Skip to main content

Daily Cardiology Research Analysis

3 papers

Three clinically impactful cardiology studies stood out today: (1) a multicenter randomized trial showed amiloride is noninferior to spironolactone for resistant hypertension with similar blood pressure reduction and favorable tolerability; (2) a subgroup analysis of the STOPDAPT-3 trial cautions against immediate aspirin-free prasugrel monotherapy in high-bleeding-risk acute coronary syndrome; and (3) diastolic perfusion pressure predicted limited response to vasoactive escalation and potential

Summary

Three clinically impactful cardiology studies stood out today: (1) a multicenter randomized trial showed amiloride is noninferior to spironolactone for resistant hypertension with similar blood pressure reduction and favorable tolerability; (2) a subgroup analysis of the STOPDAPT-3 trial cautions against immediate aspirin-free prasugrel monotherapy in high-bleeding-risk acute coronary syndrome; and (3) diastolic perfusion pressure predicted limited response to vasoactive escalation and potential benefit from early VA-ECMO in cardiogenic shock.

Research Themes

  • Optimization of antihypertensive therapy in resistant hypertension
  • Personalizing antiplatelet strategies after PCI in high bleeding risk
  • Hemodynamic phenotyping to guide mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock

Selected Articles

1. Spironolactone vs Amiloride for Resistant Hypertension: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

84Level IRCTJAMA · 2025PMID: 40366680

In a 14-center randomized trial (n=118), amiloride was noninferior to spironolactone for reducing home systolic blood pressure at 12 weeks in resistant hypertension, with similar rates of achieving SBP <130 mmHg. Safety was favorable with only one discontinuation for hyperkalemia in the amiloride arm and no gynecomastia in either group.

Impact: This head-to-head randomized trial offers practice-changing evidence that amiloride can substitute for spironolactone in resistant hypertension, potentially avoiding endocrine adverse effects while maintaining efficacy.

Clinical Implications: Amiloride can be considered a first-line add-on alternative to spironolactone in resistant hypertension, particularly for patients at risk for spironolactone-related adverse effects (e.g., gynecomastia) or hyperkalemia monitoring constraints.

Key Findings

  • Amiloride achieved noninferiority to spironolactone for 12-week change in home systolic BP (difference −0.68 mmHg; 90% CI −3.50 to 2.14).
  • Achievement of SBP <130 mmHg was similar between groups at home and in-office measurements.
  • Safety profile was favorable: one hyperkalemia-related discontinuation in the amiloride arm and no gynecomastia in either group.

Methodological Strengths

  • Randomized, multicenter trial with blinded endpoint assessment.
  • Pre-registered noninferiority design with explicit margin and standardized run-in therapy.

Limitations

  • Modest sample size (n=118) and 12-week follow-up limit long-term safety/effectiveness inferences.
  • Open-label design may introduce performance bias despite blinded endpoint adjudication.

Future Directions: Longer-term, larger-scale RCTs comparing mineralocorticoid receptor antagonism vs epithelial sodium channel blockade on clinical outcomes (CV events, kidney function, adverse effects), and head-to-head comparisons across diverse populations.

2. Aspirin-Free Strategy for PCI in Patients With High Bleeding Risk With or Without Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Subgroup Analysis From the STOPDAPT-3 Trial.

77Level IIRCTCirculation. Cardiovascular interventions · 2025PMID: 40365675

In HBR patients undergoing PCI (n=3258), aspirin-free prasugrel monotherapy did not reduce major bleeding at 1 month regardless of ACS status. A signal of excess cardiovascular events, particularly myocardial infarction, was observed in ACS but not in non-ACS, suggesting aspirin-free strategies may be reasonable in non-ACS HBR but risky in ACS.

Impact: Provides timely randomized evidence to calibrate the rapidly adopted aspirin-free PCI strategies, highlighting differential risk by ACS status in HBR patients.

Clinical Implications: For HBR patients with ACS, avoid immediate aspirin-free prasugrel monotherapy given the signal for increased MI; DAPT remains favored. In non-ACS HBR, aspirin-free prasugrel monotherapy may be considered to balance bleeding and ischemic risk.

Key Findings

  • Among 3,258 HBR patients (1,803 ACS; 1,455 non-ACS), aspirin-free prasugrel monotherapy did not reduce major bleeding at 1 month versus DAPT in either subgroup.
  • A signal of excess cardiovascular events, especially myocardial infarction, was seen in ACS with aspirin-free strategy but not in non-ACS.
  • Findings support selective use of aspirin-free strategies post-PCI in non-ACS HBR, but caution in ACS.

Methodological Strengths

  • Randomized comparison within a large HBR cohort with ACS/non-ACS stratification.
  • Clinically relevant hard endpoints (bleeding, MI) at early post-PCI time point.

Limitations

  • Subgroup analysis; not powered primarily for ACS vs non-ACS interaction.
  • Short-term (1-month) bleeding assessment; longer-term ischemic/bleeding tradeoffs need evaluation.

Future Directions: Prospective trials tailoring aspirin discontinuation timing by ACS status and bleeding/ischemic risk, including longer-term outcomes and other P2Y12 inhibitors.

3. Diastolic Perfusion Pressure Predicts Response to Inotropes and Vasopressors and Benefit From Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock.

71.5Level IIICohortCirculation. Heart failure · 2025PMID: 40365681

In a CS cohort (n=93), lower diastolic perfusion pressure predicted limited improvement in cardiac power output index despite escalation of inotropes/vasopressors. Post hoc ECMO-CS analyses suggested patients with lower DPP might derive greater survival benefit from early VA-ECMO, supporting DPP as a pragmatic bedside metric for triage.

Impact: Bridges a critical evidence gap by linking a simple pressure-derived index (DPP) to drug responsiveness and potential benefit from mechanical support, enabling physiology-based personalization in cardiogenic shock.

Clinical Implications: Use DPP (DBP − RAP) to identify CS patients unlikely to respond to escalating inotropes/vasopressors and prioritize early VA-ECMO consideration; integrate DPP into shock team pathways for rapid triage.

Key Findings

  • Lower baseline DPP was associated with limited increase in cardiac power output index despite escalation of vasoactive inotropes/vasopressors.
  • In post hoc analyses of ECMO-CS, patients with lower DPP appeared to derive greater survival benefit from early VA-ECMO.
  • DPP offers a simple bedside hemodynamic metric to guide escalation to mechanical circulatory support.

Methodological Strengths

  • Objective hemodynamic endpoint (cardiac power output index) linked to vasoactive escalation.
  • Complementary evidence from a randomized trial dataset (ECMO-CS) via post hoc analysis.

Limitations

  • Single-cohort observational component with modest sample size (n=93).
  • Post hoc analysis in ECMO-CS; prospective validation of DPP-guided strategies is needed.

Future Directions: Prospective, randomized trials testing DPP-guided escalation (drug optimization vs early VA-ECMO) and validating DPP thresholds across etiologies of cardiogenic shock.