Value of adenosine infusion for infarct size determination using real-time myocardial contrast echocardiography

Abstract Background Myocardial contrast echocardiography has been used for determination of infarct size (IS) in experimental models. However, with intermittent harmonic imaging, IS seems to be underestimated immediately after reperfusion due to areas with preserved, yet dysfunctional, microvasculature. The use of exogenous vasodilators showed to be useful to unmask these infarcted areas with depressed coronary flow reserve. This study was undertaken to assess the value of adenosine for IS determination in an open-chest canine model of coronary occlusion and reperfusion, using real-time myocardial contrast echocardiography (RTMCE). Methods Nine dogs underwent 180 minutes of coronary occlusion followed by reperfusion. PESDA (Perfluorocarbon-Exposed Sonicated Dextrose Albumin) was used as contrast agent. IS was determined by RTMCE before and during adenosine infusion at a rate of 140 mcg·Kg-1·min-1. Post-mortem necrotic area was determined by triphenyl-tetrazolium chloride (TTC) staining. Results IS determined by RTMCE was 1.98 ± 1.30 cm2 and increased to 2.58 ± 1.53 cm2 during adenosine infusion (p = 0.004), with good correlation between measurements (r = 0.91; p < 0.01). The necrotic area determined by TTC was 2.29 ± 1.36 cm2 and showed no significant difference with IS determined by RTMCE before or during hyperemia. A slight better correlation between RTMCE and TTC measurements was observed during adenosine (r = 0.99; p < 0.001) then before it (r = 0.92; p = 0.0013). Conclusion RTMCE can accurately determine IS in immediate period after acute myocardial infarction. Adenosine infusion results in a slight better detection of actual size of myocardial damage.

A comparison between diuretics and angiotensin-receptor blocker agents in patients with stage I hypertension (PREVER-treatment trial): study protocol for a randomized double-blind controlled trial

Abstract Background Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in Brazil, and hypertension is its major risk factor. The benefit of its drug treatment to prevent major cardiovascular events was consistently demonstrated. Angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARB) have been the preferential drugs in the management of hypertension worldwide, despite the absence of any consistent evidence of advantage over older agents, and the concern that they may be associated with lower renal protection and risk for cancer. Diuretics are as efficacious as other agents, are well tolerated, have longer duration of action and low cost, but have been scarcely compared with ARBs. A study comparing diuretic and ARB is therefore warranted. Methods/design This is a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial, comparing the association of chlorthalidone and amiloride with losartan as first drug option in patients aged 30 to 70 years, with stage I hypertension. The primary outcomes will be variation of blood pressure by time, adverse events and development or worsening of microalbuminuria and of left ventricular hypertrophy in the EKG. The secondary outcomes will be fatal or non-fatal cardiovascular events: myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, evidence of new subclinical atherosclerosis and sudden death. The study will last 18 months. The sample size will be of 1200 participants for group in order to confer enough power to test for all primary outcomes. The project was approved by the Ethics committee of each participating institution. Discussion The putative pleiotropic effects of ARB agents, particularly renal protection, have been disputed, and they have been scarcely compared with diuretics in large clinical trials, despite that they have been at least as efficacious as newer agents in managing hypertension. Even if the null hypothesis is not rejected, the information will be useful for health care policy to treat hypertension in Brazil. Clinical trials registration number ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00971165