Search

Heart failure continues to significantly impact morbidity and mortality after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), especially when associated with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). Therefore, routine use of optimal therapy for patients with heart failure after AMI is needed in the future. Data from the Eplerenone Post–Acute Myocardial Infarction Heart Failure Efficacy and Survival Study (EPHESUS) has demonstrated that addition of eplerenone to standard therapy in patients with LVSD and clinical heart failure post-AMI significantly improves outcomes in these patients, providing the basis for acceptance of aldosterone blockade as an integral component of therapy. However, further studies are needed to more broadly explore the usefulness of aldosterone blockade in heart failure therapy. As research clarifies the many complex pathophysiologic processes involved in post-AMI remodeling, treatment should continue to move beyond symptom-targeted therapies to disease- and mechanism-targeted therapies that will further improve outcomes in the setting of heart failure post-AMI and beyond. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Combination therapy with benazepril 40 mg and amlodipine 10 mg (BDA) has been shown to be more effective than benazepril 40 mg and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg (BDH) in reducing cardiovascular (CV) events in high-risk patients with stage 2 hypertension with similar blood pressure reductions. In the present post hoc analysis, we evaluated whether BDA is more effective than BDH for reducing CV events in patients with known coronary artery disease (CAD) at baseline in a subgroup analysis of the Avoiding Cardiovascular events through COMbination therapy in Patients LIving with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) study. The main trial randomized 11,506 patients. Of those, 5,744 received BDA and 5,762 received BDH. Of the 11,506 patients, 5,314 (46%) were classified as having CAD at baseline. The mean patient follow-up period was 35.7 months for the BDA group and 35.6 months for the BDH group. The primary end point was the interval to the first event of composite CV morbidity and mortality. At baseline, significant differences were present between the 5,314 with CAD and the 6,192 without CAD. The patients with CAD had a lower systolic blood pressure and heart rate, a lower incidence of diabetes, and greater incidence of dyslipidemia. However, no baseline differences were found between the randomized BDA and BDH groups. In the patients with CAD, an 18% reduction occurred in the hazard ratio for CV events (primary end point) with BDA versus BDH (p [ 0.0016). In a prespecified secondary analysis of the composite end point, including only CV death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, the hazard ratio in the patients with CAD was reduced by 25% (p[0.0033) in the BDA group compared with the BDH group. BDA was more effective than BDH at comparable blood pressure reductions for reducing CV events in patients, regardless of the presence of CAD. In conclusion, our findings suggest that the combination of BDA should be preferentially used for older patients with high-risk, stage 2 hypertension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In randomized trials of secondary prevention, pravastatin sodium and aspirin reduce risks of cardiovascular disease. Pravastatin has a predominantly delayed antiatherogenic effect, and aspirin has an immediate antiplatelet effect, raising the possibility of additive clinical benefits. Methods: In 5 randomized trials of secondary prevention with pravastatin (40 mg/d), comprising 73 900 patient-years of observation, aspirin use was also prescribed in varying frequencies, and data were available on a large number of confounding variables. We tested whether pravastatin and aspirin have additive benefits in the 2 large trials (Long-term Intervention With Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease trial and the Cholesterol and Recurrent Events trial) that were designed to test clinical benefits. We also performed meta-analyses of these 2 trials and 3 smaller angiographic trials that collected clinical end points. In all analyses, multivariate models were used to adjust for a large number of cardiovascular disease risk factors. Results: Individual trials and all meta-analyses demonstrated similar additive benefits of pravastatin and aspirin on cardiovascular disease. In meta-analysis, the relative risk reductions for fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction were 31% for pravastatin plus aspirin vs aspirin alone and 26% for pravastatin plus aspirin vs pravastatin alone. For ischemic stroke, the corresponding relative risk reductions were 29% and 31%. For the composite end point of coronary heart disease death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, or ischemic stroke, the relative risk reductions were 24% and 13%. All relative risk reductions were statistically significant. Conclusion: More widespread and appropriate combined use of statins and aspirin in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease will avoid large numbers of premature deaths. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]