Search

Aims: 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.Methods and Results: 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 R(2) 0.27). Addition of in-hospital worsening heart failure (WHF) and changes in metabolic markers contributed significantly to prediction of LOS [R(2) 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.Conclusions: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: 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.Methods and Results: 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).Conclusions: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and Methods: 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.Results: 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.Conclusion: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: 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.Methods and Results: 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).Conclusion: Using a data-driven approach, we identified HFpEF subgroups with significantly different prognoses. Further development of this approach for characterizing HFpEF subgroups is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Older patients often receive less guideline-concordant care for heart failure than younger patients.Objective: To determine whether age differences in heart failure care are explained by patient, provider, and health system characteristics and/or by chart-documented reasons for non-adherence to guidelines.Design and Patients: Retrospective cohort study of 2,772 ambulatory veterans with heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction <40% from a 2004 nationwide medical record review program (the VA External Peer Review Program).Main Measures: Ambulatory use of ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and beta blockers.Results: Among 2,772 patients, mean age was 73 +/- 10 years, 87% received an ACE inhibitor or ARB, and 82% received a beta blocker. When patients with explicit chart-documented reasons for not receiving these drugs were excluded, 95% received an ACE inhibitor or ARB and 89% received a beta blocker. In multivariable analyses controlling for a variety of patient and health system characteristics, the adjusted odds ratio for ACE-inhibitor and ARB use was 0.43 (95% CI 0.24-0.78) for patients age 80 and over vs. those age 50-64 years, and the adjusted odds ratio for beta blocker use was 0.66 (95% CI 0.48-0.93) between the two age groups. The magnitude of these associations was similar but not statistically significant after excluding patients with chart-documented reasons for not prescribing ACE inhibitors or ARBs and beta blockers.Conclusions: A high proportion of veterans receive guideline-recommended medications for heart failure. Older veterans are consistently less likely to receive these drugs, although these differences were no longer significant when accounting for patients with chart-documented reasons for not prescribing these drugs. Closely evaluating reasons for non-prescribing in older adults is essential to assessing whether non-treatment represents good clinical judgment or missed opportunities to improve care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the benefits of irbesartan in the management of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. I-PRESERVE (Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Trial) patients' N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide was measured by the authors for their study. They discovered that significant interaction was seen between irbesartan's effect and median split of baseline NT-proBNP, all-cause mortality and the heart failure composite outcome.

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 A1−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 A1-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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the development of pharmacological therapies for the treatment of acute heart failure syndromes (AHFS). It discusses various factors attributed to therapy failure including patient heterogeneity, lack of pathophysiological understanding and flaws in the designs of AHFS studies. It also mentions that Phase III studies on drug efficacy should consider all risk boundaries. Moreover, it notes that therapy standardization requires cooperation within the scientific community.

Background: Approximately 50% of patients with heart failure have a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 45%, but no therapies have been shown to improve the outcome of these patients. Therefore, we studied the effects of irbesartan in patients with this syndrome. Methods: We enrolled 4128 patients who were at least 60 years of age and had New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of at least 45% and randomly assigned them to receive 300 mg of irbesartan or placebo per day. The primary composite outcome was death from any cause or hospitalization for a cardiovascular cause (heart failure, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, arrhythmia, or stroke). Secondary outcomes included death from heart failure or hospitalization for heart failure, death from any cause and from cardiovascular causes, and quality of life. Results: During a mean follow-up of 49.5 months, the primary outcome occurred in 742 patients in the irbesartan group and 763 in the placebo group. Primary event rates in the irbesartan and placebo groups were 100.4 and 105.4 per 1000 patient-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.35). Overall rates of death were 52.6 and 52.3 per 1000 patient-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.14; P=0.98). Rates of hospitalization for cardiovascular causes that contributed to the primary outcome were 70.6 and 74.3 per 1000 patient-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.08; P=0.44). There were no significant differences in the other prespecified outcomes. Conclusions: Irbesartan did not improve the outcomes of patients with heart failure and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00095238.) N Engl J Med 2008;359:2456-67. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: We describe the baseline characteristics of subjects randomised in the largest placebo-controlled, morbidity-mortality trial to date in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction — the irbesartan in heart failure with preserved systolic function trial (I-PRESERVE). Methods and results: 4133 patients with a mean age of 72 years (a third were 75 years or older) were randomised and 60% were women. The mean (SD) LVEF was 59 (9)% and almost 80% of patients were in NYHA Class III or IV. Approximately 80% of patients were also overweight or obese. Heart failure was reported by investigators to have a hypertensive aetiology in 64% of patients. Prior myocardial infarction was relatively uncommon (24%), as was coronary revascularisation (13%). Atrial fibrillation and diabetes each occurred in between a quarter and a third of patients. The following treatments were used at baseline: diuretic 83%, beta-blocker 59%, calcium channel blocker 40%, ACE inhibitor 25%, spironolactone 15% and digoxin 14%. Conclusions: Patients in I-PRESERVE are broadly representative of those seen in epidemiological studies and, because of this, the results of this trial should be generally applicable to “real world” patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Community patients with heart failure (HF) are older, less often treated by HF specialists, and have more comorbidity than those in randomized clinical trials. These differences might affect β-blocker prescribing in HF. Methods: To explore patterns of β-blocker prescribing for HF in the community and their association with outcomes, we determined carvedilol doses at end titration in 4113 patients from a community-based β-blocker HF registry according to physician and patient characteristics, HF severity, and rates of hospitalization and death. Results: Female sex, age ≥65 years, and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥35% were associated with lower β-blocker doses. Average daily dose of β-blocker was lower with worse baseline New York Heart Association class. More patients of cardiologists achieved carvedilol doses ≥25 mg twice daily, whereas in those of noncardiologists lower doses were more common. Relative risk of HF hospitalizations or all-cause death was significantly lower with higher doses of β-blocker. Conclusions: β-Blocker dosing in community HF appears lower than in randomized clinical trials, especially when prescribed by noncardiologists. At all doses, patients taking the β-blocker carvedilol have a lower incidence of death and HF hospitalization than those discontinuing it, regardless of physician type in the community setting. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Heart failure (HF) in the community differs meaningfully from that in clinical trials, particularly the higher prevalence of patients with preserved left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) typically excluded from clinical trials, thus limiting knowledge of their responsiveness to β-blocker therapy. From a community-based registry of 4,280 patients with HF starting treatment with the β blocker carvedilol, we compared characteristics, carvedilol titration, and outcomes of patients according to LVEF >40% or <40% (as in clinical trials) and across the spectrum of LVEF <21%, 21% to 30%, 31% to 40%, and >40%. Patients with preserved EF (LVEF >40%) were older and more often women and hypertensive. Lower LVEF was associated with worse functional class and more HF hospitalizations in the previous year. Carvedilol dose decreased with increasing LVEF. Hospitalization rates for HF related inversely to LVEF before starting carvedilol therapy and decreased from the previous year in all LVEF groups during follow-up. Although 1-year mortality rate decreased from 8% with LVEF ≤20% to 6% with LVEF >40%, adjusted hazard ratios were not significantly different across LVEF groups. Thus, characteristics of community patients with HF vary across the spectrum of LVEF. Patients with HF and preserved EF treated with carvedilol in the community improve symptomatically and experience fewer HF hospitalizations after initiating carvedilol. In conclusion, without a control group, the effect of carvedilol on outcomes is not conclusive and trials of carvedilol in patients with HF and preserved EF should be undertaken. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Focuses on the mibefradil, a selective T-type calcium antagonist. Pharmacology of mibefradil; Use of mibefradil in hypertension and angina; Mibefradil use in congestive heart failure.

Discusses experimental findings from clinical trials of antihypertensive treatment and its effect on coronary artery morbidity or mortality. Implications for the design and conduct of succeeding trials; Relationship between chronic hypertension and coronary atherosclerosis; Discussion on acute coronary events; Review of previous trials of hypertensive treatment.

Discusses the first-line therapy for hypertension among the elderly. Report of Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program; Usage of diuretics and beta blockers; Key questions to consider when treating middle-aged or older patient with elevated blood pressure; Required levels of blood pressure; Appropriate goal for blood pressure lowering; Prescribed of medication.

The author reflects on the study conducted by S. M. Chang and colleagues that investigates if aspirin modifies the efficacy and safety of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I) in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). He discusses the results of the study, particularly the use of candesartan and aspirin and the mortality rates. He suggests the avoidance aspirins by most heart failure patients.

This article focuses on heart failure treatment. Two major goals of heart failure treatment are to improve either the length or quality of the patient's life. Cardiac conduction abnormalities may worsen heart failure by disrupting the coordination of left ventricular contraction which suggests that judiciously applied electrical stimuli could help in such cases. This new approach is called cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Trials of CRT have shown improvements in functional status, the distance patients can walk in 6 minutes and hospital admissions for heart failure.

Background: Among patients with chronic heart failure, angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduce mortality and hospitalization, but the role of a renin inhibitor in such patients is unknown. We compared the ACE inhibitor enalapril with the renin inhibitor aliskiren (to test superiority or at least noninferiority) and with the combination of the two treatments (to test superiority) in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction.Methods: After a single-blind run-in period, we assigned patients, in a double-blind fashion, to one of three groups: 2336 patients were assigned to receive enalapril at a dose of 5 or 10 mg twice daily, 2340 to receive aliskiren at a dose of 300 mg once daily, and 2340 to receive both treatments (combination therapy). The primary composite outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure.Results: After a median follow-up of 36.6 months, the primary outcome occurred in 770 patients (32.9%) in the combination-therapy group and in 808 (34.6%) in the enalapril group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.03). The primary outcome occurred in 791 patients (33.8%) in the aliskiren group (hazard ratio vs. enalapril, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.10); the prespecified test for noninferiority was not met. There was a higher risk of hypotensive symptoms in the combination-therapy group than in the enalapril group (13.8% vs. 11.0%, P=0.005), as well as higher risks of an elevated serum creatinine level (4.1% vs. 2.7%, P=0.009) and an elevated potassium level (17.1% vs. 12.5%, P<0.001).Conclusions: In patients with chronic heart failure, the addition of aliskiren to enalapril led to more adverse events without an increase in benefit. Noninferiority was not shown for aliskiren as compared with enalapril. (Funded by Novartis; ATMOSPHERE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00853658.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Characteristics such as age and race are often cited as determinants of the response of blood pressure to specific antihypertensive agents, but this clinically important issue has not been examined in sufficiently large trials, involving all standard treatments, to determine the effect of such factors. Methods: In a randomized, double-blind study at 15 clinics, we assigned 1292 men with diastolic blood pressures of 95 to 109 mm Hg, after a placebo washout period, to receive placebo or one of six drugs: hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 to 50 mg per day), atenolol (25 to 100 mg per day), captopril (25 to 100 mg per day), clonidine (0.2 to 0.6 mg per day), a sustained-release preparation of diltiazem (120 to 360 mg per day), or prazosin (4 to 20 mg per day). The drug doses were titrated to a goal of less than 90 mm Hg for maximal diastolic pressure, and the patients continued to receive therapy for at least one year. Results: The mean (±SD) age of the randomized patients was 59 ±10 years, and 48 percent were black. The average blood pressure at base line was 152 ±14/99 ±3 mm Hg. Diltiazem therapy had the highest rate of success: 59 percent of the treated patients had reached the blood-pressure goal at the end of the titration phase and had a diastolic blood pressure of less than 95 mm Hg at one year. Atenolol was successful by this definition in 51 percent of the patients, clonidine in 50 percent, hydrochlorothiazide in 46 percent, captopril in 42 percent, and prazosin in 42 percent; all these agents were superior to placebo (success rate, 25 percent). Diltiazem ranked first for younger blacks (<60 years) and older blacks ( ≥ 60 years), among whom the success rate was 64 percent, captopril for younger whites (success rate, 55 percent), and atenolol for older whites (68 percent). Drug intolerance was more frequent with clonidine (14 percent) and prazosin (12 percent) than with the other drugs. Conclusions: Among men, race and age have an important effect on the response to single-drug therapy for hypertension. In addition to cost and quality of life, these factors should be considered in the initial choice of a drug. (N Engl J Med 1993;328:914-21.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]