Author and year published | Pathologic substrate | Agent | Control | Hypothesis/Question | Pertinent findings | Potential Limitations |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nikolaidis et al. 2004 [37] | Myocardial ischaemia/reperfusion injury | GLP-1 (N=10) | Standard therapy post PPCI (N=11) | Can a 72-hour infusion of GLP-1 improve global and regional LV function for post infarct myocardial dysfunction following successful PPCI? | • GLP-1 therapy improved global LVEF (p<0.01) | • Small, single-centre, nonrandomized pilot study |
• GLP-1 improved regional (p<0.001) and global (p<0.001) WMSI | • Truncated 4-day follow-up window does not allow for extrapolation of results | |||||
• Improvements seen in diabetics and non-diabetics and after anterior and non-anterior MI | ||||||
• GLP-1 reduced hospital stay significantly (p<0.02) | ||||||
Sokos et al. 2006 [38] | Dilated Cardiomyopathy | GLP-1 (n=12) | Maximum standard therapy (n=9) | Can a 5-week subcutaneous infusion of GLP-1 improve both LVEF and functional capacity? | • LVEF improved significantly in the GLP-1 arm ((p<0.001) and was unchanged in the control arm | • Small, single-centre, open-label, nonrandomised study |
• Type I diabetics excluded but not Type II – potential source of confounding and increased incidence of hypoglycaemia | ||||||
• 6MWT distance improved significantly in the GLP-1 arm (p<0.001) | ||||||
• Quality of life improved significantly with GLP-1 (p<0.001) | • No mention of exact infusion volume – essential in a heart failure cohort | |||||
• Functional improvements seen in diabetics and non-diabetics | ||||||
Sokos et al. 2007 [39] | CABG surgery | GLP-1 (n=12) | Standard therapy (n=12) | Can peri- and postoperative GLP-1 administration improve haemodynamic recovery after CABG surgery? | • No difference in LVEF or cardiac index between the groups | • Small numbers despite randomisation |
• Control group required greater use of inotropic and vasoactive infusions | • Hypothesis-generating | |||||
• More frequent arrhythmias seen in control group | ||||||
Halbirk et al. 2010 [40] | Ischaemic cardiomyopathy | GLP-1 (n=10 crossover) | Saline (n=10 crossover) | GLP-1 can improve cardiac function and exercise capacity in non-diabetic patients with heart failure. | • Cardiac index and LVEF remained unchanged | • Small, single-centre study |
• BNP levels remained unchanged | • Active intervention with a 48-hour GLP-1 infusion may have been too short to mediate any improvement in cardiovascular indices | |||||
• Hypoglycaemic events related to GLP-1 treatment were seen in 8 patients | ||||||
• Trial protocol only completed in 75% of patients | ||||||
Read et al. 2010 [41] | Myocardial ischaemia (mediated by dobutamine stress) | Sitagliptin (n=14 crossover) | Placebo (n=14 crossover) | Increased availability of endogenous GLP-1 through DPP-4 inhibition will protect the heart against postischaemic LV dysfunction. | • Greater increase in myocardial performance after sitagliptin at peak stress (p=0.0001) | • Small study sample |
• Myocardial stunning seen in controls after dobutamine stress whereas sitagliptin maintained LV function | • Hypothesis-generating | |||||
• Sitagliptin had a greater beneficial effect on ischaemic vs. nonischaemic LV segments | ||||||
Read et al. 2011 [42] | Myocardial ischaemia/reperfusion injury | GLP-1 (n=10) | Saline (n=10) | Can GLP-1 protect the heart against ischaemic dysfunction associated with serial 1-minute coronary balloon occlusions during PCI and mitigate myocardial stunning? | • GLP-1 infusion improved recovery of LV systolic and diastolic function at 30 minutes post 1-minute coronary balloon occlusion compared with control (p=0.02) | • Study too small to assess any clinical endpoints |
• Coronary flow not assessed | ||||||
• GLP-1 infusion reduced LV dysfunction after a second 1-minute coronary balloon occlusion compared with control (p=0.01) | • Hypothesis-generating | |||||
Read et al. 2012 [43] | Myocardial ischaemia (mediated by dobutamine stress) | GLP-1 (n=14 crossover) | Saline (n=14 crossover) | Can GLP-1 protect the heart from ischaemic LV dysfunction and improve myocardial response to dobutamine stress? | • Greater increase in LVEF at peak stress during GLP-1 infusion | • Small study sample |
• No myocardial stunning seen during GLP-1 infusion | • Study not powered to examine clinical end points | |||||
• GLP-1 improved myocardial performance specifically in LV segments subtended by a stenosed vessel and did not in segments receiving an unobstructed blood supply | ||||||
Lønborg et al. 2012 [44] | Myocardial I/R injury | Exenatide (n=85) | Saline (n=87) | Can exenatide protect against reperfusion injury in STEMI patients following PPCI? | • Significantly greater myocardial salvage index in the exenatide group (p=0.003) post PPCI | • LVEF after 90 days was not significantly different between the two groups |
• Patients in the exenatide group developed significantly smaller infarcts for an equivalent area at risk (p=0.011) | • Study cohort too small to detect a difference in 30-day clinical events | |||||
McCormick et al. 2014 [45] | Myocardial ischaemia (mediated by dobutamine stress) | Sitagliptin (taken for 4 weeks) (n=19) | Standard oral hypoglycaemic agents (n=19) | Can chronic DPP-4 inhibition with sitagliptin protect the heart from ischaemic LV dysfunction and improve myocardial response to demand ischaemia during dobutamine stress in Type 2 diabetes patients with CAD | • No difference in the rate pressure products at baseline, peak stress, or recovery between the sitagliptin and control scans | • Small study sample |
• Cannot exclude degree of variation in individual response to dobutamine during 2 consecutive stress echocardiograms separated by a number of weeks | ||||||
• At peak stress there was a greater increase in global ejection fraction following sitagliptin therapy (p<0.0001) | ||||||
• At peak stress sitagliptin enhanced regional LV function – seen predominantly in ischaemic segments (p=0.001) whereas there was no effect in non-ischaemic segments (p=0.87) | • CAD defined by the presence of a single proximal stenosis >50% in at least 1 epicardial coronary artery – some might argue this level of obstruction would not be haemodynamically significant |