Functional impact of an increase in ventricular mass after myocardial damage and its attenuation by converting enzyme inhibition

QUANTITATIVE PLANAR AND VOLUMETRIC CARDIAC MEASUREMENTS USING 64 MDCT AND 3T MRI VS. STANDARD 2D AND M-MODE ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY: DOES ANESTHETIC PROTOCOL MATTER?

Cross-sectional imaging of the heart utilizing computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been shown to be superior for the evaluation of cardiac morphology and systolic function in humans compared to echocardiography. The purpose of this prospective study was to test the effects of two different anesthetic protocols on cardiac measurements in 10 healthy beagle dogs using 64-multidetector row computed tomographic angiography (64-MDCTA), 3T magnetic resonance (MRI) and standard awake echocardiography. Both anesthetic protocols used propofol for induction and isoflourane for anesthetic maintenance. In addition, protocol A used midazolam/fentanyl and protocol B used dexmedetomedine as premedication and constant rate infusion during the procedure. Significant elevations in systolic and mean blood pressure were present when using protocol B. There was overall good agreement between the variables of cardiac size and systolic function generated from the MDCTA and MRI exams and no significant difference was found when comparing the variables acquired using either anesthetic protocol within each modality. Systolic function variables generated using 64-MDCTA and 3T MRI were only able to predict the left ventricular end diastolic volume as measured during awake echocardiogram when using protocol B and 64-MDCTA. For all other systolic function variables, prediction of awake echocardiographic results was not possible (P = 1). Planar variables acquired using MDCTA or MRI did not allow prediction of the corresponding measurements generated using echocardiography in the awake patients (P = 1). Future studies are needed to validate this approach in a more varied population and clinically affected dogs.

Effects of two different anesthetic protocols on cardiac flow measured by two dimensional phase contrast magnetic resonance imaging

Companion animals are routinely anesthetized or heavily sedated for cardiac MRI studies, however effects of varying anesthetic protocols on cardiac function measurements are incompletely understood. The purpose of this prospective study was to compare effects of two anesthetic protocols (Protocol A: Midazolam, fentanyl; Protocol B: Dexmedetomidine) on quantitative and qualitative blood flow values measured through the aortic, pulmonic, mitral, and tricuspid valves using two-dimensional phase contrast magnetic resonance imaging (2D PC MRI) in healthy dogs. Mean flow per heartbeat values through the pulmonary artery (Qp) and aorta (Qs) were compared to right and left ventricular stroke volumes (RVSV, LVSV) measured using a reference standard of 2D Cine balanced steady-state free precession MRI. Pulmonary to systemic flow ratio (Qp/Qs) was also calculated. Differences in flow and Qp/Qs values generated using 2D PC MRI did not differ between the two anesthetic protocols (P = 1). Mean differences between Qp and RVSV were 3.82 ml/beat (95% limits of agreement: 3.62, -11.26) and 1.9 ml/beat (-7.86, 11.66) for anesthesia protocols A and B, respectively. Mean differences between Qs and LVSV were 1.65 ml/beat (-5.04, 8.34) and 0.03 ml/beat (-4.65, 4.72) for anesthesia protocols A and B, respectively. Mild tricuspid or mitral reflux was seen in 2/10 dogs using 2D PC MRI. No aortic or pulmonic insufficiency was observed. Findings from the current study indicated that these two anesthetic protocols yield similar functional measures of cardiac blood flow using 2D PC MRI in healthy dogs. Future studies in clinically affected patients are needed.

Effect of losartan compared with captopril on mortality in patients with symptomatic heart failure: randomised trial--the Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study ELITE II

BACKGROUND

The ELITE study showed an association between the angiotensin II antagonist losartan and an unexpected survival benefit in elderly heart-failure patients, compared with captopril, an angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitor. We did the ELITE II Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study to confirm whether losartan is superior to captopril in improving survival and is better tolerated.

METHODS

We undertook a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial of 3,152 patients aged 60 years or older with New York Heart Association class II-IV heart failure and ejection fraction of 40% or less. Patients, stratified for beta-blocker use, were randomly assigned losartan (n=1,578) titrated to 50 mg once daily or captopril (n=1,574) titrated to 50 mg three times daily. The primary and secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality, and sudden death or resuscitated arrest. We assessed safety and tolerability. Analysis was by intention to treat.

FINDINGS

Median follow-up was 555 days. There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality (11.7 vs 10.4% average annual mortality rate) or sudden death or resuscitated arrests (9.0 vs 7.3%) between the two treatment groups (hazard ratios 1.13 [95.7% CI 0.95-1.35], p=0.16 and 1.25 [95% CI 0.98-1.60], p=0.08). Significantly fewer patients in the losartan group (excluding those who died) discontinued study treatment because of adverse effects (9.7 vs 14.7%, p<0.001), including cough (0.3 vs 2.7%).