Clinical features and contemporary management of patients with low and preserved ejection fraction heart failure: baseline characteristics of patients in the Candesartan in Heart failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme

Role of angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists in the treatment of hypertension in patients aged >or=65 years

Systolic blood pressure (SBP) increases with age, and hypertension affects approximately two-thirds of adults in the US aged >60 years. Blood pressure (BP) increases as a consequence of age-related structural changes in large arteries, which lead to loss of elasticity and reduced vascular compliance. Increased pulse wave velocity augments SBP, resulting in a high prevalence of isolated systolic hypertension. Because age itself elevates cardiovascular risk, effective treatment of hypertension in an older (aged >or=65 years) patient population prevents many more events per 1000 patients treated than treatment of younger hypertensive patients. Recommendations for treating hypertension are similar in older patients compared with the general population. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Detection, Prevention, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure recommends target BP goals of <140/90 mmHg for patients with uncomplicated hypertension, and <130/80 mmHg for those with diabetes mellitus or renal disease. Recent guidelines and position papers have extended these aggressive treatment goals to include patients with coronary artery disease, other types of vascular disease and heart failure. Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of calcium channel antagonists (calcium channel blockers [CCBs]), low-dose diuretics, ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs]) in reducing the risk of stroke and other adverse cardiovascular outcomes in older patients; beta-adrenoceptor antagonists are less effective in terms of endpoint reduction. The majority of older patients require two or more drugs to achieve BP goals. Despite active treatment, half of these patients do not achieve target BP, in part because of the reluctance of physicians to intensify treatment, a phenomenon referred to as 'clinical inertia'. ARBs are effective antihypertensive agents in older patients and have been shown to reduce cardiovascular endpoints in patients with hypertension, diabetic nephropathy, cerebrovascular disease and heart failure. ARBs produce additive BP reduction when combined with diuretics or CCBs. They also have the advantage of placebo-like tolerability, and this contributes favourably to patient compliance with long-term treatment, which is a prerequisite for reducing morbidity and mortality.

Candesartan in heart failure: assessment of reduction in mortality and morbidity (CHARM) and resource utilization and costs in Italy

Chronic heart failure (HF) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality particularly in the elderly and a growing healthcare burden in Italy. The objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of candesartan cilexetil, an angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker (ARB) for the treatment of HF. A pre-specified economic evaluation was conducted on resource utilization (cardiovascular drug treatment, cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular hospital admission, cardiovascular procedures/operations) prospectively collected alongside the CHARM program, a series of parallel randomized clinical trials comparing candesartan with placebo (standard therapy) in patients with NYHA Class II-IV HF: CHARM-Alternative (LVEF < or =40% patients not receiving ACE inhibitors because of previous intolerance); CHARM-Added (LVEF < or =40% patients currently receiving ACE inhibitors); or CHARM-Preserved (LVEF > or =40% patients). The primary outcome for the component trials was the composite of cardiovascular death or worsening hospital admission for HF and of the overall program all-cause mortality. Adjunctive treatment with candesartan in CHARM-Alternative and CHARM-Added led to clinical benefits and to either cost-savings or a small additional cost, depending on the trial. The less certain clinical benefit in CHARM-Preserved was obtained at modest extra cost. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated to range from euro713 per life year gained for CHARM-Alternative to dominant for CHARM-Added and the pooled reduced LVEF trials.

Treatment of hypertension in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: role of the kidney

Heart failure can present clinically as primarily diastolic or systolic dysfunction or both. There is an increasing awareness that heart failure can occur in the presence of a normal left ventricular ejection fraction. Heart failure with normal left ventricular ejection fraction is frequently referred to as diastolic heart failure because of the presence of diastolic left ventricular dysfunction evident from impaired left ventricular relaxation. This article focuses on the treatment of hypertension and the role the kidney plays in selecting appropriate agents.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: clinical characteristics of 4133 patients enrolled in the I-PRESERVE trial

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.

Current understanding of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

A substantial proportion of patients with heart failure have preserved ejection fraction. Though patients with preserved ejection fraction experience a substantial burden of morbidity and mortality, the understanding of heart failure pathophysiology in this group remains incomplete and evidence-based therapeutic options are limited.

RECENT FINDINGS

The prevalence of heart failure in patients with preserved ejection fraction is increasing and prognosis in this population remains poor despite modern medical therapy. Though diastolic dysfunction is typically present, increasing evidence suggests that extracardiac factors such as renal dysfunction and enhanced central aortic stiffness may play an important role in the development and progression of heart failure symptoms. Results of the first randomized, controlled clinical trials in this population suggest a possible therapeutic role for renin-angiotensin system blockade in reducing heart failure-associated morbidity, but there is still no evidence-supported strategy for reducing mortality in this population.

SUMMARY

Though the epidemiology and impact of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction are increasingly clear, consensus regarding pathophysiology and the optimal therapeutic approach is still lacking. Pending completion of additional therapeutic trials in this population, treatment remains largely empiric and focused on optimizing myocardial performance in diastole by control of blood pressure, restoration or maintenance of sinus rhythm, and relief of volume overload.

Applying hypertension guidelines to reduce the burden of heart failure

If the recommendations of Joint National Committee 7 are implemented, the incidence of heart failure should continue to decline. These recommendations are designed not only to reduce the incidence of heart failure but also prevent other target end-organ damage and reduce overall cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The emphasis of these recommendations is to reduce systolic blood pressure, because the risk of mortality caused by heart disease and stroke doubles for every 20-mm Hg increase in systolic blood pressure. Practitioners are encouraged to use a combination of lifestyle changes and pharmacotherapy to achieve systolic blood pressure goals and consider the use of thiazide diuretics as first-line therapy to achieve the ultimate goal of reducing end-organ damage.

Sex Differences in Clinical Characteristics and Prognosis in a Broad Spectrum of Patients With Heart Failure

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 (≤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.

Prescribing for chronic heart failure in Europe: does the country make the difference? A European survey

PURPOSE

International differences in prescribing patterns for chronic heart failure (CHF) have been demonstrated repeatedly. It is not clear whether these differences arise entirely from patient characteristics or factors related to the country itself, such as health care systems or culture. We aim to assess the role of countries in this international variation, aside from the role of patient characteristics.

METHODS

In this European primary care practice survey (from 1999/2000) 11062 CHF patients from 14 countries were included. The influence of country (corrected for patient characteristics) on prescribed drug regimes was assessed by multinomial logistical regression.

RESULTS

Prescribing of guideline-recommended drug regimes ranged from 28.1% in Turkey to 61.8% in Hungary. Including additional regimes justifiable by patients' co-morbidities, increased overall 'rational' prescribing by 11%, but differences among countries remained similar. Multivariate analysis for one-drug and two-drug regimes explained between 35% and 42% of the total variance, country contributed 7%-8% (p < 0.005). Countries determined the number of drugs used and the likelihood of individual drug regimes. For example, in Czech Republic digoxin alone was more likely to be given than the recommended ACE-inhibitors (OR: 3.45; 95%CI: 2.56-4.64), while the combination of digoxin with ACE-inhibitors was as likely as the recommended combination of ACE-inhibitors and beta-blockers (OR: 1.17; 95%CI: 0.88-1.55).

CONCLUSION

Country of residence clearly influenced prescribed drug volume and choice of drug regimes. Therefore, optimal CHF management cannot be achieved without considering country specific factors. It remains to be established which factors within health-care systems are responsible for these effects.

Role of Angiotensin II in the Evolution of Diastolic Heart Failure

More than half of all persons with heart failure (HF) have diastolic HF. The prevalence of diastolic HF increases from 46% in persons younger than 45 years to 59% in those 85 years and older. The annual mortality rate associated with diastolic HF is >10%. Diagnosis is based on signs and symptoms of HF, elevated plasma B-type natriuretic peptide, preserved left ventricular systolic function, and evidence of diastolic dysfunction by Doppler examination on two-dimensional echocardiography. Approximately 80% of patients with diastolic HF have increased left ventricular mass and a history of hypertension. Neurohormonal activation is a key aspect of this condition. Studies suggest that activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, specifically direct cardiac effects of angiotensin II and aldosterone, contributes to the pathogenesis and progression of diastolic dysfunction. Hence, there is a rationale for use of agents that antagonize the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and aldosterone antagonists, in patients with heart failure.

Clinical diagnosis of left ventricular dilatation and dysfunction in the age of technology

BACKGROUND

The diagnostic process has become increasingly dependent on instrumental and laboratory investigation.

AIM

To evaluate the accuracy of symptoms and signs in identifying left ventricular (LV) dilatation and/or systolic dysfunction.

METHODS

A group of 100 patients in stable clinical condition and scheduled for cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was prospectively examined by two cardiologists, who were unaware of the individual patient's condition. Patients were interviewed and underwent physical examination.

RESULTS

Several symptoms and signs were associated with LV dilatation and systolic dysfunction at univariate analysis. Using multiple logistic regression, a mitral systolic murmur, a laterally displaced LV impulse, orthopnoea and hepatomegaly were all independent predictors of LV dilatation (end-diastolic volume >or=110 ml/m(2)) (p<0.0001) and LV dysfunction (ejection fraction <45%) (p<0.0001). The combination of the above variables correctly identified 79% of patients with LV dilatation (sensitivity 51%, specificity 92%), and 82% of patients with LV dysfunction (sensitivity 68%, specificity 90%). Considering LV dilatation and dysfunction, 77% of patients were correctly identified after history alone (kappa=0.13), 84% after LV impulse examination (kappa=0.55) and 86% after cardiac auscultation (kappa=0.58).

CONCLUSION

Symptoms and signs predict LV dilatation and/or dysfunction with fair sensitivity and excellent specificity.

Prevalence and prognostic impact of bundle branch block in patients with heart failure: evidence from the CHARM programme

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.

Diabetes mellitus and heart failure: epidemiology, mechanisms, and pharmacotherapy

Diabetes mellitus and heart failure (HF), both of which are associated with high rates of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, commonly coexist. Given the marked increases in diabetes prevalence in developed countries, the proportion of the population with both conditions is likely to increase substantially. This article reviews the epidemiology of HF and diabetes, the mechanisms whereby diabetes causes HF, and the pharmacotherapy of both HF and diabetes. Specific challenges in treating patients with both HF and diabetes are also addressed.

Prevalence and prognostic implications of electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy in heart failure: evidence from the CHARM programme

BACKGROUND

Electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy (ECG LVH) is a powerful independent predictor of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the contemporary prevalence and prognostic implications of ECG LVH in a broad spectrum of patients with heart failure with and without reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS AND OUTCOME: The Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme randomised 7599 patients with symptomatic heart failure to receive candesartan or placebo. The primary outcome comprised cardiovascular death or hospital admission for worsening heart failure. The relative risk (RR) conveyed by ECG LVH compared with a normal ECG was examined in a Cox model, adjusting for as many as 31 covariates of prognostic importance.

RESULTS

The prevalence of ECG LVH was similar in all three CHARM trials (Alternative, 15.4%; Added, 17.1%; Preserved, 14.7%; Overall, 15.7%) despite a more frequent history of hypertension in CHARM-Preserved. ECG LVH was an independent predictor of worse prognosis in CHARM-Overall. RR for the primary outcome was 1.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.55, p = 0.018). The risk of secondary end points was also increased: cardiovascular death, 1.50 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.99, p = 0.005); hospitalisation due to heart failure, 1.19 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.50, p = 0.148); and composite major cardiovascular events, 1.35 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.62, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

ECG LVH is similarly prevalent in patients with symptomatic heart failure regardless of LVEF. The simple clinical finding of ECG LVH was an independent predictor of a worse clinical outcome in a broad spectrum of patients with heart failure receiving extensive contemporary treatment. Candesartan had similar benefits in patients with and without ECG LVH.

Prevention of atrial fibrillation in patients with symptomatic chronic heart failure by candesartan in the Candesartan in Heart failure: assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program

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

6446 patients (84.8%) did not have AF on their baseline electrocardiogram. Of these, 392 (6.08%) 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.

Angiotensin receptor blockade with candesartan in heart failure: findings from the Candesartan in Heart failure — Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) have demonstrated the life-saving and symptomatic benefits of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers, and, in more selected patients, spironolactone. Despite these major advancements, the prevalence of heart failure continues to increase mainly as a consequence of aging populations. The development of angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARBs) provides a pharmacologically distinct mechanism of inhibiting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. ARBs offer the potential to produce further clinical improvements for patients with heart failure above and beyond ACE inhibitors, as well as an alternative for those intolerant to an ACE inhibitor.

METHODS

The Candesartan in Heart failure--Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme was designed as three parallel, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials comparing candesartan with placebo in three different but complementary populations of patients with symptomatic heart failure.

RESULTS

In patients with intolerance to an ACE inhibitor and an LVEF of 40% or less (the CHARM-Alternative trial), candesartan reduced cardiovascular mortality and hospitalizations for heart failure by 23% (P < 0.001). In patients with an LVEF of 40% or less treated with an ACE inhibitor (the CHARM-Added trial), candesartan reduced cardiovascular death and hospitalization for chronic heart failure by 15% (P = 0.011). In patients with a LVEF greater than 40% (the CHARM-Preserved trial), hospitalizations for heart failure and new-onset diabetes were significantly reduced.

CONCLUSION

The CHARM programme, together with evidence from mechanistic studies and from other large trials with ARBs, constitutes a firm basis for including an ARB in the therapeutic arsenal in the treatment for chronic heart failure.

Clinical Correlates and Consequences of Anemia in a Broad Spectrum of Patients With Heart Failure

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.

Reshaping Our Perception of the Typical Hospitalized Heart Failure Patient

Heart failure studies have suggested important differences between women and men both in heart failure etiology and in survival. Clinical trials and long-standing perceptions of the typical heart failure patient have related far more to men than to women, while more women than men in the United States may be hospitalized with heart failure. The goal of this study was to analyze ADHERE Registry data, the largest database of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) patient hospitalizations available, to gain insight into the effect of gender on medical history, clinical characteristics, and discharge counseling. This preliminary study analyzed the 85,617 ADHF hospitalizations in the ADHERE Registry as of October 2003, with 44,340 (52%) women and 41,276 (48%) men included. Women were significantly older (mean age 74.6 +/- 13.7 years) than men (mean age 70.2 +/- 13.9 years, P < .0001). Women were more likely to have a history of hypertension (75% vs. 69%, P < .0001) and a systolic blood pressure > 140 mm Hg (56% vs. 44%, P < .0001). History of coronary artery disease was more common in men (64% vs. 51%, P < .0001). Other risk factors for atherosclerosis, including smoking (17% vs. 10%, P < .0001) and hyperlipidemia (37% vs. 32%, P < .0001), were also more common in men. Men had a significantly lower mean left ventricular ejection fraction (32.9%, N = 30,831) than women (42.1%, N = 29,744); 51% of women had preserved left ventricular function (EF > 40%) compared to only 28% of men (P < 0.0001). At discharge, adherence to 3 of the 4 JCAHO standardized measures of quality of care far heart failure patients were documented more frequently for men than for women. A significantly smaller proportion of women received discharge instructions on management of diet, weight, and medications (30.1% vs. 32.8%); received or were scheduled for assessment of left ventricular function (81.5% vs. 85.6%); or were discharged with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor prescription if appropriate (72.6% vs. 73.9%). Real-world data from the ADHERE Registry may lead to better recognition of the signs and symptoms of heart failure in women, increase the proportion of women who are correctly diagnosed, and may help to support gender-specific considerations in heart failure guidelines.

Are Myocardial Fibrosis and Diastolic Dysfunction Reversible in Hypertensive Heart Disease?

Diastolic dysfunction is an important factor contributing to the appearance of symptomatic heart failure, particularly among elderly women with arterial hypertension. In hypertensive heart disease, the presence of cardiac fibrosis is an important determinant of abnormal myocardial stiffness that contributes to diastolic dysfunction. Recent studies indicate the feasibility of a pharmacology-based regression of fibrosis and improvement in diastolic stiffness.

Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure in the Community

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of our current study was to determine whether our disease-management model was associated with long-term survival benefits. A secondary objective was to determine whether program involvement was associated with medication maintenance and reduced hospitalization over time compared to usual care management of heart failure.

DESIGN

A retrospective chart review was conducted in patients who had been hospitalized for congestive heart failure between April 1999 and March 31, 2000, and had been discharged from the hospital for follow-up in the Heart Failure Clinic vs usual care.

SETTING

An integrated health-care center serving a tristate area.

PATIENTS

Patients (n = 101) were followed up for 4 years after their index hospitalization for congestive heart failure.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

The patients followed up in the Heart Failure Clinic comprised group 1 (n = 38), and the patients receiving usual care made up group 2 (n = 63). The mean (+/- SD) age of the patients in group 1 was 68 +/- 16 years compared to 76 +/- 11 years for the patients in group 2 (p = 0.002). The patients in group 1 were more likely to have renal failure (p = 0.035), a lower left ventricular ejection fraction (p = 0.005), and hypotension at baseline (p = 0.002). At year 2, more patients in group 1 were maintained by therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) [p = 0.036]. The survival rate over 4 years was better for group 1. Univariate Cox proportional hazard ratios revealed that age, not receiving ACEIs or ARBs, and renal disease or cancer at baseline were associated with mortality. When controlling for these variables in a multivariate Cox proportional hazards ratio model, survival differences between groups remained significant (p = 0.021). Subjects in group 2 were 2.4 times more likely to die over the 4-year period than those in group 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that, after controlling for baseline variables, patients participating in a heart failure clinic enjoyed improved survival.

Patient perception of the effect of treatment with candesartan in heart failure. Results of the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme

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.

Atherosclerotic renovascular disease in chronic heart failure: should we intervene?

Renal artery stenosis (RAS) is most commonly caused by atherosclerosis, which is also the most common cause of chronic heart failure (CHF). One-third of patients with CHF are reported to have significant renovascular disease. The presence of RAS confers a worse outcome in studies of hypertension and coronary disease, though data are lacking for patients with CHF. As the kidney is intricately involved in the fluid retention that occurs in CHF, an adverse effect of RAS on outcome would be expected. Presentations of RAS in CHF include flash pulmonary oedema, hypertension, worsening of CHF, and worsening renal function. RAS commonly progresses and may cause worsening of renal function in patients with CHF and previously stable renal function. A variety of investigations that can safely and accurately identify RAS in CHF are available, although none is recommended in current guidelines for the management of CHF. Treatment for RAS, whether for hypertension, for renal dysfunction, or for pulmonary oedema, is at the discretion of the physician due to the lack of adequate randomized controlled trials demonstrating the efficacy and safety of intervention. As it is not clear how RAS should be managed in CHF, screening cannot be advocated. Currently, a multicentre randomized outcome trial, which includes a cohort of patients with RAS and CHF, is in progress to provide answers in this area of uncertainty.

Heart failure in patients with preserved and deteriorated left ventricular ejection fraction

OBJECTIVES

To determine clinical and prognostic differences between preserved and deteriorated systolic function (defined as left ventricular (LV) ejection fractions > or = 50% and < 50%, respectively) in patients with heart failure satisfying modified Framingham criteria.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Records were studied of 1252 patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) (mean (SD) age 69.4 (11.7) years; 485 women, 767 men) who had been admitted to a cardiology service for CHF in the period 1991-2002 and whose LV systolic function had been echocardiographically evaluated within two weeks of admission. Data were collected on the main clinical findings, supplementary examinations, treatment, and duration of hospitalisation. Whether the patient was alive in the spring of 2003 was evaluated by searching the general archives of the hospital and by telephone survey.

RESULTS

LV systolic function was preserved in 39.8% of patients. Age, female to male sex ratio, and prevalence of atrial fibrillation, valve disease, and other non-ischaemic, non-dilated cardiopathies were all significantly greater in the group with preserved systolic function. New York Heart Association functional class IV, third heart sound, jugular vein congestion, cardiomegaly, radiological signs of lung oedema, pathological Q waves, left bundle branch block, sinus rhythm, ischaemic cardiopathy, and dilated cardiomyopathy were all significantly more prevalent in the group with deteriorated systolic function, as was treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and most other antihypertensive drugs on discharge from hospital. There was no significant difference in survival between the groups with preserved and deteriorated systolic function (either survival regardless of age at admission or in subgroups aged < 75 and > or = 75 years at admission). In the whole group, survival rates after one, three, and five years were 84.0%, 66.7%, and 50.9%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In view of the poor prognosis of patients with CHF with preserved LV systolic function, who are currently treated empirically, it is to be hoped that relevant controlled clinical trials under way will afford information allowing optimisation of their treatment.

Effects of candesartan on cardiac sympathetic nerve activity in patients with congestive heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate the effects of angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) on cardiac sympathetic nerve activity (CSNA) in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

BACKGROUND

Approximately 50% of patients with CHF have preserved LVEF. It is reported that ARB therapy improves CSNA in CHF patients and reduced LVEF. However, the effect of ARB therapy on CSNA evaluated by iodine-123 meta-iodobenzylguanidine ((123)I-MIBG) scintigraphy has not been determined in CHF patients with preserved LVEF.

METHODS

We selected 50 patients with nonischemic CHF and LVEF >40% who were treated with standard therapy. Twenty-five patients were randomized to also receive candesartan, whereas the remaining 25 patients received placebo. The delayed heart/mediastinum count (H/M) ratio, delayed total defect score (TDS), and washout rate (WR) were determined by (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy before and six months after treatment. The LV end-diastolic volume and LVEF were determined by echocardiography, and the plasma brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) concentration was also measured.

RESULTS

In patients receiving candesartan, (123)I-MIBG scintigraphic and echocardiographic parameters were significantly improved after treatment. In contrast, there were no significant changes in these parameters in patients receiving placebo. There was a significant correlation between the changes in (123)I-MIBG scintigraphic findings and the percent change in BNP from baseline to six months in patients receiving candesartan (TDS: r = 0.587, p < 0.005; H/M ratio: r = -0.509, p < 0.01; WR: r = 0.602, p < 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Adding candesartan to standard therapy can improve CSNA and LV performance in CHF patients with preserved LVEF.

Candesartan Cilexetil

Candesartan cilexetil is the orally administered pro-drug of candesartan, a highly selective antagonist of the angiotensin II subtype 1 receptor that mediates the pressor activities of angiotensin II. Candesartan cilexetil is widely used for the treatment of hypertension and has recently been approved in Europe for the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF) in patients with impaired left ventricular (LV) systolic function. Results of the CHARM (Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity) programme suggest that oral candesartan cilexetil reduces morbidity and mortality in patients with CHF and LV ejection fraction (LVEF) < or =40%. There are cardiovascular benefits when candesartan cilexetil is administered as an alternative to an ACE inhibitor, or as an add-on to current treatment regimens that include an ACE inhibitor, in symptomatic CHF. While tolerability is generally good, renal monitoring is required. The recent approval of candesartan cilexetil as both add-on and alternative therapy to ACE inhibitors in patients with CHF and impaired LV systolic function recognises the cardiovascular benefits of candesartan cilexetil in both types of treatment regimens.

Aetiology, comorbidity and drug therapy of chronic heart failure in the real world: the EPICA substudy

BACKGROUND

Chronic heart failure (CHF) is common and is frequently managed by primary care physicians (PCPs). Despite the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Guidelines, standard treatments for CHF are frequently underutilised, particularly in primary care.

AIM

To evaluate current drug therapy for CHF in adults with HF diagnosed according to ESC guidelines in the context of the EPICA study. Aetiological features and therapy relevant comorbidities were also analysed.

METHODS

EPICA was a community-based epidemiological study conducted in mainland Portugal. The study involved 365 primary care physicians, who evaluated 6300 primary care attendees aged over 25 years. CHF was diagnosed by clinical and echocardiography criteria according to ESC guidelines.

RESULTS

Total of 551 cases of CHF were identified, with a mean age of 65+/-9 years. The estimated overall prevalence of CHF in the Portuguese population was 4.4%; 1.3% with and 1.7% without left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). There are 6,280,792 people aged >25 years in Portugal, which extrapolates to 261,400 cases of heart failure. About 80% of patients had a history of hypertension, 39% had a history of coronary artery disease and 15% had atrial fibrillation. Only 58% of patients were on angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and 7% on beta-blockers. The type of ventricular dysfunction, age and presence of renal failure had little effect on prescription rates. Diuretics were prescribed in 78%. Thiazides were used more frequently in those with preserved systolic function and frusemide in those with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Digoxin was prescribed more often to patients with than without left ventricular systolic dysfunction (34% vs. 17%; p=0.02). Long-acting nitrates were prescribed to 20% and amiodarone to 8% of patients.

CONCLUSION

The EPICA study, as in other studies in primary care in Europe, particularly the IMPROVEMENT study, suggests that greater efforts are required to improve training of primary care teams in the management of CHF.

Anemia and heart failure

Over the past few years, anemia has emerged as a powerful independent predictor of adverse outcomes in chronic heart failure (CHF). It affects up to 50% of patients with CHF, depending on the definition of anemia used and on the population studied. Even small reductions in hemoglobin are associated with worse outcome. However, the causes of anemia in CHF remain unclear, although impairment of renal function and inflammatory cytokines are proposed mechanisms. Both may act through impairment of the synthesis or action of erythropoietin. Preliminary studies have demonstrated improvement in symptoms, exercise tolerance, quality of life, and reductions in hospitalizations when patients with severe CHF were treated with erythropoietin. The benefits and the potential risks of such therapies will be further addressed in upcoming larger randomized trials. The recent interest in anemia reflects a new perspective in heart failure therapy, focusing on non-cardiovascular comorbidities.

Mortality and Morbidity Reduction With Candesartan in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure and Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction

Background— Patients with symptomatic chronic heart failure (CHF) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) have a high risk of death and hospitalization for CHF deterioration despite therapies with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, β-blockers, and even an aldosterone antagonist. To determine whether the angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) candesartan decreases cardiovascular mortality, morbidity, and all-cause mortality in patients with CHF and depressed LVEF, a prespecified analysis of the combined Candesartan in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) low LVEF trials was performed. CHARM is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, international trial program.

Methods and Results— New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II through IV CHF patients with an LVEF of ≤40% were randomized to candesartan or placebo in 2 complementary parallel trials (CHARM-Alternative, for patients who cannot tolerate ACE inhibitors, and CHARM-Added, for patients who were receiving ACE inhibitors). Mortality and morbidity were determined in 4576 low LVEF patients (2289 candesartan and 2287 placebo), titrated as tolerated to a target dose of 32 mg once daily, and observed for 2 to 4 years (median, 40 months). The primary outcome (time to first event by intention to treat) was cardiovascular death or CHF hospitalization for each trial, with all-cause mortality a secondary end point in the pooled analysis of the low LVEF trials. Of the patients in the candesartan group, 817 (35.7%) experienced cardiovascular death or a CHF hospitalization as compared with 944 (41.3%) in the placebo group (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.90; P <0.001) with reduced risk for both cardiovascular deaths (521 [22.8%] versus 599 [26.2%]; HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.75 to 0.95]; P =0.005) and CHF hospitalizations (516 [22.5%] versus 642 [28.1%]; HR 0.76 [95% CI 0.68 to 0.85]; P <0.001). It is important to note that all-cause mortality also was significantly reduced by candesartan (642 [28.0%] versus 708 [31.0%]; HR 0.88 [95% CI 0.79 to 0.98]; P =0.018). No significant heterogeneity for the beneficial effects of candesartan was found across prespecified and subsequently identified subgroups including treatment with ACE inhibitors, β-blockers, an aldosterone antagonist, or their combinations. The study drug was discontinued because of adverse effects by 23.1% of patients in the candesartan group and 18.8% in the placebo group; the reasons included increased creatinine (7.1% versus 3.5%), hypotension (4.2% versus 2.1%), and hyperkalemia (2.8% versus 0.5%), respectivelyt (all P <0.001).

Conclusion— Candesartan significantly reduces all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and heart failure hospitalizations in patients with CHF and LVEF ≤40% when added to standard therapies including ACE inhibitors, β-blockers, and an aldosterone antagonist. Routine monitoring of blood pressure, serum creatinine, and serum potassium is warranted.

Diastolic heart failure: a difficult problem in the elderly

Heart failure with normal systolic function has been equated to diastolic heart failure (DHF). DHF appears to be quite common in the elderly, especially in elderly women with hypertension. Recent epidemiologic studies suggest that 30%-50% of patients with heart failure may have DHF. Morbidity for DHF is considerable and comparable to that of heart failure with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Both groups of patients have similar rates of recurrent hospitalization and cost of care. Long-term mortality also appears to be similar in the two groups of patients. With the aging of the population, the numbers of patients with DHF will continue to rise and are likely to contribute significantly to the burden of disease caused by heart failure. Unfortunately, as yet, no reliable definition has been found for DHF. Currently the diagnosis of DHF is often made by exclusion, and treatment is empirical and unsatisfactory because of the lack of large-scale, randomized, controlled trials in this area; however, several large and other smaller trials are currently in progress that will hopefully provide some answers.

Is heart failure different on the two continents (North America and Europe)?

Heart failure is increasing in both North America and Europe. Although many similarities in the disease are apparent between the two continents, differences do exist. Heart failure with preserved systolic function appears to be increasingly important on both continents, and is associated more frequently with hypertension, aging, and female sex. Treatment guidelines from the two continents show more similarities than differences, though different treatment patterns emerge. Because more patients with heart failure will be older in the future, clinical trials that include greater numbers of these patients are needed to demonstrate that therapies are as effective and safe in this population.

Heart failure with preserved left ventricular systolic function; epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and prognosis

Recent cross-sectional, population-based echocardiographic studies show that about half of all patients with heart failure have preserved left ventricular systolic function (HF-PSF). Cohort studies of hospitalized patients show a smaller proportion of HF-PSF. Compared to those with reduced systolic function, patients with HF-PSF are more often female, older, less likely to have coronary artery disease, and more likely to have hypertension. Patients with HF-PSF are less symptomatic and receive different pharmacologic therapy than patients with reduced systolic function. Morbidity and mortality rates in patients with HF-PSF are high but not quite as high as in patients with reduced systolic function. Though much has recently been learned about the syndrome of HF-PSF, many questions remain to be answered, not least how it should be treated.

Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure

The National High Blood Pressure Education Program presents the complete Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Like its predecessors, the purpose is to provide an evidence-based approach to the prevention and management of hypertension. The key messages of this report are these: in those older than age 50, systolic blood pressure (BP) of greater than 140 mm Hg is a more important cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor than diastolic BP; beginning at 115/75 mm Hg, CVD risk doubles for each increment of 20/10 mm Hg; those who are normotensive at 55 years of age will have a 90% lifetime risk of developing hypertension; prehypertensive individuals (systolic BP 120-139 mm Hg or diastolic BP 80-89 mm Hg) require health-promoting lifestyle modifications to prevent the progressive rise in blood pressure and CVD; for uncomplicated hypertension, thiazide diuretic should be used in drug treatment for most, either alone or combined with drugs from other classes; this report delineates specific high-risk conditions that are compelling indications for the use of other antihypertensive drug classes (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers); two or more antihypertensive medications will be required to achieve goal BP (<140/90 mm Hg, or <130/80 mm Hg) for patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease; for patients whose BP is more than 20 mm Hg above the systolic BP goal or more than 10 mm Hg above the diastolic BP goal, initiation of therapy using two agents, one of which usually will be a thiazide diuretic, should be considered; regardless of therapy or care, hypertension will be controlled only if patients are motivated to stay on their treatment plan. Positive experiences, trust in the clinician, and empathy improve patient motivation and satisfaction. This report serves as a guide, and the committee continues to recognize that the responsible physician's judgment remains paramount.

Clinical trials update from the European Society of Cardiology: CHARM, BASEL, EUROPA and ESTEEM

This article contains a series of reports on recent research developments in the field of heart failure. Reports of key presentations made at the European Society of Cardiology meeting, held in Vienna, Austria, between 30 August and 3 September 2003 are reported. In the CHARM study, candesartan reduced cardiovascular deaths and hospital admissions for heart failure, both in patients who were already taking an ACE-inhibitor and in those who were ACE intolerant. However, results in patients with preserved left ventricular function were less conclusive. The BASEL study supports the use of B-type natriuretic peptide testing to confirm the diagnosis of heart failure in patients presenting with acute dyspnoea. In EUROPA, the largest ever study of secondary prevention of coronary artery disease, long-term treatment with perindopril reduced the incidence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiac arrest. The ESTEEM study showed that the oral thrombin inhibitor ximelagatran plus aspirin was more effective than aspirin alone in the prophylaxis of major cardiovascular events following MI.

Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved left-ventricular ejection fraction: the CHARM-Preserved Trial

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. Analysis 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%.

Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left-ventricular systolic function intolerant to angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors: the CHARM-Alternative trial

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 angiotensin-receptor 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.

Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left-ventricular systolic function taking angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors: the CHARM-Added trial

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 beta 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 beta 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.

Effects of candesartan on mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure: the CHARM-Overall programme

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.