Response of myocardial oxygenation to breathing manoeuvres and adenosine infusion

AIMS: Testing for inducible myocardial ischaemia is one of the most important diagnostic procedures and has a strong impact on clinical decision-making. Current standard protocols are typically limited by the required infusion of vasodilatory substances. Recent data indicate that changes of myocardial oxygenation induced by hyperventilation and breath-holds can be monitored by oxygenation-sensitive (OS) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and may be useful for assessing coronary vascular function. As tests using breathing manoeuvres may be safer, easier, and more comfortable than vasodilator stress agent infusion, we compared its impact on myocardial oxygenation with that of a standard adenosine infusion protocol. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 20 healthy volunteers, we assessed changes of myocardial oxygenation using OS-CMR at 3 T during adenosine infusion (140 µg/kg/min, i.v.) and during voluntary breathing manoeuvres: a maximal breath-hold following normal breathing and a maximal breath-hold following 60 s of hyperventilation. The study was successfully completed in 19 subjects. There was a significantly stronger myocardial response for hyperventilation (decrease of -10.6 ± 7.8%) and the following breath-hold (increase of 14.8 ± 6.6%) than adenosine (3.9 ± 6.5%), whereas a simple maximal voluntary breath-hold yielded a similar signal intensity increase (3.1 ± 3.9%). Subjective side effects occurred significantly more often with adenosine, especially in females. CONCLUSIONS: Hyperventilation combined with a subsequent long breath-hold and hyperventilation alone both have a greater impact on myocardial oxygenation changes than an intravenous administration of a standard dose of adenosine, as assessed by OS-CMR. Breathing manoeuvres may be more efficient, safer, and more comfortable than adenosine for the assessment of the coronary vasomotor response.

Norepinephrine infusion with and without alpha-adrenergic blockade by phentolamine increases salivary alpha amylase in healthy men

BACKGROUND: Mental stress reliably induces increases in salivary alpha amylase (sAA), a suggested surrogate marker for sympathetic nervous system (SNS) reactivity. While stress-induced sAA increases correlate with norepinephrine (NE) secretion, a potential mediating role of noradrenergic mechanisms remains unclear. In this study, we investigated for the first time in humans whether a NE-stress-reactivity mimicking NE-infusion with and without alpha-adrenergic blockade by phentolamine would induce changes in sAA. METHODS: In a single-blind placebo-controlled within-subjects design, 21 healthy men (29-66 years) took part in three different experimental trials varying in terms of substance infusion with a 1-min first infusion followed by a 15-min second infusion: saline-infusion (trial-1), NE-infusion (5 μg/min) without alpha-adrenergic blockade (trial-2), and with phentolamine-induced non-selective blockade of alpha1- and alpha2-adrenergic receptors (trial-3). Saliva samples were collected immediately before, during, and several times after substance infusion in addition to blood pressure and heart rate readings. RESULTS: Experimental trials significantly differed in sAA reactivity to substance-infusion (p=.001) with higher sAA reactivity following NE-infusion with (trial-3; p=.001) and without alpha-adrenergic-blockade (trial-2; p=.004) as compared to placebo-infusion (trial-1); sAA infusion reactivity did not differ between trial-2 and trial-3 (p=.29). Effective phentolamine application was verified by blood pressure and heart rate infusion reactivity. Salivary cortisol was not affected by NE, either with or without alpha-adrenergic-blockade. CONCLUSIONS: We found that NE-infusion stimulates sAA secretion, regardless of co-administered non-selective alpha-adrenergic blockade by phentolamine, suggesting that the mechanism underlying stress-induced sAA increases may involve NE.

Treatment for superficial infusion thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity.

BACKGROUND Although superficial thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity represents a frequent complication of intravenous catheters inserted into the peripheral veins of the forearm or hand, no consensus exists on the optimal management of this condition in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES To summarise the evidence from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) concerning the efficacy and safety of (topical, oral or parenteral) medical therapy of superficial thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity. SEARCH METHODS The Cochrane Vascular Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched April 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (2015, Issue 3). Clinical trials registries were searched up to April 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA RCTs comparing any (topical, oral or parenteral) medical treatment to no intervention or placebo, or comparing two different medical interventions (e.g. a different variant scheme or regimen of the same intervention or a different pharmacological type of treatment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted data on methodological quality, patient characteristics, interventions and outcomes, including improvement of signs and symptoms as the primary effectiveness outcome, and number of participants experiencing side effects of the study treatments as the primary safety outcome. MAIN RESULTS We identified 13 studies (917 participants). The evaluated treatment modalities consisted of a topical treatment (11 studies), an oral treatment (2 studies) and a parenteral treatment (2 studies). Seven studies used a placebo or no intervention control group, whereas all others also or solely compared active treatment groups. No study evaluated the effects of ice or the application of cold or hot bandages. Overall, the risk of bias in individual trials was moderate to high, although poor reporting hampered a full appreciation of the risk in most studies. The overall quality of the evidence for each of the outcomes varied from low to moderate mainly due to risk of bias and imprecision, with only single trials contributing to most comparisons. Data on primary outcomes improvement of signs and symptoms and side effects attributed to the study treatment could not be statistically pooled because of the between-study differences in comparisons, outcomes and type of instruments to measure outcomes.An array of topical treatments, such as heparinoid or diclofenac gels, improved pain compared to placebo or no intervention. Compared to placebo, oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduced signs and symptoms intensity. Safety issues were reported sparsely and were not available for some interventions, such as notoginseny creams, parenteral low-molecular-weight heparin or defibrotide. Although several trials reported on adverse events with topical heparinoid creams, Essaven gel or phlebolan versus control, the trials were underpowered to adequately measure any differences between treatment modalities. Where reported, adverse events with topical treatments consisted mainly of local allergic reactions. Only one study of 15 participants assessed thrombus extension and symptomatic venous thromboembolism with either oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or low-molecular-weight heparin, and it reported no cases of either. No study reported on the development of suppurative phlebitis, catheter-related bloodstream infections or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The evidence about the treatment of acute infusion superficial thrombophlebitis is limited and of low quality. Data appear too preliminary to assess the effectiveness and safety of topical treatments, systemic anticoagulation or oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.