Search

Background Mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists improve the prognosis for patients with heart failure and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. We evaluated the effects of spironolactone in patients with heart failure and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. Methods In this randomized, double-blind trial, we assigned 3445 patients with symptomatic heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 45% or more to receive either spironolactone (15 to 45 mg daily) or placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, aborted cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for the management of heart failure. Results With a mean follow-up of 3.3 years, the primary outcome occurred in 320 of 1722 patients in the spironolactone group (18.6%) and 351 of 1723 patients in the placebo group (20.4%) (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.04; P = 0.14). Of the components of the primary outcome, only hospitalization for heart failure had a significantly lower incidence in the spironolactone group than in the placebo group (206 patients [12.0%] vs. 245 patients [14.2%]; hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.99, P = 0.04). Neither total deaths nor hospitalizations for any reason were significantly reduced by spironolactone. Treatment with spiron olactone was associated with increased serum creatinine levels and a doubling of the rate of hyperkalemia (18.7%, vs. 9.1% in the placebo group) but reduced hypokalemia. With frequent monitoring, there were no significant differences in the incidence of serious adverse events, a serum creatinine level of 3.0 mg per deciliter (265 μmol per liter) or higher, or dialysis. Conclusions In patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction, treatment with spironolactone did not significantly reduce the incidence of the primary composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, aborted cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for the management of heart failure. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; TOPCAT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00094302.)

The hospitalist model is rapidly altering the landscape for inpatient care in the United States, yet evidence about the clinical and economic outcomes of care by hospitalists is derived from a small number of single-hospital studies examining the practices of a few physicians.We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 76,926 patients 18 years of age or older who were hospitalized between September 2002 and June 2005 for pneumonia, heart failure, chest pain, ischemic stroke, urinary tract infection, acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or acute myocardial infarction at 45 hospitals throughout the United States. We used multivariable models to compare the outcomes of care by 284 hospitalists, 993 general internists, and 971 family physicians.As compared with patients cared for by general internists, patients cared for by hospitalists had a modestly shorter hospital stay (adjusted difference, 0.4 day; P0.001) and lower costs (adjusted difference, $268; P=0.02) but a similar inpatient rate of death (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.05) and 14-day readmission rate (odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.05). As compared with patients cared for by family physicians, patients cared for by hospitalists had a shorter length of stay (adjusted difference, 0.4 day; P0.001), and the costs (adjusted difference, $125; P=0.33), rate of death (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.07), and 14-day readmission rate (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.04) were similar.For common inpatient diagnoses, the hospitalist model is associated with a small reduction in the length of stay without an adverse effect on rates of death or readmission. Hospitalist care appears to be modestly less expensive than that provided by general internists, but it offers no significant savings as compared with the care provided by family physicians.