Search

Background Angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers have favourable effects on haemodynamic measurements, neurohumoral activity, and left-ventricular remodelling when added to angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). We aimed to find out whether these drugs improve clinical outcome. Methods Between March, 1999, and November, 1999, we enrolled 2548 patients with New York Heart Association functional class II--IV CHF and left-ventricular ejection fraction 40% or lower, and who were being treated with ACE inhibitors. We randomly assigned patients candesartan (n=1276, target dose 32 mg once daily) or placebo (n=1272). At baseline, 55% of patients were also treated with blockers and 17% with spironolactone. The primary outcome of the study was the composite of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for CHF. Analysis was done by intention to treat. Findings The median follow-up was 41 months. 483 (38%) patients in the candesartan group and 538 (42%) in the placebo group experienced the primary outcome (unadjusted hazard ratio 0.85 [95% CI 0.75--0.96], p=0.011; covariate adjusted p=0.010). Candesartan reduced each of the components of the primary outcome significantly, as well as the total number of hospital admissions for CHF. The benefits of candesartan were similar in all predefined subgroups, including patients receiving baseline blocker treatment. Interpretation The addition of candesartan to ACE inhibitor and other treatment leads to a further clinically important reduction in relevant cardiovascular events in patients with CHF and reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present double-blind, placebo-controlled study investigated the effects of intravenous magnesium on heart rate and rate variability in 30 patients with chronic atrial fibrillation. During standardized conditions, intraindividual variation in heart rate and rate variability was low in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation and magnesium had no effect on heart rate or rate variability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Although many patients with heart failure have incomplete adherence to prescribed medications, predisposing factors remain unclear. This analysis investigates factors associated with adherence, with particular emphasis on age and sex. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

More than 40% of patients hospitalized with heart failure have preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HF-PLVEF) and are at high risk for cardiovascular (CV) events. The purpose of this study was to determine the value of N-terminal pro–brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) in predicting CV outcomes in patients with HF-PLVEF. Participants with an ejection fraction >40% in the prospective CHARM Echocardiographic Substudy were included in this analysis. Plasma NT-proBNP levels were measured, and 2 cut-offs were selected prospectively at 300 pg/ml and 600 pg/ml. BNP cut-off was set at 100 pg/ml. Clinical characteristics were recorded, and systolic and diastolic function were evaluated by echocardiography. The primary substudy outcome was the composite of CV mortality, hospitalization for heart failure, and myocardial infarction or stroke. A total of 181 patients were included, and there were 17 primary CV events (9.4%) during a median follow-up time of 524 days. In a model including clinical characteristics, echocardiographic measures, and BNP or NT-proBNP, the composite CV event outcome was best predicted by NT-proBNP >300 pg/ml (hazard ratio 5.8, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.3 to 26.4, p = 0.02) and moderate or severe diastolic dysfunction on echocardiography. When NT-proBNP >600 pg/ml was used in the model, it was the sole independent predictor of primary CV events (hazard ratio 8.0, 95% CI 2.6 to 24.8, p = 0.0003) as was BNP >100 pg/ml (hazard ratio 3.1, 95% CI 1.2 to 8.2, p = 0.02) in the BNP model. In conclusion, both elevated NT-proBNP and BNP are strong independent predictors of clinical events in patients with HF-PLVEF. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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]

Abstract: Aims: To evaluate the effect of the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan on patients'' perception of symptoms, using the McMaster Overall treatment evaluation (OTE), in a broad spectrum of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). Methods and results: Patients with symptomatic CHF, randomised in the CHARM Programme in North America (n=2498), were studied. OTE was assessed at baseline, at 6, 14 and 26 months and the patient''s final or closing visit. Patient''s status was classified as “improved (score +1 to +7)”, “unchanged (score 0)” or “deteriorated (score −1 to −7)” at the end of the study compared to baseline. Both a simple “last visit carried forward” (LVCF) analysis and “worst rank carried forward” (WRCF) analysis (where patients who died were allocated the worst OTE score) were used. In the LVCF analysis, compared to placebo, more candesartan patients improved (37.7% versus 33.5%) and fewer worsened (10.8% versus 12.0%) in OTE (p=0.017). The WRCF analysis also showed better overall OTE scores with candesartan compared to placebo (p=0.029). There was no heterogeneity in the response to candesartan between the CHARM component trials or across four exploratory sub-groups (age, sex, NYHA class and beta-blocker). Conclusions: Candesartan was shown to be better than placebo, when using the McMaster OTE to measure patient perception of treatment. More patients treated with candesartan reported improvement and fewer reported deterioration. This benefit was obtained when candesartan was added to extensive background therapy and is consistent with the benefits of candesartan on NYHA class, hospital admission for worsening heart failure and mortality. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

OBJECTIVE -- This study aims to establish the benefits of lowering cholesterol in diabetic patients with well-controlled hypertension and average/below-average cholesterol concentrations, but without established coronary disease. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS -- In the lipid-lowering arm of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT-LLA), 10,305 hypertensive patients with no history of coronary heart disease (CHD) but at least three cardiovascular risk factors were randomly assigned to receive 10 mg atorvastatin or placebo. Effects on total cardiovascular outcomes in 2,532 patients who had type 2 diabetes at randomization were compared. RESULTS -- During a median follow-up of 3.3 years, concentrations of total and LDL cholesterol among diabetic participants included in ASCOT-LLA were ∼1 mmol/l lower in those allocated atorvastatin compared with placebo. There were 116 (9.2%) major cardiovascular events or procedures in the atorvastatin group and 151 (11.9%) events in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.61-0.98; P = 0.036). For the individual components of this composite end point, the number of events occurring in the diabetes subgroup was small. Therefore, although fewer coronary events (0.84, 0.55-1.29; P = 0.14) and strokes (0.67, 0.41-1.09; P = 0.66) were observed among the patients allocated atorvastatin, these reductions were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS -- Atorvastatin significantly reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events and procedures among diabetic patients with well-controlled hypertension and without a history of CHD or markedly elevated cholesterol concentrations. The proportional reduction in risk was similar to that among participants who did not have diagnosed diabetes. Allocation to atorvastatin prevented ∼9 diabetic participants from suffering a first major cardiovascular event or procedure for every 1,000 treated for 1 year. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) are at high risk of cardiovascular death and recurrent hospital admissions. We aimed to find out whether the use of an angiotensin-receptor blocker could reduce mortality and morbidity.Methods: In parallel, randomised, double-blind, controlled, clinical trials we compared candesartan with placebo in three distinct populations. We studied patients with left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40% or less who were not receiving angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors because of previous intolerance or who were currently receiving angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, and patients with LVEF higher than 40%. Overall, 7601 patients (7599 with data) were randomly assigned candesartan (n=3803, titrated to 32 mg once daily) or matching placebo (n=3796), and followed up for at least 2 years. The primary outcome of the overall programme was all-cause mortality, and for all the component trials was cardiovascular death or hospital admission for CHF. Analysis was by intention to treat.Findings: Median follow-up was 37.7 months. 886 (23%) patients in the candesartan and 945 (25%) in the placebo group died (unadjusted hazard ratio 0.91 [95% CI 0.83-1.00], p=0.055; covariate adjusted 0.90 [0.82-0.99], p=0.032), with fewer cardiovascular deaths (691 [18%] vs 769 [20%], unadjusted 0.88 [0.79-0.97], p=0.012; covariate adjusted 0.87 [0.78-0.96], p=0.006) and hospital admissions for CHF (757 [20%] vs 918 [24%], p<0.0001) in the candesartan group. There was no significant heterogeneity for candesartan results across the component trials. More patients discontinued candesartan than placebo because of concerns about renal function, hypotension, and hyperkalaemia.Interpretation: Candesartan was generally well tolerated and significantly reduced cardiovascular deaths and hospital admissions for heart failure. Ejection fraction or treatment at baseline did not alter these effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Half of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) have preserved left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), but few treatments have specifically been assessed in such patients. In previous studies of patients with CHF and low LVEF or vascular disease and preserved LVEF, inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system is beneficial. We investigated the effect of addition of an angiotensin-receptor blocker to current treatments. Methods Between March, 1999, and July, 2000, we randomly assigned 3023 patients candesartan (n=1514, target dose 32 mg once daily) or matching placebo (n=1509). Patients had New York Heart Association functional class II--IV CHF and LVEF higher than 40%. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death or admission to hospital for CHF. Anaysis was done by intention to treat. Findings Median follow-up was 36.6 months. 333 (22%) patients in the candesartan and 366 (24%) in the placebo group experienced the primary outcome (unadjusted hazard ratio 0.89 [95% CI 0.77--1.03], p=0.118; covariate adjusted 0.86 [0.74--1.0], p=0.051). Cardiovascular death did not differ between groups (170 vs 170), but fewer patients in the candesartan group than in the placebo group were admitted to hospital for CHF once (230 vs 279, p=0.017) or multiple times. Composite outcomes that included non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke showed similar results to the primary composite (388 vs 429; unadjusted 0.88 [0.77--1.01], p=0.078; covariate adjusted 0.86 [0.75--0.99], p=0.037). Interpretation Candesartan has a moderate impact in preventing admissions for CHF among patients who have heart failure and LVEF higher than 40%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors improve outcome of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). A substantial proportion of patients, however, experience no benefit from ACE inhibitors because of previous intolerance. We aimed to find out whether candesartan, an angiotensinreceptor blocker, could improve outcome in such patients not taking an ACE inhibitor. Methods Between March, 1999, and March, 2001, we enrolled 2028 patients with symptomatic heart failure and left-ventricular ejection fraction 40% or less who were not receiving ACE inhibitors because of previous intolerance. Patients were randomly assigned candesartan (target dose 32 mg once daily) or matching placebo. The primary outcome of the study was the composite of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for CHF. Analysis was by intention to treat. Findings The most common manifestation of ACE-inhibitor intolerance was cough (72%), followed by symptomatic hypotension (13%) and renal dysfunction (12%). During a median follow-up of 33.7 months, 334 (33%) of 1013 patients in the candesartan group and 406 (40%) of 1015 in the placebo group had cardiovascular death or hospital admission for CHF (unadjusted hazard ratio 0.77 [95% CI 0.67--0.89], p=0.0004; covariate adjusted 0.70 [0.60--0.81], p<0.0001). Each component of the primary outcome was reduced, as was the total number of hospital admissions for CHF. Study-drug discontinuation rates were similar in the candesartan (30%) and placebo (29%) groups. Interpretation Candesartan was generally well tolerated and reduced cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in patients with symptomatic chronic heart failure and intolerance to ACE inhibitors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) are at high risk of cardiovascular death and recurrent hospital admissions. We aimed to find out whether the use of an angiotensin- receptor blocker could reduce mortality and morbidity. Methods In parallel, randomised, double-blind, controlled, clinical trials we compared candesartan with placebo in three distinct populations. We studied patients with left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40% or less who were not receiving angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors because of previous intolerance or who were currently receiving angiotensinconverting- enzyme inhibitors, and patients with LVEF higher than 40%. Overall, 7601 patients (7599 with data) were randomly assigned candesartan (n=3803, titrated to 32 mg once daily) or matching placebo (n=3796), and followed up for at least 2 years. The primary outcome of the overall programme was all-cause mortality, and for all the component trials was cardiovascular death or hospital admission for CHF. Analysis was by intention to treat. Findings Median follow-up was 37.7 months. 886 (23%) patients in the candesartan and 945 (25%) in the placebo group died (unadjusted hazard ratio 0.91 [95% CI 0.83--1.00], p=0.055; covariate adjusted 0.90 [0.82--0.99], p=0.032), with fewer cardiovascular deaths (691 [18%] vs 769 [20%], unadjusted 0.88 [0.79--0.97], p=0.012; covariate adjusted 0.87 [0.78--0.96], p=0.006) and hospital admissions for CHF (757 [20%] vs 918 [24%], p<0.0001) in the candesartan group. There was no significant heterogeneity for candesartan results across the component trials. More patients discontinued candesartan than placebo because of concerns about renal function, hypotension, and hyperkalaemia. Interpretation Candesartan was generally well tolerated and significantly reduced cardiovascular deaths and hospital admissions for heart failure. Ejection fraction or treatment at baseline did not alter these effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reports on a study to determine the effect of the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor ramipril on the secondary prevention of stroke. Design; Setting; Participants; Outcome measures; Results; Conclusion that ramipril reduces the incidence of stroke in patients at high risk.