Search

Objectives: We tested the hypothesis that diastolic dysfunction (DD) was an important predictor of cardiovascular (CV) death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization in a subset of patients (ejection fraction [EF] >40%) in the CHARM-Preserved study. Background: More than 40% of hospitalized patients with HF have preserved systolic function (HF-PSF), suggesting that DD may be responsible for the clinical manifestations of HF. Methods: Patients underwent Doppler echocardiographic examination that included assessment of pulmonary venous flow or determination of plasma NT-pro-brain natriuretic peptide > or months after randomization to candesartan or placebo. The patients were classified into 1 of 4 diastolic function groups: normal, relaxation abnormality (mild dysfunction), pseudonormal (moderate dysfunction), and restrictive (severe dysfunction). Results: There were 312 patients in the study, mean age was 66 +/- 11 years, EF was 50 +/- 10%, and 34% were women. The median follow-up was 18.7 months. Diastolic dysfunction was found in 67% of classified patients (n = 293), and moderate and severe DD were identified in 44%. Moderate and severe DD had a poor outcome compared with normal and mild DD (18% vs. 5%, p < 0.01). Diastolic dysfunction, age, diabetes, previous HF, and atrial fibrillation were univariate predictors of outcome. In multivariate analysis, moderate (hazard ratio [HR] 3.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2 to 11.1) and severe DD (HR 5.7, 95% CI 1.4 to 24.0) remained the only independent predictors (p = 0.003). Conclusions: Objective evidence of DD was found in two-thirds of HF-PSF patients. Moderate and severe DD, which were found in less than one-half of the patients, were important predictors of adverse outcome. The results demonstrate the prognostic significance and need for objective evidence of DD in HF-PSF patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Heart failure (HF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are common partners. Bronchodilators are associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with pulmonary disease. The outcome of patients with HF prescribed bronchodilators is poorly defined., Methods and Results: The Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme randomized 7599 patients with symptomatic HF to receive candesartan or placebo. The relative risk conveyed by bronchodilator therapy was examined using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. The prevalence of bronchodilator therapy was similar in patients with reduced and preserved systolic function (respectively, 8.7 vs. 9.2%, P = 0.46). Beta-blocker utilization was markedly lower in patients receiving bronchodilators compared with those without (overall 31.9 vs. 57.6%, P < 0.0001). Bronchodilator use was associated with increased all-cause mortality [HR 1.26 (1.09-1.45), P = 0.0015], cardiovascular death [HR 1.21 (1.03-1.42), P = 0.0216], HF hospitalization [HR 1.49 (1.29-1.72), P < 0.0001], and major adverse cardiovascular events [HR 1.32 (1.17-1.76), P < 0.0001]. The adverse outcomes were consistent in patients with reduced and preserved systolic function. No significant interaction was observed between bronchodilators and beta-blockade with respect to outcomes., Conclusion: Bronchodilator use is a powerful independent predictor of worsening HF and increased mortality in a broad spectrum of patients with HF. Whether this relates to a toxic effect of bronchodilators, underlying pulmonary disease, or both is unclear and warrants further investigation.

The management of elevated blood pressure in patients at high cardiovascular risk is still a subject of debate. The authors review current international guidelines and results of large clinical trials and recent meta-analyses to discuss the different approaches in patients at high risk for cardiovascular events. The different treatment options are considered in view of the modern approach and of the different classes of drugs (diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, beta-blockers, and angiotensin II receptor blockers) currently in use. A case report is presented as an illustration of the difficulties related to the management of high blood pressure in patients at increased risk. The benefits of the use of 2 medications that include an inhibitor of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and a calcium channel blocker or a diuretic are discussed. Choosing the proper drugs and correct doses are important considerations for the long-term management of hypertension.

Objectives: This study sought to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of candesartan, according to baseline blood pressure (BP), in the 4,576 patients with a low ejection fraction (EF) (or=141 mm Hg) and 4 DBP categories (or=81 mm Hg)., Results: Low SBP and DBP were associated with worse clinical outcomes. Baseline BP did not modify the effects of candesartan on clinical outcomes: the interaction p value between SBP category and treatment was 0.38 (0.22 for DBP category). For both placebo and candesartan, study drug discontinuation for adverse effects (especially hypotension) was highest in patients in the lowest baseline BP categories. However, the relative risk of discontinuation for hypotension, renal dysfunction, and hyperkalemia in the candesartan compared with placebo group was not increased in patients with a low baseline BP., Conclusions: In patients with low EF heart failure, the relative risks and benefits of candesartan treatment were similar in patients with a low BP compared to those with a higher BP.

Aims: The curiosity that leanness is associated with poor survival in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) needs further insight by investigating the impact of weight loss on prognosis in a large sample of patients across a broad spectrum of both reduced and preserved left ventricular (LV) systolic function., Methods and Results: We investigated the change in weight over 6 months in 6933 patients in the Candesartan in Heart failure: Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme, and its association with subsequent mortality (1435 deaths) over a median 32.9 months follow-up using Cox proportional hazard models to account for the impact of body mass index and other risk predictors. We then used time-updated Cox models to relate each patient's ongoing data on annual weight change to their mortality hazard. The percentage weight loss over 6 months had a highly significant monotonically increasing association with excess mortality, both for cardiovascular and for other causes of death. Patients with 5% or greater weight loss in 6 months had over a 50% increase in hazard compared with those with stable weight. Weight loss carried a particularly high risk in patients who were already lean at study entry. Findings were similar in the presence of dependent oedema, preserved or reduced LV ejection fraction, and treatment with candesartan, although weight loss was significantly less common on candesartan. The time-updated analyses revealed an even stronger link between weight loss and short-term risk of dying, i.e. risk increased more than four-fold for patients whose last recorded annual weight loss exceeded 10%. Weight gain had a more modestly increased short-term mortality risk. Weight loss accelerates in the year prior to death., Conclusions: Weight loss and leanness are important predictors of poor prognosis in CHF. Being lean and losing weight is particularly bad. The detection of weight change, and particularly weight loss, should be considered as an adverse sign prompting further evaluation.

Aims: To determine whether the risk of adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes associated with diabetes differs in patients with low and preserved ejection fraction (EF) heart failure (HF)., Methods and Results: We analysed outcomes in the Candesartan in Heart failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme which randomized 7599 patients with symptomatic HF and a broad range of EF. The prevalence of diabetes was 28.3% in patients with preserved EF (>40%) and 28.5% in those with low EF (

Background: Most clinicians and teachers agree that knowledge about ECG is of importance in the medical curriculum. Students at Karolinska Institute have asked for more training in ECG-interpretation during their undergraduate studies. Clinical tutors, however, have difficulties in meeting these demands due to shortage of time. Thus, alternative ways to learn and practice ECG-interpretation are needed. Education offered via the Internet is readily available, geographically independent and flexible. Furthermore, the quality of education may increase and become more effective through a superior educational approach, improved visualization and interactivity., Methods: A Web-based comprehensive ECG-interpretation programme has been evaluated. Medical students from the sixth semester were given an optional opportunity to access the programme from the start of their course. Usage logs and an initial evaluation survey were obtained from each student. A diagnostic test was performed in order to assess the effect on skills in ECG interpretation. Students from the corresponding course, at another teaching hospital and without access to the ECG-programme but with conventional teaching of ECG served as a control group., Results: 20 of the 32 students in the intervention group had tested the programme after 2 months. On a five-graded scale (1- bad to 5 - very good) they ranked the utility of a web-based programme for this purpose as 4.1 and the quality of the programme software as 3.9. At the diagnostic test (maximal points 16) by the end of the 5-month course at the 6th semester the mean result for the students in the intervention group was 9.7 compared with 8.1 for the control group (p = 0.03)., Conclusion: Students ranked the Web-based ECG-interpretation programme as a useful instrument to learn ECG. Furthermore, Internet-delivered education may be more effective than traditional teaching methods due to greater immediacy, improved visualisation and interactivity.

Aims: To determine the cardiovascular benefits in those originally assigned atorvastatin in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-2.2 years after closure of the lipid-lowering arm of the trial (ASCOT-LLA)., Methods and Results: The Blood Pressure Lowering Arm of the ASCOT trial (ASCOT-BPLA) compared two different antihypertensive treatment strategies on cardiovascular outcomes. ASCOT-LLA was a double-blind placebo-controlled trial of atorvastatin in those enrolled into ASCOT-BPLA with total cholesterol concentrations at baseline of < or =6.5 mmol/L. A total of 19 342 hypertensive patients were enrolled in ASCOT-BPLA and 10 305 were further assigned either atorvastatin, 10 mg, or placebo. ASCOT-LLA was stopped prematurely after a median 3.3 years follow-up because of substantial cardiovascular benefits in those assigned atorvastatin. Trial physicians were invited to offer atorvastatin to all ASCOT-LLA patients until the end of ASCOT-BPLA. The primary outcome of ASCOT-LLA was combined fatal coronary heart disease (CHD) or non-fatal myocardial infarction. Secondary outcomes included all coronary events, all cardiovascular events and procedures, fatal and non-fatal stroke, cardiovascular mortality, all cause mortality, development of chronic stable angina, heart failure, and peripheral arterial disease. By the end of ASCOT-LLA, there was a 36% relative risk reduction in primary events (n = 254) in favour of atorvastatin [hazard ratio (HR) 0.64, 95% CI: 0.50-0.83, P = 0.0005]. At the end of ASCOT-BPLA, 2.2 years later, despite extensive crossovers from and to statin usage, the relative risk reduction in primary events (n = 412) among those originally assigned atorvastatin remained at 36% (HR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.53-0.78, P = 0.0001). For almost all other endpoints, risk reductions also remained essentially unchanged and in the case of all cause mortality, the risk reduction of 15% now achieved borderline statistical significance (P = 0.02)., Conclusion: Carry-over benefits from those originally assigned atorvastatin but no longer taking the drug may account for unchanged relative risk reductions in most cardiovascular endpoints observed 2 years after ASCOT-LLA closed.

Background: We wished to test previous hypotheses that sex-related differences in mortality and morbidity may be due to differences in the cause of heart failure or in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by comparing fatal and nonfatal outcomes in women and men with heart failure and a broad spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction., Methods and Results: We compared outcomes in 2400 women and 5199 men randomized in the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program using multivariable regression analyses. A total of 1188 women (50%) had a low LVEF (< or = 0.40), and 1212 had a preserved LVEF (> 0.40). Among the men, 3388 (65%) had a low LVEF, and 1811 had a preserved LVEF. A total of 1216 women (51%) and 3465 men (67%) had an ischemic cause of their heart failure. All-cause mortality was 21.5% in women and 25.3% in men (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.86; P<0.001). Fewer women (30.4%) than men (33.3%) experienced cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.91; P<0.001). The risks of sudden death (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.85) and death due to worsening heart failure (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.89) were reduced to a comparable extent. The adjusted risk of cardiovascular hospitalization was also lower in women (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.95), mainly because of a reduced risk of heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.97). Women had a lower risk of death irrespective of cause of heart failure or LVEF., Conclusions: Among patients with heart failure, women have lower risks of most fatal and nonfatal outcomes that are not explained, as previously suggested, by LVEF or origin of the heart failure.

Background: Bundle branch block (BBB) is a powerful independent predictor of cardiovascular mortality in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The prognostic implications in HF with preserved systolic function (HF-PSF) are less well understood., Methods: The Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme randomised 7599 patients with symptomatic HF to receive candesartan or placebo. The primary outcome comprised cardiovascular death or HF hospitalisation. The relative risk conveyed by BBB relative to a normal electrocardiogram was examined., Results: The prevalence of BBB was significantly lower in patients with preserved compared with reduced systolic function (CHARM-Preserved 14.4%, Alternative 29.6%, Added 30.5%), p<0.0001. Overall, the adjusted hazard ratio for the primary outcome was 1.48 (95% confidence interval 1.22-1.78), p<0.0001, reflecting increased risk in patients with reduced LVEF (1.72 [1.28-2.31], p=0.0003). The apparently more modest risk among patients with HF-PSF was significant in unadjusted (1.80 [1.37-2.37], p<0.0001) but not adjusted analysis (1.16 [0.88-1.54], p=0.2897). However, no formal statistical difference was observed between the two cohorts, and interpretation is limited by the unknown prevalence of left and right BBB morphologies in each. Comparing BBB presence with absence yielded qualitatively similar results., Conclusion: The simple clinical finding of BBB is a powerful independent predictor of worse clinical outcomes in patients with HF and reduced LVEF. It is less frequent, with a more modest predictive effect, in patients with preserved systolic function.

Aims: A prespecified objective of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT) was to assess whether any synergistic effects were apparent between the lipid-lowering and blood-pressure-lowering regimens in preventing cardiovascular events., Methods and Results: A total of 19 257 hypertensive subjects were randomized to an amlodipine-based regimen or an atenolol-based regimen. Of these, 10 305 subjects with total cholesterol < or =6.5 mmol/L were further randomized to atorvastatin 10 mg daily or placebo. In this analysis, the effects of atorvastatin were compared with placebo on coronary heart disease (CHD), cardiovascular and stroke events in those assigned amlodipine-based and atenolol-based regimens. In the ASCOT lipid-lowering arm (LLA), overall, atorvastatin reduced the relative risk of the primary endpoint of non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal CHD events by 36% (HR 0.64, CI 0.50-0.83, P=0.0005), total cardiovascular events by 21% (HR 0.79, CI 0.69-0.90, P=0.0005), and stroke by 27% (HR 0.73, CI 0.56-0.96, P=0.024). However, atorvastatin reduced the relative risk of CHD events by 53% (HR 0.47, CI 0.32-0.69, P<0.0001) among those allocated the amlodipine-based regimen, and by 16% (HR 0.84, CI 0.60-1.17, p: n.s.) among those allocated the atenolol-based regimen (P=0.025 for heterogeneity). There were no significant differences between the effects of atorvastatin on total cardiovascular events or strokes among those assigned amlodipine (HR 0.73, CI 0.60-0.88, P<0.005 and HR 0.69, CI 0.45-1.06, P: n.s., respectively) or atenolol (HR 0.85, CI 0.71-1.02, P: n.s and HR 0.76, CI 0.53-1.08, P: n.s, respectively). Differences in blood pressure and lipid parameters (placebo corrected) between the two antihypertensive treatment limbs could not account for the differences observed in CHD outcome., Conclusion: These findings of an apparent interaction between atorvastatin and an amlodipine-based regimen in the prevention of CHD events are of borderline significance, and hence generate an hypothesis that merits independent evaluation in other trials.

Aims: More treatments are needed to improve clinical outcomes in chronic heart failure (HF). It is, however, important that treatments for a condition as common as HF are affordable. We have carried out a prospective economic analysis of the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme., Methods and Results: Patients with NYHA class II-IV HF and LVEF < or =0.40 were randomized to CHARM-Alternative if intolerant of an ACE-inhibitor or to CHARM-Added if taking an ACE-inhibitor. Patients with a LVEF >0.40 were randomized in CHARM-Preserved. Each trial compared the effect of candesartan to placebo on the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Detailed information was prospectively collected on hospital admissions, procedures/operations and drugs. A cost-consequence analysis was performed for France, Germany and the UK for CHARM-Overall and a cost-effectiveness analysis for the low LVEF trials. The cost of candesartan was substantially offset by a reduction in hospital admissions, especially for HF. In the cost-consequence analysis, candesartan was cost-saving in most scenarios for CHARM-Alternative and Added but the marginal annual net cost per patient was upto 372 euros per year in CHARM-Preserved, in which candesartan did not reduce the primary outcome significantly. In the cost-effectiveness analysis of patients with a LVEF < or = 0.40, candesartan was cost-saving in some scenarios and in the others the maximum cost per life year gained was 3881 euros., Conclusion: Candesartan improves functional class, reduces the risk of hospital admission, and increases survival in patients with a HF and a LVEF < or =0.40 at an acceptable cost.

Although in the developed world the incidence of and mortality from coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke have been declining over the last 15 years, heart failure is increasing in incidence, prevalence and overall mortality, despite advances in the diagnosis and management of the condition. Hypertension, alone or in combination with CHD, precedes the development of heart failure in the majority of both men and women. Whilst there have been improvements in the overall management of hypertension, as reflected in rates of diagnosis, awareness, treatment and control of blood pressure (BP), there are still many patients with hypertension who remain undiagnosed or untreated and of those who do receive treatment many fail to achieve current targets for BP control. Placebo-controlled trials in hypertension, largely based on diuretic and beta-blocker-based regimens, have unequivocally demonstrated that the treatment of hypertension can significantly reduce the incidence of heart failure. Newer treatment strategies offer theoretical and proven practical advantages over established antihypertensive therapy. In particular, AT1-receptor blockers appear to provide benefits beyond BP control and are effective in the treatment of both hypertension and heart failure. Thus, the primary prevention of heart failure in hypertensive patients should be based upon strategies that provide tight and sustained BP control necessitating the use of multiple drugs. However, there is now compelling evidence to suggest that this therapy should include an antihypertensive agent that inhibits the reninangiotensin- aldosterone system (RAAS).

Background: We wished to determine the prevalence of, potential mechanistic associations of, and clinical outcomes related to anemia in patients with heart failure and a broad spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)., Methods and Results: In multivariable analyses, we examined the associations between hemoglobin and baseline characteristics, laboratory variables, and outcomes in 2653 patients randomized in the CHARM Program in the United States and Canada. Anemia was equally common in patients with preserved (27%) and reduced (25%) LVEF but was more common in black and older patients. Anemia was associated with ethnicity, diabetes, low body mass index, higher systolic and lower diastolic blood pressure, and recent heart failure hospitalization. More than 50% of anemic patients had a glomerular filtration rate <60 mL.min(-1).1.73 m(-2) compared with <30% of nonanemic patients. Despite an inverse relationship between hemoglobin and LVEF, anemia was associated with an increased risk of death and hospitalization, a relationship observed in patients with both reduced and preserved LVEF. There were 133 versus 69 deaths and 527 versus 352 hospitalizations per 1000 patient-years of follow-up in anemic versus nonanemic patients (both P<0.001). The effect of candesartan in reducing outcomes was independent of hemoglobin., Conclusions: Anemia was common in heart failure, regardless of LVEF. Lower hemoglobin was associated with higher LVEF yet was an independent predictor of adverse mortality and morbidity outcomes. In heart failure, the causes of anemia and the associations between anemia and outcomes are probably multiple and complex.

Background: Decreased renal function has been found to be an independent risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) with markedly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the prognostic importance of renal function in a broader spectrum of patients with CHF., Methods and Results: The Candesartan in Heart Failure:Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity (CHARM) program consisted of three component trials that enrolled patients with symptomatic CHF, based on use of ACE inhibitors and reduced (< or =40%) or preserved LVEF (>40%). Entry baseline creatinine was required to be below 3.0 mg/dL (265 micromol/L). Routine baseline serum creatinine assessments were done in 2680 North American patients. An analysis of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation and LVEF on risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, as well as on all-cause mortality, was conducted on these 2680 patients. The proportion of patients with eGFR <60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 was 36.0%; 42.6% for CHARM-Alternative, 33.0% for CHARM-Added, and 34.7% for CHARM-Preserved. During the median follow-up of 34.4 months (total 6493 person-years), the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for worsening CHF occurred in 950 of 2680 subjects. Both reduced eGFR and lower LVEF were found to be significant independent predictors of worse outcome after adjustment for major confounding baseline clinical characteristics. The risk for cardiovascular death or hospitalization for worsening CHF as well as the risk for all-cause mortality increased significantly below an eGFR of 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.54 for 45 to 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 and 1.86 for <45 mL/min per 1.73 m2 for the primary outcome, both P<0.001, and hazard ratio of 1.50, P=0.006, and 1.91, P=0.001, respectively, for all-cause mortality). The prognostic value of eGFR was not significantly different among the three component trials. There was no significant interaction between renal function, the effect of candesartan, and clinical outcome., Conclusions: Impaired renal function is independently associated with heightened risk for death, cardiovascular death, and hospitalization for heart failure in patients with CHF with both preserved as well as reduced LVEF. There was no evidence that the beneficial effect of candesartan was modified by baseline eGFR.

Aims: We aimed to develop prognostic models for patients with chronic heart failure (CHF)., Methods and Results: We evaluated data from 7599 patients in the CHARM programme with CHF with and without left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Multi-variable Cox regression models were developed using baseline candidate variables to predict all-cause mortality (n=1831 deaths) and the composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization (n=2460 patients with events). Final models included 21 predictor variables for CV death/HF hospitalization and for death. The three most powerful predictors were older age (beginning >60 years), diabetes, and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) (beginning <45%). Other independent predictors that increased risk included higher NYHA class, cardiomegaly, prior HF hospitalization, male sex, lower body mass index, and lower diastolic blood pressure. The model accurately stratified actual 2-year mortality from 2.5 to 44% for the lowest to highest deciles of predicted risk., Conclusion: In a large contemporary CHF population, including patients with preserved and decreased left ventricular systolic function, routine clinical variables can discriminate risk regardless of EF. Diabetes was found to be a surprisingly strong independent predictor. These models can stratify risk and help define how patient characteristics relate to clinical course.

Objective: To determine the effect of the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor ramipril on the secondary prevention of stroke., Design: Randomised controlled trial with 2x2 factorial design., Setting: 267 hospitals in 19 countries., Participants: 9297 patients with vascular disease or diabetes plus an additional risk factor, followed for 4.5 years as part of the HOPE study., Outcome Measures: Stroke (confirmed by computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging when available), transient ischaemic attack, and cognitive function. Blood pressure was recorded at entry to the study, after 2 years, and at the end of the study., Results: Reduction in blood pressure was modest (3.8 mm Hg systolic and 2.8 mm Hg diastolic). The relative risk of any stroke was reduced by 32% (156 v 226) in the ramipril group compared with the placebo group, and the relative risk of fatal stroke was reduced by 61% (17 v 44). Benefits were consistent across baseline blood pressures, drugs used, and subgroups defined by the presence or absence of previous stroke, coronary artery disease, peripheral arterial disease, diabetes, or hypertension. Significantly fewer patients on ramipril had cognitive or functional impairment., Conclusion: Ramipril reduces the incidence of stroke in patients at high risk, despite a modest reduction in blood pressure.