materials and methods: a retrospective single-center cohort (n=718) of patients with acute decompensated heart failure.Results: predictors of prognosis for early hospital mortality were pulmonary edema, hepatomegaly, the need for inotropic and vasopressive drugs, the level of systolic blood pressure and creatinine. Predictors of prognosis for late hospital mortality were pulmonary edema, the need for inotropic drugs, community-acquired pneumonia, and laboratory markers of acute renal injury.Conclusion: Tactical approaches are proposed to reduce hospital mortality of patients with acute decompensated heart failure.

show abstract

Vasodilator Therapy in Acute Heart Failure

Cited by 4 publications

References 12 publications

Efficacy of pharmacologic therapies in patients with acute heart failure: A network meta-analysis

Efficacy of pharmacologic therapies in patients with acute heart failure: A network meta-analysis

Reply to ‘Vasodilators in congestive heart failure: The perfect weapon aiming just off the target?’

Leading predictors of early and late hospital mortality among patients with acute decompensated heart failure and ways to improve prognosis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About