A new technique for the quantification of peripheral edema with application in both unilateral and bilateral cases

Current noninvasive techniques for the routine and frequent quantification of peripheral lymphedema in patients are total limb volume measurement (by water immersion or by circumferential measurements) and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). However both of these techniques require standardizing the measurement using a contralateral measurement from the unaffected limb, Hence these techniques are essentially restricted to unilateral lymphedema. This paper describes the results from a preliminary study to investigate an alternative approach to the analysis of the data from multiple frequency BIA to produce an index of lymphedema without the need for normalization to another body segment. Twenty patients receiving surgical treatment for breast cancer were monitored prior to surgery and again after diagnosis with unilateral lymphedema. The data recorded were total limb volume, by circumferential measurements; and BIA measurements of both limbs. From these measurements total limb volumes and extracellular fluid volumes were calculated and expressed as ratios of the affected limb to that of the unaffected limb. An index of the ratio of the extracellular fluid volume to the intracellular fluid volume was determined. This ECW/ICW index was calculated for both the affected and unaffected limbs at both measurement times. Results confirmed that the established techniques of total limb volume and extracellular fluid volume normalized to the unaffected contralateral limb were accurate in the detection of lymphedema (p < 10(-6)). Comparison of the ECW/ICW index from the affected limb after diagnosis with that from the pre-surgery measurement revealed a significant (p< 10(-6)) and considerable (75%) increase. The results of this pilot study suggest that by using multiple frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis, an index of the ECW/ICW ratio can be obtained and this index appears to have an equal, or better, sensitivity, than the other techniques in detecting lymphedema. More importantly, this index does not require normalization to another body segment and can be used to detect all types of peripheral edema including both unilateral and bilateral lymphedema.

Regarding "Edema and leg volume: Methods of assessment" (Letters to the Editor)

I noted with interest the article by Drs Perrin and Guex, entitled &dquo;Edema and leg volume: Methods of assessment,&dquo; published in Angiology 51:9-12, 2000. This was a timely and comprehensive review of the various methods in clinical use for the assessment of peripheral edema, notably in the leg. I would like to take this opportunity to alert readers to a further technique useful for this purpose, namely, bioelectrical impedance analysis. An early reportl described its use for the measurement of edema in the leg, but other than its successful use for the assessment of edema in the arm following masteCtoMy,2,1 the potential of the method remains to be fully realized. This is unfortunate since the method directly and quantifiably measures edema.

An 18-Week, Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study of Amlodipine/Ramipril Combination Versus Amlodipine Monotherapy in the Treatment of Hypertension: The Assessment of Combination Therapy of Amlodipine/Ramipril (ATAR) Study

Background: A combination of antihypertensive agents of different drug classes in a fixed-dose combination (FDC) may offer advantages in terms of efficacy, tolerability, and treatment compliance. Combination of a calcium channel blocker with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor may act synergistically to reduce blood pressure (BP). Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of an amlodipine/ramipril FDC with those of amlodipine monotherapy. Methods: This 18-week, prospective, randomized, double-blind study was conducted at 8 centers across Brazil. Patients with stage 1 or 2 essential hypertension were enrolled. After a 2-week placebo run-in phase, patients received amlodipine/ramipril 2.5/2.5 mg or amlodipine 2.5 mg, after which the doses were titrated, based on BP, to 515 then 10/10 mg (amlodipme/ramipril) and 5 then 10 mg (amiodipine). The primary end point was BP measured in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Hematology and serum biochemistry were assessed at baseline and study end. Tolerability was assessed using patient interview, laboratory analysis, and physical examination, including measurement of ankle circumference to assess peripheral edema. Results: A total of 222 patients completed the study (age range, 40-79 years; FDC group, 117 patients [mean dose, 7.60/7.60 mg]; monotherapy, 105 patients [mean dose, 7.97 mg]). The mean (SD) changes in systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP), as measured using 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and in the physician`s office, were significantly greater with combination therapy than monotherapy, with the exception of office DBP (ABPM, -20.76 [1.25] vs -15.80 [1.18] mm Hg and -11.71 [0.78] vs -8.61 [0.74] mm Hg, respectively [both, P = 0.004]; office, -27.51 [1.40] vs -22.84 [1.33] min Hg [P = 0.012] and -16.41 [0.79] vs -14.64 [0.75] mm Hg [P = NS], respectively). In the ITT analysis, the mean changes in ambulatory, but not office-based, BP were statistically significant (ABPM: SBP, -20.21 [1.14] vs -15.31 [1.12] mm Hg and DBP, -11.61 [0.72] vs -8.42 [0.70] mm Hg, respectively [both, P = 0.002]; office: SBP, -26.60 [1.34] vs -22.97 [1.30] mm Hg and DBP, -16.48 [0.78] vs -14.48 [0.75] mm Hg [both, P = NS]). Twenty-nine patients (22.1%) treated with combination therapy and 41 patients (30.6%) treated with monotherapy experienced >= 1 adverse event considered possibly related to study drug. The combmation-therapy group had lower prevalence of edema (7.6% vs 18.7%; P = 0.011) and a similar prevalence of dry cough (3.8% vs 0.8%; P = NS). No clinically significant changes in laboratory values were found in either group. Conclusions: In this population of patients with essential hypertension, the amlodipine/ramipril FDC was associated with significantly reduced ambulatory and office-measured BP compared with amlodipine monotherapy, with the exception of office DBP. Both treatments were well tolerated. (Clin Ther. 2008;30: 1618-1628) (C) 2008 Excerpta Medica Inc.

Low blood glucose levels and other complications during growth hormone supplementation in sepsis

Blood glucose levels in the high normal range or even moderate hyperglycemia is the expected profile in septic postoperative patients receiving high-calorie enteral alimentation. The addition of growth hormone as an anabolic agent should additionally reinforce this tendency. In a cancer patient undergoing partial gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy and suffering from postoperative subphrenic abscess and prolonged sepsis, tube feeding (38.3 kcal/kg/day) and growth hormone (0.17 IU/kg/day) were simultaneously administered for 25 days. Blood glucose levels were in the lower limits of the normal range before growth hormone introduction, and continued with a similar tendency during most of the therapeutic period. Two additional complications, namely heart arrest and peripheral edema, were documented during the same period. It is concluded that sepsis was the most likely mechanism for low glucose values, and that high-calorie enteral diet and growth hormone supplementation did not prevent that result. It is uncertain whether heart arrest was due to the drug, but its association with peripheral edema is well documented in clinical series.

Treatment of essential hypertension with calcium channel blockers: what is the place of lercanidipine?

In all actual clinical guidelines, dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (CCBs) belong to the recommended first line antihypertensive drugs to treat essential hypertension. Several recent large clinical trials have confirmed their efficacy not only in lowering blood pressure but also in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients with a normal or high cardiovascular risk profile. In clinical trials such as ALLHAT, VALUE or ASCOT, an amlodipine-based therapy was at least as effective, when not slightly superior, in lowering blood pressure and sometimes more effective in preventing target organ damages than blood pressure lowering strategies based on the use of diuretics, beta-blockers and blockers of the renin-angiotensin system. One of the main clinical side effects of the first and second generation CCBs including amlodipine is the development of peripheral edema. The incidence of leg edema can be markedly reduced by combining the CCB with a blocker of the renin-angiotensin system. This strategy has now led to the development of several fixed-dose combinations of amlodipine and angiotensin II receptor antagonists. Another alternative to lower the incidence of edema is to use CCBs of the third generation such as lercanidipine. Indeed, although no major clinical trials have been conducted with this compound, clinical studies have shown that lercanidipine and amlodipine have a comparable antihypertensive efficacy but with significantly less peripheral edema in patients receiving lercanidipine. In some countries, lercanidipine is now available in a single-pill association with an ACE inhibitor thereby further improving its efficacy and tolerability profile.

Effects of the peroxisomal proliferator-activated receptor-gamma agonist pioglitazone on renal and hormonal responses to salt in healthy men.

Glitazones are used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes as efficient insulin sensitizers. They can, however, induce peripheral edema through an unknown mechanism in up to 18% of cases. In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, four-way, cross-over study, we examined the effects of a 6-wk administration of pioglitazone (45 mg daily) or placebo on the blood pressure, hormonal, and renal hemodynamic and tubular responses to a low (LS) and a high (HS) sodium diet in healthy volunteers. Pioglitazone had no effect on the systemic and renal hemodynamic responses to salt, except for an increase in daytime heart rate. Urinary sodium excretion and lithium clearance were lower with pioglitazone, particularly with the LS diet (P < 0.05), suggesting increased sodium reabsorption at the proximal tubule. Pioglitazone significantly increased plasma renin activity with the LS (P = 0.02) and HS (P = 0.03) diets. Similar trends were observed with aldosterone. Atrial natriuretic levels did not change with pioglitazone. Body weight increased with pioglitazone in most subjects. Pioglitazone stimulates plasma renin activity and favors sodium retention and weight gain in healthy volunteers. These effects could contribute to the development of edema in some subjects treated with glitazones.

Patient adherence and the choice of antihypertensive drugs: focus on lercanidipine.

Despite the development of many effective antihypertensive drugs, target blood pressures are reached in only a minority of patients in clinical practice. Poor adherence to drug therapy and the occurrence of side effects are among the main reasons commonly reported by patients and physicians to explain the poor results of actual antihypertensive therapies. The development of new effective antihypertensive agents with an improved tolerability profile might help to partly overcome these problems. Lercanidipine is an effective dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker of the third generation characterized by a long half-life and its lipophylicity. In contrast to first-generation dihydropyridines, lercanidipine does not induce reflex tachycardia and induces peripheral edema with a lower incidence. Recent data suggest that in addition to lowering blood pressure, lercanidipine might have some renal protective properties. In this review we shall discuss the problems of drug adherence in the management of hypertension with a special emphasis on lercanidipine.

Changes in Aortic Pulse Wave Velocity in Hypertensive Postmenopausal Women: Comparison Between a Calcium Channel Blocker vs Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Regimen.

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2012;14:773-778. ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Postmenopausal women are at greater risk for hypertension-related cardiovascular disease. Antihypertensive therapy may help alleviate arterial stiffness that represents a potential modifiable risk factor of hypertension. This randomized controlled study investigated the difference between an angiotensin receptor blocker and a calcium channel blocker in reducing arterial stiffness. Overall, 125 postmenopausal hypertensive women (age, 61.4±6 years; systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure [SBP/DBP], 158±11/92±9 mm Hg) were randomized to valsartan 320 mg±hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) (n=63) or amlodipine 10 mg±HCTZ (n=62). The primary outcome was carotid-to-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) changes after 38 weeks of treatment. Both treatments lowered peripheral blood pressure (BP) (-22.9/-10.9 mm Hg for valsartan and -25.2/-11.7 mm Hg for amlodipine, P=not significant) and central BP (-15.7/-7.6 mm Hg for valsartan and -19.2/-10.3 mm Hg for amlodipine, P<.05 for central DBP). Both treatments similarly reduced the carotid-femoral PWV (-1.9 vs -1.7 m/s; P=not significant). Amlodipine was associated with a higher incidence of peripheral edema compared with the valsartan group (77% vs 14%, P<.001). BP lowering in postmenopausal women led to a reduction in arterial stiffness as assessed by PWV measurement. Both regimens reduced PWV to a similar degree after 38 weeks of treatment despite differences in central BP lowering, suggesting that the effect of valsartan on PWV is mediated through nonhemodynamic effects.

Changes in Aortic Pulse Wave Velocity in Hypertension Post-Menopausal Women: Comparison Between Calcium Channel Blocker (CCB) Vs Angiotensin Receptor Blocker (ARB) Regimen

Objective: To compare effects of a non-renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker, using a CCB, or a RAS blocker, using an ARB regimen on the arterial stiffness reduction in postmenopausal hypertensive women. Methods: In this prospective study, a total of 125 hypertensive women (age: 61.4_6 yrs; 98% Caucasian; BW: 71.9_14 kg; BMI: 27.3_5 kg/m2; SBP/ DBP: 158_11/92_9 mmHg) were randomized between ARB (valsartan 320mg_HCTZ) and CCB (amlodipine 10mg _ HCTZ). The primary outcome was carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) changes after 38 weeks of treatment. Results: There were no significant differences in baseline demographic data between the two groups. Both treatments effectively lowered BP at the end of the study with similar (p>0.05) reductions in the valsartan (_22.9/_10.9 mmHg) and amlodipine based (_25.2/_11.7 mmHg) treatment groups. Despite a lower (p<0.05 for DBP) central SBP/DBP in the CCB group (_19.2/_10.3 mmHg) compared to the valsartan group (_15.7/_7.6 mmHg) at week 38, a similar reduction in carotid-femoral PWV (_1.7 vs _1.9 m/sec; p>0.05) was observed between both groups. The numerically larger BP reduction observed in the CCB group was associated with a much higher incidence of peripheral edema (77% vs 14%) than the valsartan group. Conclusion: In summary, BP lowering in postmenopausal women led to a reduction in arterial stiffness assessed by PWV measurement. Both regimens reduced PWV at 38 weeks of treatment to a similar degree, despite differences in BP lowering suggesting that the effect of RAS blockade to influence PWV may partly be independent of BP.

In situ aortobiiliac reconstruction of infected aneurysm using a single superficial femoral vein.

Objective: To demonstrate successful in situ aortoiliac reconstruction of an infected infrarenal aneurysm using one single superficial femoral vein (SFV). Methods: In situ reconstruction using the right SFV sutured in end-to-end anastomosis with the aorta and distally with the right common iliac artery and in end-to-side anastomosis with the left common iliac artery. Results: The operating time was less than reported for aortic in situ reconstruction with bilateral SFV harvesting. The duplex scan 3 months postoperatively showed permeability of the bypass without any anastomotic stenosis or pseudoaneurysm. The right common femoral, popliteal, and greater saphenous veins were patent without thrombus, and the patient did not complain about peripheral edema. Conclusions: The use of only one instead of both the SFVs for aortobiiliac in situ reconstruction might be a way to reduce operating time and allow autogenous venous reconstruction even in patients with limited availability of venous material.

Amlodipine and valsartan as components of a rational and effective fixed-dose combination.

Pharmacological treatment of hypertension is effective in preventing cardiovascular and renal complications. Calcium antagonists and blockers of the renin-angiotensin system are widely used today to initiate antihypertensive therapy but, when given as monotherapy, do not suffice in most patients to normalize blood pressure. Combining the two types of agents considerably increases the antihypertensive efficacy, but not at the expense of a deterioration of tolerability. This is exemplified by the experience accumulated with the recently developed fixed dose combination containing the AT(1)-receptor blocker valsartan (160 mg) and the dihydropyridine amlodipine (5 or 10 mg). In a randomized trial, an 8-week treatment normalized blood pressure (<140/90 mmHg) within 8 weeks in a large fraction of hypertensive patients (78.4% and 85.2% using the 5/160 [n = 371] and 10/160 mg [n = 377] dosage, respectively). Like all AT(1)-receptor blockers valsartan has a placebo-like tolerability. Valsartan prevents to a large extent the occurrence amlodipine-induced peripheral edema. Both amlodipine and valsartan have beneficial effects on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, as well as protective effects on renal function. The co-administration of these two agents is therefore very attractive, as it enables a rapid and sustained blood pressure control in hypertensive patients. The availability of a fixed-dose combination based on amlodipine and valsartan is expected therefore to facilitate the management of hypertension, to improve long-term adherence with antihypertensive therapy and, ultimately, to have a positive impact on cardiovascular and renal outcomes.

Efficacy and Tolerability of the Combination Valsartan/Hydrochlorothiazide Compared with Amlodipine in a Mild-to-moderately Hypertensive Brazilian Population

Most hypertensive patients need more than one drug to reach recommended blood-pressure targets. We investigated the effects on 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) of the angiotensin-receptor blocker, valsartan, in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), compared with the calcium-channel blocker amlodipine in a Brazilian population in a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, controlled study in 373 patients with essential hypertension. After a 2-week washout period, patients with a mean sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 160-190 mmHg were randomized to receive either valsartan 160 mg o.d., or amlodipine 5 mg o.d. for 2 weeks and subsequently force-titrated to valsartan 160 mg/HCTZ 25 mg o.d. or amlodipine 10 mg o.d. This regimen was continued until the end of the study at week 8. The primary efficacy parameter was the change from baseline to week 8 in mean 24-h SBP. Secondary endpoints were change in mean 24-h diastolic blood pressure (DBP), tolerability and safety of treatments. Valsartan/HCTZ achieved a mean reduction in systolic ABP of -19.1 ± 11.3 mmHg compared with -20.7 ± 12.0 mmHg with amlodipine (p = 0.324 for the comparison) and in diastolic ABP by -11.1 ± 7.4 mmHg vs -11.6 ± 7.2 mmHg by amlodipine (p = 0.853 for the comparison). The valsartan/HCTZ group exhibited markedly lower rates of adverse events and discontinuations than the amlodipine group. Peripheral oedemas were far more frequent with amlodipine than with valsartan/HCTZ (1.6% with valsartan/HCTZ; 16.8% with amlodipine). Thus, the valsartan 160 mg/HCTZ 25 mg combination appears to be as efficacious as amlodipine 10 mg in this patient population but better tolerated.

Safety and efficacy of sitaxsentan 50 and 100 mg in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension

Objective: To assess safety and efficacy of sitaxsentan 50 and 100 mg in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Background: Sitaxsentan is a highly selective endothelin-A receptor antagonist that was recently withdrawn by the manufacturer because of a pattern of idiosyncratic liver injury. Methods: Before sitaxsentan withdrawal, this 18-week double-blind, placebo-controlled study randomized patients with PAH to receive placebo or sitaxsentan 50 or 100 mg once daily. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in 6-min walk distance (6MWD) at week 18. Changes in World Health Organization (WHO) functional class and time to clinical worsening (TTCW) were secondary endpoints. The primary efficacy analysis was powered for sitaxsentan 100 mg versus placebo. Results: Of 98 randomized patients, 61% were WHO functional class II at baseline. Improvement from baseline to week 18 in 6MWD occurred with sitaxsentan 100 but not 50 mg; a strong placebo effect was observed. At week 18, WHO functional class was improved or maintained in more patients receiving sitaxsentan 100 mg than placebo (P = 0.038); 0% versus 12% of patients deteriorated, respectively. TTCW was not significantly different for 100-mg sitaxsentan patients than placebo (P = 0.090). Adverse events (AEs) occurring more frequently with sitaxsentan (50 or 100 mg) included headache, peripheral edema, dizziness, nausea, extremity pain, and fatigue; most AEs were of mild or moderate severity. Conclusion: Sitaxsentan 100 mg improved functional class but not 6MWD in PAH patients who were mostly WHO functional class II at baseline. No patient receiving sitaxsentan 100 mg experienced clinical worsening; sitaxsentan was well tolerated. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Efficacy of the combination of amlodipine and valsartan in patients with hypertension uncontrolled with previous monotherapy: the Exforge in Failure after Single Therapy (EX-FAST) study

In this randomized, double-blind, multicenter study, patients whose blood pressure (BP) was uncontrolled by monotherapy were switched directly to amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg (n=443) or 10/160 mg (n=451). After 16 weeks, BP control (levels <140/90 mm Hg or <130/80 mm Hg for diabetics) was achieved in 72.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68.6-76.9) of patients receiving amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg and in 74.8% (95% CI, 70.8-78.9) receiving amlodipine/valsartan 10/160 mg. Incremental reductions from baseline in mean sitting systolic and diastolic BP were significantly greater with the higher dose (20.0+/-0.7 vs 17.5+/-0.7 mm Hg; P=.0003 and 11.6+/-0.4 vs 10.4+/-0.4 mm Hg; P=.0046). Incremental BP reductions were also achieved with both regimens irrespective of previous monotherapy, hypertension severity, diabetic status, body mass index, and age. Peripheral edema was the most frequent adverse event. These results provide support for the BP-lowering benefits of complementary antihypertensive therapy with amlodipine and valsartan in patients with hypertension uncontrolled by previous monotherapy.

Exposure to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and weight loss and hospitalization in non-small cell lung cancer patients

Background. Cancer cachexia is a common syndrome complex in cancer, occurring in nearly 80% of patients with advanced cancer and responsible for at least 20% of all cancer deaths. Cachexia is due to increased resting energy expenditure, increased production of inflammatory mediators, and changes in lipid and protein metabolism. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), by virtue of their anti-inflammatory properties, are possibly protective against cancer-related cachexia. Since cachexia is also associated with increased hospitalizations, this outcome may also show improvement with NSAID exposure. ^ Design. In this retrospective study, computerized records from 700 non-small cell lung cancer patients (NSCLC) were reviewed, and 487 (69.57%) were included in the final analyses. Exclusion criteria were severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, significant peripheral edema, class III or IV congestive heart failure, liver failure, other reasons for weight loss, or use of research or anabolic medications. Information on medication history, body weight and hospitalizations was collected from one year pre-diagnosis until three years post-diagnosis. Exposure to NSAIDs was defined if a patient had a history of being treated with NSAIDs for at least 50% of any given year in the observation period. We used t-test and chi-square tests for statistical analyses. ^ Results. Neither the proportion of patients with cachexia (p=0.27) nor the number of hospitalizations (p=0.74) differed among those with a history of NSAID use (n=92) and those without (n=395). ^ Conclusions. In this study, NSAID exposure was not significantly associated with weight loss or hospital admissions in patients with NSCLC. Further studies may be needed to confirm these observations.^