Open Access

Vasopressin and ischaemic heart disease: more than coronary vasoconstriction?

Critical Care200913:169

https://doi.org/10.1186/cc7954

Published: 22 July 2009

Abstract

During advanced vasodilatory shock, arginine vasopressin (AVP) is increasingly used to restore blood pressure and thus to reduce catecholamine requirements. The AVP-related rise in mean arterial pressure is due to systemic vasoconstriction, which, depending on the infusion rate, may also reduce coronary blood flow despite an increased coronary perfusion pressure. In a murine model of myocardial ischaemia, Indrambarya and colleagues now report that a 3-day infusion of AVP decreased the left ventricular ejection fraction, ultimately resulting in increased mortality, and thus compared unfavourably with a standard treatment using dobutamine. The AVP-related impairment myocardial dysfunction did not result from the increased left ventricular afterload but from a direct effect on cardiac contractility. Consequently, the authors conclude that the use of AVP should be cautioned in patients with underlying cardiac disease.

In the previous issue of Critical Care, Indrambarya and colleagues compared a 72-hour infusion of arginine vasopressin (AVP) (infusion rate equivalent to 0.04 IU/min in a 70 kg human being), dobutamine (8.33 μg/kg/min) and vehicle in mice that had undergone myocardial ischaemia induced by a 1-hour ligation of the left anterior descending coronary artery [1]. While AVP did not affect heart function in sham control mice, echocardiography demonstrated a more pronounced fall in the left ventricular ejection fraction at day 1 after coronary ischaemia than in the vehicle-treated and dobutamine-treated animals, which had not resumed at day 3. Since the heart rate, blood pressure and end-diastolic volume remained unaffected, the decreased ejection fraction was affiliated with a reduced stroke volume. This difference in contractility coincided with a marked depression of the cardiac oxytocin receptor expression and, ultimately, a nearly doubled mortality at day 7.

How does Indrambarya and colleagues' study compare with the existing literature? Müller and colleagues reported recently in this journal that AVP dose-dependently reduced coronary blood flow in swine after transient myocardial ischaemia, which coincided with impaired left heart diastolic relaxation [2]. While other authors also highlighted its coronary vasoconstrictor properties [36], AVP more efficiently increased coronary blood flow in swine after closed-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation than adrenaline [7] and attenuated the otherwise progressive rise in troponin I blood levels during porcine faecal peritonitis-induced hypotension treated with noradrenaline [8]. Moreover, infusing AVP was devoid of adverse effects on the heart in patients after cardiac surgery [9, 10] and with cardiogenic shock [11, 12]. Finally, supplementing an ongoing noradrenaline infusion in patients with vasodilatory shock was associated with a sixfold reduction of new-onset tachyarrhythmias when infused to supplement [13].

Direct (that is, afterload-independent) myocardial effects unrelated to coronary vasoconstriction of AVP are also controversially discussed: positive inotrope properties [5] and negative inotrope properties [3, 4, 6] have been reported. Obviously, any coronary hypoperfusion assumes particular importance in this context: cardiac efficiency – that is, the product of left ventricular pressure times the heart rate normalized for myocardial oxygen consumption – was well maintained under constant flow conditions [14]. Unfortunately, the recent multicentre Vasopressin in Septic Shock Trial is inconclusive on this issue: cardiac arrhythmia and myocardial ischaemia events were identical in the two study groups receiving vasopressin or the standard noradrenaline treatment, but patients with cardiogenic shock, patents with congestive heart failure of New York Health Association class III or class IV, and patents with unstable coronary syndrome were explicitly excluded [15].

Can we reconcile these contradictory observations? Clearly, the model studied by Indrambarya and colleagues markedly differs from the previous studies: while the latter studies focused on short-term AVP infusion during vasodilatory shock with or without a cardiogenic component, the former investigated the effects of AVP over several days after myocardial ischaemia without overt circulatory shock [1]. In fact, none of the experimental groups presented with a major drop in mean blood pressure, and deterioration of behaviour, grooming, or activity level was not observed at all. Consequently, the adequacy of the model might be a matter for debate. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that the AVP effects were unrelated to any modification of cardiac loading parameters and were completely absent in sham-operated animals. Indrambarya and colleagues therefore elegantly demonstrate that cardiac ischaemia and subsequent reperfusion injury may specifically contribute to the deleterious side effects of AVP. This observation is in good agreement with previous authors reporting that increased circulating vasopressin levels predispose to persistent pronounced myocardial ischaemia [16], most probably as a result of an attenuated modulatory role of nitric oxide and the release of vasonconstrictor prostanoids [17].

Interestingly, although cardiac function was nearly identical in the three experimental groups at day 3 after myocardial ischaemia, mortality was significantly higher in the AVP-treated mice. The authors speculate that this observation mirrors sudden cardiac arrhythmia events, which are referred to an increased membrane excitability that results from a vasopressin-related blockade of cardiomyocyte ATP-dependent potassium (KATP) channels. Clearly, infusing vasopressin has been reported to induce arrhythmia (for example, torsade de pointes) even without evidence of myocardial ischaemia [18, 19]. In addition, the deleterious consequences of KATP channel blockade during myocardial ischaemia are well established [20]. Nevertheless, it remains open whether KATP channel blockade is the underlying mechanism of a vasopressin-related cardiac arrhythmia: KATP channel blockers (for example, glibenclamide) can prevent cardiac arrhythmia associated with myocardial ischaemia, and compounds selective for sarcolemmal KATP channels represent a new class of ischaemia-selective anti-arrhythmic drugs [21].

What can we conclude from the study by Indrambarya and colleagues? Safety issues on the clinical use of AVP remain a matter of concern. Given its vasoconstrictor properties, which are not accompanied by positive inotropic qualities such as in the case of its comparably potent standard care competitors – that is, the catecholamines noradrenaline and adrenaline – AVP may depress cardiac function as a result of impaired coronary blood flow despite increased coronary artery perfusion pressure. Indrambarya and colleagues now show that cardiac ischaemia may specifically contribute to (or even enhance?) the deleterious side effects of AVP independently of its afterload effects. Consequently, the authors caution the use of AVP in patients with underlying cardiac failure – in particular, ischaemic heart disease – thus further emphasizing a previous commentary in this journal: 'Vasopressin in vasodilatory shock: ensure organ blood flow, but take care of the heart!' [22].

Abbreviations

AVP: 

arginine vasopressin

KATP

ATP-dependent potassium.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Laboratoire HIFIH UPRES-EA 3859, IFR 132,Département de Réanimation Médicale et Médecine Hyperbare, Université d'Angers,Centre Hospitalier Universitaire
(2)
Sektion Anästhesiologische Pathophysiologie und Verfahrensentwicklung, Klinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsklinikum

References

  1. Indrambarya T, Boyd JH, Wang Y, McConechy M, Walley KR: Low-dose vasopressin infusion results in increased mortality and cardiac dysfunction following ischemia-reperfusion injury in mice. Crit Care 2009, 13: R98. 10.1186/cc7930PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Müller S, How OJ, Hermansen SE, Stenberg TA, Sager G, Myrmel T: Vasopressin impairs brain, heart and kidney perfusion. An experimental study in pigs after transient myocardial ischemia. Crit Care 2008, 12: R20. 10.1186/cc6794PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Wilson MF, Brackett DJ, Archer LT, Hinshaw LB: Mechanisms of impaired cardiac function by vasopressin. Ann Surg 1980, 191: 494-500. 10.1097/00000658-198004000-00017PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyle WA 3rd, Segel LD: Direct cardiac effects of vasopressin and their reversal by a vascular antagonist. Am J Physiol 1986, 251: H734-H741.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Walker BR, Childs ME, Adams EM: Direct cardiac effects of vasopressin: role of V 1 - and V 2 -vasopressinergic receptors. Am J Physiol 1988, 255: H261-H265.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Ouattara A, Landi M, Le Manach Y, Lecomte P, Leguen M, Boccara G, Coriat P, Riou B: Comparative cardiac effects of terlipressin, vasopressin, and noreinephrine on an isolated perfused rabbit heart. Anesthesiology 2005, 102: 85-92. 10.1097/00000542-200501000-00016View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Lindner KH, Prengel AW, Pfenninger EG, Lindner IM, Strohmenger HU, Georgieff M, Lurie KG: Vasopressin improves vital organ blood flow during closed-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation in pigs. Circulation 1995, 91: 215-221.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Simon F, Giudici R, Scheuerle A, Gröger M, Asfar P, Vogt JA, Wachter U, Ploner F, Georgieff M, Möller P, Laporte R, Radermacher P, Calzia E, Hauser B: Comparison of cardiac, hepatic and renal effects of arginine vasopressin and noradrenaline during porcine fecal peritonitis: a randomized, controlled trial. Crit Care 2009, 13: R113. 10.1186/cc7959PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dünser MW, Mayr AJ, Stallinger A, Ulmer H, Ritsch N, Knotzer H, Pajk W, Mutz NJ, Hasibeder WR: Cardiac performance during vasopressin infusion in postcardiotomy shock. Intensive Care Med 2002, 28: 746-751. 10.1007/s00134-002-1265-yView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Suojaranta-Ylinen RT, Vento AE, Pätilä T, Kukkonen SI: Vasopressin, when added to norepinephrine, was not associated with increased predicted mortality after cardiac surgery. Scand J Surg 2007, 96: 314-318.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Jolly S, Newton G, Horlick E, Seidelein PH, Ross HJ, Husain M, Dzavik V: Effect of vasopressin on hemodynamics in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 2005, 96: 1617-1620. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2005.07.076View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Mayr VD, Luckner G, Jochberger S, Wenzel V, Hasibeder WR, Dünser MW: Vasopressin as a rescue vasopressor agent. Treatment of selected cardiogenic shock states. Anaesthesist 2007, 56: 1017-1023. 10.1007/s00101-007-1227-4View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dünser MW, Mayr AJ, Ulmer H, Knotzer H, Sumann G, Pajk W, Friesenecker B, Hasibeder WR: Arginine vasopressin in advanced vasodilatory shock: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Circulation 2003, 107: 2313-2319. 10.1161/01.CIR.0000066692.71008.BBView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Graf BM, Fischer B, Martin E, Bosnjak ZJ, Stowe DF: Differential effects of arginine vasopressin on isolated guinea pig heart function during perfusion at constant flow and constant pressure. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1997, 29: 1-7. 10.1097/00005344-199701000-00001View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Russell JA, Walley KR, Singer J, Gordon AC, Hébert PC, Cooper DJ, Holmes CL, Mehta S, Granton JT, Storms MM, Cook DJ, Presneill JJ, Ayers D, VASST investigators: Vasopressin versus norepinephrine infusion in patients with spetic shock. N Engl J Med 2008, 358: 877-887. 10.1056/NEJMoa067373View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Sellke FW, Quillen JE: Altered effects of vasopressin on the coronary circulation after ischemia. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1992, 104: 357-363.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Diéguez G, Martínez MA, Fernández N, Climént AL, Monge L: Vasopressin effects on the coronary circulation after short ischemia in anesthetized goats: role of nitric oxide and prostanoids. Eur J Pharmacol 2004, 495: 171-177. 10.1016/j.ejphar.2004.05.035View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Mauro VF, Bingle JF, Ginn SM, Jafri FM: Torsade de pointes in a patient receiving intravenous vasopressin. Crit Care Med 1988, 16: 200-201. 10.1097/00003246-198802000-00020View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Faigel DO, Metz DC, Kochman ML: Torsade de pointes complicating the treatment of bleeding esophageal varices: association with neuroleptics, vasopressin, and electrolyte imbalance. Am J Gastroenterol 1995, 90: 822-824.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Suzuki M, Sasaki N, Miki T, Sakamoto N, Ohmoto-Sekine Y, Tamagawa M, Seino S, Marbán E, Nakaya H: Role of sarcolemmal K ATP channels in cardioprotection against ischemia/reperfusion injury in mice. J Clin Invest 2002, 109: 509-516.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Billman GE: The cardiac sarcolemmal ATP-sensitive potassium channel as a novel target for anti-arrhythmic therapy. Pharmacol Ther 2008, 120: 54-70. 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2008.07.004View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Dünser MW, Hasibeder WR: Vasopressin in vasodilatory shock: ensure organ blood flow, but take care of the heart! Crit Care 2006, 10: 172. 10.1186/cc5089PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© BioMed Central Ltd 2009

Advertisement