Diuretics and Neurohormonal Medications


LEARNING OBJECTIVES

  • 1.

    Understand the benefits of medical treatment in mitral stenosis and regurgitation.

  • 2.

    Know which medications are indicated and their function in management of mitral stenosis and regurgitation.

  • 3.

    Gain insight into the preoperative management in patients with severe mitral stenosis and regurgitation.

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter we review the medical management for mitral stenosis and mitral regurgitation. We go over the pathophysiology of the disease process to understand which medications may be most useful. We will review the medications that are helpful for use in both valve diseases and indications for initiation. The main medications we will discuss are β-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers, nitrates and other after load reducers, as well as diuretics. We will review the preoperative treatment course for patients and medications that can be used to delay surgery or stabilize patients preoperatively. We hope this will be a valuable resource for understanding how to medically manage patients who have severe mitral valve disease.

MITRAL STENOSIS

Narrowing of the mitral valve impairs left atrial emptying which causes increased left atrial volume and pressure. This relationship between flow and pressure is quite profound when we consider that the pressure gradient for a given flow rate is a function of the square of the transvalvular flow rate. A doubling of flow rate would quadruple the pressure gradient. A 50% increase in flow would result in a 125% increase in pressure gradient. This causes increased back pressure into the pulmonary veins and ultimately pulmonary congestion. Given the relationship between heart rate and flow to the mitral valve gradient, reversible causes of increased heart rate and flow should be considered and treated if appropriate such as anemia, arrythmias, hyperthyroidism, or infection.

While medical therapy cannot relieve or alter the obstruction, it can help with decongestion to relieve symptoms. Narrowing of the mitral valve decreases left ventricular filling resulting in reduced cardiac output despite preserved left ventricular function. This increased back pressure causes elevation in pulmonary artery pressures which over time can be worsened by pulmonary artery vasoconstriction and changes of pulmonary artery hypertension that further elevate pulmonary pressures even out of proportion to left atrial pressure and results in right ventricular dysfunction.

Although pulmonary vasodilators address the pulmonary vasoconstriction and right ventricular dysfunction, increased flow to the left heart in advanced mitral stenosis can increase left atrial pressure and precipitate pulmonary edema. Thus, pulmonary vasodilators are contraindicated in the setting of significant mitral stenosis. Fortunately, pulmonary hypertension appears to improve over time at least partially after mechanical correction of mitral stenosis, with one study of 60 patients undergoing balloon valvuloplasty or surgical commissurotomy having an average decrease for pulmonary artery systolic pressure of 55 mm Hg preoperatively to 32 mm Hg 3-years postoperatively. Additionally, in contrast to mitral regurgitation, left ventricular (LV) filling is impaired, thus there is no role for afterload reduction as this can precipitate hypotension in an already underfilled ventricle.

Diuretics

Diuretics can help relieve symptoms when pulmonary congestion occurs from increased left atrial pressure. Salt and fluid restriction are advisable as well. In more advanced and severe mitral stenosis, pulmonary hypertension and right ventricular overload can also occur which may respond to diuretics as well. However, it is notable that a retrospective propensity matched study of 494 rheumatic heart disease patients did find patients with chronic diuretic use (versus intermittent diuretic use) was associated with increased risks of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 2.47, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.54 to 3.97, P < .001) and cardiovascular death (adjusted HR = 3.67, 95% CI: 1.95 to 6.89, P < .001). This is a notable association but in a retrospective propensity match study does not prove causation.

β-Blockers and Nondihydropyridine Calcium Channel Blockers

Left ventricular filling occurs in diastole and is impaired in mitral stenosis. While time in systole is relatively fixed, diastolic filling time is variable based on heart rate. Thus, by slowing the heart rate and increasing diastolic filling time, left ventricular filling is improved. Also, by slowing diastolic filling time the gradient across the mitral valve is decreased and left atrial pressure is lowered. β-blockers and nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers help by slowing heart rate and therefore increasing diastolic filling time and lowering flow rate. This results in reducing the transmitral gradient and secondarily reducing pulmonary congestion and pulmonary hypertension. β-blockers and nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers can also blunt the increase in heart rate associated with exertion and thus may have a role in reducing exertional symptoms.

Ivabradine

Although β-blockers are the standard of care in mitral stenosis, they are not always well tolerated. Ivabradine slows the heart rate by regulating the funny channel current in sinoatrial cells, thus it is only effective for patients in sinus rhythm and does not significantly lower blood pressure. In a randomized crossover study of 33 patients with mild-moderate mitral stenosis, they found ivabradine and metoprolol to be equally efficacious in reducing symptoms and improving hemodynamics compared with baseline. Mean gradient decreased 42% and 37%, respectively. Pulmonary artery systolic pressure was reduced by 23% and 27%, respectively. Exercise duration increased from 7.9 minutes at baseline to 10.6 and 10.3 minutes, respectively. A recent meta-analysis of five randomized trials of ivabradine versus β-blockers in mitral stenosis concluded ivabradine was comparable to β-blockers in relevant endpoints. They concluded ivabradine was better compared to β-blockers in total exercise duration (mean difference: 32.73 s [95% CI: 12.19, 53.27]; P = .002), maximum HR achieved after exercise (mean difference: −3.87 beats/min (95% CI: −5.88, −1.860; P = .0002), and work capacity (mean difference: 0.56 metabolic equivalents [METs] (95% CI: 0.33, 0.80; P < .00001); inferior to β-blockers in resting HR achieved (mean difference: 1.83 s (95% CI: 0.39, 3.28; P = .01); and comparable to β-blockers in terms of mean gradient (mean difference: −0.52 mm Hg (95% CI: −1.20, 0.16; P = .13).

You're Reading a Preview

Become a Clinical Tree membership for Full access and enjoy Unlimited articles

Become membership

If you are a member. Log in here