Search

OBJECTIVES The objective of this clinical trial was to evaluate the long-term effect of endothelin receptor antagonism with bosentan on the morbidity and mortality of patients with severe chronic heart failure. BACKGROUND Endothelin may play a role in heart failure, but short-term clinical trials with endothelin receptor antagonists have reported disappointing results. Long-term trials are lacking. METHODS In 2 identical double-blind trials, we randomly assigned 1,613 patients with New York Heart Association functional class IIIb to IV heart failure and an ejection fraction

Aims: \ud \ud Episodes of acute heart failure (AHF) unfavourably affect multiple organs, which may have an adverse impact on the outcomes. We investigated the prevalence and clinical consequences of abnormal liver function tests (LFTs) in AHF patients enrolled in the PROTECT study.\ud Methods and results: \ud \ud The LFTs comprised serial assessment of aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and albumin at baseline and during follow-up (daily until discharge, on days 7 and 14). The prevalence of abnormal LFTs (above upper limit of normal for AST and ALT or below lower limit of normal for albumin) was: at baseline AST 20%, ALT 12%, albumin 40%; and at day 14: AST 15%, ALT 9%, albumin 26%. Abnormal LFTs at baseline were associated with a higher risk of in-hospital death with odds ratios [95% confidence interval (CI)] of 3.5 (1.7–7.3) for AST, 3.9 (1.8–8.4) for ALT, and 2.8 (1.3–5.9) for albumin (all P < 0.01). Abnormal baseline and discharge LFTs had an unfavourable impact on 180-day mortality with hazard ratios (95% CI) for baseline AST, ALT, and albumin of 1.3 (1.0–1.7), 1.1 (1.0–1.2), 1.4 (1.1–1.8), respectively, and 1.5 (1.1–2.0), 1.5 (1.0–2.2), and 1.6 (1.2–2.1), for discharge AST, ALT, albumin, respectively (all P < 0.05). Analysis of LFTs trajectories (calculated as changes in LFTs over time) revealed that increasing AST and ALT on day 3 as well as decreasing albumin on day 4 were independent prognosticators of 180-day outcome (all P < 0.05).\ud Conclusions: \ud \ud Abnormal LFTs are frequent in AHF at baseline and during hospital stay and predict worse outcomes. Whether this association is causal and what are the underlying mechanisms involved require further study.

Aims: \ud \ud The course of patients following admission for acute heart failure (AHF) is of major importance to patients and healthcare providers. We examined predictors and associations of length of stay (LOS), 30-day post-discharge readmission and 90-day post-discharge mortality in 1990 patients enrolled in the PROTECT study.\ud Methods and results: \ud \ud PROTECT was a randomized study that examined the effect of the adenosine blocker rolofylline in patients within 24 h of admission for AHF with mild to moderate renal impairment. Geographic-region-adjusted multivariable models showed that LOS was only partly explained by the severity of heart failure (HF), comorbidities (diabetes mellitus, renal impairment, ischaemic heart disease) and degree of metabolic dysfunction (cholesterol and albumin) at baseline (adjusted R2 0.27). Addition of in-hospital worsening heart failure (WHF) and changes in metabolic markers contributed significantly to prediction of LOS [R2 difference 0.050, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.0282–0.072]. Thirty-day HF readmission was associated with more severe HF and previous HF admission but not with LOS (odds ratios 1.00, 95% CI 0.97–1.04). Death within 90 days after discharge was associated with older age, more severe HF, worse renal function, and lower sodium and bicarbonate at admission; LOS was a strong predictor of 90-day post-discharge mortality.\ud Conclusions: \ud \ud In patients admitted for AHF, LOS is not well-predicted by traditional markers of disease severity, but strongly associated with the occurrence of in-hospital WHF. Longer LOS is a strong predictor of early mortality after discharge but not of readmission. These findings may help focus efforts to reduce LOS and post-discharge outcomes on patients' subgroups at increased risk.

Aims and methods: \ud To: (i) describe the baseline characteristics of patients in ATMOSPHERE and the changes in the planned analysis of ATMOSPHERE resulting from the mandated discontinuation of study treatment in patients with diabetes; (ii) compare the baseline characteristics of patients in ATMOSPHERE with those in the Prospective comparison of Angiotensin Receptor neprilysin inhibitors with Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF); and (iii) compare the characteristics of patients with and without diabetes at baseline in ATMOSPHERE.\ud \ud Results: \ud A total of 7063 patients were randomized into ATMOSPHERE April 2009–April 2014 at 755 sites in 43 countries. Their average age was 63 years and 78% were men. ATMOSPHERE patients were generally similar to those in PARADIGM-HF although fewer had diabetes, renal dysfunction, and were treated with a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. In ATMOSPHERE, patients with diabetes differed in numerous ways from those without. Patients with diabetes were older and had worse heart failure status but a similar left ventricular ejection fraction (mean 28%); they had a higher body mass index and more co-morbidity, especially hypertension and coronary heart disease. Mean estimated glomerular filtration rate was slightly lower in those with diabetes compared with those without.\ud \ud Conclusion: \ud ATMOSPHERE will determine whether patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (particularly those without diabetes) benefit from the addition of a direct renin inhibitor to standard background therapy, including an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, beta-blocker, and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. ATMOSPHERE will also determine whether aliskiren alone is superior to, or at least non-inferior to, enalapril.

Previous heart failure (HF) trials suggested that age influences patient characteristics and outcome; however, under-representation of elderly patients has limited characterization of this cohort. Whether standard prognostic variables have differential utility in various age groups is unclear.The PROTECT trial investigated 2033 patients (median age 72 years) with acute HF randomized to rolofylline or placebo. Patients were divided into five groups based on the quintiles of age: ≤59, 60-68, 69-74, 75-79, and ≥80 years. Baseline characteristics, medications, and outcomes (30-day death or cardiovascular/renal hospitalization, and death at 30 and 180 days) were explored. The prognostic utility of baseline characteristics for outcomes was investigated in the different groups and in those aged80 years vs. ≥80 years. With increasing age, patients were more likely to be women with hypertension, AF, and higher EF. Increased age was associated with increased risk of 30- and 180-day outcomes, which persisted after multivariable adjustment (hazard ratio for 180-day death = 1.17; 95% confidence interval 1.11-1.24 for each 5-year increase). The prognostic utility of baseline characteristics such as previous HF hospitalization and serum sodium, systolic blood pressure, and NYHA class was attenuated in the elderly for the endpoint of 180-day mortality. An increase in albumin was associated with a greater reduction in risk in patients aged ≥80 years vs.80 years.In a large trial of acute HF, there were differences in baseline characteristics and outcomes amongst patients of different ages. Standard prognostic variables exhibit different utility in elderly patients.

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to investigate the predictive values of baseline and changes in cystatin C (CysC) and its derived equations for short-term adverse outcomes and the effect of nesiritide therapy on CysC in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). BACKGROUND Newer renal. biomarkers or their derived estimates of renal function have demonstrated tong-term prognostic value in chronic heart failure. METHODS CysC levels were measured in sequential plasma samples from 811 subjects with ADHF who were enrolled in the ASCEND-HF (Acute Study of Clinical Effectiveness of Nesiritide in Decompensated Heart Failure) biomarker sub-study (randomized to nesiritide therapy vs. placebo), and followed for all-cause death (180 days) and recurrent hospital stay (30 days). RESULTS Median CysC levels were 1.49 (interquartile range [IQR]: 1.20 to 1.96) mg/l at baseline, 1.56 (IQR: 1.28 to 2.13) mg/l. at 48 to 72 h, and 1.58 (IQR: 1.24 to 2.11) mg/l. at 30 days. Higher baseline (but not follow-up) CysC levels were associated with increased risk of 30-day adverse events and less improvement in dyspnea after 24 h as welt as 180-day mortality, although not incremental to blood urea nitrogen. Worsening renal function (defined as a 0.3 mg/l increase in CysC) occurred in 161 of 701 (23%) patients, but it was not predictive of adverse events. Changes in CysC levels were similar between the nesiritide and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS Our findings confirmed the prognostic value of baseline CysC levels in the setting of ADHF. However, worsening renal, function based on CysC rise was not predictive of adverse events. Nesiritide did not worsen renal function compared with placebo. (C) 2015 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

OBJECTIVES These studies conducted analyses to examine patient characteristics and outcomes associated with worsening heart failure (WHF). BACKGROUND WHF during an admission for acute heart failure (AHF) represents treatment failure and is a potential therapeutic target for clinical trials of AHF. METHODS Individual patient data from the PROTECT (Placebo-Controlled Randomized Study of the Selective A(1) Adenosine Receptor Antagonist Rolofylline for Patients Hospitalized with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure and Volume Overload to Assess Treatment Effect on Congestion and Renal Function) and RELAX-AHF (Relaxin in Acute Heart Failure) phase II and III studies were pooled for analysis. RESULTS Of 3,691 patients, death or WHF through day 5 occurred in 12.4%, ranging from 9.5% to 14.5% among studies. A multivariable model provided modest discrimination between patients who did or did not develop WHF (C-index = 0.68). After multivariable adjustment, WHF was associated with a mean increase in length of stay of 5.2 days (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.6 to 5.8 days) and increased risks of 60-day HF or renal failure readmission or cardiovascular death (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.34 to 2.01) and 180-day mortality (HR: 1.93, 95% CI: 1.55 to 2.41) (all p

Background:\ud Patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have a poor prognosis, and no therapies have been proven to improve outcomes. It has been proposed that heart failure, including HFpEF, represents overlapping syndromes that may have different prognoses. We present an exploratory study of patients enrolled in the Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Study (I-PRESERVE) using latent class analysis (LCA) with validation using the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM)-Preserved study to identify HFpEF subgroups.\ud \ud Methods and results:\ud In total, 4113 HFpEF patients randomized to irbesartan or placebo were characterized according to 11 clinical features. The HFpEF subgroups were identified using LCA. Event-free survival and effect of irbesartan on the composite of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalization were determined for each subgroup. Subgroup definitions were applied to 3203 patients enrolled in CHARM-Preserved to validate observations regarding prognosis and treatment response. Six subgroups were identified with significant differences in event-free survival (P < 0.001). Clinical profiles and prognoses of the six subgroups were similar in CHARM-Preserved. The two subgroups with the worst event-free survival in both studies were characterized by a high prevalence of obesity, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes mellitus, anaemia, and renal insufficiency (Subgroup C) and by female predominance, advanced age, lower body mass index, and high rates of atrial fibrillation, valvular disease, renal insufficiency, and anaemia (Subgroup F).\ud \ud Conclusion:\ud Using a data-driven approach, we identified HFpEF subgroups with significantly different prognoses. Further development of this approach for characterizing HFpEF subgroups is warranted.

AimsThe implications of geographical variation are unknown following adjustment for hospital length of stay (LOS) in heart failure (HF) trials that included patients whether or not they had systolic dysfunction. We investigated regional differences in an international acute HF trial. Methods and resultsThe PROTECT trial investigated 2033 patients with acute HF and renal dysfunction hospitalized at 173 sites in 17 countries with randomization to rolofylline or placebo. We grouped enrolling countries into six regions. Baseline characteristics, in-hospital management, and outcomes were explored by region. The primary study outcome was 60-day mortality or cardiovascular/renal hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included 180-day mortality. Of 2033 patients, 33% were from Eastern Europe, 19% from Western Europe, 16% from Israel, 15% from North America, 14% from Russia, and 3% from Argentina. Marked differences in baseline characteristics, HF phenotype, in-hospital diuretic and vasodilator strategies, and LOS were observed by region. LOS was shortest in North America and Israel (median 5 days) and longest in Russia (median 15 days). Regional event rates varied significantly. Following multivariable adjustment, region was an independent predictor of the risk of mortality/hospitalization at 60 days, with the lowest risk in Russia (hazard ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.23-0.64 vs. Western Europe) due to lower rehospitalization; mortality differences were attenuated by 180 days. ConclusionsIn an international HF trial, there were differences in baseline characteristics, treatments, LOS, and rehospitalization amongst regions, but little difference in longer term mortality. Rehospitalization differences exist independent of LOS. This analysis may help inform future trial design and should be externally validated.

Background: Higher heart rate is associated with poorer outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction ( HF-REF ). Less is known about the association between heart rate and outcomes in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction ( HF-PEF ). Therefore, we examined the relationship between heart rate and outcomes in the irbesartan in patients with heart failure and preserved systolic function trial ( I-Preserve ) in patients with an ejection fraction > 45% aged > 60 years. Methods and results: Heart rate was analysed as both a categorical ( tertiles ) and continuous variable. Patients in sinus rhythm ( n = 3271 ) and atrial fibrillation ( n = 696 ) were analysed separately. The outcomes examined were the primary endpoint of the trial ( all-cause death or cardiovascular hospitalization ), the composite of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization ( and its components ) and all-cause death alone. Higher heart rate was associated with a significantly higher risk of all outcomes studied for patients in sinus rhythm, even after adjustment for other prognostic variables, including N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide. Each standard deviation ( 12.4 bpm ) increase in heart rate was associated with an increase in risk of 13% for cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization ( P = 0.002 ). No relationship between heart rate and outcomes was observed for patients in atrial fibrillation. Beta-blocker treatment did not reduce the heart rate–risk relationship. Conclusions: In patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction, heart rate is in sinus rhythm an independent predictor of adverse clinical outcomes and might be a therapeutic target in this syndrome.

Acute heart failure (AHF) is a common and serious condition that contributes to about 5% of all emergency hospital admissions in Europe and the USA. Here, we present the recommendations from structured discussions among an author group of AHF experts in 2013. The epidemiology of AHF and current practices in diagnosis, treatment, and long‐term care for patients with AHF in Europe and the USA are examined. Available evidence indicates variation in the quality of care across hospitals and regions. Challenges include the need for rapid diagnosis and treatment, the heterogeneity of precipitating factors, and the typical repeated episodes of decompensation requiring admission to hospital for stabilization. In hospital, care should involve input from an expert in AHF and auditing to ensure that guidelines and protocols for treatment are implemented for all patients. A smooth transition to follow‐up care is vital. Patient education programmes could have a dramatic effect on improving outcomes. Information technology should allow, where appropriate, patient telemonitoring and sharing of medical records. Where needed, access to end‐of‐life care and support for all patients, families, and caregivers should form part of a high‐quality service. Eight evidence‐based consensus policy recommendations are identified by the author group: optimize patient care transitions, improve patient education and support, provide equity of care for all patients, appoint experts to lead AHF care across disciplines, stimulate research into new therapies, develop and implement better measures of care quality, improve end‐of‐life care, and promote heart failure prevention.

Objectives. We sought to evaluate the current evidence for an effect of beta-blockade treatment on mortality in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF).Background. Although numerous small studies have suggested a benefit with beta-blocker therapy in patients with heart failure, a clear survival benefit has not been demonstrated. A recent combined analysis of several studies with the alpha- and beta-adrenergic blocking agent carvedilol demonstrated a significant survival advantage; however, the total number of events was small. Furthermore, it is unclear if previous studies with other beta-blockers are consistent with this finding.Methods. Randomized clinical trials of beta-blockade treatment in patients with CHF from January 1975 through February 1997 were identified using a MEDLINE search and a review of reports from scientific meetings. Studies were included if mortality was reported during 3 or more months of follow-up.Results. We identified 35 reports, 17 of which met the inclusion criteria. These studies included 3,039 patients with follow-up ranging from 3 months to 2 years. Beta-blockade was associated with a trend toward mortality reduction in 13 studies. When all 17 reports were combined, beta-blockade significantly reduced all-cause mortality (random effect odds ratio [OR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54 to 0.88). A trend toward greater treatment effect was noted for nonsudden cardiac death (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.83) compared with sudden cardiac death (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.2). Similar reductions in mortality were observed for patients with ischemic (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.98) and nonischemic cardiomyopathy (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.99). The survival benefit was greater for trials of the drug carvedilol (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.81) than for noncarvedilol drugs (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.12); however, the difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.10).Conclusions. Pooled evidence suggests that beta-blockade reduces all-cause mortality in patients with CHF. Additional trials are required to determine whether carvedilol differs in its effect from other agents.(J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;30:27–34)

BackgroundThe Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction (WARCEF) trial found no difference in the primary outcome between warfarin and aspirin in 2305 patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction in sinus rhythm. However, it is unknown whether any subgroups benefit from warfarin or aspirin.Methods and resultsWe used a Cox model stepwise selection procedure to identify subgroups that may benefit from warfarin or aspirin on the WARCEF primary outcome. A secondary analysis added major hemorrhage to the outcome. The primary efficacy outcome was time to the first to occur of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death. Only age group was a significant treatment effect modifier (P for interaction, 0.003). Younger patients benefited from warfarin over aspirin on the primary outcome (4.81 versus 6.76 events per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.84; P=0.001). In older patients, therapies did not differ (9.91 versus 9.01 events per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.35; P=0.44). With major hemorrhage added, in younger patients the event rate remained lower for warfarin than aspirin (5.41 versus 7.25 per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.89; P=0.005), but in older patients it became significantly higher for warfarin (11.80 versus 9.35 per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.53; P=0.03).ConclusionsIn patients

Objectives This study sought to assess the effects of rolofylline on renal function in patients with acute heart failure (AHF) and renal dysfunction randomized in PROTECT (Placebo-Controlled Randomized Study of the Selective A(1) Adenosine Receptor Antagonist Rolofylline for Patients Hospitalized With Acute Decompensated Heart Failure and Volume Overload to Assess Treatment Effect on Congestion and Renal Function). Background Small studies have indicated that adenosine A(1) receptor antagonists enhance diuresis and may improve renal function in patients with chronic heart failure or AHF. Methods A total of 2,033 patients with AHF, volume overload, estimated creatinine clearance between 20 and 80 ml/min, and elevated natriuretic peptide levels were randomized (2: 1) within 24 h of hospital presentation to rolofylline 30 mg/day or intravenous placebo for up to 3 days. Creatinine was measured daily until discharge or day 7 and on day 14. Persistent worsening renal function was defined as an increase in serum creatinine >= 0.3 mg/dl at both days 7 and 14, or initiation of hemofiltration or dialysis or death by day 7. Results At baseline, mean +/- SD estimated creatinine clearance was 51.0 +/- 20.5 ml/min in the placebo group and 50.4 +/- 20.0 ml/min in the rolofylline group. Changes in creatinine and estimated creatinine clearance were similar between placebo-and rolofylline-treated patients during hospitalization and at day 14. After 4 days, mean body weight was reduced by 2.6 and 3.0 kg in placebo and rolofylline patients, respectively (p = 0.005). Persistent worsening renal function occurred in 13.7% of the placebo group and 15.0% of the rolofylline group (odds ratio vs. placebo: 1.11 [95% confidence interval: 0.85 to 1.46]; p = 0.44). Conclusions In this large, phase III clinical trial, the adenosine A(1) receptor antagonist rolofylline did not prevent persistent worsening renal function in AHF patients with volume overload and renal dysfunction. (A Study of the Selective A(1) Adenosine Receptor Antagonist KW-3902 for Patients Hospitalized With Acute HF and Volume Overload to Assess Treatment Effect on Congestion and Renal Function [PROTECT-1], NCT00328692; and [PROTECT-2], NCT00354458) (J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;57:1899-907) (C) 2011 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation

Objectives. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of flosequinan in chronic heart failure. Background. Flosequinan is a new vasodilator drug that acts by interfering with the inositol-triphosphate/protein kinase C pathway, an important mechanism of vasoconstriction. The drug dilates both peripheral arteries and veins, is orally active and has a long duration of action that permits once-daily dosing. Previous studies have shown that flosequinan produces sustained hemodynamic benefits in heart failure, but large scale studies evaluating its clinical efficacy have not been reported. Methods. One hundred ninety-three patients with chronic heart failure (New York Heart Association functional class II or III and left ventricular ejection fraction

Background: Worsening renal function, which is associated with adverse outcomes, often develops in patients with acute heart failure. Experimental and clinical studies suggest that counterregulatory responses mediated by adenosine may be involved. We tested the hypothesis that the use of rolofylline, an adenosine A(sub 1)-receptor antagonist, would improve dyspnea, reduce the risk of worsening renal function, and lead to a more favorable clinical course in patients with acute heart failure. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients hospitalized for acute heart failure with impaired renal function. Within 24 hours after presentation, 2033 patients were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive daily intravenous rolofylline (30 mg) or placebo for up to 3 days. The primary end point was treatment success, treatment failure, or no change in the patient's clinical condition; this end point was defined according to survival, heart-failure status, and changes in renal function. Secondary end points were the post-treatment development of persistent renal impairment and the 60-day rate of death or readmission for cardiovascular or renal causes. Results: Rolofylline, as compared with placebo, did not provide a benefit with respect to the primary end point (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 1.09; P=0.35). Persistent renal impairment developed in 15.0% of patients in the rolofylline group and in 13.7% of patients in the placebo group (P=0.44). By 60 days, death or readmission for cardiovascular or renal causes had occurred in similar proportions of patients assigned to rolofylline and placebo (30.7% and 31.9%, respectively; P=0.86). Adverse-event rates were similar overall; however, only patients in the rolofylline group had seizures, a known potential adverse effect of A(sub 1)-receptor antagonists. Conclusions: Rolofylline did not have a favorable effect with respect to the primary clinical composite end point, nor did it improve renal function or 60-day outcomes. It does not show promise in the treatment of acute heart failure with renal dysfunction. (Funded by NovaCardia, a subsidiary of Merck; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00328692 and NCT00354458.) N Engl J Med 2010;363:1419-28.

Background: \ud Worsening renal function, which is associated with adverse outcomes, often develops\ud in patients with acute heart failure. Experimental and clinical studies suggest that\ud counterregulatory responses mediated by adenosine may be involved. We tested the\ud hypothesis that the use of rolofylline, an adenosine A1−receptor antagonist, would\ud improve dyspnea, reduce the risk of worsening renal function, and lead to a more\ud favorable clinical course in patients with acute heart failure.\ud Methods: \ud We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients\ud hospitalized for acute heart failure with impaired renal function. Within 24 hours\ud after presentation, 2033 patients were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive\ud daily intravenous rolofylline (30 mg) or placebo for up to 3 days. The primary end\ud point was treatment success, treatment failure, or no change in the patient’s clinical\ud condition; this end point was defined according to survival, heart-failure status,\ud and changes in renal function. Secondary end points were the post-treatment development\ud of persistent renal impairment and the 60-day rate of death or readmission\ud for cardiovascular or renal causes.\ud Results: \ud Rolofylline, as compared with placebo, did not provide a benefit with respect to the\ud primary end point (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 1.09; P=0.35).\ud Persistent renal impairment developed in 15.0% of patients in the rolofylline group\ud and in 13.7% of patients in the placebo group (P=0.44). By 60 days, death or readmission\ud for cardiovascular or renal causes had occurred in similar proportions of patients\ud assigned to rolofylline and placebo (30.7% and 31.9%, respectively; P=0.86).\ud Adverse-event rates were similar overall; however, only patients in the rolofylline\ud group had seizures, a known potential adverse effect of A1-receptor antagonists.\ud Conclusions: \ud Rolofylline did not have a favorable effect with respect to the primary clinical composite\ud end point, nor did it improve renal function or 60-day outcomes. It does not\ud show promise in the treatment of acute heart failure with renal dysfunction. (Funded\ud by NovaCardia, a subsidiary of Merck; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00328692\ud and NCT00354458.)

This paper details the substance and recommendations arising from a meeting convened by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in August 2009, to assess the challenges and opportunities of emergency department management of acute heart failure syndrome (AHFS). The assembled faculty represented a large cross section of medical professionals spanning the medical management continuum of patients presenting with acute heart failure and included heart failure cardiologists, emergency physicians, laboratory medicine specialists, nurses, and bench scientists. Their recommendations include proposals regarding the design and conduct of emergency department-based clinical trials, suggestions regarding the development of improved methods for early detection and monitoring of AHFS, and potential needs for expanding translational and applied AHFS focused research and biotechnology. We anticipate that this review will serve as a starting point for future investigations across the spectrum of funding sources.

There has been ongoing controversy as to whether aspirin should be used in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). The argument for aspirin is that many patients have underlying coronary disease, and aspirin prevents reinfarction and other vascular events. Arguments against the routine use of aspirin are that many CHF patients do not have underlying coronary disease, and that the benefit of aspirin lessens after the first 6 to 12 months after infarction. Also, several analyses suggest that aspirin may actually worsen outcomes in CHF patients, possibly because it inhibits prostaglandins, with resulting adverse hemodynamic and renal effects. Two recent prospective randomized studies have found that aspirin is associated with more frequent hospitalizations for worsening heart failure, although it did not have an adverse effect on vascular events. These results suggest that aspirin should not be routinely used in CHF patients and be avoided in those with refractory CHF, but that it may be beneficial in patients with recent infarction or multiple vascular risk factors.

ObjectivesThis study sought to assess the effects of rolofylline on renal function in patients with acute heart failure (AHF) and renal dysfunction randomized in PROTECT (Placebo-Controlled Randomized Study of the Selective A1 Adenosine Receptor Antagonist Rolofylline for Patients Hospitalized With Acute Decompensated Heart Failure and Volume Overload to Assess Treatment Effect on Congestion and Renal Function).BackgroundSmall studies have indicated that adenosine A1 receptor antagonists enhance diuresis and may improve renal function in patients with chronic heart failure or AHF.MethodsA total of 2,033 patients with AHF, volume overload, estimated creatinine clearance between 20 and 80 ml/min, and elevated natriuretic peptide levels were randomized (2:1) within 24 h of hospital presentation to rolofylline 30 mg/day or intravenous placebo for up to 3 days. Creatinine was measured daily until discharge or day 7 and on day 14. Persistent worsening renal function was defined as an increase in serum creatinine ≥0.3 mg/dl at both days 7 and 14, or initiation of hemofiltration or dialysis or death by day 7.ResultsAt baseline, mean ± SD estimated creatinine clearance was 51.0 ± 20.5 ml/min in the placebo group and 50.4 ± 20.0 ml/min in the rolofylline group. Changes in creatinine and estimated creatinine clearance were similar between placebo- and rolofylline-treated patients during hospitalization and at day 14. After 4 days, mean body weight was reduced by 2.6 and 3.0 kg in placebo and rolofylline patients, respectively (p = 0.005). Persistent worsening renal function occurred in 13.7% of the placebo group and 15.0% of the rolofylline group (odds ratio vs. placebo: 1.11 [95% confidence interval: 0.85 to 1.46]; p = 0.44).ConclusionsIn this large, phase III clinical trial, the adenosine A1 receptor antagonist rolofylline did not prevent persistent worsening renal function in AHF patients with volume overload and renal dysfunction. (A Study of the Selective A1 Adenosine Receptor Antagonist KW-3902 for Patients Hospitalized With Acute HF and Volume Overload to Assess Treatment Effect on Congestion and Renal Function [PROTECT-1], NCT00328692; and [PROTECT-2], NCT00354458)

ObjectivesThis study sought to assess the pharmacokinetics and clinical effects of oral BG9928 in heart failure (HF) patients.BackgroundDeclining renal function during HF treatment is associated with poor outcomes. BG9928, a selective inhibitor of the A1adenosine receptor, is proposed to cause natriuresis without causing a decline in renal function.MethodsA randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in patients with HF and systolic dysfunction who were receiving standard therapy. Patients were randomized to receive BG9928 (3, 15, 75, or 225 mg) or placebo orally for 10 days. The primary end point was change in sodium excretion. Changes in potassium excretion, creatinine clearance, and body weight also were evaluated.ResultsA total of 50 patients were studied. BG9928 increased sodium excretion compared with placebo, and natriuresis was maintained over 10 days with little kaliuresis. A linear trend in dose response was observed on day 1 (p = 0.04) but not on days 6 or 10. Adjusted creatinine clearance was unchanged over the 10 days. Patients who received 15, 75, or 225 mg of BG9928 had a reduction in body weight compared with placebo (−0.6, −0.7, −0.5, vs. +0.3 kg, respectively) at the end of study. BG9928 was well tolerated. The pharmacokinetic profile of BG9928 was consistent with once-daily dosing.ConclusionsOral BG9928 over the dose range of 3 to 225 mg/day produced significant increases in sodium excretion in patients with stable HF without causing kaliuresis or reducing renal function.