Search

Abstract: 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. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is frequent in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). Experimental and small patient studies have demonstrated that blocking the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system may prevent AF. In the CHARM program, the effects of the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan on cardiovascular mortality and morbidity were evaluated in a broad spectrum of patients with symptomatic CHF. CHARM provided the opportunity to prospectively determine the effect of candesartan on the incidence of new AF in this CHF population.Methods: 7601 patients with symptomatic CHF and reduced or preserved left ventricular systolic function were randomized to candesartan (target dose 32 mg once daily, mean dose 24 mg) or placebo in the 3 component trials of CHARM. The major outcomes were cardiovascular death or CHF hospitalization and all-cause mortality. The incidence of new AF was a prespecified secondary outcome. Median follow-up was 37.7 months. A conditional logistic regression model for stratified data was used.Results: 6379 patients (83.9%) did not have AF on their baseline electrocardiogram. Of these, 392 (6.15%) developed AF during follow-up, 177 (5.55%) in the candesartan group and 215 (6.74%) in the placebo group (odds ratio 0.812, 95% CI 0.662-0.998, P = .048). After adjustment for baseline covariates, the odds ratio was 0.802 (95% CI 0.650-0.990, P = .039). There was no heterogeneity of the effects of candesartan in preventing AF between the 3 component trials (P = .57).Conclusions: Treatment with the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan reduced the incidence of AF in a large, broadly-based, population of patients with symptomatic CHF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (MI), but it is not known whether angiotensin receptor blockers have the same effect. Objective To assess the impact of the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan on MI and other coronary events in patients with heart failure. Design, Setting, and Participants The Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity (CHARM) program, a randomized, placebo-controlled study enrolling patients (mean age, 66 [SD, 11] years) with New York Heart Association class II to IV symptoms who were randomly allocated to receive candesartan (target dose, 32 mg once daily) or matching placebo given in addition to optimal therapy for heart failure. Patients were enrolled from March 1999 through March 2001. Of 7599 patients allocated, 4004 (53%) had experienced a previous MI, and 1808 (24%) currently had angina. At baseline, 3125 (41%) were receiving an ACE inhibitor; 4203 (55%), a β-blocker; 3153 (42%), a lipid-lowering drug; 4246 (56%), aspirin; and 6286 (83%), a diuretic. Main Outcome Measure The primary outcome of the present analysis was the composite of cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI in patients with heart failure receiving candesartan or placebo. Results During the median follow-up of 37.7 months, the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI was significantly reduced in the candesartan group (775 patients [20.4%]) vs the placebo group (868 [22.9%]) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.96; P = .004; number needed to treat [NNT], 40). Nonfatal MI alone was also significantly reduced in the candesartan group (116 [3.1%]) vs the placebo group (148 [3.9%]) (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60-0.98; P = .03; NNT, 118). The secondary outcome of fatal MI, sudden death, or nonfatal MI was significantly reduced with candesartan (459 [12.1%]) vs placebo (522 [13.8%]) (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.97; P = .02; NNT, 59). Risk reductions in cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI were similar across predetermined subgroups and the component CHARM trials. There was no impact on hospitalizations for unstable angina or coronary revascularization procedures with candesartan. Conclusion In patients with heart failure, candesartan significantly reduces the risk of the composite outcome of cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on a study which examined the prevalence and prognostic value of a spot urinary albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR) in patients with heart failure. The study included 2,310 patients involved in the Candersartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) Programme. It assessed the prevalence of microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria, the predictive value of UACR and mortality among patients. It found that 58 percent of the study population had normal UACR, 30 percent had microalbuminuria and 11 percent had macroalbuminuria. Study authors concluded that increased UACR is an independent predictor of heart failure prognosis.

Electrocardiographic measures can facilitate the identification of patients at risk of death after acute coronary syndromes. This study evaluates a new risk metric, morphologic variability (MV), which measures beat-to-beat variability in the shape of the entire heart beat signal. This metric is analogous to heart rate variability (HRV) approaches, which focus on beat-to-beat changes in the heart rate. MV was calculated using a dynamic time-warping technique in 764 patients from the DISPERSE2 (TIMI 33) trial for whom 24-hour continuous electrocardiograph was recorded within 48 hours of non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome. The patients were evaluated during a 90-day follow-up for the end point of death. Patients with high MV showed an increased risk of death during follow-up (hazard ratio 8.46; p <0.001). The relationship between high MV and death could be observed even after adjusting for baseline clinical characteristics and HRV measures (adjusted hazard ratio 6.91; p = 0.001). Moreover, the correlation between MV and HRV was low (R ≤0.25). These findings were consistent among several subgroups, including patients under the age of 65 and those with no history of diabetes or hyperlipidemia. In conclusion, our results suggest that increased variation in the entire heart beat morphology is associated with a considerably elevated risk of death and may provide information complementary to the analysis of heart rate. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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) (≤0.40) in the CHARM (Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity) program. Background: Hypotension is a predictor of poor prognosis in heart failure, yet many treatments shown to reduce morbidity and mortality lower blood pressure. This paradox creates a dilemma for physicians and may explain why low BP is reported as a reason for under-use of these agents. Methods: The interaction between treatment and baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was examined with patients divided into 6 SBP categories (≤100, 101 to 110, 111 to 120, 121 to 130, 131 to 140 and ≥141 mm Hg) and 4 DBP categories (≤60, 61 to 70, 71 to 80 and ≥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. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objectives: The goal of this study was to identify potentially novel laboratory markers of risk in chronic heart failure patients. Background: Although a variety of prognostic markers have been described in heart failure, a systematic assessment of routine laboratory values has not been reported. Methods: All 2,679 symptomatic chronic heart failure patients from the North American CHARM (Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity) program had a wide range of laboratory measures performed at a core facility, enabling us to assess the relationship between routine blood tests and outcomes using a Cox proportional hazards model. We then replicated our findings in a cohort of 2,140 heart failure patients from the Duke Databank. Results: Among 36 laboratory values considered in the CHARM program, higher red cell distribution width (RDW) showed the greatest association with morbidity and mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.17 per 1-SD increase, p < 0.001). Higher RDW was among the most powerful overall predictors, with only age and cardiomegaly showing a better independent association with outcome. This finding was replicated in the Duke Databank, in which higher RDW was strongly associated with all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.29 per 1 SD, p < 0.001), second only to age as a predictor of outcome. Conclusions: In 2 large contemporary heart failure populations, RDW was found to be a very strong independent predictor of morbidity and mortality. Understanding how and why this marker is associated with outcome may provide novel insights into heart failure pathophysiology. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]