Contemporary management of patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Results from the Study of Patients Intolerant of Converting Enzyme Inhibitors (SPICE) Registry

Challenging and target-based shifting strategies for heart failure treatment: An update from the last decades

Heart failure (HF) is a major global health problem afflicting millions worldwide. Despite the significant advances in therapies and prevention, HF still carries very high morbidity and mortality, requiring enormous healthcare-related expenditure, and the search for new weapons goes on. Following initial treatment strategies targeting inotropism and congestion, attention has focused on offsetting the neurohormonal overactivation and three main therapies, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists, β-adrenoceptor antagonists, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, have been the foundation of standard treatment for patients with HF. Recently, a paradigm shift, including angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor, and ivabradine, has been added. Moreover, soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator, elamipretide, and omecamtiv mecarbil have come out as a next-generation therapeutic agent for patients with HF. Although these pharmacologic therapies have been significantly successful in relieving symptoms, there is still no complete cure for HF. We may be currently entering a new era of treatment for HF with animal experiments and human clinical trials assessing the value of antibody-based immunotherapy and gene therapy as a novel therapeutic strategy. Such tempting therapies still have some challenges to be addressed but may become a weighty option for treatment of HF. This review article will compile the paradigm shifts in HF treatment over the past dozen years or so and illustrate current landscape of antibody-based immunotherapy and gene therapy as a new therapeutic algorithm for patients with HF.

Drug-Induced Cough

Since the recognition of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)-induced cough, drug has been considered as a potential cause of chronic cough. This review presents recent knowledge on drug-induced coughs in patients with chronic cough. The focus is placed on ACEIs, for which there are a multitude of studies documenting their associations with cough. Additional drugs are discussed for which there are reports of cough as a side effect of treatment, and the potential mechanisms of these effects are discussed.

[Cardiac remodeling after myocardial infarction : Clinical practice update]

Heart failure remains a frequent cause of death and is the leading reason for hospitalization in Germany although therapeutic options have significantly increased over the past years particularly in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Clinical symptoms are usually preceded by cardiac remodeling, which was originally defined only by left ventricular dilatation and depressed function but is also associated with typical cellular and molecular processes. Healing after acute myocardial infarction is characterized by inflammation, cellular migration and scar formation. Cardiac remodeling is accompanied by adaptive changes of the peripheral cardiovascular system. Since prevention is the primary goal, rapid diagnosis and treatment of myocardial infarction are mandatory. Early reperfusion therapy limits infarct size and enables the best possible preservation of left ventricular function. Standard pharmacotherapy includes angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-1-receptor blockers and beta blockers. In addition, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists have proven beneficial. Compounds specifically targeting infarct healing processes are currently under development.

Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors and troponin elevation in spinal surgery

Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibition by angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) has been shown to reduce cardiovascular mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) in high-risk surgical patients. However, their effect in spinal surgery has not been explored. Our objective was to determine the effect of RAS inhibitors on postoperative troponin elevation in spinal fusions, and to examine their correlation with hospital stay. We retrospectively analyzed 208 consecutive patients receiving spinal fusions ⩾5 levels between 2007-2010 with a mean follow-up of 1.7 years. Inclusion criteria were age ⩾18 years, elective fusions for kyphoscoliosis, and semi-elective fusions for tumor or infection. Exclusion criteria were trauma and follow-up <1 year. Descriptives, frequencies, and logistic and linear regression were used to analyze troponin elevation (⩾0.04 ng/mL), peak troponin level, and hospital stay. The results featured 208 patients with a mean body mass index (BMI) 28.5 kg/m(2) who underwent 345 spinal fusions. ACEI/ARB were withheld the day prior to surgery in 121 patients with 11 patients noteworthy for intra-operative electrocardiogram changes, 126 patients with troponin elevation, and 14 MI identified prior to discharge. Multivariate logistic regression identified BMI (p=0.04), estimated blood loss (p=0.015), and preoperative ACEI/ARB (p=0.015, odds ratio=2.7) as significant independent predictors for postoperative troponin elevation. Multivariate linear regression showed preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (p=0.002), unplanned return to operating room (p=0.007), pneumonia prior to hospital discharge (p<0.01), and preoperative ACEI/ARB to be associated with hospital stay. In patients with spinal fusions ⩾5 levels, ACEI/ARB are independently associated with postoperative troponin elevation and increased hospital stay.

Beta-blocker use at discharge in patients hospitalized for heart failure is associated with improved survival

BACKGROUND

Previous studies demonstrated that beta-blocker use at the time of hospital discharge significantly increased postdischarge treatment rates, associated with an early (60- to 90-day) survival benefit in patients with heart failure (HF). However, it is unknown whether this therapeutic approach can also improve the long-term survival. We thus examined the long-term effects of beta-blocker use at discharge on outcomes in patients hospitalized for HF and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) (ejection fraction <40%).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Japanese Cardiac Registry of Heart Failure in Cardiology (JCARE-CARD) enrolled HF patients hospitalized with worsening symptoms and they were followed during an average of 2.2 years. A total of 947 patients had LVSD, among whom 624 (66%) were eligible to receive a beta-blocker at discharge. After adjustment for covariate and propensity score, discharge use of beta-blocker, when compared to no beta-blocker use, was associated with a significant reduced risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.564, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.358-0.889, P=0.014) and cardiac mortality (HR 0.489, 95%CI 0.279-0.859, P=0.013) after hospital discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Beta-blocker use at the time of discharge was associated with a long-term survival benefit in a diverse cohort of patients hospitalized with HF.

Focus on the ONTARGET results

Blockade of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) has become an integral component of the treatment of patients at increased cardiovascular risk. The ONgoing Telmisartan Alone and in combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET) studied 23 400 high-risk cardiovascular patients and compared the effectiveness of telmisartan with that of ramipril and showed that the two drugs were 'therapeutically equivalent'. Telmisartan is now the only angiotensin II blocker with clinical trial evidence of cardiovascular protection equivalent to that of ramipril, which is widely regarded as the 'reference' drug for RAS blockade in patients at increased cardiovascular risk. Despite the prior exclusion of patients intolerant of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors drugs, there were fewer discontinuations in the telmisartan group, and so telmisartan had a superior overall efficacy/tolerability ratio.

Overview of the relationship between ischemia and congestive heart failure

Ischemic heart disease is the principal etiology of heart failure in the Western world. Myocardial ischemia is important in cardiac remodeling, a process that leads to a progressive change in the shape and size of the heart and significantly worsens the prognosis of patients with heart failure. Preventing ischemic events, therefore, is an important goal in the management of patients with coronary artery disease. Statins have been shown to reduce the number of ischemic events in these patients, whereas the benefit of beta-blocker and aldosterone antagonist therapy on ischemic causes of heart failure remains unclear. Several large trials involving patients with asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction or heart failure have shown that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduce the incidence of progressive heart failure, death, and ischemic events, thus establishing ACE inhibitors as first-line therapy for these patients. Other lines of evidence have suggested that ACE inhibitor therapy may also benefit patients with preserved left ventricular function, a hypothesis that is being evaluated in three large, controlled, randomized trials. One of these trials, the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) study, was terminated prematurely because it demonstrated the significant positive effects of the ACE inhibitor ramipril on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease and preserved left ventricular function. A growing body of data confirms the relationship between ischemia and heart failure and the benefits of ACE inhibitor treatment in a broad range of high-risk patients.

Effects of the angiotensin-receptor blocker telmisartan on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients intolerant to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduce major cardiovascular events, but are not tolerated by about 20% of patients. We therefore assessed whether the angiotensin-receptor blocker telmisartan would be effective in patients intolerant to ACE inhibitors with cardiovascular disease or diabetes with end-organ damage.

METHODS

After a 3-week run-in period, 5926 patients, many of whom were receiving concomitant proven therapies, were randomised to receive telmisartan 80 mg/day (n=2954) or placebo (n=2972) by use of a central automated randomisation system. Randomisation was stratified by hospital. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalisation for heart failure. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00153101.

FINDINGS

The median duration of follow-up was 56 (IQR 51-64) months. All randomised patients were included in the efficacy analyses. Mean blood pressure was lower in the telmisartan group than in the placebo group throughout the study (weighted mean difference between groups 4.0/2.2 [SD 19.6/12.0] mm Hg). 465 (15.7%) patients experienced the primary outcome in the telmisartan group compared with 504 (17.0%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.81-1.05, p=0.216). One of the secondary outcomes-a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke-occurred in 384 (13.0%) patients on telmisartan compared with 440 (14.8%) on placebo (0.87, 0.76-1.00, p=0.048 unadjusted; p=0.068 after adjustment for multiplicity of comparisons and overlap with primary outcome). 894 (30.3%) patients receiving telmisartan were hospitalised for a cardiovascular reason, compared with 980 (33.0%) on placebo (relative risk 0.92, 95% CI 0.85-0.99; p=0.025). Fewer patients permanently discontinued study medication in the telmisartan group than in the placebo group (639 [21.6%] vs 705 [23.8%]; p=0.055); the most common reason for permanent discontinuation was hypotensive symptoms (29 [0.98%] in the telmisartan group vs 16 [0.54%] in the placebo group).

INTERPRETATION

Telmisartan was well tolerated in patients unable to tolerate ACE inhibitors. Although the drug had no significant effect on the primary outcome of this study, which included hospitalisations for heart failure, it modestly reduced the risk of the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke.

FUNDING

Boehringer Ingelheim.

Therapies for acute heart failure in patients with reduced kidney function: a community-based perspective

BACKGROUND

Limited data exist describing the management of patients with decreased kidney function at the time of hospital presentation for acute heart failure (HF).

STUDY DESIGN

Nonconcurrent prospective study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Patients hospitalized with clinical findings of decompensated HF (n = 4,350) at all 11 greater Worcester, MA, medical centers in 1995 and 2000. Patients were categorized into varying levels of kidney function based on their estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

PREDICTOR

GFR estimates from serum creatinine levels measured at the time of hospital admission.

OUTCOMES

Hospital receipt of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), beta-blockers, digoxin, and diuretics.

MEASUREMENTS

Hospital charts were reviewed for prescribing of disease-modifying cardiac therapies, as well as therapies designed to provide symptomatic relief from HF.

RESULTS

Average eGFR in our study sample was 64.4 +/- 33.1 mL/min/1.73 m(2), and patients were categorized further into 3 eGFR levels of less than 30 (n = 569), 30 to 59 (n = 1,488), and 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) or greater (n = 2,293) for comparative purposes. Patients with greater eGFRs (>or=60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) were more likely to be treated with ACE inhibitors/ARBs (56% versus 39%) and digoxin (51% versus 46%) during hospitalization for HF than patients with lower eGFRs (<30 mL/min/1.73 m(2); P < 0.05). Patients with lower eGFRs (<30 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) were more likely to be prescribed beta-blockers than patients with greater eGFRs (>or=60 mL/min/1.73 m(2); 46% versus 39%; P < 0.01). Use of ACE inhibitors/ARBs increased between 1995 and 2000 in 2 of the 3 eGFR groups examined: eGFRs less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m(2) (33% in 1995; 42% in 2000) and eGFRs of 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) or greater (51% in 1995; 59% in 2000). Use of beta-blockers increased appreciably in all 3 eGFR groups (<30 mL/min/1.73 m(2), 27% in 1995; 58% in 2000; >or=60 mL/min/1.73 m(2): 25% in 1995; 49% in 2000). However, less than one third of all patients were treated with both disease-modifying therapies in 2000.

LIMITATIONS

We were unable to classify patients into those with systolic versus diastolic HF.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that use of disease-modifying therapies for patients hospitalized with clinical findings of acute HF and decreased kidney function remains less than desirable. Educational programs are needed to enhance the management of patients with decreased kidney function who develop HF.

Improving the management of patients after myocardial infarction, from admission to discharge

BACKGROUND

Recent developments in pharmacologic and device therapy, as well as initiatives to increase the use of standard orders and promote in-hospital communication, have improved the care of patients with myocardial infarction (MI). The increased presence of hospitalists, physicians who provide in-hospital care as a specialty, promises to provide further improvements.

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews current information on evidence-based care of the hospitalized MI patient, with a particular emphasis on identifying left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) and appropriate treatments.

METHODS

MEDLINE was searched for all large-scale clinical trials providing information on the care of post-MI patients with or without LVD and/or heart failure (HF), with no limit on time period. The search terms were post-myocardial infarction, large-scale, randomized, clinical trial, left ventricular dysfunction, and/or heart failure. All trials investigating therapies currently recommended in the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association ST-elevation MI (ACC/AHA STEMI) guidelines and including post-MI patients with or without LVD and/or HF, as indicated by signs and symptoms of HF or Killip class, were included.

RESULTS

In the acute setting, the ACC/AHA STEMI guidelines recommend the use of aspirin, clopidogrel, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, heparin (low molecular weight or unfractionated), and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (if the patient is undergoing a percutaneous coronary intervention). The guidelines recommend use of aldosterone antagonists and statins at discharge, in addition to continuation of all acute therapies. The ACC/AHA guidelines apply to all patients after MI and do not specify whether the recommended therapies are effective in post-MI patients with LVD or HE Reviewing the trials that included post-MI patients with LVD and/or HF, it appears that in some cases, only certain agents within a class have been evaluated (eg, post-MI beta-blocker trials often excluded patients with LVD, and the efficacy of atenolol has not been evaluated in post-MI patients with LVD or HF), and some agents have not shown as much efficacy as others in this high-risk patient population (eg, metoprolol appeared to be associated with poorer outcomes in this population than carvedilol). Rather than recommending an entire class, hospital care maps and critical-care pathway tools should incorporate the use of evidence-based agents.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of evidence-based care in the hospital has the potential to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality in post-MI patients with LVD and/or HE The hospitalist can facilitate the best practices and best care of the post-MI patient through the use of in-hospital critical-care pathway tools.

Update in the approach to and management of heart failure

Heart failure (HF) is a prevalent and morbid chronic disease that patients experience in stages. Progression through the stages of HF can be slowed with optimal medical therapy. Although HF remains a clinical diagnosis made at the bedside, measurement of serum brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) can help in the diagnosis when there is uncertainty. The initial workup for patients with newly diagnosed HF is directed at identifying the underlying cause of left ventricular dysfunction. An assessment of hemodynamic status, determined by a careful physical examination, can be used to direct therapy. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and beta blockers remain the two most important therapies for patients with chronic HF. Aldosterone antagonists improve mortality but require close monitoring for severe hyperkalemia. Angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) are excellent alternatives to ACEIs for ACEI-intolerant patients. Digoxin, a second line agent in HF, improves symptoms without mortality benefit. Successful management of HF requires aggressive management of comorbid conditions and careful follow up to slow disease progression, optimize functional status, and improve longevity.

Carvedilol use at discharge in patients hospitalized for heart failure is associated with improved survival: an analysis from Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure (OPTIMIZE-HF)

BACKGROUND

The IMPACT-HF trial demonstrated that carvedilol use at the time of heart failure (HF) hospital discharge significantly increased 90-day postdischarge treatment rates. Whether there is an early survival benefit associated with this therapeutic approach in patients hospitalized for HF is unknown. We examined the early effects on mortality and rehospitalization of carvedilol use at discharge in patients hospitalized for HF and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) compared with outcomes in patients who are eligible for, but do not receive, beta blockers before discharge.

METHODS

The OPTIMIZE-HF program enrolled 5791 patients admitted with HF in a web-based registry at 91 hospitals participating with prespecified 60- to 90-day follow-up from March 2003 to December 2004. Outcomes data were prospectively collected on patients eligible for beta-blocker therapy and analyzed according to predischarge beta-blocker use.

RESULTS

The mean age was 69.7 years; 63% were male, etiology was ischemic in 52%, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 24.3%. A total of 2720 patients had LVSD, among whom 2373 (87.2%) were eligible to receive a beta blocker at discharge and carvedilol was prescribed in 1162 (49.0%). Discharge use of carvedilol was associated with a significant reduction in mortality risk at 60 to 90 days (hazard ratio 0.46, P = .0006) and mortality or rehospitalization (odds ratio 0.71, P = .0175) compared to no predischarge beta blocker. Predischarge use of carvedilol was well tolerated with high rates of continued therapy at 60 to 90 days follow-up. Similar findings were observed for other evidence-based beta blockers.

CONCLUSIONS

Carvedilol use at the time of HF hospital discharge is well tolerated, improves treatment rates, and is associated with an early survival benefit. These findings provide further support for guideline recommendations that carvedilol or other evidence-based beta blocker should be initiated before hospital discharge in stable patients with HF and LVSD.

Candesartan for the management of heart failure: more than an alternative

Candesartan is a long-acting angiotensin receptor antagonist that is well absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, with insurmountable receptor binding abilities. Recent studies have shown candesartan to be an effective therapy for heart failure patients, producing a significant reduction in mortality and morbidity. Importantly, studies have demonstrated that candesartan is effective in heart failure patients who are intolerant to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, in patients already receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and for heart failure patients with preserved systolic function. The primary end point in the latter group failed to achieve statistical significance due to the small number of events. This paper will review the data supporting the use of candesartan to treat all heart failure patients, regardless of their ejection fraction.

Can one assess whether missing data are missing at random in medical studies?

For handling missing data, newer methods such as those based on multiple imputation are generally more accurate than older ones and entail weaker assumptions. Yet most do assume that data are missing at random (MAR). The issue of assessing whether the MAR assumption holds to begin with has been largely ignored. In fact, no way to directly test MAR is available. We propose an alternate assumption, MAR+, that can be tested. MAR+ always implies MAR, so inability to reject MAR+ bodes well for MAR. In contrast, MAR implies MAR+ not universally, but under certain conditions that are often plausible; thus, rejection of MAR+ can raise suspicions about MAR. Our approach is applicable mainly to studies that are not longitudinal. We present five illustrative medical examples, in most of which it turns out that MAR+ fails. There are limits to the ability of sophisticated statistical methods to correct for missing data. Efforts to try to prevent missing data in the first place should therefore receive more attention in medical studies than they have heretofore attracted. If MAR+ is found to fail for a study whose data have already been gathered, extra caution may need to be exercised in the interpretation of the results.

Current and future uses of candesartan in the treatment of heart failure

Candesartan is an angiotensin receptor antagonist that is long acting, well absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract and demonstrates an insurmountable receptor antagonism. It is an effective once-daily antihypertensive therapy that maintains good control of blood pressure for over 24 h. More recently, candesartan was shown to be an effective therapy for heart failure patients, producing a significant reduction in mortality and morbidity. Importantly, the studies have demonstrated that candesartan is effective in heart failure patients intolerant to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I), as well as in addition to ACE-I. This paper reviews the data supporting the use of candesartan to treat patients with clinical heart failure.

Blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system: a key therapeutic strategy to reduce renal and cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes

Diabetes (particularly type 2 diabetes) represents a global health problem of epidemic proportions. Individuals with diabetes are not only more likely to develop hypertension, dyslipidemia, and obesity, but are also at a significantly higher risk for coronary heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, and stroke. Angiotensin II plays a key pathophysiological role in the progression of diabetic renal disease, and blockade of the renin-angiotensin system with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin II antagonists has therefore become an important therapeutic strategy to reduce renal and cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes. Several studies have demonstrated the effects of angiotensin II antagonists on the reduction of albuminuria and the progression of renal disease from microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria. More importantly, several endpoint trials have shown that the antiproteinuric effects of losartan and irbesartan translate into cardiovascular and renoprotective benefits beyond blood pressure lowering, thereby delaying the need for dialysis or kidney transplantation by several years. These and other studies indicate that angiotensin II antagonists not only improve survival and quality of life of patients with diabetic nephropathy, but also have the potential to reduce the substantial healthcare burden associated with managing these patients. ACEi also appear to exert similar beneficial effects in diabetic patients, but whether clinically significant differences in renoprotection or mortality exist between angiotensin II antagonists and ACEi in patients with type 2 diabetes remains to be fully investigated in appropriate head-to-head studies.

Angiotensin II receptor blockers in congestive heart failure

The benefits of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for the treatment of congestive heart failure (CHF) are well-established. A newer class of medications, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), may be a suitable replacement for ACE inhibitors as a result of a more complete inhibition of angiotensin II and better tolerability among patients. To examine the current literature on the efficacy and safety of ARBs in the setting of CHF, a Medline search was conducted of the English language literature for the years 1987 to 2005. Clinical trials that reported data on cardiac outcomes were reviewed. The earlier trials were direct ARB to ACE inhibitor comparisons (ELITE I and ELITE II). These studies indicated that ARBs do not confer an improvement in cardiac outcomes over ACE inhibitors. RESOLVD, Val-HeFT, and the 3 separate trials of the CHARM program investigated the addition of an ARB to standard therapy. The RESOLVD trial showed no significant differences in clinical events among ACE inhibitor, ARB, and their combination. Although no mortality benefit was evident in the Val-HeFT trial, a substantial reduction in CHF rehospitalizations was reported among patients who were not receiving ACE inhibitor therapy. The CHARM-Overall program demonstrated a significant benefit in cardiovascular death and hospital admissions for CHF with the addition of ARB to standard therapy, a benefit that was more pronounced in patients with depressed left ventricular ejection fraction. In the setting of CHF, rates of cardiac outcomes do not differ substantially between ARBs and ACE inhibitors. However, their combination may improve outcomes for patients with CHF.

Initial data supporting the design of the Candesartan in Heart failure — Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme

BACKGROUND

The therapies developed to treat heart failure over the years have resulted in a significant improvement in clinical outcome. The 1-year mortality following hospital discharge remains unacceptably high, however. Furthermore, a significant number of patients are unable to tolerate angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. Clearly, scope remains for the improvement of neurohormonal blockade in patients with heart failure, and there is a particular need for alternative therapies in patients who are unable to tolerate ACE inhibitors. The use of angiotensin II receptor blockers may provide a means of fulfilling these needs.

OBJECTIVES

This paper reviews the studies examining the angiotensin II receptor blocker candesartan in comparison with placebo, in comparison with ACE inhibitors, and in combination with ACE inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall the review found candesartan was effective and safe in various clinical settings. These initial data were used to design the Candesartan in Heart failure--Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme. The mechanistic studies performed prior to the CHARM programme supported the rationale to design a large trial examining the effects of candesartan on clinical events.

Progressive left ventricular hypertrophy after withdrawal of long-term ACE inhibition following experimental myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Although discontinuation of chronic ACE inhibitor (ACEi) therapy after myocardial infarction (MI) is common in clinical practice, some clinical studies reported an increased incidence of ischemia-related events after withdrawal. To further address this issue, we assessed hemodynamic, neurohormonal and vascular consequences of withdrawing long-term ACEi treatment after experimental MI.

METHODS

Rats were subjected to coronary ligation to induce MI, and received quinapril (15 mg/kg/day) from 2 weeks to 14 months post-MI. Subsequently, surviving rats were randomized to sacrifice at 0, 4, and 6 weeks after ACEi withdrawal. Rats were studied for signs of heart failure, hemodynamics and cardiac function, neurohormones, and vascular edothelial function.

RESULTS

After discontinuation of ACEi treatment, plasma aldosterone levels increased between 0-4 weeks without further increment thereafter, suggesting persistent RAAS activation. Acetylcholine-induced aortic relaxation was impaired at 4 and 6 weeks, indicating rapid and sustained development of endothelial vasodilator dysfunction after withdrawal. Moreover, 24% of the rats developed heart failure signs (edema, dyspnea), and 3 rats died, all within 4 weeks after withdrawal. Significantly increased N-ANP levels and lung weights at 4, but not at 6 weeks suggest a transient volume overload. Finally, LV/body weight ratios significantly increased between 0-4 as well as 4-6 weeks, indicating progressive LV hypertrophy.

CONCLUSIONS

The observed alterations after withdrawing long-term post-MI quinapril treatment in the present study may account for an increased risk for ischemic events. Thus, our findings highlight the potentially harmful effects associated with abrupt discontinuation of long-term post-MI ACE inhibition, and imply careful clinical consideration in this matter.

Mortality benefit of a comprehensive heart failure disease management program in indigent patients

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) produces significant morbidity and mortality. Although HF disease management (HFDM) programs have been shown to decrease this morbidity, there is still a paucity of data on their effect on mortality. The objective of this study was to determine whether participation in an HFDM program would reduce mortality in an indigent population from rural Louisiana.

METHODS

Proportional hazards modeling was used to determine whether patients participating in the HFDM program had improved survival compared with patients receiving traditional outpatient care at the same institution. Inclusion criteria consisted of an index hospitalization with discharge occurring between July 1, 1997, and May 30, 2002, hospital discharge diagnosis of HF, left ventricular systolic dysfunction documented during hospitalization, and at least 1 subsequent outpatient visit. Data from patients having participated in the HFDM program before their index hospitalization were excluded.

RESULTS

Compared with patients who were given traditional care (n = 100), HFDM patients (n = 156) were younger (56.7 vs 60 years, P = .031), more likely to be African American (48.7% vs 33.0%, P = .014), more likely to be uninsured (47.4% vs 27%, P = .001), and more likely to have an ejection fraction of < or = 25% (73.1% vs 36%, P < .001). Overall comorbidity did not differ significantly between the groups. After controlling for differences in demographics, ejection fraction, and comorbidities, participation in the HFDM program was associated with a significant reduction in mortality compared with traditional care (adjusted hazard ratio .33, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In this indigent population, participation in an HFDM program was associated with decreased mortality compared with traditional follow-up care.

Candesartan in heart failure

Candesartan cilexetil is a nonpeptide selective blocker of the angiotensin II receptor sub-type 1. It is a prodrug that is converted to its active metabolite during its variable absorption. It is highly protein bound with a small volume of distribution and a nine-hour half-life. Candesartan is one of two angiotensin receptor blockers approved for use in heart failure. MEDLINE was searched using OVID and PubMed to evaluate the evidence for using candesartan in patients with heart failure. Pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic evaluations, as well as clinical trials, were selected and are presented in this review. Clinical evidence supports the indication for use in systolic heart failure. Results for use in patients with diastolic heart failure were non-significant. Candesartan was well tolerated in the trials, with hyperkalemia, renal dysfunction, and hypotension being the most common adverse events. Use of angiotensin receptor blockers with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors needs further study; however, candesartan appears to provide added benefit in this setting. Candesartan is a safe and effective option for patients with systolic heart failure. Data regarding other angiotensin receptor blockers is underway.

Carvedilol in chronic heart failure: past, present and future

Large randomized clinical trials of bisoprolol, carvedilol and metoprolol have conclusively demonstrated the efficacy and confirmed safety of β-blockers in patients with chronic heart failure. Recently, the beneficial effects of carvedilol in patients with heart failure soon after an acute myocardial infarction have also been shown. Despite this, β-blockers remain under-prescribed in this condition. This is of particular importance as heart failure is common and increasing in prevalence. In this article, when to start β-blockade and which β-blocker to use is considered. Since carvedilol is the most studied β-blocker in heart failure and has a broad range of activities that extend beyond β-blockade, whether it has possible advantages over other β-blockers is discussed. Also, how the use of β-blockade might evolve with the introduction of device-related therapy in heart failure is considered.

Clinical update: The role of angiotensin II receptor blockers in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (Part II of II)

Almost 5 million individuals in the United States have chronic heart failure (HF), which is increasing in prevalence. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are standard therapies for HF, although more than 10% of patients with HF are unable to tolerate these agents. Furthermore, ACE inhibitors may not provide complete blockade of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) in the long term. Because angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) may block the RAS more completely than ACE inhibitors and are better tolerated, several large-scale ARB trials have been performed exploring their potential role in treating patients with symptomatic HF and left ventricular systolic dysfunction. The Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study (ELITE II) demonstrated no significant differences in morbidity and mortality between the ARB losartan and the ACE inhibitor captopril among elderly patients with HF. The Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT) demonstrated reductions in hospitalizations for HF with the ARB valsartan when added to standard HF therapy, with no effect on mortality. Both trials suggested a potential negative interaction between ARB and beta-blocker therapy. The Candesartan in Heart failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program demonstrated significant reductions in morbidity and mortality with the ARB candesartan in patients with HF due to systolic dysfunction, with or without ACE inhibitors and with or without beta blockers. Thus, the addition of ARBs to the treatment regimen of patients with symptomatic HF should be strongly considered.

Provider response to computer-based care suggestions for chronic heart failure

OBJECTIVES

We sought to assess the responses of providers to recommendations generated by a computer-management system for chronic heart failure (CHF).

METHODS

This study is an analysis of primary care providers' responses to evidence-based computer-generated suggestions regarding patients with CHF at one center of a randomized trial. The trial randomized primary care providers from 2 VA Medical Centers to receive care suggestions regarding patients with CHF, with or without inclusion of patient symptom data obtained from pre-visit questionnaires. At one center, providers were asked to respond to the suggestions with hand-written comments and a numerical agreement scale.

RESULTS

Providers responded to 774 care suggestions (62% of the 1246 delivered). They agreed with 41%, had major disagreements with 12%, and had minor disagreements with 22%. For 7% of the care suggestions, providers asked to not see it again for that patient. The most common reasons for major or minor disagreements were a belief that the suggestion was wrong or unnecessary (45%) or would not be tolerated by the patient (32%). External barriers to implementation of guidelines, lack of guideline awareness, or disagreement with guidelines were uncommon reasons cited by providers in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Providers agreed with less than half of computer-generated care suggestions from evidence-based CHF guidelines, most often because the suggestions were felt to be inapplicable to their patients or unlikely to be tolerated.

Rationale for the use of angiotensin ii receptor blockers in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (part I of II)

Almost 5 million individuals in the United States are diagnosed with chronic heart failure (HF), and the prevalence is increasing. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and beta blockers, neurohormonal antagonists that block the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) and the sympathetic nervous system, respectively, have been shown in clinical trials to reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with HF, and these therapies are now integral components of standard HF treatment. Yet, morbidity and mortality rates in HF remain unacceptably high, and the limitations of current standard therapies are becoming increasingly apparent. About 10% of patients with HF are unable to tolerate ACE inhibitors, often because of cough. In addition, ACE inhibition may not completely block the RAS because angiotensin II, the main end product of the RAS, can be generated via non-ACE enzymatic pathways. Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) may exert more complete RAS blockade than ACE inhibitors by interfering with the binding of angiotensin II at the receptor level, regardless of the enzymatic pathway of production. They are also better tolerated than ACE inhibitors and have been shown to improve symptoms and function in clinical trials in patients with HF. These factors provide a strong rationale for the study of the clinical effects of ARBs in patients with HF.

Why do patients fail to receive beta-blockers for chronic heart failure over time? A "real-world" single-center, 2-year follow-up experience of beta-blocker therapy in patients with chronic heart failure

BACKGROUND

The longitudinal pattern of beta-blocker use in a heart-failure practice setting has not been explored. Previous studies have not specifically addressed the use of beta-blockers over time to determine the rate of use and reasons for discontinuation. The long-term compliance rate for beta-blocker drugs outside the context of a clinical trial has not been established.

METHODS

We prospectively followed a cohort of 500 consecutive patients between March and May 2001, with a clinical diagnosis of chronic heart failure seen in a specialized heart failure clinic and determined the longitudinal pattern of beta-blocker use and clinical outcomes over a 2-year period.

RESULTS

The final cohort consists of 340 patients with a complete 2-year follow-up data (mean age 61 +/- 14 years, 69% men, 53% with ischemic etiology, mean ejection fraction 27.6 +/- 15%). At 6, 12, and 24 months, beta-blocker utilization rates were maintained in 69%, 70%, and 74% of patients, respectively. Of the 120 confirmed initial non-beta-blocker users, 28 (23%) were subsequently started on beta-blocker, despite suspected relative contraindications in 53% of patients. Over a period of 2 years, the discontinuation rate was 10%, with failure to restart a beta-blocker after hospitalization as the most common reason for beta-blocker discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

Utilization rates of beta-blockers in our heart failure clinic have remained constant at approximately 70% throughout a 2-year follow-up. Of those who discontinued beta-blockers (10%), the most common documented cause was failure to restart beta-blockers after hospitalization.

Acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema--relevance of multivessel disease, conduction abnormalities and silent ischemia

The frequency distribution and severity of the cardiac disease underlying acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (APE) to define appropriate subsequent diagnostic and management strategies were investigated in 216 consecutive patients. To this effect, the clinical, electrocardiographic, ecocardiographic and angiographic characteristics were analyzed. Coronary artery disease was identified in 185 patients (86%)-146 with acute myocardial infarction-as the underlying cause, isolated valvular disease in 10 (5%) and other causes in 21 (11%). Most patients were elderly (> or =70 years, 72%), hypertensive (71%) and diabetic (44%). Among coronary disease (CAD) patients, however, 105 (57%) showed conduction disturbances in the ECG (QRS>0.10 s) and 84 (45%) had no anginal pain during pulmonary edema. A 2D echocardiogram showed a 30% incidence of moderate-severe mitral regurgitation in coronary disease and non-coronary disease patients, and a 67% incidence of reduced ejection fraction (<50%), particularly in coronary disease patients (73%). A coronary angiography performed in 99 patients with coronary disease showed multivessel disease in 89 (91%) with a 32% incidence of significant left main disease. Therefore, these findings demonstrate that coronary disease is the most common cause of acute pulmonary edema and it is associated with a distinctly high prevalence of multivessel and left main disease. This diagnosis, however, may often be overlooked if no serial enzymatic sampling is performed given the increased frequency of conduction abnormalities and lack of anginal pain.

Benefits of inpatient initiation of beta-blockers

Clinical trials have demonstrated that beta-blockers effectively reduce mortality in patients after a myocardial infarction (MI) and in patients with chronic heart failure. Treatment guidelines recommend that all patients after MI without a contraindication receive early beta-blocker treatment. Initiation of beta-blockers also should be considered for stable patients who are hospitalized with heart failure. Despite well-documented benefits, however, beta-blockers are still underused. Barriers that cause reluctance by physicians to initiate therapy include the traditional belief that beta-blockers are contraindicated in patients with left ventricular dysfunction, complexity of management, perceived risk of adverse events, and potential for short-term clinical deterioration. Intervention programs promoting beta-blockers for inpatients have increased their use at discharge and after long-term follow-up. Because of pharmacologic differences, agent selection is also critical. Agents must have proven clinical efficacy, an established dose-titration regimen, and desirable pharmacokinetic properties. Increasing the use of these life-saving agents has the potential for substantial clinical impact.

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.

Endothelin receptor antagonists in heart failure: current status and future directions

Experimental evidence suggests that endothelin substantially contributes to left ventricular remodelling and progression of heart failure. Plasma endothelin (ET)-1 levels are increased in patients with heart failure, independent of the aetiology, and correlate with the severity of the disease. Furthermore, tissue endothelin levels and endothelin receptors are upregulated in myocardium from animals and humans with heart failure. In several experimental models of left ventricular remodelling and/or heart failure, treatment with nonselective ET-A and -B as well as selective ET-A antagonists exerted beneficial cardiovascular effects. In patients with heart failure, short-term studies of treatment with endothelin antagonists demonstrated an improvement of haemodynamic parameters; however, long-term treatment with these drugs did not significantly improve combined morbidity/mortality endpoints. Furthermore, in the recently completed Endothelin-A Receptor Antagonist Trial in Heart Failure (EARTH) trial in patients with chronic heart failure, the selective ET-A receptor antagonist darusentan did not significantly affect left ventricular remodelling as assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Potential reasons for the lack of beneficial effects of long-term treatment with ET antagonists in patients with heart failure include the following. Firstly, adverse effects on left ventricular healing have been observed when endothelin antagonist therapy was introduced early after myocardial infarction in rats. Secondly, the role of the ET-B receptor in the pathophysiology of heart failure and remodelling processes has not been clearly defined. Finally, for the detection of improvement in left ventricular remodelling, a study needs to be conducted in patients with recent myocardial infarction and signs of heart failure.

Do evidence-based treatments provide incremental benefits to patients with congestive heart failure already receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors? A secondary analysis of one-year outcomes from the Assessment of Treatment with Lisinopril and Survival (ATLAS) study

BACKGROUND

In patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), use of submaximal doses of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (ie, low-dose ACE inhibitors) represents usual care in routine clinical practice, whereas high-dose ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, and digoxin have each been shown to improve outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

We examined whether treatment with high dose-ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, and digoxin would each provide incremental benefits over that achieved with usual care and whether concurrent use of high-dose ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, and digoxin would provide maximal benefits.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized, controlled, active-comparator trial. Specifically, we studied 1-year outcomes data from the Assessment of Treatment with Lisinopril and Survival trial (ATLAS), which assessed high-dose ACE inhibitors (mean dosage, 33.2 mg daily lisinopril) versus low-dose ACE inhibitors (mean dosage, 4.5 mg daily lisinopril) in patients of any age with advanced CHF in 287 centers in 19 countries in the 1990s. In our analysis, patients were classified by their use of low-dose or high-dose ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, and/or digoxin at the time of randomization. The primary outcome of interest was the ATLAS composite end point of all-cause mortality or hospitalization for any reason at 1 year. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to adjust for baseline differences in patient characteristics.

RESULTS

The 3164 patients in the ATLAS study had a mean (SD) age of 64 (10) years; 2516 patients (80%) were men and 648 (20%) were women; mean (SD) left-ventricular ejection fraction was 23% (6%); and 2671 patients (84%) had New York Heart Association class III or IV symptoms. At 1 year, the mortality rate was 13% (408 patients); 43% (1369 patients) had > or =1 hospitalization; and the composite end point of mortality or hospitalization was 47% (1489 patients). Most patients (2873; 91%) remained on their initial treatment regimen. Compared with low-dose ACE inhibitors (n = 471), the composite end point decreased incrementally with the use of high-dose ACE inhibitors (n = 475) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.93; P = NS), high-dose ACE inhibitors plus beta-blockers (n = 72) (aOR, 0.89; P = NS), and high-dose ACE inhibitors plus beta-blockers plus digoxin (n = 77) (aOR, 0.47; P = 0.006). In absolute proportions, patients receiving high-dose ACE inhibitors plus beta-blockers plus digoxin for 1 year had 12% fewer deaths and hospitalizations than patients receiving low-dose ACE inhibitors alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with usual care for patients with CHF, in this analysis, an evidence-based strategy that incorporated high-dose ACE inhibitors plus beta-blockers plus digoxin was associated with incrementally greater reductions in morbidity and mortality. These findings support treatment guidelines that recommend the concurrent use of all available proven efficacious treatment in patients with advanced CHF.

Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure (OPTIMIZE-HF): rationale and design

Heart failure (HF) affects >5 million patients in the United States, and its prevalence is increasing every year. Despite the compelling scientific evidence that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-blockers reduce hospitalizations and mortality rates in patients with HF, these lifesaving therapies continue to be underused. Several studies in a variety of clinical settings have documented that a significant proportion of eligible patients with HF are not receiving treatment with these guideline-recommended, evidence-based therapies. In patients hospitalized with HF, who are at particularly high risk for re-hospitalization and death, the initiation of beta-blockers is often delayed because of concern that early initiation of these agents may exacerbate HF. Recent studies suggest that beta-blockers can be safely and effectively initiated in patients with HF before hospital discharge and that clinical outcomes are improved. The Initiation Management Predischarge Process for Assessment of Carvedilol Therapy for Heart Failure (IMPACT-HF) trial demonstrated that pre-discharge initiation of carvedilol was associated with a higher rate of beta-blocker use after hospital discharge, with no increase in hospital length of stay. In addition, there was no increase in the risk of worsening of HF. Studies of hospital-based management systems that rely on early (pre-discharge) initiation of evidence-based therapies for patients with cardiovascular disease have also found increases in post-discharge use of therapy and a reduction in the rates of mortality and hospitalization. On the basis of these pivotal studies, the Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure (OPTIMIZE-HF) program is designed to improve medical care and education of hospitalized patients with HF and accelerate the initiation of evidence-based HF guideline recommended therapies by administering them before hospital discharge. A registry component, planned as the most comprehensive database of the hospitalized HF population focusing on admission to discharge and 60- to 90-day follow-up, is designed to evaluate the demographic, pathophysiologic, clinical, treatment, and outcome characteristics of patients hospitalized with HF. The ultimate aim of this program is to improve the standard of HF care in the hospital and outpatient settings and increase the use of evidence-based therapeutic strategies to save lives.

Role of in-hospital initiation of carvedilol to improve treatment rates and clinical outcomes

Patients with heart failure face a very high risk of hospitalization and mortality. Despite compelling scientific evidence that beta-blockers reduce hospitalizations and mortality in patients with heart failure, this lifesaving therapy continues to be underused. Studies in a variety of clinical settings have documented that a significant proportion of patients with heart failure are not receiving treatment with this guideline-recommended, evidence-based therapy when physicians are guided by conventional care. A similar treatment gap has been documented for lipid-lowering therapy in patients with coronary artery disease. It has been demonstrated that initiation of lipid-lowering and other cardiovascular protective medications before hospital discharge for atherosclerotic cardiovascular events results in a marked increase in treatment rates, improved long-term patient compliance, and better clinical outcomes. This has led to national guidelines being revised to endorse this approach as the standard of care. Recent studies demonstrate that carvedilol can be safely and effectively initiated in patients with heart failure before hospital discharge and that this improves clinical outcomes. Adopting in-hospital initiation of carvedilol as the standard of care for patients hospitalized with heart failure could dramatically improve treatment rates-thus substantially reducing the risk of future hospitalizations and prolonging life in the many patients with heart failure hospitalized each year.

The benefits of valsartan in the treatment of heart failure: results from Val-HeFT

Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are the most recent class of anti-hypertensive drug to enter clinical use for chronic heart failure (CHF). In the landmark Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT), valsartan reduced the risk of the combined endpoint of all-cause mortality and morbidity by 13.2% over a 2-year follow-up. Although it significantly improved a pre-specified primary endpoint, it did not improve the endpoint of all-cause mortality. Valsartan administered to patients not receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) at baseline reduced the endpoint of all-cause mortality by 33% and the combined endpoint of mortality and morbidity by 44%, compared with placebo. Based on these findings, valsartan became the first ARB to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of New York Heart Association class II-IV HF in patients who are intolerant of ACEIs. This review provides a summary of the key Val-HeFT results and their implications in the treatment of CHF patients.

Patterns of beta-blocker utilization in patients with chronic heart failure: experience from a specialized outpatient heart failure clinic

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers have been shown incontrovertibly to improve morbidity and survival in patients with heart failure. However, there is limited information regarding their use in clinical practice settings, and reasonable utilization targets for quality improvement initiatives have not been established.

METHOD

We identified 500 consecutive patients with chronic heart failure seen at a specialized outpatient heart failure clinic from March 2001 to May 2001, and retrospectively extracted clinical and drug information from an electronic medical record.

RESULTS

In this cross-sectional analysis, the rate of beta-blocker utilization was 69%. Seventy-five percent of patients had at least tried a beta-blocker. Among those with beta-blockers initiated, 16% experienced side effects that led to drug discontinuation (9.1%) or down-titration (6.9%) that was similar across all NYHA classes. A lower utilization rate of beta-blockers was observed in patients of advanced age and those with diabetes mellitus, concomitant antiarrhythmic therapy, and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (P <.05). Respiratory disease remained the most common reason for withholding beta-blocker therapy, especially with severe obstructive (rather than restrictive) physiology.

CONCLUSION

It appears that about 70% of patients with chronic heart failure can be successfully treated with a beta-blocker in a specialized heart failure outpatient setting where physicians are committed to beta-blocker use in heart failure. It is possible that subgroups with lower utilization rates can be targeted for quality improvement initiatives.

Valsartan: a review of its use in patients with heart failure and/or left ventricular systolic dysfunction after myocardial infarction

Valsartan (Diovan) is an oral angiotensin II-receptor antagonist with specificity for the angiotensin II type 1 receptor subtype. It demonstrates antihypertensive activity and slows the progression of chronic heart failure (CHF). Recently it has been evaluated in comparison with an ACE inhibitor regimen in patients with heart failure or left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) after an acute myocardial infarction (MI), a population known to be at high risk of subsequent death or other major cardiovascular events. In the VALIANT (VALsartan In Acute myocardial iNfarcTion) trial, valsartan was as effective as captopril at reducing mortality and cardiovascular morbidity in patients who developed heart failure and/or LVSD after surviving an MI. It was also generally well tolerated in this population. Treatment with a combination of valsartan plus captopril provided no additional therapeutic benefit over treatment with captopril and was less well tolerated. Valsartan has a potential role as a new treatment for high-risk patients in the post-MI setting.

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 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.

Development of circulatory-renal limitations to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors identifies patients with severe heart failure and early mortality

OBJECTIVES

This study examined the hypothesis that patients who develop angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor intolerance attributable to circulatory-renal limitations (CRLimit) have more severe underlying disease and worse outcome.

BACKGROUND

Although the renin-angiotensin system contributes to the progression of heart failure (HF), it also supports the failing circulation. Patients with the most severe disease may not tolerate inhibition of this system.

METHODS

Consecutive inpatient admissions to the cardiomyopathy service of the Brigham and Women's Hospital between 2000 and 2002 were reviewed retrospectively for initial profiles, discharge medications, and documented reasons for discontinuation of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Outcomes of death and transplantation were determined.

RESULTS

Of the 259 patients, 86 were not on an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor at discharge. Circulatory-renal limitations of symptomatic hypotension, progressive renal dysfunction, or hyperkalemia were documented in 60 patients (23%); other adverse effects, including cough, in 24 patients; and absent reasons in 2 patients. Compared with patients on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, patients with CRLimit were older (60 vs. 55 years; p = 0.006), with longer history of HF (5 vs. 2 years; p = 0.009), lower systolic blood pressure (104 vs. 110 mm Hg; p = 0.05), lower sodium (135 vs. 138 mEql/l; p = 0.002), and higher initial creatinine (2.5 vs. 1.2 mg/dl; p = 0.0001). Mortality was 57% in patients with CRLimit and 22% in the patients on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors during a median 8.5-month follow-up (p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Development of CRLimit to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor intolerance identifies patients with severe disease who are likely to die during the next year. New treatment strategies should be targeted to this population.

Randomized Trial of Telephone Intervention in Chronic Heart Failure (DIAL): study design and preliminary observations

BACKGROUND

In the last few years different approaches based on comprehensive patient care and close surveillance by multidisciplinary teams have shown promising results in heart failure. However, current evidence mainly derives from small and often nonrandomized studies performed at a single center, with selected populations, using dissimilar and complex strategies. We designed a large randomized study to test the hypothesis that a single program, based on a centralized telephone intervention performed by trained nurses, could reduce morbidity and mortality in chronic heart failure.

METHODS

The Randomized Trial of Telephone Intervention in Chronic Heart Failure (DIAL) is a randomized, controlled, open trial designed to compare frequent telephone follow-up intervention versus control. We enrolled 1518 patients with stable chronic heart failure and optimal treatment from 51 centers in Argentina. DIAL trial intervention strategy is based on frequent telephone follow-up provided by nurses trained in heart failure and performed from a single surveillance center, assuring a homogeneous and high quality intervention. The primary objective is to determine the effect of the intervention as compared with the usual follow-up on the combined endpoint of all-cause mortality or hospitalization for worsening heart failure. The objectives of the intervention are education, counseling, and monitoring to enhance self-control mechanisms, timely medical visits, diet, and drug therapy compliance. Telephone call frequency was determined according to preestablished criteria of clinical status severity assessed at each phone contact. The study ended in August 2002.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study may provide information about mortality, hospitalizations, and quality of life contributing to set standards for management programs in the current treatment of chronic heart failure.

Treatment of chronic heart failure with beta adrenergic blockade beyond controlled clinical trials: the BRING-UP experience

BACKGROUND

Several large controlled trials have shown that beta blockers given to patients with heart failure (New York Heart Association functional class II-IV) reduce morbidity and mortality. Despite these impressive results, implementing the use of beta blockade in clinical practice appears slow and difficult. The BRING-UP study was designed to tackle this problem.

OBJECTIVES

To accelerate the adoption of beta blockade in clinical practice; to provide an epidemiological estimate of the proportion of patients with heart failure suitable for this treatment in general cardiology care; and to assess effectiveness of these drugs outside the setting of clinical trials.

METHODS

The design of the study and recommendations derived from available evidence on the use of beta blockers were discussed with cardiologists during regional meetings. All consecutive heart failure patients in a one month period, whether treated or not with beta blockers, were eligible for the study. In each patient, the decision to prescribe a beta blocker was a free choice for the participating physicians. All centres were provided with carvedilol, metoprolol, and bisoprolol at appropriate doses; the choice of the drug and dosage was left to the responsible clinician. All patients were followed for one year.

RESULTS

197 cardiological centres enrolled 3091 patients, 24.9% of whom were already on beta blocker treatment at baseline. beta Blockers were newly prescribed in 32.7% of cases, more often in younger and less severely ill patients. The mean daily dose of the drugs used at one year corresponded to about 70% of the maximum dose used in clinical trials. Starting treatment with beta blockers did not affect the prescription or dosage of other recommended drugs. The overall rate of beta blocker treatment increased over the year of the study from 24.9% to 49.7%. During the 12 month period, 351 deaths occurred (11.8%). In multivariate analysis, the use of beta blockers was independently associated with a better prognosis, with a relative risk of 0.60 and a lower incidence of hospital admissions for worsening heart failure.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of beta blockers in clinical practice is feasible and could be accelerated. These drugs are associated with a lower mortality and reduced hospital admission rates, not only in clinical trials but also in the normal clinical setting.

Effects of valsartan on morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure not receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors

OBJECTIVES

A subgroup analysis of the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT) was performed to evaluate the effects of the angiotensin II receptor blocker, valsartan, in the patients with chronic heart failure (HF) not receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors.

BACKGROUND

The ACE inhibitors reduce mortality and morbidity in patients with HF. Nonetheless, nearly 20% of potentially eligible patients may not be prescribed ACE inhibitors.

RESULTS

Val-HeFT was an international, randomized, double-blinded trial that compared valsartan with placebo when added to the prescribed treatment of patients with HF. The two primary end points of the study were all-cause mortality and the composite of all-cause mortality and morbidity (sudden death with resuscitation, hospital admission for HF, or administration of intravenous inotropic or vasodilator drugs for >or=4 h without hospital admission). Of the 5,010 patients enrolled in the trial, 366 (7.3%) were not treated with ACE inhibitors at baseline. The effects of valsartan on the primary and secondary end points of the study were assessed in this subgroup of patients.

RESULTS

Both all-cause mortality and combined mortality and morbidity for patients not treated with ACE inhibitors were significantly reduced in the valsartan treatment group compared with the placebo group (17.3% vs. 27.1%, p = 0.017 and 24.9% vs. 42.5%, p < 0.001, respectively). Consistent with the data on clinical events, patients randomized to valsartan showed improvements in physiologic variables, such as ejection fraction, left ventricular internal diameter in diastole, and plasma neurohormone levels. Permanent discontinuation of study treatment because of adverse experiences was comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Val-HeFT has provided the first placebo-controlled outcome data demonstrating a favorable effect of an angiotensin receptor blocker on mortality and morbidity in patients with HF not treated with ACE inhibitors. Based on these results, valsartan appears to be an effective therapy in ACE inhibitor-intolerant patients.