4.7 Article

Acute Hemodynamic Effects of Riociguat in Patients With Pulmonary Hypertension Associated With Diastolic Heart Failure (DILATE-1)

期刊

CHEST
卷 146, 期 5, 页码 1274-1285

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1378/chest.14-0106

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (Berlin, Germany)
  2. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Deficient nitric oxide-soluble guanylate cyclase-cyclic guanosine monophosphate signaling results from endothelial dysfunction and may underlie impaired cardiac relaxation in patients with heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF) and pulmonary hypertension (PH). The acute hemodynamic effects of riociguat, a novel soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator, were characterized in patients with PH and HFpEF. METHODS: Clinically stable patients receiving standard HF therapy with a left ventricular ejection fraction. 50%, mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) >= 25 mm Hg, and pulmonary arterial wedge pressure (PAWP). 15 mm Hg at rest were randomized to single oral doses of placebo or riociguat (0.5, 1, or 2 mg). The primary efficacy variable was the peak decrease in mPAP from baseline up to 6 h. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic and echocardiographic parameters, safety, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: There was no significant change in peak decrease in mPAP with riociguat 2 mg (n = 10) vs placebo (n = 11, P = .6). However, riociguat 2 mg significantly increased stroke volume (1 9 mL [95% CI, 0.4-17]; P = .04) and decreased systolic BP (-12 mm Hg [95% CI, -22 to -1]; P = .03) and right ventricular end-diastolic area (-5.6 cm(2) [95% CI, -11 to -0.3]; P = .04), without significantly changing heart rate, PAWP, transpulmonary pressure gradient, or pulmonary vascular resistance. Riociguat was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HFpEF and PH, riociguat was well tolerated, had no significant effect on mPAP, and improved exploratory hemodynamic and echocardiographic parameters.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据