4.5 Article

Lung function with carvedilol and bisoprolol in chronic heart failure:: Is β selectivity relevant?

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEART FAILURE
Volume 9, Issue 8, Pages 827-833

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejheart.2007.04.006

Keywords

exercise; heart failure; bisoprolol; carvedilol; lung diffusion

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Carvedilol is a beta-blocker with similar affinity for beta(1) - and beta(2) receptors, while bisoprolol has higher beta(1) affinity. The respiratory system is characterized by beta(2)-receptor prevalence. Airway beta receptors regulate bronchial tone and alveolar beta receptors regulate alveolar fluid re-absorption which influences gas diffusion. Aims: To compare the effects of carvedilol and bisoprolol on lung function in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). Methods and results: We performed a double-blind, cross-over study in 53 CHF patients. After 2 months of full dose treatment with either carvedilol or bisoprolol, we assessed lung function by salbutamol challenge, carbon monoxide lung diffusion (DLco), including membrane conductance (DM), and gas exchange during exercise. FEV1 and FVC were similar; after salbutamol FEV1 was higher with bisoprolol (p < 0.04). DLco was 82 +/- 21% of predicted with carvedilol and 90 +/- 20% with bisoprolol (p < 0.01) due to DM changes. Peak VO2 was 17.8 +/- 4.5 mL/min/kg on bisoprolol and 17.0 +/- 4.6 on carvedilol, (p < 0.05) with no differences in bronchial tone (same expiratory time) throughout exercise. Differences were greater in the 22 subjects with DLco < 80%. Conclusion: Carvedilol and bisoprolol have different effects on DLco and response to salbutamol. DLco differences, being DM related, are due to changes in active membrane transport which is under alveolar beta(2)-receptor control. Peak VO2 was slightly higher with bisoprolol particularly in CHF patients with reduced DUO. (c) 2007 European Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available