受体阻滞剂和ACE抑制剂对左心室辅助装置植入后的影响

G. Vaidya, E. Birks, J. Pillarella, Benjamin C. Salgado, R. Vijayakrishnan, A. Lenneman, M. Slaughter, D. Abramov
{"title":"受体阻滞剂和ACE抑制剂对左心室辅助装置植入后的影响","authors":"G. Vaidya, E. Birks, J. Pillarella, Benjamin C. Salgado, R. Vijayakrishnan, A. Lenneman, M. Slaughter, D. Abramov","doi":"10.14434/VAD.V4I0.28044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background \nWhile Beta blockers(BB) and Angiotensin system blockers(ACEinh/ARB) are important components in advanced heart failure therapy, their use after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation remains controversial. Concern has been raised about possible adverse effects of BB on right ventricular(RV) function while tolerance and efficacy/outcome data for ACEinh are lacking. This study aimed to characterize the use of medical therapy post-LVAD implantation and to evaluate its safety and efficacy. \nMethods \nDemographic, clinical and echocardiographic variables of patients implanted with a continuous-flow LVAD between 2012 and 2015 at a single center were retrospectively reviewed. Mortality and heart failure(CHF) hospitalizations were followed from 6-18 months’ post-implant. \nResults \nOf a total of 98 patients, the mean age was 57 years, 81% were men and 61% had ischemic disease. While the use of diuretics decreased considerably post LVAD, over 50% continued to require diuretics. At 6th month post-implantation, 73% of patients were on BB, and these patients had significantly lower proBNP at 6 and 12 months follow up. Despite significant prevalence of RV dysfunction in the cohort (>75% at 6 months), there was no significant difference in CHF hospitalizations based on BB use (14% vs 15%) and instead a trend towards less deaths in those on BB (6% vs 15%). ACEinh/ARB use was likewise common at 6 month (61%) and these patients had lower proBNP at 6 and 12 months, lower right atrial(RA) pressures (9 vs 12 mmHg, p=0.03), and a significantly lower mortality—a finding which remained on multivariate analysis. \nConclusion \nThe use of ACEinh/ARB appeared to be associated with subsequent improved survival, lower proBNP and RA pressures. The use of BB post-LVAD appears safe and was associated with a lower proBNP, even in a patient population with a significant prevalence of RV dysfunction.","PeriodicalId":91822,"journal":{"name":"The VAD journal : the journal of mechanical assisted circulation and heart failure","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of Beta Blockers and ACE Inhibitors after Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation\",\"authors\":\"G. Vaidya, E. Birks, J. Pillarella, Benjamin C. Salgado, R. Vijayakrishnan, A. Lenneman, M. Slaughter, D. Abramov\",\"doi\":\"10.14434/VAD.V4I0.28044\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background \\nWhile Beta blockers(BB) and Angiotensin system blockers(ACEinh/ARB) are important components in advanced heart failure therapy, their use after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation remains controversial. Concern has been raised about possible adverse effects of BB on right ventricular(RV) function while tolerance and efficacy/outcome data for ACEinh are lacking. This study aimed to characterize the use of medical therapy post-LVAD implantation and to evaluate its safety and efficacy. \\nMethods \\nDemographic, clinical and echocardiographic variables of patients implanted with a continuous-flow LVAD between 2012 and 2015 at a single center were retrospectively reviewed. Mortality and heart failure(CHF) hospitalizations were followed from 6-18 months’ post-implant. \\nResults \\nOf a total of 98 patients, the mean age was 57 years, 81% were men and 61% had ischemic disease. While the use of diuretics decreased considerably post LVAD, over 50% continued to require diuretics. At 6th month post-implantation, 73% of patients were on BB, and these patients had significantly lower proBNP at 6 and 12 months follow up. Despite significant prevalence of RV dysfunction in the cohort (>75% at 6 months), there was no significant difference in CHF hospitalizations based on BB use (14% vs 15%) and instead a trend towards less deaths in those on BB (6% vs 15%). ACEinh/ARB use was likewise common at 6 month (61%) and these patients had lower proBNP at 6 and 12 months, lower right atrial(RA) pressures (9 vs 12 mmHg, p=0.03), and a significantly lower mortality—a finding which remained on multivariate analysis. \\nConclusion \\nThe use of ACEinh/ARB appeared to be associated with subsequent improved survival, lower proBNP and RA pressures. The use of BB post-LVAD appears safe and was associated with a lower proBNP, even in a patient population with a significant prevalence of RV dysfunction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91822,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The VAD journal : the journal of mechanical assisted circulation and heart failure\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The VAD journal : the journal of mechanical assisted circulation and heart failure\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14434/VAD.V4I0.28044\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The VAD journal : the journal of mechanical assisted circulation and heart failure","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14434/VAD.V4I0.28044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

虽然β受体阻滞剂(BB)和血管紧张素系统阻滞剂(ACEinh/ARB)是晚期心力衰竭治疗的重要成分,但它们在左心室辅助装置(LVAD)植入后的使用仍存在争议。人们对BB对右心室(RV)功能可能产生的不良影响表示关注,而ACEinh的耐受性和疗效/结局数据缺乏。本研究旨在描述lvad植入后药物治疗的特点,并评估其安全性和有效性。方法回顾性分析2012 - 2015年单中心连续血流LVAD患者的人口学、临床和超声心动图指标。术后6-18个月随访死亡率和心力衰竭住院情况。结果98例患者,平均年龄57岁,81%为男性,61%为缺血性疾病。虽然利尿剂的使用在LVAD后显著减少,但超过50%的患者仍然需要利尿剂。在植入后6个月,73%的患者接受BB治疗,这些患者在6个月和12个月的随访中proBNP明显降低。尽管队列中RV功能障碍的发生率很高(6个月时为75%),但使用BB的CHF住院率没有显著差异(14%对15%),相反,使用BB的患者死亡率有减少的趋势(6%对15%)。acinh /ARB的使用在6个月时同样常见(61%),这些患者在6个月和12个月时proBNP较低,右心房(RA)压较低(9 vs 12 mmHg, p=0.03),死亡率显着降低-这一发现仍在多因素分析中。结论使用acinh /ARB似乎与随后的生存率提高、proBNP和RA压力降低有关。lvad后使用BB似乎是安全的,并且与较低的proBNP相关,即使在RV功能障碍明显流行的患者群体中也是如此。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effects of Beta Blockers and ACE Inhibitors after Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation
Background While Beta blockers(BB) and Angiotensin system blockers(ACEinh/ARB) are important components in advanced heart failure therapy, their use after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation remains controversial. Concern has been raised about possible adverse effects of BB on right ventricular(RV) function while tolerance and efficacy/outcome data for ACEinh are lacking. This study aimed to characterize the use of medical therapy post-LVAD implantation and to evaluate its safety and efficacy. Methods Demographic, clinical and echocardiographic variables of patients implanted with a continuous-flow LVAD between 2012 and 2015 at a single center were retrospectively reviewed. Mortality and heart failure(CHF) hospitalizations were followed from 6-18 months’ post-implant. Results Of a total of 98 patients, the mean age was 57 years, 81% were men and 61% had ischemic disease. While the use of diuretics decreased considerably post LVAD, over 50% continued to require diuretics. At 6th month post-implantation, 73% of patients were on BB, and these patients had significantly lower proBNP at 6 and 12 months follow up. Despite significant prevalence of RV dysfunction in the cohort (>75% at 6 months), there was no significant difference in CHF hospitalizations based on BB use (14% vs 15%) and instead a trend towards less deaths in those on BB (6% vs 15%). ACEinh/ARB use was likewise common at 6 month (61%) and these patients had lower proBNP at 6 and 12 months, lower right atrial(RA) pressures (9 vs 12 mmHg, p=0.03), and a significantly lower mortality—a finding which remained on multivariate analysis. Conclusion The use of ACEinh/ARB appeared to be associated with subsequent improved survival, lower proBNP and RA pressures. The use of BB post-LVAD appears safe and was associated with a lower proBNP, even in a patient population with a significant prevalence of RV dysfunction.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信