Vasodilators in the treatment of acute heart failure: what we know, what we don’t

Although we have recently witnessed substantial progress in management and outcome of patients with chronic heart failure, acute heart failure (AHF) management and outcome have not changed over almost a generation. Vasodilators are one of the cornerstones of AHF management; however, to a large extent, none of those currently used has been examined by large, placebo-controlled, non-hemodynamic monitored, prospective randomized studies powered to assess the effects on outcomes, in addition to symptoms. In this article, we will discuss the role of vasodilators in AHF trying to point out which are the potentially best indications to their administration and which are the pitfalls which may be associated with their use. Unfortunately, most of this discussion is only partially evidence based due to lack of appropriate clinical trials. In general, we believe that vasodilators should be administered early to AHF patients with normal or high blood pressure (BP) at presentation. They should not be administered to patients with low BP since they may cause hypotension and hypoperfusion of vital organs, leading to renal and/or myocardial damage which may further worsen patients’ outcome. It is not clear whether vasodilators have a role in either patients with borderline BP at presentation (i.e., low-normal) or beyond the first 1–2 days from presentation. Given the limitations of the currently available clinical trial data, we cannot recommend any specific agent as first line therapy, although nitrates in different formulations are still the most widely used in clinical practice

Relaxin, a pleiotropic vasodilator for the treatment of heart failure

Relaxin is a naturally occurring peptide hormone that plays a central role in the hemodynamic and renovascular adaptive changes that occur during pregnancy. Triggering similar changes could potentially be beneficial in the treatment of patients with heart failure. The effects of relaxin include the production of nitric oxide, inhibition of endothelin, inhibition of angiotensin II, production of VEGF, and production of matrix metalloproteinases. These effects lead to systemic and renal vasodilation, increased arterial compliance, and other vascular changes. The recognition of this has led to the study of relaxin for the treatment of heart failure. An initial pilot study has shown favorable hemodynamic effects in patients with heart failure, including reduction in ventricular filling pressures and increased cardiac output. The ongoing RELAX-AHF clinical program is designed to evaluate the effects of relaxin on the symptoms and outcomes in a large group of patients admitted to hospital for acute heart failure. This review will summarize both the biology of relaxin and the data supporting its potential efficacy in human heart failure

Relaxin: Review of Biology and Potential Role in Treating Heart Failure

Relaxin is a naturally occurring human peptide initially identified as a reproductive hormone. More recently, relaxin has been shown to play a key role in the maternal hemodynamic and renal adjustments that accommodate pregnancy. An understanding of these physiologic effects has led to the evaluation of relaxin as a pharmacologic agent for the treatment of patients with acute heart failure. Preliminary results have been encouraging. In addition, the other known biologic properties of relaxin, including anti-inflammatory effects, extracellular matrix remodeling effects, and angiogenic and anti-ischemic effects, all may play a role in potential benefits of relaxin therapy. Ongoing, large-scale clinical testing will provide additional insights into the potential role of relaxin in the treatment of heart failure

Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio and Outcomes in Patients with New-Onset or Worsening Heart Failure with Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fraction

Inflammation is thought to play a role in heart failure (HF) pathophysiology. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is a simple, routinely available measure of inflammation. Its relationship with other inflammatory biomarkers and its association with clinical outcomes in addition to other risk markers have not been comprehensively evaluated in HF patients. Methods We evaluated patients with worsening or new-onset HF from the BIOlogy Study to Tailored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure (BIOSTAT-CHF) study who had available NLR at baseline. The primary outcome was time to all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization. Outcomes were validated in a separate HF population. Results 1622 patients were evaluated (including 523 ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] < 40% and 662 LVEF ≥ 40%). NLR was significantly correlated with biomarkers related to inflammation as well as NT-proBNP. NLR was significantly associated with the primary outcome in patients irrespective of LVEF (hazard ratio [HR] 1.18 per standard deviation increase; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11–1.26, P < 0.001). Patients with NLR in the highest tertile had significantly worse outcome than those in the lowest independent of LVEF (<40%: HR 2.75; 95% CI 1.84–4.09, P < 0.001; LVEF ≥ 40%: HR 1.51; 95% CI 1.05–2.16, P = 0.026). When NLR was added to the BIOSTAT-CHF risk score, there were improvements in integrated discrimination index (IDI) and net reclassification index (NRI) for occurrence of the primary outcome (IDI + 0.009; 95% CI 0.00–0.019, P = 0.030; continuous NRI + 0.112, 95% CI 0.012–0.176, P = 0.040). Elevated NLR was similarly associated with adverse outcome in the validation cohort. Decrease in NLR at 6 months was associated with reduced incidence of the primary outcome (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.57–0.98, P = 0.036). Conclusions Elevated NLR is significantly associated with elevated markers of inflammation in HF patients and is associated with worse outcome. Elevated NLR might potentially be useful in identifying high-risk HF patients and may represent a treatment target