Context Decompensated congestive heart failure (CHF) is the leading hospital
discharge diagnosis in patients older than 65 years.
Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous nesiritide, intravenous
nitroglycerin, and placebo.
Design, Setting, and Patients Randomized, double-blind trial of 489 inpatients with dyspnea at rest
from decompensated CHF, including 246 who received pulmonary artery catheterization,
that was conducted at 55 community and academic hospitals between October
1999 and July 2000.
Interventions Intravenous nesiritide (n = 204), intravenous nitroglycerin (n = 143),
or placebo (n = 142) added to standard medications for 3 hours, followed by
nesiritide (n = 278) or nitroglycerin (n = 216) added to standard medication
for 24 hours.
Main Outcome Measures Change in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) among catheterized
patients and patient self-evaluation of dyspnea at 3 hours after initiation
of study drug among all patients. Secondary outcomes included comparisons
of hemodynamic and clinical effects between nesiritide and nitroglycerin at
24 hours.
Results At 3 hours, the mean (SD) decrease in PCWP from baseline was –5.8
(6.5) mm Hg for nesiritide (vs placebo, P<.001;
vs nitroglycerin, P = .03), –3.8 (5.3) mm Hg
for nitroglycerin (vs placebo, P = .09), and –2
(4.2) mm Hg for placebo. At 3 hours, nesiritide resulted in improvement in
dyspnea compared with placebo (P = .03), but there
was no significant difference in dyspnea or global clinical status with nesiritide
compared with nitroglycerin. At 24 hours, the reduction in PCWP was greater
in the nesiritide group (−8.2 mm Hg) than the nitroglycerin group (−6.3
mm Hg), but patients reported no significant differences in dyspnea and only
modest improvement in global clinical status.
Conclusion When added to standard care in patients hospitalized with acutely decompensated
CHF, nesiritide improves hemodynamic function and some self-reported symptoms
more effectively than intravenous nitroglycerin or placebo.
Heart failure occurs in 4.7 million persons living in the United States,1 and is the discharge diagnosis in approximately 3.5
million hospitalizations annually.2 Hospitalizations
account for 60% of health care expenditures for heart failure.1-5
Despite its enormous human and economic burden, no new intravenous agents
for acutely decompensated congestive heart failure (CHF) have been approved
for use in the United States in more than a decade. Furthermore, the rapid
relief of symptoms without significant complications or adverse effects of
drug therapy have not been addressed previously in patients hospitalized with
heart failure.
There is increasing recognition that agents with positive inotropic
activity can increase mortality despite acute hemodynamic improvement.6-14
Current guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and the American
Heart Association for management of acutely decompensated CHF and decompensation
of chronic CHF without cardiogenic shock advocate use of inotropic agents
(dobutamine and dopamine) only if administration of morphine, loop diuretics,
sublingual and intravenous nitroglycerin, and nitroprusside provide insufficient
improvement.1 Yet, intravenous inotropic agents
continue to be used commonly for this syndrome.
Nesiritide is a recombinant human brain, or B-type, natriuretic peptide
that is identical to the endogenous hormone produced by the ventricle in response
to increased wall stress, hypertrophy, and volume overload. Nesiritide has
venous, arterial, and coronary vasodilatory properties that reduce preload
and afterload, increase cardiac output without direct inotropic effects, improve
echocardiographic indices of diastolic function,15-17
and improve symptoms in patients with acutely decompensated CHF,18
without increasing heart rate or proarrhythmia.18,19
In addition, nesiritide has been observed to increase glomerular filtration
rate and filtration fraction, suppress the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone axis,
and cause natriuresis in patients with decompensated CHF.20,21
The Vasodilation in the Management of Acute CHF (VMAC) study is, to
our knowledge, the first large multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial
to evaluate the hemodynamic and clinical effects of a natriuretic peptide
added to standard care, compared with an intravenous vasodilating agent added
to standard care, for management of decompensated CHF in hospitalized patients
with dyspnea at rest.
Study Organization and Design
The VMAC trial was a prospective, multicenter trial in which the randomization
was stratified based on the investigator's clinical decision, prior to randomization,
to use a right heart catheter to manage decompensated CHF ("catheterized"
or "noncatheterized"). Randomization occurred after patients were confirmed
to meet all inclusion and exclusion criteria and informed consent was obtained.
Randomization was performed using random permuted blocks within strata (catheterized
or noncatheterized), with a block size of 8 for the catheterized strata and
of 6 for the noncatheterized strata. Noncatheterized patients were randomly
assigned to receive either placebo, nitroglycerin that could be titrated,
or fixed-dose nesiritide for the first 3 hours. Catheterized patients were
randomly assigned to these same 3 treatment groups or to the adjustable-dose
nesiritide group. For placebo patients in both strata, the randomization included
a crossover to double-blind treatment with either titratable-dose nitroglycerin
or to fixed-dose nesiritide at 3 hours after the primary end points were obtained
(Figure 1). Total duration of the
treatment was determined by the investigator, but the minimum duration of
dosing was specified as 24 hours.
The study used a double-blind, double-dummy study drug administration
design in which each patient received simultaneous infusions of nitroglycerin/placebo
and nesiritide/placebo. Study drug concentrations were adjusted so that the
total fluid volume administered would be appropriately low for a patient with
decompensated CHF, but so that the treatment groups would receive similar
fluid volumes. Nesiritide (Natrecor, Scios Inc, Sunnyvale, Calif) was prepared
at a concentration of 10 µg/mL and administered as a 2-µg/kg bolus
followed by a fixed-dose infusion of 0.01 µg/kg per minute for 3 hours.
Following the first 3 hours, the dose remained the same in the fixed-dose
nesiritide group, while for the group assigned to the adjustable-dose nesiritide,
investigators could incrementally increase the dose every 3 hours to a maximum
of 0.03 µg/kg per minute if the pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP)
was 20 mm Hg or higher and systolic blood pressure was 100 mm Hg or higher
(using a 1-µg/kg bolus followed by an increase of 0.005 µg/kg
per minute over the previous infusion rate). Downtitration of the nesiritide/placebo
infusion flow rate by 30% was permitted according to the investigators' discretion.
Because there is no standard dose of nitroglycerin for heart failure,
nitroglycerin (Tridil, DuPont Pharma, Wilmington, Del) was prepared at a concentration
of 400 µg/mL, and administration was determined per investigator discretion.
The nitroglycerin/placebo infusion could be uptitrated or downtitrated throughout
the study to achieve the desired clinical or hemodynamic effect. If study
drug was to be decreased or discontinued for any reason, both infusions were
to be decreased or stopped simultaneously. Infusion flow rates of both study
drugs could be increased or restarted if the patient had a stable blood pressure.
In the fixed-dose nesiritide group, doses with infusions greater than 0.01
µg/kg per minute were not permitted at any time.
Patients were included if they had dyspnea at rest due to decompensated
CHF that was severe enough to require hospitalization and intravenous therapy.
A cardiac etiology for dyspnea was established by estimated or measured elevation
of cardiac filling pressures (PCWP ≥20 mm Hg in catheterized patients)
and at least 2 of the following: (1) jugular venous distention, (2) paroxysmal
nocturnal dyspnea or 2-pillow orthopnea within 72 hours before study entry,
(3) abdominal discomfort due to mesenteric congestion, or (4) a chest x-ray
film consistent with decompensated CHF. Patients may have had acute decompensation
of chronic heart failure, gradual worsening of chronic heart failure, or new
onset of acutely decompensated CHF. Patients who were receiving dobutamine
or dopamine but who otherwise met entry criteria were also permitted into
the study. Exclusion criteria were: systolic blood pressure lower than 90
mm Hg, cardiogenic shock or volume depletion, any condition that would contraindicate
an intravenous vasodilator, acutely unstable clinical status that would not
permit a 3-hour placebo period, use of intravenous nitroglycerin that could
not be withheld, mechanical ventilation, and anticipated survival of less
than 30 to 35 days. Patients with decompensated CHF in the setting of acute
coronary syndromes, preserved systolic function, renal failure, or atrial
or ventricular arrhythmias were not excluded based on these conditions alone.
The use of intravenous vasodilators or inodilators with study drug was not
permitted. The study was approved by all participating centers' institutional
review boards for clinical investigation, and written informed consent was
obtained from each study participant prior to study entry and randomization.
End Points and Measurements
The protocol-specified primary analysis was a comparison of the hemodynamic
and clinical effects of nesiritide vs placebo when both were added to standard
care. The primary end points were the absolute changes in PCWP (catheterized
patients only) and the patient's self-evaluation of dyspnea (all patients)
from baseline to 3 hours after the start of study drug. Secondary end points
included comparisons between nesiritide and nitroglycerin of the following
hemodynamic and clinical effects: onset of effect on PCWP, the effect on PCWP
24 hours after the start of study drug, self-assessed dyspnea and global clinical
status, and the overall safety profile. Additional outcomes included comparison
of the use of other intravenous vasoactive agents or diuretics, and the effects
on other hemodynamic variables. Dyspnea and global clinical status were assessed
using a nonvalidated symptom scale that is similar to the symptom scale used
in a prior nesiritide trial.17
To avoid potential bias, neither the study staff nor the health care
team was allowed to discuss or assist the patient in completing the symptom
evaluation form (dyspnea and global clinical status). In the catheterized
stratum, symptom evaluation forms were completed before hemodynamic measurements
had been obtained at the same time points, and hemodynamic results were not
discussed within hearing range of the patient.
During the 3-hour placebo-controlled period, PCWP and pulmonary artery
pressures were measured at 15 and 30 minutes, and at 1, 2, and 3 hours in
catheterized patients only. In these patients, cardiac output and mean right
atrial pressure were measured at 1 and 3 hours. In all patients, vital signs
and symptoms (dyspnea and global clinical evaluations) were assessed at 15
and 30 minutes, and at 1, 2, and 3 hours after the start of study drug. After
3 hours, PCWP and pulmonary artery pressure were obtained in catheterized
patients at 6, 9, 12, 24, 36, and 48 hours, and when study drug was discontinued
(if <48 hours). In all patients, vital signs were assessed every 3 hours
for the duration of study drug infusion and at 15-minute intervals for the
first hour and 30-minute intervals for the second hour after any dose change,
discontinuation, or restarting of the infusion. Dyspnea and global clinical
evaluations were repeated at 6 and 24 hours. Serum creatinine level was obtained
at baseline, daily through 2 days after discontinuation of study drug, and
at study days 14 and 30. General adverse events were assessed through study
day 14. Serious adverse events other than death (hospital admissions and nonfatal,
life-threatening events) were monitored through study day 30. Mortality was
assessed through 6 months.
All patients who received study drug were included in the safety analysis.
Symptomatic hypotension was defined prospectively as a significant decrease
in blood pressure (in excess of what would be intended with an intravenous
vasodilator) and was associated with 1 or more of the following symptoms:
lightheadedness, dizziness, feeling faint, or having blurred vision.
Efficacy was analyzed in all treated patients, as randomized, except
for 9 patients who were randomized but not treated. These patients were excluded
from the analysis because hemodynamic and symptom assessments were not performed.
As no dose increases of nesiritide were permitted before 3 hours, the prespecified
primary analysis evaluated during the placebo-controlled period was a comparison
of the pooled nesiritide dose groups (fixed and adjustable dose) with the
placebo group when added to standard care. After 3 hours, placebo patients
(who crossover to double-blind, active treatment) were included in the subsequent
active treatment comparisons.
For the dyspnea and global clinical status evaluations, 2 groups (nesiritide
and nitroglycerin) were compared using a stratified 2-sample Wilcoxon procedure
(Van Elteren test) for right heart catheter use to evaluate the following
7-point categorical responses of the patient: markedly, moderately, or minimally
improved; no change; or minimally, moderately, or markedly worsened. This
nonparametric analysis was prespecified as a supplemental analysis to test
the robustness of the primary parametric analysis. However, because the protocol
allowed for the use of standard care agents before use of the study drug and
during the first 3 hours, a heightened placebo effect and a skewed distribution
toward more subjects being improved was anticipated. Furthermore, post-hoc
testing showing the lack of normality of the dyspnea data justifies the use
of the Van Elteran test for this analysis. A parametric analysis using a 2-way
analysis of variance (treatment and right heart catheter use) was also used.
A 1-way analysis of variance model was used for the analysis of mean
change from baseline for PCWP and other hemodynamic measurements for catheterized
patients. Means are presented with SDs, and medians are provided with interquartile
ranges for hemodynamic data, unless otherwise noted.
This study was powered to demonstrate significant differences between
nesiritide and placebo for PCWP evaluation among all catheterized patients
and for dyspnea evaluation among all patients. Based on a 2-sample Wilcoxon
procedure, a sample size of 140 in the placebo and 200 in the nesiritide treatment
group had approximately 86% power to detect a treatment difference if the
proportion of patients' symptoms were markedly (0% vs 5%), moderately (15%
vs 20%), or minimally improved (20% vs 25%); no change (50% vs 40%); or minimally
(both 5%), moderately (both 5%) or markedly worsened (5% vs 0%). The assumption
of this proportion of responses reflects the anticipation that regardless
of therapy, most patients' dyspnea will be improved or unchanged at 3 hours,
rather than worsened; and active therapy (plus standard care) will be more
effective than placebo (plus standard care). Based on the large-sample z statistic, with the assumption of a population mean (SD)
decrease in PCWP of 2 (6) mm Hg in the placebo group and 5 (6) mm Hg in the
nesiritide group, a pairwise contrast had 88% power with sample sizes of 60
in the placebo group and 120 in the nesiritide treatment group.
Between October 1999 and July 2000, 498 patients were randomized, of
which 489 were treated with study drug (143 nitroglycerin, 204 nesiritide,
and 142 placebo) at 55 US study centers. Of the total 489 randomized and treated
patients, 246 were in the catheterized stratum and 243 were in the noncatheterized
stratum. Approximately 240 patients in each of the catheterized and noncatheterized
strata were specified prior to the study (Figure 1).
Baseline clinical characteristics were similar among patients in the
study groups (Table 1) except
that more patients in the nesiritide group were men. All patients had dyspnea
at rest (or New York Heart Association class IV symptoms) at study entry,
84% had chronic decompensated CHF that was classified as class III or class
IV prior to decompensation, and most had clinical evidence of fluid overload
(jugular venous distention in 89%, rales in 73%, and pedal edema in 73%).
Other important baseline clinical findings included an acute coronary syndrome
in 12%, preserved systolic function (ejection fraction >40%) in 15%, renal
insufficiency (serum creatinine ≥2.0 mg/dL [≥176.8 µmol/L]) in
21%, and diabetes in 47%. Many patients had a history of significant arrhythmias
including atrial fibrillation or fib/flutter (35%), nonsustained ventricular
tachycardia (22%), sudden death (8%), ventricular fibrillation (6%), and sustained
ventricular tachycardia (13%). The mean (SD) left ventricular ejection fraction
was 27% (14%). Mean (SD) systolic blood pressure at trial entry was 121 (22)
mm Hg. Ninety patients (18%) had a baseline systolic blood pressure of 100
mm Hg or lower and 107 patients (22%) had a baseline systolic blood pressure
of 140 mm Hg or higher. In catheterized patients, mean PCWP was 27.8 (6.3)
mm Hg and mean (SD) cardiac index was 2.2 (0.73) L/min per m2.
The long-term use of cardiac medications also was well balanced between
the nesiritide and nitroglycerin groups, with the exception that more nesiritide
patients were receiving a class III antiarrhythmic at baseline (P = .02; Table 2), were
given an intravenous vasoactive medication within 24 hours before study drug,
and had study drug added to ongoing therapy with dobutamine or dopamine (Table 1 and Table 2).
Dosing and Administration
The median time of study drug exposure was the same in both the nesiritide
and nitroglycerin groups (24-25 hours). The percentage of nesiritide and nitroglycerin
patients who received study drug for 24 to 72 hours (69% vs 71%, respectively)
and more than 72 hours (6% and 5%, respectively) was also similar. During
both the placebo-controlled and active-controlled periods, the nitroglycerin
infusion was titrated to higher doses in catheterized patients than in noncatheterized
patients. At the 3-hour time point, when the primary end points were measured,
a mean (SD [median {25th, 75th percentile}]) dose of 42 (61 [13 {10, 40}])
µg/min of nitroglycerin was administered to catheterized patients, whereas
a dose of 29 (38 [13 {10, 20}]) µg/min of nitroglycerin was administered
to noncatheterized patients. Additional nitroglycerin uptitration from 3 to
24 hours occurred in catheterized patients (to a mean [SD {median; 25th, 75th
percentile}] dose of 56 [64 {20; 13, 80}] µg/min) but not in noncatheterized
patients (dose of 27 [31 {13; 7, 27}] µg/min). The titrated doses of
nitroglycerin lowered blood pressure to a comparable or greater degree than
nesiritide (Table 3). Nesiritide
was administered as a fixed dose in most patients. Of the 62 patients randomized
to the adjustable-dose group, only 23 patients had an increase in the nesiritide
dose; some dose adjustments (10/23) were up to a maximum of 0.015 µg/kg
per minute.
The reduction in PCWP was significantly greater in the nesiritide group
than in the nitroglycerin or placebo group, starting with the first measurement
at 15 minutes (Figure 2A and Table 3). Mean changes in PCWP from baseline
at 3 hours were −5.8 (6.5) mm Hg for nesiritide (vs placebo, P<.001; vs nitroglycerin, P = .03), –3.8
(5.3) mm Hg for nitroglycerin (vs placebo, P = .09),
and –2 (4.2) mm Hg for placebo. Nesiritide and nitroglycerin were also
associated with significantly greater mean reductions in pulmonary vascular
resistance than placebo at 1 hour. Nesiritide significantly reduced pulmonary
vascular resistance at 3 hours (Table 3). Nesiritide was associated with greater mean reductions in mean
right atrial pressure compared with placebo at 1 and 3 hours. Nitroglycerin
significantly lowered mean right atrial pressure compared with placebo at
3 hours, but not at the earlier time points (Table 3). Nesiritide, but not nitroglycerin, significantly increased
cardiac index and lowered systemic vascular resistance at 1 hour compared
with placebo. There were no differences in change in cardiac index among nesiritide,
nitroglycerin, or placebo groups at 3 hours (Table 3). Effects on systolic blood pressure through 3 hours were
similar with nesiritide and nitroglycerin (Table 3). Nesiritide also was associated with greater mean reductions
in systolic and mean pulmonary artery pressure than both nitroglycerin and
placebo at every time point through 3 hours (data not shown). There were no
significant differences between nitroglycerin and placebo in reductions in
systolic or mean pulmonary artery pressure at any time point through 3 hours.
At 24 hours, the mean (SD) reduction in PCWP was significantly greater
with nesiritide (−8.2 mm Hg) than nitroglycerin (−6.3 mm Hg) (P = .04), with no evidence of attenuation of effect (Figure 2B). At 36 and 48 hours, there were
no significant differences in PCWP reduction in the nesiritide and nitroglycerin
groups, but PCWP was obtained in only about 50% of catheterized patients at
36 hours and in only a third of patients at 48 hours. At 24 hours, the mean
decreases in systolic blood pressure were not significantly different in the
nesiritide and nitroglycerin groups (–8.7 and –8.1 mm Hg, respectively, P = .54).
The differences between nesiritide and placebo or nitroglycerin in the
effect on PCWP are not explained by the higher percentage of nesiritide patients
who had study drug added to ongoing therapy with dobutamine or dopamine. Among
patients who were not receiving ongoing dobutamine or dopamine therapy, the
3-hour mean (SD) change in PCWP was −3.4 (5.4) mm Hg for nitroglycerin
(n = 51; nitroglycerin vs placebo, P = .15); −6.5
(6.8) mm Hg for nesiritide (n = 99; nesiritide vs nitroglycerin, P = .004); and −1.7 (4.4) mm Hg for placebo (n = 48; nesiritide
vs placebo, P<.001).
The second primary end point (Figure
3A), the patient's self-assessment of dyspnea at 3 hours, was significantly
improved in the nesiritide group compared with the placebo group (P = .03), although improvement in dyspnea scores in the nesiritide
and nitroglycerin groups were not significantly different (P = .56). At 3 hours (Figure 3B),
there were no significant differences in improvement in global clinical status
in the nesiritide group compared with the nitroglycerin group (P = .55) or the placebo group (P = .07).
During the first 24 hours of treatment, there was evidence of progressive
improvement in dyspnea and global clinical status over time with both active
infusions. No significant differences were found between the nesiritide and
nitroglycerin group for dyspnea at 24 hours (P =
.13; Figure 3C). For the global
clinical status in all patients, using a parametric analysis, nesiritide,
when compared with nitroglycerin, was associated with significant improvement
at 24 hours (2-way analysis of variance, P = .04),
but showed a nonsignificant trend toward improvement when nonparametric analysis
was used (Van-Elteren test, P = .08; Figure 3D).
During the placebo-controlled period, any adverse event occurred in
39 (27%) nitroglycerin, 36 (18%) nesiritide, and 20 (14%) placebo patients
(Fisher exact test, P = .02); headache in 17 (12%)
nitroglycerin, 11 (5%) nesiritide, and 3 (2%) placebo patients (P = .003); and abdominal pain in 4 (3%) nitroglycerin patients only
(P = .01) (Table
4). There were significantly fewer adverse events in nesiritide
patients than nitroglycerin patients during the placebo-controlled period
(Fisher exact test; P = .04).
During the first 24 hours after the start of nitroglycerin, headache
(20%) was the most common adverse event reported. During the first 24 hours
of treatment with nesiritide, headache (8%) occurred significantly less frequently
than with nitroglycerin (Fisher exact test, P<.001; Table 4). There were no significant differences
in the frequency or severity of ischemic events, asymptomatic or symptomatic
hypotension or arrhythmias between nitroglycerin and nesiritide groups in
the first 24 hours. Symptomatic hypotension occurred in 5% of nitroglycerin
patients and in 4% of nesiritide patients. Angina occurred in 2% of patients
in each of the nitroglycerin and nesiritide groups. Most hypotension events
were mild or moderate; 1 patient in each treatment group experienced an event
that was classified as severe. Most events resolved either spontaneously or
with an intravenous volume challenge of 250 mL (or less). Duration of hypotension
events was significantly longer with nesiritide, as expected due to its longer
half-life than that of nitroglycerin (18-minute half-life for nesiritide22 and 2.5-minute half-life for nitroglycerin23). The mean duration of symptomatic hypotension was
2.2 hours for nesiritide and 0.7 hours for nitroglycerin (2-sample Wilcoxon
test; P = .002). No event of symptomatic hypotension
led to adverse sequelae in either treatment group.
Through 30 days, there were 3 myocardial infarctions reported in nitroglycerin
patients and 2 in nesiritide patients. Through 30 days, there were no significant
differences in the frequency of serious adverse events or pattern of changes
in serum creatinine that occurred in nitroglycerin or nesiritide patients.
Through 30 days, 48 (23%) nitroglycerin and 50 (20%) nesiritide patients were
readmitted to the hospital for any cause (Fisher exact test, P = .36). Readmission for acutely decompensated CHF occurred in 27
(13%) nitroglycerin and 20 (7%) nesiritide patients. Through 7 days, deaths
occurred in 1 (0.5%) nitroglycerin and 4 (1.5%) nesiritide patients. None
of these deaths was believed to be due to either study drug. There was no
significant difference in 6-month mortality for nitroglycerin 20.8% (95% confidence
interval, 15.5%-26.5%) vs nesiritide patients 25.1% (95% confidence interval,
20.0%-30.5%; P = .32).
The VMAC trial is, to our knowledge, the first trial in patients with
acutely decompensated CHF to demonstrate efficacy of a new drug class (nesiritide,
B-type natriuretic peptide) when added to standard care in comparison with
both placebo and nitroglycerin. This randomized, double-blind trial enrolled
severely ill patients with acutely decompensated CHF and dyspnea at rest and
many clinically important comorbidities including acute coronary syndromes,
atrial and ventricular arrhythmias, preserved systolic function, and renal
insufficiency.
The VMAC trial design reflects the balance between the need to obtain
efficacy data pertaining to both hemodynamic and clinical benefit and to do
so in a heterogeneous, critically ill patient population that is already receiving
standard care medications. Three hours was chosen as the primary end point
to allow enough time for an additive symptom effect to occur between an active
agent (plus standard care) and the anticipated high rate of early symptom
improvement in patients who received placebo (plus standard care). Due to
the severity of illness in the intended patient population, it was deemed
unethical by the investigator to treat patients with placebo for more than
3 hours or to insist on discontinuation of baseline standard therapies, including
intravenous diuretics and inotropic agents. To compare a fixed-dose regimen
of nesiritide with a standard dosing regimen of nitroglycerin (ie, titrated
regimen) in a double-blinded fashion, a double-dummy study drug administration
design was used. Because there is no standard dose or dosing range for nitroglycerin
for decompensated heart failure, all dosing of nitroglycerin was left to the
investigators' discretion. As the first large decompensated CHF study in which
clinical symptoms (rather than hemodynamics alone) were a primary end point,
we created a customized categorical dyspnea scale in which patients were required
to have dyspnea at rest at baseline.
This trial demonstrated that nesiritide significantly reduced PCWP more
than standard care plus nitroglycerin or placebo, and these effects were sustained
for at least 24 hours. At 3 hours, nesiritide (when added to standard care)
also led to a significant improvement in dyspnea compared with placebo (a
prespecified primary end point), but not a significant improvement compared
with nitroglycerin. Because patients were concomitantly receiving other drugs
(such as intravenous diuretics) to ameliorate their symptoms, improvement
was generally expected in all treatment groups. The adverse effect profile
of nesiritide was similar to that of nitroglycerin, except for headache and
abdominal pain, which occurred more commonly with nitroglycerin.
In comparison with prior trials of nesiritide in decompensated CHF,
the dose of nesiritide used in VMAC (2-µg/kg bolus followed by a 0.01-µg/kg
per minute infusion) used a larger bolus dose and a lower infusion dose than
previously studied doses. The dosing regimen of nesiritide in VMAC was selected
from other candidate dosing regimens using a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic
model that predicted the following effects compared with a previously studied
dosing regimen: a more rapid onset of effect on PCWP and systolic blood pressure,
a sustained effect on PCWP over at least 24 hours, and less effect on systolic
blood pressure than higher infusion doses.24
In this study, this dose was effective at improving hemodynamics and symptoms
and was associated with less hypotension than has been observed at higher
doses.18 When investigators had the opportunity
to increase the nesiritide dose, only 23 of 62 adjustable-dose nesiritide
patients underwent an increase in the dose, suggesting that the initial dosing
regimen was effective in most patients.
The VMAC trial is the largest and most comprehensive evaluation of intravenous
nitroglycerin in decompensated CHF. Nitroglycerin is a commonly used intravenous
agent for decompensated CHF because it leads to beneficial hemodynamic actions,
is well tolerated without proarrhythmic effects, and prevents worsening of
ischemic events. In VMAC, the hemodynamic effects of intravenous nitroglycerin
were significantly less, and symptomatic effects were similar, but less pronounced,
than those observed with nesiritide during the first 24 hours. It is possible
that better and more rapid amelioration of hemodynamic abnormalities could
have occurred if higher doses of intravenous nitroglycerin were used. However,
the investigator-chosen doses used in this trial were within the dose ranges
described in other clinical heart failure studies,25-30
recommended by the current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association
guidelines for management of acutely decompensated CHF.1
Nitroglycerin was pharmacologically active at the doses studied in VMAC as
evidenced by the rate of headache (20%) and the effect of nitroglycerin on
blood pressure.
Results of the VMAC trial also are useful in distinguishing the role
of natriuretic peptides, vasodilators, and inotropes as therapy for acutely
decompensated CHF. As VMAC characterized the relative efficacy and safety
profiles of nitroglycerin and nesiritide, both of which have vasodilating
properties, VMAC also confirmed that these agents do not lead to life-threatening
arrhythmias or ischemic events. The hemodynamic and symptom improvement with
nesiritide, coupled with a safety profile similar to that of nitroglycerin,
suggests that the use of nesiritide may decrease the role of inotropes in
the treatment for acutely decompensated CHF.
In this study of patients with acutely decompensated CHF, nesiritide
resulted in improvement in hemodynamics and some self-reported symptoms more
effectively and with fewer adverse effects than intravenous nitroglycerin.
This trial suggests that nesiritide, in addition to diuretics (intravenous
and/or oral), is a useful addition to initial therapy of patients hospitalized
with acutely decompensated CHF.
1.Williams J, Bristow M, Fowler M.
et al. Guidelines for the evaluation and management of heart failure.
J Am Coll Cardiol.1995;26:1376-1398.Google Scholar 2.Graves E, Gillum B. 1994 Summary: National Hospital Discharge Survey:
Advance Data. Atlanta, Ga: National Center for Health Statistics; 1996:17.
3.Brophy JM, Deslauriers G, Boucher B, Rouleau JL. The hospital course and short-term prognosis of patients presenting
to the emergency room with decompensated congestive heart failure.
Can J Cardiol.1993;9:219-224.Google Scholar 4.Rame JE, Sheffield MA, Dries DL.
et al. Outcomes Following Discharge From an Urban County
Hospital Emergency Room With a Primary Diagnosis of Heart Failure. Orlando, Fla: American College of Cardiology; 2001. Presentation
3.
5.Konstam M, Dracup K, Baker D. Heart Failure: Evaluation and Care of Patients With
Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction. Rockville, Md: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1994.
6.Dies F, Krell M, Whitlow P. Intermittent, ambulatory dobutamine infusion in severe chronic cardiac
failure.
Br J Clin Pract.1986;40:37-39.Google Scholar 7.Xamoterol in Severe Heart Failure Study Group. Xamoterol in severe heart failure.
Lancet.1990;336:1-6.Google Scholar 8.Packer M, Carver JR, Rodeheffer RJ.
et al. Effect of oral milrinone on mortality in severe chronic heart failure.
N Engl J Med.1991;325:1468-1475.Google Scholar 9.Packer M, Medina N, Yushak M. Failure of low doses of amrinone to produce sustained hemodynamic improvement
in patients with severe chronic congestive heart failure.
Am J Cardiol.1984;54:1025-1029.Google Scholar 10.Feldman AM, Bristow MR, Parmley WW.
et al. Effects of vesnarinone on morbidity and mortality in patients with
heart failure.
N Engl J Med.1993;329:149-155.Google Scholar 11.Califf R, Adams K, McKenna W.
et al. A randomized controlled trial of epoprostenol therapy for severe congestive
heart failure.
Am Heart J.1997;134:44-54.Google Scholar 12.Packer M. Sudden unexpected death in patients with congestive heart failure:
a second frontier.
Circulation.1985;72:681-685.Google Scholar 13.Massie BM, Berk MR, Brozena SC.
et al. Can further benefit be achieved by adding flosequinan to patients with
congestive heart failure who remain symptomatic on diuretic, digoxin, and
an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor?
Circulation.1993;88:492-501.Google Scholar 14.Clarkson PB, Wheeldon NM, MacFadyen RJ.
et al. Effects of brain natriuretic peptide on exercise hemodynamics and neurohormones
in isolated diastolic heart failure.
Circulation.1996;93:2037-2042.Google Scholar 15.Clarkson PB, Wheeldon NM, Macleod C, Coutie W, MacDonald TM. Brain natriuretic peptide.
Clin Sci (Colch).1995;88:159-164.Google Scholar 16.Zellner C, Protter A, Ko E.
et al. Coronary vasodilator effects of BNP.
Am J Physiol.1999;276:H1049-H1057.Google Scholar 17.Colucci WS, Elkayam U, Horton DP.
et al. Intravenous nesiritide, a natriuretic peptide, in the treatment of
decompensated congestive heart failure.
N Engl J Med.2000;343:246-253.Google Scholar 18.Burger A, Dennish G, Horton D, Koren M, Torre G. Nesiritide therapy for decompensated CHF is not proarrhythmic.
J Am Coll Cardiol.2000;35:172.Google Scholar 19.Jensen KT, Eiskjaer H, Carstens J, Pedersen EB. Renal effects of brain natriuretic peptide in patients with congestive
heart failure.
Clin Sci (Colch).1999;96:5-15.Google Scholar 20.Chen HH, Grantham JA, Schirger JA, Jougasaki M, Redfield MM, Burnett Jr JC. Subcutaneous administration of brain natriuretic peptide in experimental
heart failure.
J Am Coll Cardiol.2000;36:1706-1712.Google Scholar 21.Hobbs RE, Mills RM. Therapeutic potential of nesiritide (recombinant b-type natriuretic
peptide) in the treatment of heart failure.
Exp Opinion Invest Drugs.1999;8:1063-1072.Google Scholar 22.Kirsten R, Nelson K, Kirsten D, Heintz B. Clinical pharmacokinetics of vasodilators, part II.
Clin Pharmacokinet.1998;35:9-36.Google Scholar 23.Sambol NC, Liu CY, Horton DP. Simulations of Pulmonary Capillary Wedge Pressure (PCWP) and Systolic
Blood Pressure (SBP) with various regimens of nesiritide.
Clin Pharmacol Ther.2001;69:90.Google Scholar 24.Dupuis J, Lalonde G, Lebeau R, Bichet D, Rouleau JL. Sustained beneficial effect of a seventy-two hour IV infusion of nitroglycerin
in patients with severe chronic congestive heart failure.
Am Heart J.1990;120:625-637.Google Scholar 25.Larsen AI, Goransson L, Aarsland T, Tamby JF, Dickstein K. Comparison of the degree of hemodynamic tolerance during IV infusion
of nitroglycerin versus nicorandil in patients with congestive heart failure.
Am Heart J.1997;134:435-441.Google Scholar 26.Earl GL, Stanek EJ, Spinler SA. IV nitroglycerin tolerance in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy
and congestive heart failure.
Pharmacotherapy.1998;18:203-209.Google Scholar 27.Natarajan D, Khurana TR, Karhade V, Nigam PD. Sustained hemodynamic effects with therapeutic doses of IV nitroglycerin
in congestive heart failure.
Am J Cardiol.1988;62:319-321.Google Scholar 28.Young JB, Pratt CM, Farmer JA.
et al. Specialized delivery systems for intravenous nitroglycerin: are they
necessary?
Am J Med.1984;76:27-37.Google Scholar 29.Bayley S, Valentine H, Bennett ED. The haemodynamic responses to incremental doses of intravenous nitroglycerin
in left ventricular failure.
Intensive Care Med.1984;10:139-145.Google Scholar 30.Armstrong PW, Watts DG, Moffat JA. Steady-state pharmacokinetic haemodynamic studies of intravenous nitroglycerin
in congestive cardiac failure.
Br J Clin Pharmacol.1983;16:385-390.Google Scholar