Efficacy and safety of a modified dosage regimen of nesiritide in patients older than 75 years with acute heart failure

Department of Geriatric Cardiology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, China.
Aging - Clinical and Experimental Research (Impact Factor: 1.22). 03/2012; 24(5). DOI: 10.3275/8295
Source: PubMed


Background and Aims: To explore efficacy and safety of a modified dosage regimen of nesiritide in patients (≥75 years) with acute heart failure (AHF). Methods: Total 140 patients (≥75 years) with AHF were enrolled in this study. They were randomly and evenly divided into two group- control and nesiritide group. The control group received only conventional treatment for AHF, while the nesiritide group received conventional treatment plus a continual intravenous infusion of nesiritide at a rate of 0.0075~0.015 µg•kg-1•min-1 for 10-15 hours (total 0.5-1.0 mg) once daily for 13 days. Results: Medical research council scales in nesiritide group were significantly lower than those in control group on day 4, 8 and 14. Scores of edema had no significant difference, but were lower in nesiritide group on day 8 and 14. The nesiritide group had markedly more net body fluid losses. NT-proBNP, serum creatinine, blood pressure, cTnI, 30-day and 60-day mortality had no significant difference between two groups. Conclusions: Nesiritide resulted in improvements in dyspnea and edema, and similar adverse effects compared with conventional treatment. In spite of no reduction on short-term mortality and a reversible influence on renal function, nesiritide was still an important chioce for the elderly (≥75 years) with AHF.

7 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There are nearly 700,000 annual US emergency department (ED) visits for acute heart failure (AHF). Although blood pressure is elevated on most of these visits, acute therapy remains focused on preload and not afterload reduction. Data from recent prospective studies suggest that patients with AHF with concomitant acute hypertension benefit from intravenous (IV) vasodilators. To better understand the use of vasodilators for such patients, we conducted a systematic review of (1) currently available intravenous vasodilators for ED patients with AHF, or (2) intravenous vasodilators that are not yet available, but have completed phase III clinical trials in AHF, and may be available for ED use in the future. We used multiterm search queries to retrieve research involving nitroglycerin, nitroprusside, enalaprilat, hydralazine, relaxin, and nesiritide. A total of 2001 unique citations were identified from 3 databases: PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Of these, 1966 were excluded on the basis of established review criteria, leaving 35 published articles for inclusion. Our primary finding was that intravenous nitrovasodilators, when used in the treatment of AHF in ED and ED-like settings, do improve short-term symptoms and appear safe to administer. There are no data suggesting that they impact mortality. Other commonly used vasodilators such as hydralazine and enalaprilat have very little published data about their safety and efficacy. Of note, few studies enrolled patients early in their course of treatment. Thus, to assess the specific impact of vasodilator therapy on both short- and long-term outcomes, future research efforts should focus on patient recruitment in the ED setting. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    American Journal of Emergency Medicine 09/2014; 33(2). DOI:10.1016/j.ajem.2014.09.009 · 1.27 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Conflicting renal effects of nesiritide have been reported in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. To answer this controversy, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the influence of nesiritide on renal function in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. Articles were obtained from PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library and reference review. Randomized controlled studies that investigated the effects of continuous infusion of nesiritide on renal function in adult patients with acute decompensated heart failure were included and analyzed. Fixed-effect model was used to estimate relative risk (RR) and weight mean difference (WMD). The quality assessment of each study, subgroup, sensitivity, and publication bias analyses were performed. Fifteen randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. Most of included studies had relatively high quality and no publication bias was found. Overall, compared to control therapies, nesiritide might increase the risk of worsening renal function in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.15, P = 0.023). In subgroup analysis, high-dose nesiritide strongly associated with renal dysfunction (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.19-2.00, P = 0.001), but no statistical differences were observed in standard-dose (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.98-1.12, P = 0.213), low-dose groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.74-1.37, P = 0.968) and same results were identified in the subgroup analysis of placebo controlled trials. Peak mean change of serum creatinine from baseline was no significant difference (WMD -2.54, 95% CI -5.76-0.67, P = 0.121). In our meta-analysis, nesiritide may have a dose-dependent effect on renal function in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. High-dose nesiritide is likely to increase the risk of worsening renal function, but standard-dose and low-dose nesiritide probably have no impact on renal function. These findings could be helpful to optimize the use of nesiritide in clinical practice.
    PLoS ONE 06/2015; 10(6):e0131326. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0131326 · 3.23 Impact Factor