The LIDO, HOPE, MOXCON and WASH studies

Interaction between cyclooxygenase and the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system: rationale and clinical relevance

Increased understanding of pathophysiological mechanisms of cardiovascular diseases has shown that the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) is activated in this setting and suggests a central role for the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE). ACE transforms angiotensin I (Ang I) to angiotensin II (Ang II), and also promotes the degradation of bradykinin into inactive metabolites. These bradykinins stimulate nitric oxide synthesis and vasodilatator prostaglandin synthesis via a cyclooxygenase (COX) pathway.

COX inhibitors may therefore be deleterious in cardiovascular disease and/or counteract part of ACE inhibitor (ACE-I) efficacy. This has been clearly demonstrated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including high-dose aspirin, in avoiding their use in such patients. hypertension, coronary artery disease and chronic heart failure (CHF); most guidelines recommend avoiding their use in such patients.

Theoretically, this effect is dose-mediated and the existence of an identical deleterious effect with low-dose aspirin has been an area of intense debate. In this article, we review studies, most of them conducted in CHF, that pointed out such a possible deleterious effect and a counteraction of ACE-Is with low-dose aspirin , using various criteria of assessment.

However, there are no prospective long-term studies that have validated such an effect, and the role of other anti-aggregating agents has not been evaluated. Until such studies are published, the use of low-dose aspirin (100 mg/day) in such patients can be recommended.

Interactions between cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease

OPININION STATEMENT: All patients with ischemic stroke should undergo a comprehensive assessment of cardiovascular risk. Patients with carotid artery disease, symptoms of cerebral ischemia and high cardiovascular risk profiles should be considered for noninvasive testing for coronary artery disease (CAD). Routine testing for CAD before carotid endarterctomy is not recommended. Patients with coexisting coronary and carotid artery disease should be more aggressively treated for reducing their "very high" risk of cardiovascular events. In patients candidates to carotid revascularization, a preoperative coronary angiography and coronary revascularization are not recommended. Warfarin is recommended in all patients with moderate to high risk of stroke. Novel oral anticoagulants represent an attractive alternative to warfarin. However, their place in therapy in clinical practice is not yet established. Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage for stroke prophylaxis may be considered in selected patients with atrial fibrillation and contraindications for oral anticoagulant therapy. Warfarin is not indicated in patients with heart failure who are in sinus rhythm. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen does not seem to be superior to medical therapy for the prevention of recurrences in patients with cryptogenic stroke.

The primary and secondary prevention of coronary artery disease: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition)

The following chapter devoted to antithrombotic therapy for chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) is part of the Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that the benefits do or do not outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 suggests that individual patient values may lead to different choices (for a full understanding of the grading see the "Grades of Recommendation" chapter by Guyatt et al in this supplement, CHEST 2008; 133[suppl]:123S-131S). Among the key recommendations in this chapter are the following: for patients with non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE)-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) we recommend daily oral aspirin (75-100 mg) [Grade 1A]. For patients with an aspirin allergy, we recommend clopidogrel, 75 mg/d (Grade 1A). For patients who have received clopidogrel and are scheduled for coronary bypass surgery, we suggest discontinuing clopidogrel for 5 days prior to the scheduled surgery (Grade 2A). For patients after myocardial infarction, after ACS, and those with stable CAD and patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), we recommend daily aspirin (75-100 mg) as indefinite therapy (Grade 1A). We recommend clopidogrel in combination with aspirin for patients experiencing ST-segment elevation (STE) and NSTE-ACS (Grade 1A). For patients with contraindications to aspirin, we recommend clopidogrel as monotherapy (Grade 1A). For long-term treatment after PCI in patients who receive antithrombotic agents such as clopidogrel or warfarin, we recommend aspirin (75 to 100 mg/d) [Grade 1B]. For patients who undergo bare metal stent placement, we recommend the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel for at least 4 weeks (Grade 1A). We recommend that patients receiving drug-eluting stents (DES) receive aspirin (325 mg/d for 3 months followed by 75-100 mg/d) and clopidogrel 75 mg/d for a minimum of 12 months (Grade 2B). For primary prevention in patients with moderate risk for a coronary event, we recommend aspirin, 75-100 mg/d, over either no antithrombotic therapy or vitamin K antagonist (Grade 1A).

Treatments with losartan or enalapril are equally sensitive to deterioration in renal function from cyclooxygenase inhibition

BACKGROUND

The beneficial effects of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors are in part mediated through the inhibition of the degradation of the vasodilator bradykinin. The bradykinin effect is counteracted by cyclooxygenase-inhibitors. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) do not affect bradykinin.

AIMS

To test the hypothesis that renal counteraction from a cyclooxygenase-inhibitor, diclofenac, is different in subjects treated with an ACE-inhibitor, enalapril compared with an ARB, losartan.

METHODS

Twelve elderly, healthy, slightly over-hydrated subjects received diclofenac orally after pre-treatment with a diuretic, bendroflumethiazide, and enalapril or bendroflumethiazide and losartan, in a double-blind cross-over fashion, with a wash-out period of at least 1 week.

RESULTS

Diclofenac reduced GFR significantly from 81(64-98) ml/min at first observations after dose for enalapril to 29(16-42) and from 76(64-88) after losartan to 35(24-46). There was no significant difference between enalapril and losartan in GFR. Diclofenac induced decreases in urine flow, excretion rates and clearances of sodium, osmolality clearance and free water clearance, irrespective of treatment with enalapril or losartan. However, serum potassium and handling of potassium were significantly lower after losartan-treatment.

CONCLUSION

The negative renal effects of diclofenac administration in subjects with activation of the renin-angiotensin system and enalapril treatment are the same in subjects with activation of the renin-angiotensin system and losartan treatment.

Acute administration of diclofenac, but possibly not long term low dose aspirin, causes detrimental renal effects in heart failure patients treated with ACE-inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) or high doses of aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) can exert detrimental effects on renal function and counteract the beneficial effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in patients with congestive heart failure.

AIMS

The objective of our study was to evaluate the renal effects of low dose aspirin and the NSAID diclofenac in patients with congestive heart failure treated with ACE-inhibitors.

METHODS

Ten patients on their individually titrated dose of ACE-inhibitors and low dose aspirin (< or =125 mg daily) with stable congestive heart failure from coronary artery disease, entered an open investigation while on low dose aspirin, which was then discontinued. After one week wash-out they received an oral dose of 50 mg diclofenac potassium or placebo in a double-blind cross-over fashion with a one week wash-out period between treatments.

RESULTS

Diclofenac caused significant (P<0.05) decreases in GFR, urine flow, osmolality clearance, and excretion rates of sodium and potassium compared to placebo and aspirin. At t(max) for diclofenac or corresponding time for placebo diclofenac caused 40 (11-59)% (geometric mean and 95% confidence limits) reduction in GFR compared to placebo and 36 (5.4-56)% reduction to low-dose aspirin. No significant changes between low dose aspirin and placebo were found.

CONCLUSION

Acute administration of diclofenac, but not long term low dose aspirin, has profound impact on renal function in patients with heart failure treated with ACE-inhibitors and may cause worsened heart failure.

The effect of beta-adrenergic receptor antagonism in cardiac sympathetic neuronal remodeling in patients with heart failure

BACKGROUND

beta-adrenergic receptor antagonism with drugs like carvedilol slows the progression of heart failure by an undefined mechanism. (123)I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) is an analog of norepinephrine used to study cardiac sympathetic function.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled study, we used MIBG imaging to evaluate the effect of carvedilol (n=15) or placebo (n=7) on neuronal norepinephrine reuptake in patients with heart failure due to idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, with LVEF less than 35% and functional class II or III. The drug was begun at 6.25 mg b.i.d. and titrated up to 25 mg t.i.d, as tolerated. Thorax planar scintigraphy images were obtained 15 min (Initial) and 4 h (Late) after MIBG injection at baseline (t(0)) as well as 2 months (t(1)) and 6 months (t(2)) after drug initiation. The multifarious statistical technique of profile analysis was applied and p< or =0.05 was considered significant. The heart/mediastinum MIBG uptake (H/M ratio) was calculated from these images. On the Initial images, the H/M ratio was 1.64+/-0.24 (t(0)), 1.71+/-0.21 (t(1)), and 1.87+/-0.34 (t(2)) in the carvedilol group and 1.68+/-0.42 (t(0)), 1.81+/-0.45 (t(1)), and 1.69+/-0.44 (t(2)) in controls (p=0.0455). On the Late images, the H/M ratio was 1.39+/-0.24 (t(0)), 1.53+/-0.23 (t(1)), and 1.64+/-0.36 (t(2)) in the carvedilol group, and 1.49+/-0.45 (t(0)), 1.53+/-0.47 (t(1)), and 1.47+/-0.41 (t(2)) in controls (p=0.0513).

CONCLUSION

Compared with placebo, the addition of carvedilol to existing heart failure treatment incites the reverse remodeling of cardiac sympathetic nervous system function.

Cyclooxygenase inhibition causes marked impairment of renal function in elderly subjects treated with diuretics and ACE-inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors is known to cause an initial reduction in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in patients with congestive heart failure. The long-term beneficial effects of ACE-inhibitors in these patients can be counteracted by cyclooxygenase-inhibitors.

AIMS

To quantify the negative renal effects of the cyclooxygenase-inhibitor diclofenac in elderly healthy subjects and to assess how treatment with an ACE-inhibitor, after activation of the renin-angiotensin system, influences these renal effects.

METHODS

Fourteen elderly, healthy subjects received oral diclofenac and placebo in a double-blind cross-over fashion. The study was divided in two parts; in part one, subjects received no pre-treatment and in part two, the subjects were given pre-treatment with bendroflumethiazide and enalapril in order to activate the renin-angiotensin system.

RESULTS

Diclofenac induced significant (p<0.05) decreases in GFR, urine flow, excretion rates of sodium and potassium, electrolyte clearance, osmolality clearance and free water clearance both with and without renin-angiotensin system activation. Least square means (95% CI) of all observations during the first 6 h after dosing showed that diclofenac caused a reduction in GFR from 71 (64-78) to 59 (52-66) ml/min. After pre-treatment, diclofenac further reduced GFR from 60 (52-67) to 48 (40-55) ml/min. After diclofenac administration, urine flow fell from 7.4 (6.4-8.3) to 5.1 (4.2-6.1) ml/min, after pre-treatment, diclofenac gave a further reduction from 4.1 (3.1-5.1) to 2.2 (1.3-3.2) ml/min. More than half of the reductions were caused by the pre-treatment.

CONCLUSION

Renal function in elderly, healthy subjects is impaired after acute intake of diclofenac. This impairment is observed both with and without activation of the renin-angiotensin system and ACE-inhibitor treatment but is more pronounced after pre-treatment.

Antithrombotic therapy for coronary artery disease: the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy

This chapter about antithrombotic therapy for coronary artery disease (CAD) is part of the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: Evidence Based Guidelines. Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that the benefits do, or do not, outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 suggests that individual patients' values may lead to different choices (for a full understanding of the grading see Guyatt et al, CHEST 2004; 126:179S-187S). Among the key recommendations in this chapter are the following: For patients presenting with non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE) acute coronary syndrome (ACS), we recommend immediate and then daily oral aspirin (Grade 1A). For patients with an aspirin allergy, we recommend immediate treatment with clopidogrel, 300-mg bolus po, followed by 75 mg/d indefinitely (Grade 1A). In all NSTE ACS patients in whom diagnostic catheterization will be delayed or when coronary bypass surgery will not occur until > 5 days, we recommend clopidogrel as bolus therapy (300 mg), followed by 75 mg/d for 9 to 12 months in addition to aspirin (Grade 1A). In NSTE ACS patients in whom angiography will take place within 24 h, we suggest beginning clopidogrel after the coronary anatomy has been determined (Grade 2A). For patients who have received clopidogrel and are scheduled for coronary bypass surgery, we recommend discontinuing clopidogrel for 5 days prior to the scheduled surgery (Grade 2A). In moderate- to high-risk patients presenting with NSTE ACS, we recommend either eptifibatide or tirofiban for initial (early) treatment in addition to treatment with aspirin and heparin (Grade 1A). For the acute treatment of NSTE ACS, we recommend low molecular weight heparins over unfractionated heparin (UFH) [Grade 1B] and UFH over no heparin therapy use with antiplatelet therapies (Grade 1A). We recommend against the direct thrombin inhibitors as routine initial antithrombin therapy (Grade 1B). For patients after myocardial infarction, after ACS, and with stable CAD, we recommend aspirin in doses from 75 to 325 mg as initial therapy and in doses of 75 to 162 mg as indefinite therapy (Grade 1A). For patients with contraindications to aspirin, we recommend long-term clopidogrel (Grade 1A). For primary prevention in patients with at least moderate risk for a coronary event, we recommend aspirin, 75 to 162 mg/d, over either no antithrombotic therapy or vitamin K antagonist (VKA) [Grade 2A]; for patients at particularly high risk of events in whom the international normalized ratio (INR) can be monitored without difficulty, we suggest low-dose VKA (target INR, 1.5) [Grade 2A].

?-Adrenoceptor Blockers as Agonists: Coupling of ?2-Adrenoceptors to Multiple G-Proteins in the Failing Human Heart

Beta blockers have been shown in clinical trials to improve cardiac function and reduce mortality of heart failure patients. However, these agents require careful titration since they can produce an initial decrease in cardiac output. The authors have recently shown that beta blockers, including some used clinically, can directly depress contraction of myocardium from the failing (but not nonfailing) human heart. This occurs on single ventricular myocytes and is therefore completely independent of any inhibition of endogenous catecholamines. The effect appears to be mediated primarily by the beta2-adrenoceptor (AR) and is dependent on the inhibitory guanine nucleotide binding protein, Gi. Using a transgenic mouse model, as well as adenoviral vectors to overexpress Gi or the human beta2AR in adult myocytes of various species, the authors demonstrate that agents that are blockers for bAR/Gs coupling can be agonists at a beta2AR/Gi-coupled form of the receptor. The negative effect of beta blockers could contribute to the initial cardiodepression that is observed when introducing these agents in heart failure patients. However, in the long term, beta2AR/Gi coupling may enhance the ability of beta blockers to protect and improve the function of the failing heart.

The Warfarin/Aspirin Study in Heart failure (WASH): a randomized trial comparing antithrombotic strategies for patients with heart failure

BACKGROUND

Heart failure is commonly associated with vascular disease and a high rate of athero-thrombotic events, but the risks and benefits of antithrombotic therapy are unknown.

METHODS

The current study was an open-label, randomized, controlled trial comparing no antithrombotic therapy, aspirin (300 mg/day), and warfarin (target international normalized ratio 2.5) in patients with heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction requiring diuretic therapy. The primary objective was to demonstrate the feasibility and inform the design of a larger outcome study. The primary clinical outcome was death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

RESULTS

Two hundred seventy-nine patients were randomized and 627 patient-years exposure were accumulated over a mean follow-up time of 27 +/- 1 months. Twenty-six (26%), 29 (32%), and 23 (26%) patients randomized to no antithrombotic treatment, aspirin, and warfarin, respectively, reached the primary outcome (ns). There were trends to a worse outcome among those randomized to aspirin for a number of secondary outcomes. Significantly (P =.044) more patients randomized to aspirin were hospitalized for cardiovascular reasons, especially worsening heart failure.

CONCLUSIONS

The Warfarin/Aspirin Study in Heart failure (WASH) provides no evidence that aspirin is effective or safe in patients with heart failure. The benefits of warfarin for patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm have not been established. Antithrombotic therapy in patients with heart failure is not evidence based but commonly contributes to polypharmacy.

The Warfarin and Antiplatelet Therapy in Heart Failure Trial (WATCH): rationale, design, and baseline patient characteristics

BACKGROUND

The role of anticoagulation in patients with chronic heart failure has long been an area of interest and controversy. Traditionally the goal of anticoagulation has been to prevent embolic events, but recent trials also demonstrated that oral anticoagulation also prevents vascular events in patients with prior myocardial infarction, who constitute the majority of heart failure patients. Although antiplatelet agents also reduce postinfarction vascular events, few data are available in heart failure patients, and some evidence suggests that aspirin may also have the potential to worsen heart failure morbidity and mortality, possibly by interfering with the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Methods and results The Warfarin and Antiplatelet Therapy in Chronic Heart Failure (WATCH) trial was undertaken to determine the optimal antithrombotic agent for heart failure patients. WATCH was a prospective-randomized trial in which symptomatic heart failure patients in sinus rhythm with ejection fractions < or =35% taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (unless not tolerated) and diuretics were randomized to open-label warfarin (target International Normalized Ratio 2.5-3.0) or double-blind antiplatelet therapy with aspirin 162 mg or clopidogrel 75 mg. Two primary comparisons were specified: anticoagulation with warfarin versus antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel versus antiplatelet therapy with aspirin. The primary outcome is the composite of death from all causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke analyzed as time to first event using the intent-to-treat approach. The secondary endpoint was the broader composite of death from all causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, and hospitalizations for worsening heart failure, unstable angina pectoris, and systemic or pulmonary artery embolic events. Additional prespecified analyses include heart failure events, coronary events, and resource utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the trial was designed to enter 4500 patients, it was terminated 18 months prematurely in June 2003 by the VA Cooperative Study Program because of poor enrollment with a resulting reduction of its power to achieve its original objective. This manuscript describes the study rationale, protocol design, and the baseline characteristics of the 1587 patients who were entered into the study. The WATCH trial will help define the optimal approach to antithrombotic therapy in the contemporary management of patients with chronic heart failure resulting from left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Long-term treatment with low-dose, but not high-dose, guanethidine improves ventricular function and survival of rats with heart failure after myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate the effects of various doses of guanethidine, a sympathoinhibitory drug, on ventricular function and survival in chronic heart failure (CHF) after myocardial infarction (MI) in rats.

BACKGROUND

Direct inhibition of sympathetic outflow by a sympathoinhibitory drug might be an effective approach to therapy of CHF. However, recent clinical trials suggest that excessive suppression of sympathetic activity has an adverse effect on outcome. It remains unclear whether the beneficial effects of the sympathoinhibitory drug would be modified by its dosage.

METHODS

Three doses of guanethidine (low-dose [LG], 1 mg/kg/day; medium-dose, 3 mg/kg/day; high-dose, 10 mg/kg/day) were administered via an osmotic mini-pump for 4 weeks. Hemodynamics, left ventricular (LV) diameters, plasma and myocardial norepinephrine (NE) levels, and survival were determined for four weeks after MI.

RESULTS

As compared with MI rats receiving vehicle, LG suppressed LV dilation (9.2 +/- 0.9 mm vs. 11.0 +/- 0.8 mm, p < 0.05) and improved LV fractional shortening (25.0 +/- 4.5% vs. 16.4 +/- 4.7%, p < 0.05) in association with a reduction of plasma NE levels (520 +/- 250 pg/ml vs. 1,000 +/- 570 pg/ml, p < 0.05), but not with a significant reduction of noninfarcted myocardial NE levels (154 +/- 71 ng/g vs. 207 +/- 71 ng/g). Low-dose guanethidine reduced 24-h (6%) and 28-day mortality (6%), as compared with untreated MI rats (36% and 52%, respectively). High-dose guanethidine also reduced 24-h mortality (12%) but increased 28-day mortality (91%), in association with a depletion of myocardial NE. Medium-dose guanethidine had no beneficial effects on LV hemodynamics or long-term survival.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that the dosage of the sympathoinhibitory drug might be quite important for the treatment of CHF.

Novel Pharmacologic Therapy of Heart Failure

The prevalence of congestive heart failure is progressively increasing and despite recent advances in therapeutics, there is a continuing need for novel effective therapies. New, investigational treatment strategies include inotropic drugs, neurohormonal antagonists, anticytokine and anti-inflammatory strategies, hormonal therapies, and nutritional supplements. Current positive inotropes (eg, dobutamine and phosphodiesterase inhibitors) provide symptomatic relief, but newer agents may have a better adverse effect profile. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors should remain first-line treatment with angiotensin receptor blockers used in ACE inhibitor-intolerant patients. Many new neurohormonal antagonists have recently been investigated and eplerenone has demonstrated clinical benefit. New hormonal, anticytokine, and anti-inflammatory therapies have shown benefit in small trials, but results in larger trials have been disappointing. Other approaches are currently being tested in large trials that will clarify their role. Nutritional supplements need to be tested in a large prospective trial before they can be recommended.

Aspirin alters arterial function in patients with chronic heart failure treated with ACE inhibitors: a dose-mediated deleterious effect

BACKGROUND

By inhibiting prostaglandin synthesis, aspirin can interfere with both arterial functional and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) properties and be deleterious in chronic heart failure (CHF).

AIM

Our aim was to prospectively evaluate the effect of aspirin on arterial functional properties in CHF patients treated with ACEIs.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Over three consecutive treatment periods of 7 days, 18 patients received placebo, followed by aspirin 100 mg/day, and then aspirin 325 mg/day. Single blind prospective assessment of reflected wave and time reflection by radial applanation tonometry; pulse wave velocity; blood pressure; thromboxane B2 (TxB2) and prostaglandins in plasma and urine was performed. Aspirin 325 mg/day induced a significant increase in augmentation index of reflected wave (P<0.0001 and P=0.0013 vs. placebo and aspirin 100 mg, respectively) and a significant decrease in reflected wave traveling times (P=0.0007 vs. placebo). Aspirin 100 mg/day produced a similar, though non-significant, trend in these parameters compared with placebo. Both aspirin treatments produced a statistically significant decrease in serum TxB2 (P<0.0001) but did not have an effect on the metabolite of prostaglandin I2 (P=0.136).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the existence of a dose-mediated deleterious effect of aspirin upon arterial functional properties in CHF patients treated with ACEI.

Beta-blockers for heart failure: why, which, when, and where

Beta-blockers are a highly effective treatment for patients with all grades of heart failure secondary to LV systolic dysfunction. Beta-blockers are best deployed as a form of tertiary prevention in heart failure but have a very limited role for the treatment of a heart failure crisis. Physicians and patients need to understand the time course of the effects of beta-blocker therapy. The initial effects are often neutral or adverse, though the benefits, at least of carvedilol, may be apparent within days in patients with severe heart failure. Benefits accumulate gradually over a period of weeks to months. Some patience, perseverance, and education are required in order to allow patients to reap the full benefits of beta-blocker therapy for this malignant disease. Initiation of treatment early in the course of the disease maximizes the effectiveness and acceptance of therapy. Trials are under way to determine whether the benefits of beta-blockers extend to patients over 80 years of age and to those with preserved LV systolic function. It is likely that important differences exist between beta-blockers in terms of their clinical benefit, though whether differences exist between the agents that have been reported to be effective so far awaits the outcome of a large clinical trial. It is unclear whether the target doses of beta-blockers currently recommended are optimal.

Renin angiotensin aldosterone and adrenergic modulation in chronic heart failure: contemporary concepts

Whereas the earlier conceptual targets of heart failure therapy, such as the cardio-renal and hemodynamic models, all fulfilled the basic needs of symptomatic relief and hemodynamic improvement, only the neurohormonal model has provided an effective target to address symptom relief in concert with survival benefits. Recent data allude to a disease-modifying effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) in retarding the new development of heart failure in high-risk populations. Angiotensin receptor antagonists (ARBs) have not been demonstrated to be superior to ACE-Is and their value in achieving incremental benefits in addition to ACE-Is is limited to scenarios in which beta-adrenergic receptor blocker therapy is not applicable. Beta-adrenergic receptor blockade in addition to ACE inhibition offers incremental benefits that are achieved early and are beneficial in most stages of severity except in the presence of overt decompensation. Unlike ACE-Is, beta-adrenergic receptor blockers cannot be construed as a class but are heterogeneous in their therapeutic response.

The effectiveness and relative effectiveness of intravenous inotropic drugs acting through the adrenergic pathway in patients with heart failure-a meta-regression analysis

AIMS

To review systematically the use of intravenous (IV) inotropic agents acting through the adrenergic signalling pathway, compared with placebo or an active agent, in patients with heart failure.

METHODS

Studies investigating the use of intravenous inotropes in patients with heart failure published between 1966 and 2000 were identified using MEDLINE, the Cochrane register and Embase databases. Reference lists from relevant papers and reviews were hand searched for further papers. In total, 21 trials, that included 632 patients receiving IV inotropic drugs, placebo or non-treatment control, were identified. Drugs of the following classes were included, the beta-agonists; dobutamine, high-dose (>2.5 microg/kg/min) dopamine, dopexamine and the phosphodiesterase (PDE) inhibitors; amrinone, milrinone, enoximone and toborinone. Sixteen trials (474 patients) contributed data from acute invasive haemodynamic studies of symptomatically severe heart failure. Five trials (158 patients) were based on intermittent inotropic therapy in an outpatient context.

RESULTS

With few exceptions, trials of intravenous inotropic agents were small and often failed to report clinically important outcomes. Compared to placebo, intravenous inotropic agents acting through the adrenergic system tended to increase mortality (odds ratio 1.50 (95% CI=0.51 to 3.92) but this did not reach significance and insufficient data were available to determine whether symptoms improved. There appeared to be little difference in the effect of beta-agonists compared to PDE inhibitors on patient outcomes but this could be attributed to the paucity of data.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous inotropic agents acting through the adrenergic pathway are often used in patients with worsening heart failure to achieve arbitrary haemodynamic targets. Our analyses show that there is very little evidence that such treatment improves symptoms or patient outcomes and may not be safe. This highlights the need for further well designed randomised clinical trials.

The incomplete bucindolol evaluation in acute myocardial infarction Trial (BEAT)

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of adding the beta-blocker bucindolol to standard therapy shortly after a myocardial infarction in a high-risk population with reduced left ventricular function.

METHODS

The study was planned to include 2000 patients with an enzyme confirmed myocardial infarction and severely reduced left ventricular function determined by echocardiography (corresponding to ejection fraction < or =0.35). The primary endpoint was all cause mortality and the secondary endpoints were time to first event of death, progression of heart failure or reinfarction-and the components. The study was closed early due to discontinuation of development of bucindolol by the manufacturer. Therefore, 170 patients were randomised to receive bucindolol and 173 to receive placebo.

RESULTS

There were 27 deaths in the bucindolol group and 30 in the placebo group, hazard ratio of bucindolol 0.88 (95% confidence limits 0.5-1.5; P=0.6). There were 9/4 (bucindolol/placebo, P=0.16) heart failure events and 5/17 (P=0.01) reinfarctions in the bucindolol/placebo groups.

CONCLUSION

Due to early closure it is unknown whether bucindolol changes mortality in high-risk post myocardial infarct patients when added to best medical therapy. The frequency of reinfarction was significantly reduced.

Clinical trials update: RENEWAL (RENAISSANCE and RECOVER) and ATTACH

This article continues a series of reports on recent research developments in the field of heart failure. Reports of two key presentations made at the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Update meeting held in Oslo, Norway from 8 to 11 June 2002, are included in this article. Summaries of the results of the RENEWAL (RENAISSANCE and RECOVER) and ATTACH studies, presented at the Hot Line sessions held during the meeting are reported.

Evaluation of platelets in heart failure: is platelet activity related to etiology, functional class, or clinical outcomes?

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine whether platelet activity in patients with heart failure is related to an ischemic versus nonischemic etiologic condition, clinical disease severity, or adverse clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND

Platelet activity may affect outcome in patients with heart failure. A prospective evaluation of the relation of baseline platelet function to etiologic condition, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, and clinical outcomes has not been previously reported.

METHODS

Ninety-six consecutive outpatients with ambulatory heart failure with an ejection fraction <0.40 and NYHA Class II to IV symptoms who presented to the Duke Heart Failure Clinic and 14 healthy control subjects formed the study groups. Baseline characteristics and blood analyzed for thromboxane (Tx) B2, 6-keto PGF(1alpha), platelet contractile force, adenosine diphosphate/collagen shear-induced closure time, whole blood aggregation and CD41, CD31, CD62p, and CD51/CD61 by flow cytometry were determined. Survival status and hospitalizations were determined in the heart failure patient cohort.

RESULTS

The median age of patients was 65 years (22% female, 64% white). An ischemic etiologic condition was present in 61% of patients. The population had mild to moderate heart failure: NYHA class I (1%), II (41%), III (46%), and IV (12.5%) and severe ventricular dysfunction (median ejection fraction = 0.20). There were 39 clinical events (7 deaths, 3 cardiac transplants, 29 other first hospitalizations) in 305 median days of observation. Platelet activity, indicated by whole blood aggregation with 5 micromol adenosine diphosphate (P =.04) and Tx B2 (P =.01), was higher in patients with heart failure. Whole blood aggregation was greater than the 90th percentile in 22% of patients with heart failure versus 7% of control subjects. Platelet function did not differ for any of the markers between the ischemic and nonischemic groups and was not affected by antecedent aspirin. There was no relation of NYHA class or the occurrence of events to platelet activity.

CONCLUSION

Platelet activity is heightened in 22% of outpatients with stable heart failure symptoms and is not affected by antecedent aspirin therapy. The degree of platelet activation is similar in ischemic and nonischemic patients with heart failure and is not related to clinical disease severity. Current methods to assess platelet activation do not appear to predict outcome.

Myocardial remodelling: pharmacological targets

Despite considerable progress in therapy, the progressive augmentation of lifespan makes cardiac remodelling and its consequence, heart failure, a major cause of mortality and morbidity. Heart failure is consequently becoming a major goal in pharmacological research. New approaches include converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers and anti-aldosterones and have demonstrated that cardiac remodelling is, at least partly, a reversible process. This review aims to establish a strategy for therapeutic research which is based on the recent advances on the molecular mechanisms of cardiac remodelling, and also to evaluate some of the new developments which are presently in progress, including new inotropic drugs, new receptors or signals blockers, nitric oxide donors, metalloproteinases and apoptotic inhibitors. Our view is clearly evolutionary and several of our conclusions may contradict current opinions, such as those which consider hypertrophy a detrimental process, hormones as a primary cause of cardiac remodelling or inotropic interventions as beneficial.

Is aspirin "the weakest link" in cardiovascular prophylaxis? The surprising lack of evidence supporting the use of aspirin for cardiovascular disease

It is currently fashionable to prescribe aspirin, long-term to people with or at high risk of vascular events due to atherosclerosis. There is a moderately conclusive evidence for a short-term benefit after an acute vascular event. However, there is remarkably little evidence that long-term aspirin is effective for the prevention of vascular events and managing side effects may be expensive. Reductions in nonfatal vascular events may reflect an ability of aspirin to alter cosmetically the presentation of disease without exerting real benefit. Cardiovascular medicine appears prone to fads and fashions that are poorly substantiated by evidence. The current fashion for prescribing aspirin is reminiscent of the now discredited practice of widespread prescription of class I anti-arrhythmic drugs for ventricular ectopics. We should learn from experience.

A randomized trial of the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan in chronic heart failure

BACKGROUND

Actions of angiotensin II may contribute to the progression of heart failure despite treatment with currently recommended drugs. We therefore evaluated the long-term effects of the addition of the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan to standard therapy for heart failure.

METHODS

A total of 5010 patients with heart failure of New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II, III, or IV were randomly assigned to receive 160 mg of valsartan or placebo twice daily. The primary outcomes were mortality and the combined end point of mortality and morbidity, defined as the incidence of cardiac arrest with resuscitation, hospitalization for heart failure, or receipt of intravenous inotropic or vasodilator therapy for at least four hours.

RESULTS

Overall mortality was similar in the two groups. The incidence of the combined end point, however, was 13.2 percent lower with valsartan than with placebo (relative risk, 0.87; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.77 to 0.97; P=0.009), predominantly because of a lower number of patients hospitalized for heart failure; 455 (18.2 percent) in the placebo group and 346 (13.8 percent) in the valsartan group (P<0.001). Treatment with valsartan also resulted in significant improvements in NYHA class, ejection fraction, signs and symptoms of heart failure, and quality of life as compared with placebo (P<0.01). In a post hoc analysis of the combined end point and mortality in subgroups defined according to base-line treatment with angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or beta-blockers, valsartan had a favorable effect in patients receiving neither or one of these types of drugs but an adverse effect in patients receiving both types of drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Valsartan significantly reduces the combined end point of mortality and morbidity and improves clinical signs and symptoms in patients with heart failure, when added to prescribed therapy. However, the post hoc observation of an adverse effect on mortality and morbidity in the subgroup receiving valsartan, an ACE inhibitor, and a beta-blocker raises concern about the potential safety of this specific combination.

Nonselective versus selective beta-adrenergic receptor blockade in congestive heart failure: differential effects on sympathetic activity

BACKGROUND

Activation of the sympathetic nervous system has important prognostic implications in chronic heart failure. Nonselective versus selective beta-adrenergic receptor antagonists may have differential effects on norepinephrine release from nerve terminals mediated by prejunctional beta(2)-adrenergic receptors.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Thirty-six patients with chronic heart failure were randomized to the nonselective beta-blocker carvedilol or the selective beta-blocker metoprolol (double-blind). Measurements of hemodynamics and cardiac and systemic norepinephrine spillover as well as microneurographic recordings of muscle sympathetic nerve traffic were made before and after 4 months of therapy. In the carvedilol group (n=17), there were significant reductions in both total body (-1.7+/-0.5 nmol/min, P<0.01) and cardiac norepinephrine spillover (-87+/-29 pmol/min, P<0.01). By contrast, in the metoprolol group (n=14), there were no significant changes in total body or cardiac norepinephrine spillover. Responses in the carvedilol group were significantly different from those observed in the metoprolol group (P<0.05). Both agents caused a reduction in heart rate and increases in pulse pressure, although mean arterial pressure did not change. Importantly, microneurographic measures of sympathetic nerve traffic to skeletal muscle did not change in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapy with carvedilol caused significant decreases in systemic and cardiac norepinephrine spillover, an indirect measure of norepinephrine release. Such changes were not observed in patients treated with metoprolol. There was no effect of either agent on sympathetic efferent neuronal discharge to skeletal muscle. These findings suggest that carvedilol, a nonselective beta-blocker, caused its sympathoinhibitory effect by blocking peripheral, prejunctional beta-adrenergic receptors.

Does aspirin attenuate the effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in hypertension or heart failure?

There is a wealth of data that suggests an important interaction between aspirin and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in patients with chronic stable cardiovascular disease. The interaction is less obvious in the postinfarction setting, possibly reflecting the fact that many patients stop their aspirin therapy within a few months of such an event. An interaction is biologically plausible, because there is considerable evidence that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors exert important effects through increasing the production of vasodilator prostaglandins, whereas aspirin blocks their production through inhibition of cyclooxygenase, even at low doses. There is some evidence that low-dose aspirin may raise systolic and diastolic blood pressure. There is also considerable evidence that aspirin may entirely neutralize the clinical benefits of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in patients with heart failure. In addition, aspirin may have an adverse effect on outcome in patients with heart failure that is independent of any interaction with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, possibly by blocking endogenous vasodilator prostaglandin production and enhancing the vasoconstrictor potential of endothelin. The evidence is not sufficient to justify advising long-term aspirin therapy for patients with cardiovascular disease in general, and for those with heart failure in particular. Thus, the lack of evidence of benefit with aspirin in patients with heart failure and coronary disease, along with growing evidence that aspirin is directly harmful in patients with heart failure and that aspirin may negate the benefits of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors suggest that, unless there is an opportunity to randomize the patient into a study of antithrombotic strategies, then aspirin should be withdrawn or possibly substituted with an anticoagulant or an antiplatelet agent that does not block cyclooxygenase. In contrast, there is fairly robust evidence for a benefit of both aspirin and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors during the first 5 weeks after a myocardial infarction, with little evidence of an interaction. The combination of aspirin and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors is warranted during this period, after which discontinuation or substitution of aspirin with another agent should be considered.

Clinical Trials Update: CAPRICORN, COPERNICUS, MIRACLE, STAF, RITZ-2, RECOVER and RENAISSANCE and cachexia and cholesterol in heart failure. Highlights of the Scientific Sessions of the American College of Cardiology, 2001

This is a synopsis of presentations made at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) in 2001 summarising recent research developments relating to heart failure. Clinical studies of particular interest to physicians with an interest in heart failure and its prevention are reviewed. The COPERNICUS trial lends further support to the use of the beta-blocker, carvedilol, in severe heart failure and the CAPRICORN trial to its use in patients with post-infarction left ventricular systolic dysfunction. The MIRACLE study reinforces the evidence from three smaller trials that cardiac resynchronisation therapy is an effective treatment for the relief of symptoms in patients with severe heart failure and cardiac dyssynchrony. The STAF trial casts further doubt on the wisdom of cardioversion as a routine strategy for the management of chronic atrial fibrillation. The RITZ-2 trial suggests that an intravenous, non-selective endothelin antagonist is effective in improving haemodynamics and symptoms and possibly in reducing morbidity in severe heart failure. Observational studies in heart failure suggest that a moderate excess of body fat and elevated blood cholesterol may be desirable in patients with heart failure, challenging the current non-evidenced-based vogue for cholesterol lowering therapy in heart failure. The RENAISSANCE and RECOVER outcome studies of etanercept, a tumour necrosis factor (TNF) receptor analogue that blocks the effect of TNF, were stopped because of lack of evidence of benefit shortly after the ACC.

Clinical trials update: Highlights of the Scientific Sessions of Heart Failure 2001, a meeting of the Working Group on Heart Failure of the European Society of Cardiology. CONTAK-CD, CHRISTMAS, OPTIME-CHF

This article continues a series of reports summarising recent research developments pertinent to the topic of heart failure. This is a summary of presentations made at Scientific Sessions of Heart Failure 2001, a meeting of the Working Group on Heart Failure of the European Society of Cardiology. Clinical studies of particular interest to people caring for patients with heart failure include CONTAK-CD, CHRISTMAS and further updates on OPTIME-CHF. A brief review of the current status of cardiac resynchronisation therapy is included.

New and emerging pharmacological strategies in the management of chronic heart failure

Chronic heart failure is a complex syndrome involving the activation of multiple cellular, metabolic and neurohumoral pathways following the initial myocardial insult. Because of the complexity of the disease, strategies targeting these multiple systems involved in disease progression are required to maximise the therapeutic benefits of intervention. To this end, there are a number of approaches currently under active evaluation. These include the inhibition of additional neurohormonal vasoconstrictor systems (e.g. endothelin and vasopressin systems), cytokine antagonists (e.g. agents that block tumour necrosis factor-alpha activity), agents that favourably modulate extracellular matrix (e.g. matrix metalloprotease inhibitors) and agents that augment natriuretic peptides.

Aspirin inhibits the acute venodilator response to furosemide in patients with chronic heart failure

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine the effect of aspirin on the venodilator effect of furosemide in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) BACKGROUND: Furosemide has an acute venodilator effect preceding its diuretic action, which is blocked by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory, drugs. The ability of therapeutic doses of aspirin to block this effect of furosemide in patients with CHF has not been studied. For comparison, the venodilator response to nitroglycerin (NTG) was also studied.

METHODS

Eleven patients with CHF were randomized to receive placebo, aspirin at 75 mg/day or aspirin at 300 mg/day for 14 days in a double-blind, crossover study. The effect of these pretreatments on the change in forearm venous capacitance (FVC) after 20 mg of intravenous furosemide was measured over 20 min by using venous occlusion plethysmography. In a second study, the effect of 400 microg of sublingual NTG on FVC was documented in 11 similar patients (nine participated in the first study).

RESULTS

Mean arterial pressure, heart rate and forearm blood flow did not change in response to furosemide. After placebo pretreatment, furosemide caused an increase in FVC of 2.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.9% to 5.2%; mean response over 20 min). By comparison, FVC fell by -1.1% (95% CI -4.2% to 1.9%) after pretreatment with aspirin at 75 mg/day, and by -3.7% (95% CI -6.8% to -0.7%) after aspirin at 300 mg/day (p = 0.020). In the second study, NTG increased FVC by 2.1% (95% CI -1.6% to 5.8%) (p = 0.95 vs. furosemide).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with CHF, venodilation occurs within minutes of the administration of intravenous dose of furosemide. Our observation that aspirin inhibits this effect further questions the use of aspirin in patients with CHF.

Should patients with hypertension receive antithrombotic therapy?

The main complications of hypertension, i.e. coronary heart disease, ischaemic strokes and peripheral vascular disease (PVD), are usually related to thrombosis. Increasing evidence also suggests that hypertension fulfils the components of Virchow's triad, thus conferring a prothrombotic or hypercoagulable state, as evident by abnormalities of haemostasis, platelets and endothelial function. It therefore seems plausible that use of antithrombotic therapy may help prevent these thrombosis-related complications of hypertension. Indeed, hypertensive patients with an estimated 10-year CHD risk > or = 15% will have their cardiovascular risk reduced by 25% using antihypertensive treatment, but the addition of aspirin further reduces major cardiovascular events by 15%. Recent guidelines recommend the use of aspirin 75 mg daily for hypertensive patients who have no contraindication to aspirin, in one of the following categories: (i) secondary prevention - cardiovascular complications (myocardial infarction, angina, non-haemorrhagic stroke, peripheral vascular disease or atherosclerotic renovascular disease); and (ii) primary prevention - those with blood pressure controlled to < 150/90 mmHg and one of: (a) age > or = 50 years and target organ damage (e.g. LVH, renal impairment, or proteinuria); (b) a 10-year CHD risk > or = 15%; or (c) type II diabetes mellitus. However, some of the risks of aspirin administration, namely increased incidence of major bleeding events, may possibly outweigh the benefits, especially in low-risk individuals.

Aspirin does not influence the effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition on left ventricular ejection fraction 3 months after acute myocardial infarction

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the possible interaction between chronic aspirin therapy and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I) on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients surviving an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Forty-two patients with reduced LVEF were recruited from the warfarin aspirin reinfarction study (WARIS-II), a randomized, open study comparing enteric coated aspirin (160 mg/d), warfarin (INR 2.8--4.2) and the combination of aspirin (75 mg/d) and warfarin (INR 2.0--2.5) on mortality, reinfarction and stroke after AMI. LVEF and relevant biochemical measurements were performed before discharge and after 3 months. The overall LVEF increased during the study period from median 35 to 39% (P<0.001). There was no difference between patients on aspirin and warfarin regarding the main end point, LVEF. Furthermore, neither endothelin-1 nor ANP showed significant differences between the treatment groups. A possible interaction between ACE-I and aspirin might theoretically lead to reduced levels of renin activity in patients on aspirin, but we did not find any such inter-group difference. In conclusion, we did not find evidence of interaction between ACE-I and low-dose aspirin.

What is the optimal medical management of ischemic heart failure?

Ischemic heart disease is an important and common contributor to the development of heart failure. Theoretically, all patients with heart failure may benefit from treatment designed to retard progressive ventricular dysfunction and arrhythmias. Patients with ischemic heart disease may also theoretically benefit from the relief of ischemia, the prevention of coronary occlusion, and revascularization. However, there is little evidence to show that the presence or absence of coronary disease modifies the benefits of effective treatments such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-blockers. Moreover, there is no evidence that treatment directed specifically at myocardial ischemia or coronary disease alters outcome in patients with heart failure. Treatments aimed at relieving painless myocardial ischemia have not been shown to alter prognosis. Lipid-lowering therapy is theoretically attractive for patients with heart failure and coronary disease; however, theoretical concerns also exist about the safety of such agents, and patients with heart failure have been excluded from large outcome studies very effectively. Some agents, such as aspirin, designed to reduce the risk of coronary occlusion seem ineffective or harmful in patients with heart failure, although warfarin may be safe and possibly effective. There is no evidence yet that revascularization improves prognosis in patients with heart failure, even in patients who are shown to have extensive myocardial hibernation. On current evidence, revascularization should be reserved for the relief of angina. Large-scale, randomized controlled trials are currently underway that are investigating the role of specific treatments targeted at coronary syndromes. The Carvedilol Hibernation Reversible Ischemia Trial: Marker of Success study is investigating the effects of carvedilol in a large cohort of patients with and without hibernating myocardium. The Warfarin and Antiplatelet Therapy in Chronic Heart Failure study is comparing the efficacy of aspirin, clopidogrel, and warfarin. The Heart Revascularization Trial-United Kingdom study is assessing the effect of revascularization on mortality in patients with heart failure and myocardial hibernation. Smaller scale studies are assessing the safety and efficacy of statin therapy in patients with heart failure. Only once the outcomes to these and other planned trials are known can the medical community know how best to treat their patients.

What is the optimal medical management of ischaemic heart failure?

Ischaemic heart disease is probably the most important cause of heart failure. All patients with heart failure may benefit from treatment designed to retard progressive ventricular dysfunction and arrhythmias. Patients with heart failure due to ischaemic heart disease may also, theoretically, benefit from treatments designed to relieve ischaemia and prevent coronary occlusion and from revascularisation. However, there is little evidence to show that effective treatments, such as angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and beta-blockers, exert different effects in patients with heart failure with or without coronary disease. Moreover, there is no evidence that treatment directed specifically at myocardial ischaemia, whether or not symptomatic, or coronary disease alters outcome in patients with heart failure. Some agents, such as aspirin, designed to reduce the risk of coronary occlusion appear ineffective or harmful in patients with heart failure. There is no evidence, yet, that revascularisation improves prognosis in patients with heart failure, even in patients who are demonstrated to have extensive myocardial hibernation. On current evidence, revascularisation should be reserved for the relief of angina. Large-scale, randomised controlled trials are currently underway investigating the role of specific treatments targeted at coronary syndromes in patients who have heart failure. The CHRISTMAS study is investigating the effects of carvedilol in a large cohort of patients with and without hibernating myocardium. The WATCH study is comparing the efficacy of aspirin, clopidogrel and warfarin. The HEART-UK study is assessing the effect of revascularisation on mortality in patients with heart failure and myocardial hibernation. Smaller scale studies are currently assessing the safety and efficacy of statin therapy in patients with heart failure. Only when the results of these and other studies are known will it be possible to come to firm conclusions about whether patients with heart failure and coronary disease should be treated differently from other patients with heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Clinical trials update: IMPROVEMENT-HF, COPERNICUS, MUSTIC, ASPECT-II, APRICOT and HEART

Important new studies relevant to the field of heart failure reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), held in Amsterdam in August 2000, are reviewed. The IMPROVEMENT of Heart Failure survey investigated the knowledge and perceptions of over 1300 primary care physicians from 14 ESC member nations and the actual practice in over 11000 of their patients. Guidelines and clinical practice were compared. The survey suggested, in this large sample, that the quality of care was higher than previous smaller surveys have suggested but have also identified important deficiencies in knowledge and management that should be rectified. The COPERNICUS study demonstrated that carvedilol was remarkably well tolerated even in patients with very severe heart failure and that treatment was associated with a substantial reduction in mortality even among patients that would conventionally not be considered, by many, for beta-blocker therapy. The MUSTIC trial suggested that cardiac resynchronisation using biventricular pacing improved patients symptomatically whether or not the patient was in atrial fibrillation. Morbidity and mortality studies of cardiac resynchronisation are now underway. The ASPECT-II and APRICOT-II studies investigated the role of warfarin, aspirin and their combination for the long-term management of myocardial infarction. One interpretation of the data from these studies is that the combination of aspirin and warfarin is about as effective as warfarin alone but with a much higher incidence of side effects. Warfarin alone appeared superior to aspirin alone. In summary, the annual congress of the ESC provided important new information for clinical practice and, to date, was, by far, the most important cardiology congress in the world this year.