VALsartan In Acute myocardial iNfarcTion (VALIANT) trial: baseline characteristics in context

BACKGROUND

The VALsartan In Acute myocardial iNfarcTion (VALIANT) trial compared outcomes with: (1) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition (ACEI) with the reference agent captopril; (2) angiotensin-receptor blockade (ARB) with valsartan; or (3) both in patients with heart failure (HF) and/or left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) after myocardial infarction (MI).

AIMS

a goal of this active-control trial was to simulate conditions that would lead current practitioners to use ACEIs. Thus, we compared characteristics of VALIANT patients with those of patients in placebo-controlled trials that established ACEIs as standard treatment.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We collected demographic, clinical, medication and imaging information from 14703 patients in 24 countries. This high-risk population was a median 65.8 years old, and 31.1% were female. Most (51.8%) showed imaging evidence of LVSD at enrollment. Most (72%) had Killip class>/=II HF. Patients received evidence-based therapies at rates similar to those of contemporary MI trials and at an improved rate compared with prior placebo-controlled ACEI trials.

CONCLUSION

VALIANT represents the largest globally representative cohort enrolled with HF and/or LVSD after MI. Patients were similar to those in placebo-controlled ACEI trials while reflecting improvements in evidence-based care. With enrollment complete, VALIANT is poised to define the optimal strategy for renin-angiotensin system blockade after MI to improve cardiovascular outcomes.

Radionuclide viability testing: should it affect treatment strategy in patients with cardiomyopathy and significant coronary artery disease?

BACKGROUND

Ischemic heart failure is a significant source of morbidity and mortality, yet it has an unclear treatment strategy. The assessment of viable myocardium by nuclear imaging studies has shown promise in predicting improvements in ejection fraction and symptoms. However, the relationship of viability to long-term mortality has not been fully established.

METHODS

A number of studies have addressed long-term mortality with nuclear viability imaging in patients with impaired left ventricular function and significant coronary artery disease. These studies were analyzed to determine differences in design, results, trends, and limitations. They were then evaluated by use of qualitative criteria established for prognostic studies.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies met our criteria. Although the conclusions differed, it appears that patients with viability who undergo revascularization have the highest survival rate, whereas patients with viability who are treated medically have a much lower survival rate. Patients without viability have an intermediate survival rate, regardless of treatment. Several limitations were identified, including a lack of randomization, small sample size, inadequate follow-up, and extensive study protocol and design differences.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of viability testing in patients with heart failure and significant coronary artery disease has shown promise in predicting the long-term mortality rate with treatment allocation. However, there is a need for further study involving larger cohorts with a randomized design, longer periods of follow-up, improved study designs, and identification of referral bias and viability prevalence.

Comparison of coronary artery bypass grafting versus medical therapy on long-term outcome in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (a 25-year experience from the Duke Cardiovascular Disease Databank)

In this observational treatment comparison in a single center over 25 years, we sought to assess long-term outcomes of coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) or medical therapy in patients with heart failure, coronary artery disease, and left ventricular systolic dysfunction. The benefit of CABG compared with medical therapy alone in these patients is a source of continuing clinical debate. This analysis considered all patients with New York Heart Association class II or greater symptoms, 1 or more epicardial coronary vessels with a > or = 75% stenosis, and a left ventricular ejection fraction <40% who underwent an initial cardiac catheterization at Duke University Medical Center from 1969 to 1994. Patients were classified into the medical therapy group (n = 1,052) or CABG group (n = 339) depending on which therapy they received within 30 days of catheterization. Cardiovascular event and mortality follow-up commenced on the day of CABG, or at catheterization plus 8 days (the mean time to CABG) for the medical therapy arm. A Cox proportional-hazards model was employed to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics. In the first 30 days from baseline, there was an interaction between treatment strategy and number of diseased vessels. Unadjusted, event-free, and adjusted survival strongly favored CABG over medical therapy after 30 days to >10 years regardless of the extent of coronary disease (p <0.001). Thus, regardless of the severity of coronary disease, heart failure symptoms, or ventricular dysfunction, CABG provides extended event-free and survival advantage over medical therapy alone in patients with an ischemic cardiomyopathy.