BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Elevated vasopressin may increase systemic vascular resistance and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, subsequently decrease stroke volume and cardiac output. Vasopressin receptor antagonists may counteract these effects and improve outcomes in heart failure. We aimed to assess benefits and harms of vasopressin receptor antagonists (VRAs) versus placebo in addition to standard care in adults with heart failure (HF). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials with searches of CENTRAL and MEDLINE to January 2014 and reference lists without language restriction. Meta-analysis using a random-effects model was done for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, hospitalization for heart failure, changes in clinical assessment of HF, serum sodium concentration (Na), kidney function and treatment-specific side effects. RESULTS: We identified 13 trials and 5,525 participants. In 10 trials, participants received standard therapy for HF. In low-quality evidence, VRAs in patients with HF had no effect on all-cause mortality risk ratios (RR 0.98; CI 0.88-1.08), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.03; CI 0.91-1.16) or change in creatinine mean difference (MD -0.01; CI -0.10 to 0.09 mg/dL), but reduced body weight by 0.8 kg from baseline (MD -0.83; CI -1.10 to -0.55 kg) and increased Na (MD 2.61; 95 % CI 1.88-3.35 mmol/L). Compared with placebo, VRAs increased the risk of adverse events by 14 % (RR 1.14; CI 1.04-1.26). Studies were generally limited to short-term follow-up with limited data available on patient important outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Vasopressin receptors antagonists may reduce body weight and increase Na but do not improve all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality or kidney function. In addition, acceptability of long-term treatment side effects and hospitalization appears problematic.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Elevated vasopressin may increase systemic vascular resistance and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, subsequently decrease stroke volume and cardiac output. Vasopressin receptor antagonists may counteract these effects and improve outcomes in heart failure. We aimed to assess benefits and harms of vasopressin receptor antagonists (VRAs) versus placebo in addition to standard care in adults with heart failure (HF). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials with searches of CENTRAL and MEDLINE to January 2014 and reference lists without language restriction. Meta-analysis using a random-effects model was done for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, hospitalization for heart failure, changes in clinical assessment of HF, serum sodium concentration (Na), kidney function and treatment-specific side effects. RESULTS: We identified 13 trials and 5,525 participants. In 10 trials, participants received standard therapy for HF. In low-quality evidence, VRAs in patients with HF had no effect on all-cause mortality risk ratios (RR 0.98; CI 0.88-1.08), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.03; CI 0.91-1.16) or change in creatinine mean difference (MD -0.01; CI -0.10 to 0.09 mg/dL), but reduced body weight by 0.8 kg from baseline (MD -0.83; CI -1.10 to -0.55 kg) and increased Na (MD 2.61; 95 % CI 1.88-3.35 mmol/L). Compared with placebo, VRAs increased the risk of adverse events by 14 % (RR 1.14; CI 1.04-1.26). Studies were generally limited to short-term follow-up with limited data available on patient important outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Vasopressin receptors antagonists may reduce body weight and increase Na but do not improve all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality or kidney function. In addition, acceptability of long-term treatment side effects and hospitalization appears problematic.
Authors: Donald Lloyd-Jones; Robert J Adams; Todd M Brown; Mercedes Carnethon; Shifan Dai; Giovanni De Simone; T Bruce Ferguson; Earl Ford; Karen Furie; Cathleen Gillespie; Alan Go; Kurt Greenlund; Nancy Haase; Susan Hailpern; P Michael Ho; Virginia Howard; Brett Kissela; Steven Kittner; Daniel Lackland; Lynda Lisabeth; Ariane Marelli; Mary M McDermott; James Meigs; Dariush Mozaffarian; Michael Mussolino; Graham Nichol; Véronique L Roger; Wayne Rosamond; Ralph Sacco; Paul Sorlie; Randall Stafford; Thomas Thom; Sylvia Wasserthiel-Smoller; Nathan D Wong; Judith Wylie-Rosett Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-02-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Lisa C Costello-Boerrigter; William B Smith; Guido Boerrigter; John Ouyang; Christopher A Zimmer; Cesare Orlandi; John C Burnett Journal: Am J Physiol Renal Physiol Date: 2005-09-27
Authors: Peter S Pang; Mihai Gheorghiade; Jamil Dihu; Karl Swedberg; Sadiya Khan; Aldo P Maggioni; Liliana Grinfeld; Faiez Zannad; John C Burnett; John Ouyang; James E Udelson; Marvin A Konstam Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: John J V McMurray; Stamatis Adamopoulos; Stefan D Anker; Angelo Auricchio; Michael Böhm; Kenneth Dickstein; Volkmar Falk; Gerasimos Filippatos; Cândida Fonseca; Miguel Angel Gomez-Sanchez; Tiny Jaarsma; Lars Køber; Gregory Y H Lip; Aldo Pietro Maggioni; Alexander Parkhomenko; Burkert M Pieske; Bogdan A Popescu; Per K Rønnevik; Frans H Rutten; Juerg Schwitter; Petar Seferovic; Janina Stepinska; Pedro T Trindade; Adriaan A Voors; Faiez Zannad; Andreas Zeiher Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2012-05-19 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Francisco Herrera-Gómez; Diana Monge-Donaire; Carlos Ochoa-Sangrador; Juan Bustamante-Munguira; Eric Alamartine; F Javier Álvarez Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2018-09-07 Impact factor: 4.241