Chioncel Ovidiu, Mebazaa Alexandre, Farmakis Dimitrios, Abdelhamid Magdy, Lund Lars H, Harjola Veli-Pekka, Anker Stefan, Filippatos Gerasimos, Ben-Gal Tuvia, Damman Kevin, Skouri Hadi, Antohi Laura, Collins Sean P, Adamo Marianna, Miro Oscar, Hill Loreena, Parissis John, Moura Brenda, Mueller Christian, Jankowska Ewa, Lopatin Yury, Dunlap Mark, Volterrani Maurizio, Fudim Marat, Flammer Andreas J, Mullens Wilfried, Pang Peter S, Tica Otilia, Ponikowski Piotr, Ristic Arsen, Butler Javed, Savarese Gianluigi, Cicoira Mariantonietta, Thum Thomas, Bayes Genis Antoni, Polyzogopoulou Effie, Seferovic Petar, Yilmaz Mehmet Birhan, Rosano Giuseppe, Coats Andrew J S, Metra Marco
Emergency Institute for Cardiovascular Diseases 'Prof. C.C. Iliescu', Bucharest, Romania.
University of Medicine Carol Davila, Bucharest, Romania.
Eur J Heart Fail. 2025 Jun;27(6):1067-1088. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.3673. Epub 2025 May 4.
Acute heart failure (AHF) affects millions of people each year and vasodilators have been a central part of treatment for over 25 years. The haemodynamic effects of vasodilators vary considerably among individual agents. Some vasodilators, such as nitrates, primarily act on the venous system by redistributing the circulating blood volume away from the heart towards the venous capacitance system. Other vasodilators, such as nesiritide, lead to balanced vasodilatation in the arteries and veins, decreasing left ventricular afterload and preload. Considering mechanisms of action, intravenous vasodilators are thought to be effective in patients with AHF, particularly in those with acute pulmonary oedema, where increased cardiac filling pressures and elevated systemic blood pressures occur in the absence of, or with minimal systemic fluid accumulation. However, the 2021 European heart failure guidelines have downgraded the use of vasodilators due to two recent studies and several contemporary meta-analyses failing to show benefit in terms of survival. Thus, there remains no firm recommendation suggesting the use of vasodilator treatment over usual care. In addition, despite repeated efforts to develop new vasodilatory agents, no novel therapy has outperformed traditional AHF management. In parallel with the development of novel vasodilators, changing the design of clinical trials for AHF to consider phenotype diversity of AHF patients remains an unmet need. New randomized clinical trials should particularly focus on subgroups that may mechanistically derive benefit from vasodilators, which may entail moving enrolment of patients to clinical settings close to moment of decompensation, such as the emergency department.
急性心力衰竭(AHF)每年影响数百万人,在过去25年多的时间里,血管扩张剂一直是治疗的核心组成部分。不同的血管扩张剂其血流动力学效应差异很大。一些血管扩张剂,如硝酸盐类,主要作用于静脉系统,通过将循环血容量从心脏重新分配到静脉容量系统。其他血管扩张剂,如奈西立肽,可导致动脉和静脉的平衡血管扩张,降低左心室后负荷和前负荷。从作用机制来看,静脉血管扩张剂被认为对AHF患者有效,尤其是对那些急性肺水肿患者,这些患者在没有全身性液体潴留或仅有少量全身性液体潴留的情况下,会出现心脏充盈压升高和体循环血压升高。然而,由于最近的两项研究以及几项当代荟萃分析未能显示出生存获益,2021年欧洲心力衰竭指南对血管扩张剂的使用推荐等级进行了下调。因此,目前尚无明确建议表明血管扩张剂治疗优于常规治疗。此外,尽管多次努力开发新的血管扩张剂,但尚无新疗法优于传统的AHF管理方法。在开发新型血管扩张剂的同时,改变AHF临床试验的设计以考虑AHF患者的表型多样性仍是一项未满足的需求。新的随机临床试验应特别关注可能从血管扩张剂中获得机制性益处的亚组,这可能需要将患者纳入接近失代偿时刻的临床环境,如急诊科。