Diltiazem improves cardiac function and exercise capacity in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Results of the Diltiazem in Dilated Cardiomyopathy Trial

Practice patterns of rate control in atrial fibrillation and clinical outcomes from a nationwide cohort

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common, but there are limited data to guide selection of rate control medications (RCM). Reasons for selection are multivariable, and the impact on outcomes is unknown. We investigated prescribing patterns of RCM among patients with AF. Using a nationwide database, we identified 135,927 patients with AF. We stratified by baseline presence of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and examined prescription rates of RCM as a function of clinical variables. We also evaluated associations with clinical outcomes. Beta blockers (BB) were most commonly prescribed (44.6%), then calcium channel blockers (CCB) (14.0%) and digoxin (8.6%). Patients prescribed BB were more likely male (45.6% vs 43.4%, p < 0.0001), patients prescribed CCB were less likely male (12.0% vs 16.3%, p < 0.0001). There were higher rates of HF hospitalization (HFH) among females and those with Medicaid. Randomized trials are needed to define optimal choice of RCM.

Atrial fibrillation: better symptom control with rate and rhythm management

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is often associated with limiting symptoms, and with significant impairment in quality of life. As such, treatment strategies aimed at symptom control form an important pillar of AF management. Such treatments include a wide variety of drugs and interventions, including, increasingly, catheter ablation. These strategies can be utilised either singly or in combination, to improve and restore quality of life for patients, and this review covers the current evidence base underpinning their use. In this Review, we discuss the pros and cons of rate vs. rhythm control, while offering practical tips to non-specialists on how to utilise various treatments and counsel patients about all relevant treatment options. These include antiarrhythmic and rate control medications, as well as interventions such as cardioversion, catheter ablation, and pace-and-ablate.

2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

An Updated Review on the Role of Non-dihydropyridine Calcium Channel Blockers and Beta-blockers in Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: Evidence and Gaps

PURPOSE

The 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines on acute and chronic heart failure (HF) recommend that non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (NDCC) should be avoided in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. It also emphasizes that beta-blockers only be initiated in clinically stable, euvolemic patients. Despite these recommendations, NDCC and beta-blockers are often still employed in patients with AF with rapid ventricular response and acute decompensated HF. The relative safety and efficacy of these therapies in this setting is unclear.

METHODS

To address the question of the safety and efficacy of NDCC and beta-blockers for acute rate control in decompensated HF, we provide a perspective on the literature of NDCC and beta-blockers in chronic HF with reduced and preserved ejection fraction and AF, including trials on the management of AF with rapid ventricular response with and without HF.

RESULTS

Robust data demonstrates mortality benefits when beta-blockers are used in patients with chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction. The data that inform the contraindication of NDCC in HF with reduced ejection fraction are outdated and were not primarily designed to address the efficacy and safety of rate control of AF in patients with HF. Several studies indicate that for acute rate control, NDCC and beta-blockers are both efficacious therapies, especially in the setting of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy.

CONCLUSION

Future studies are needed to assess the safety and efficacy of beta-blockers and NDCC in both acute and chronic AF with HF with reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

Comparative Efficacy of Different Drugs for the Treatment of Dilated Cardiomyopathy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

At present, the therapies of dilated cardiomyopathy concentrated on the symptoms of heart failure and related complications. The study is to evaluate the clinical efficacy of a combination of various conventional and adjuvant drugs in treating dilated cardiomyopathy via network meta-analysis.

METHODS

The study was reported according to the PRISMA 2020 statement. From inception through 27 June 2022, the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Web of Science databases were searched for randomized controlled trials on medicines for treating dilated cardiomyopathy. The quality of the included studies was evaluated according to the Cochrane risk of bias assessment. R4.1.3 and Revman5.3 software were used for analysis.

RESULTS

There were 52 randomized controlled trials in this study, with a total of 25 medications and a sample size of 3048 cases. The network meta-analysis found that carvedilol, verapamil, and trimetazidine were the top three medicines for improving left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Ivabradine, bucindolol, and verapamil were the top 3 drugs for improving left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD). Ivabradine, L-thyroxine, and atorvastatin were the top 3 drugs for improving left ventricular end-systolic dimension (LVESD). Trimetazidine, pentoxifylline, and bucindolol were the top 3 drugs for improving the New York Heart Association classification (NYHA) cardiac function score. Ivabradine, carvedilol, and bucindolol were the top 3 drugs for reducing heart rate (HR).

CONCLUSION

A combination of different medications and conventional therapy may increase the clinical effectiveness of treating dilated cardiomyopathy. Beta-blockers, especially carvedilol, can improve ventricular remodeling, cardiac function, and clinical efficacy in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). Hence, they can be used if patients tolerate them. If LVEF and HR do not meet the standard, ivabradine can also be used in combination with other treatments. However, since the quality and number of studies in our research were limited, large sample size, multi-center, and high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to corroborate our findings.

Safety and Efficacy of Nondihydropyridine Calcium Channel Blockers for Acute Rate Control in Atrial Fibrillation with Rapid Ventricular Response and Comorbid Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

The use of nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (NDCCBs) to achieve rate control in atrial fibrillation with the rapid ventricular rate (AF RVR) is not recommended in patients with comorbid heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) due to the concern for further blunting of contractility. However, these recommendations are extrapolated from data examining chronic NDCCB use in HFrEF patients, and comorbid AF was not analyzed. These recommendations also do not cite the hemodynamic effects or clinical outcomes of NDCCBs for acute rate control in HFrEF patients with AF RVR. It is our goal to open the discussion concerning the hemodynamic effects and safety profile of NDCCBs for acute rate control in this specific patient population. In the acute setting of AF RVR and HFrEF, there is a paucity of low-quality data on the safety and hemodynamic effects of NDCCBs, with mixed results. There has not been a clear signal toward adverse outcomes with NDCCBs, particularly for diltiazem. Data in this scenario is similarly limited for beta blockers, which provide the additional hemodynamic effect of the neurohormonal blockade, which provides a long-term mortality benefit to HFrEF patients. We support the cautious use of beta blockers as first-line therapy in clinical settings where an acute rate control strategy for AF RVR is warranted. We also support diltiazem as a reasonable second-line option, though the relative paucity of data calls for further research to validate this conclusion. Verapamil in this setting should be avoided until more data are available.

Use of Diltiazem in Chronic Rate Control for Atrial Fibrillation: A Prospective Case-Control Study

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a multifaceted disease requiring personalised treatment. The aim of our study was to explore the prognostic impact of a patient-specific therapy (PT) for rate control, including the use of non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (NDDC) in patients with heart failure (HF) or in combination with beta-blockers (BB), compared to standard rate control therapy (ST), as defined by previous ESC guidelines. This is a single-centre prospective observational registry on AF patients who were followed by our University Hospital. We included 1112 patients on an exclusive rate control treatment. The PT group consisted of 125 (11.2%) patients, 93/125 (74.4%) of whom were prescribed BB + NDCC (±digoxin), while 85/125 (68.0%) were HF patients who were prescribed NDCC, which was diltiazem in all cases. The patients treated with a PT showed no difference in one-year overall survival compared to those with an ST. Notably, the patients with HF in ST had a worse prognosis (p < 0.001). To better define this finding, we performed three sensitivity analyses by matching each patient in the PT subgroups with three subjects from the ST cohort, showing an improved one-year survival of the HF patients treated with PT (p = 0.039). Our results suggest a potential outcome benefit of NDCC for rate control in AF patients, either alone or in combination with BB and in selected patients with HF.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.

STRUCTURE

Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

OUP accepted manuscript

Rate and rhythm control are still considered equivalent strategies for symptom control using the Atrial Fibrillation Better Care algorithm recommended by the recent atrial fibrillation guideline. In acute situations or critically ill patients, a personalized approach should be used for rapid rhythm or rate control. Even though electrical cardioversion is generally indicated in haemodynamically unstable patients or for rapid effective rhythm control in critically ill patients, this is not always possible due to the high percentage of failure or relapses in such patients. Rate control remains the background therapy for all these patients, and often rapid rate control is mandatory. Short and rapid-onset-acting beta-blockers are the most suitable drugs for acute rate control. Esmolol was the classical example; however, landiolol a newer very selective beta-blocker, recently included in the European atrial fibrillation guideline, has a more favourable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile with less haemodynamic interference and is better appropriate for critically ill patients.

Intravenous Metoprolol Versus Diltiazem for Rate Control in Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Currently, it remains unclear whether β-blockers or nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers are preferred for the acute management of atrial fibrillation (AF).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) metoprolol and diltiazem for rate control.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients who presented to the emergency department between 2015 and 2019 with AF with rapid ventricular rate (RVR) and received IV metoprolol or diltiazem. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who achieved rate control (defined as heart rate < 100 beats per minute). Secondary outcomes included time to rate control, percentage of patients requiring additional agents for rate control, and incidence of cardioversion, bradycardia, and hypotension.

RESULTS

A total of 200 patients were included in this study. Rate control was achieved in 35% and 41% of the metoprolol and diltiazem groups, respectively (P = 0.38). Mean time to rate control was not significantly different between the metoprolol and diltiazem groups (35 vs 21 minutes, P = 0.23). One patient developed hypotension, no patient developed bradycardia, and 4 patients required electric cardioversion. No adverse events were observed in patients with ejection fraction ≤40%.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

There was no difference in the achievement of rate control between IV metoprolol and diltiazem. This is the largest study to date comparing the two classes of agents for acute rate control in AF. No patient-specific factors were identified that would influence the preferential use of one medication over the other.

Trends in Calcium Channel Blocker Use in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction and Comorbid Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation commonly coexist. Most calcium channel blockers are not recommended in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but their use has been seldom evaluated. For patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and comorbid atrial fibrillation, we sought to 1) determine the proportion discharged on contraindicated calcium channel blockers, 2) describe how clinicians' use of these medications at discharge have changed over time, and 3) identify predictors for contraindicated calcium channel blocker prescription at discharge.

METHODS

We analyzed 395 patients discharged with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation between 2008 and 2018. Discharge on a contraindicated calcium channel blocker (any calcium channel blocker except amlodipine) was the primary outcome. Changes in calcium channel blocker prescription over time were evaluated with a Cochran-Armitage trend test. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of calcium channel blocker prescription at discharge.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine (7.3%) patients were discharged on a contraindicated calcium channel blocker without change over time (P_trend = .38). Of these, 26 (86.7%) were discharged on multiple atrioventricular nodal blocking medications. Hypertension (odds ratio [OR] 7.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-59.40) and female sex (OR 3.01; 95% CI, 1.36-6.67) were both associated with contraindicated calcium channel blocker prescription at discharge while diabetes mellitus was negatively associated with this outcome (OR 0.34; 95% CI, 0.14-0.88).

CONCLUSION

One in 14 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and comorbid atrial fibrillation were discharged on a contraindicated calcium channel blocker, without change over time. Most patients were discharged on multiple atrioventricular nodal blockers, highlighting potential need for greater coordination between discharging physicians, pharmacists, and electrophysiology.

Potentially harmful drug prescription in elderly patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Aims

This study aimed to evaluate the prescription frequency of potentially harmful prescription drugs as defined in current heart failure guidelines among elderly patients with a diagnosis of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and their association with clinical outcomes.

Methods and results

We used the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data from a nationally representative 5% sample for the years 2014–2016 to identify patients admitted to acute care hospitals with a primary diagnosis of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. The primary exposure was filling a prescription for a potentially harmful drug. Potentially harmful drug fills were treated as a time‐dependent covariate to examine their association on readmission and mortality. A total of 8993 patients met study criteria. Potentially harmful drugs were prescribed in 1077 (11.9%) patients within 90 days of discharge from the heart failure hospitalization. Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory agents were the most frequently prescribed potentially harmful drug (6.7%) followed by calcium channel blockers (4.7%), thiazolidinedione (0.59%), and select antiarrhythmic (0.33%). Factors independently associated with potentially harmful drug prescription were female gender, Hispanic ethnicity, severe obesity, among others. In the multivariable Cox model, the prescription of a potentially harmful drug was associated with an increased risk of readmission (hazard ratio 1.14; 95% confidence interval 1.05–1.23, P < 0.001). Among drug subgroups, only calcium channel blockers were associated with an increased risk of readmission (hazard ratio 1.225; 95% confidence interval 1.085–1.382, P = 0.0011).

Conclusions

In elderly patients discharged with a primary diagnosis of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction on guideline‐directed medical therapy, prescription of a potentially harmful drug was frequent. Calcium channel blockers were associated with an increased risk of readmission.

Redox-Active Drug, MnTE-2-PyP5+, Prevents and Treats Cardiac Arrhythmias Preserving Heart Contractile Function

Background

Cardiomyopathies remain among the leading causes of death worldwide, despite all efforts and important advances in the development of cardiovascular therapeutics, demonstrating the need for new solutions. Herein, we describe the effects of the redox-active therapeutic Mn(III) meso-tetrakis(N-ethylpyridinium-2-yl)porphyrin, AEOL10113, BMX-010 (MnTE-2-PyP⁵⁺), on rat heart as an entry to new strategies to circumvent cardiomyopathies.

Methods

Wistar rats weighing 250-300 g were used in both in vitro and in vivo experiments, to analyze intracellular Ca²⁺ dynamics, L-type Ca²⁺ currents, Ca²⁺ spark frequency, intracellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels, and cardiomyocyte and cardiac contractility, in control and MnTE-2-PyP⁵⁺-treated cells, hearts, or animals. Cells and hearts were treated with 20 μM MnTE-2-PyP⁵⁺ and animals with 1 mg/kg, i.p. daily. Additionally, we performed electrocardiographic and echocardiographic analysis.

Results

Using isolated rat cardiomyocytes, we observed that MnTE-2-PyP⁵⁺ reduced intracellular Ca²⁺ transient amplitude, without altering cell contractility. Whereas MnTE-2-PyP⁵⁺ did not alter basal ROS levels, it was efficient in modulating cardiomyocyte redox state under stress conditions; MnTE-2-PyP⁵⁺ reduced Ca²⁺ spark frequency and increased sarcoplasmic reticulum (SR) Ca²⁺ load. Accordingly, analysis of isolated perfused rat hearts showed that MnTE-2-PyP⁵⁺ preserves cardiac function, increases SR Ca²⁺ load, and reduces arrhythmia index, indicating an antiarrhythmic effect. In vivo experiments showed that MnTE-2-PyP⁵⁺ treatment increased Ca²⁺ transient, preserved cardiac ejection fraction, and reduced arrhythmia index and duration. MnTE-2-PyP⁵⁺ was effective both to prevent and to treat cardiac arrhythmias.

Conclusion

MnTE-2-PyP⁵⁺ prevents and treats cardiac arrhythmias in rats. In contrast to most antiarrhythmic drugs, MnTE-2-PyP⁵⁺ preserves cardiac contractile function, arising, thus, as a prospective therapeutic for improvement of cardiac arrhythmia treatment.

Pharmacological management of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: review of current knowledge and future directions

Introduction: Both heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) independently cause significant morbidity and mortality. The two conditions commonly coexist and AF in the setting of HFrEF is associated with worse mortality, hospitalizations, and quality of life compared to HFrEF without AF. Despite the large burden of these conditions, there is no clear optimal management strategy for when they occur together.Areas covered: This review focuses on the pharmacological management of AF in HFrEF. Studies were identified through PubMed search of relevant keywords. The authors review key clinical trials that have influenced management strategies and guidelines. The authors focus on the classes of drugs used to treat AF for both rate and rhythm control strategies including beta-blockers, digoxin, amiodarone, and dofetilide. Additionally, the authors discuss select non-antiarrhythmic medications that affect AF in HFrEF. The authors highlight the strengths and weakness of the data supporting the use of these medications and suggest future directions.Expert opinion: The pharmacological treatment of AF in HFrEF will need further refinement alongside the emerging role of catheter ablation. Novel HF medications and antiarrhythmics offer new tools to prevent the development of AF, as well as for rate and rhythm control strategies.

Approach to Antihypertensive Therapy

Antihypertensive agents are commonly prescribed by physicians to prevent the long-term mortality from chronic hypertension. They are also given to improve survival in a number of conditions (eg, heart failure, coronary artery disease), independent of the effect on blood pressure. Several classes of antihypertensives are available with unique pharmacologic characteristics and adverse effects. Not all agents in the same class have identical effects, and careful selection of drugs based on the comorbid conditions is recommended.

Calcium channel blockers and outcomes in older patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Little is known about associations of calcium channel blockers (CCBs) with outcomes in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (EF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Of the 10 570 hospitalized patients with heart failure and preserved EF, ≥65 years, EF ≥40%, in the Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure (OPTIMIZE-HF; 2003-2004), linked to Medicare data (through December 31, 2008), 7514 had no prior history of CCB use. Of these, 815 (11%) patients received new discharge prescriptions for CCBs. Propensity scores for CCB initiation, calculated for each of the 7514 patients, were used to assemble a matched cohort of 1620 (810 pairs) patients (mean age, 80 years; mean EF, 56%; 65% women; 10% black) receiving and not receiving CCBs, balanced on 114 baseline characteristics. The primary composite end point of all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization occurred in 82% and 81% of patients receiving and not receiving CCBs (hazard ratio for CCBs, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.14). Hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and all-cause hospitalization were 1.05 (0.94-1.18), 1.05 (0.91-1.21), and 1.03 (0.93-1.14), respectively. Similar associations were observed when we categorized patients into those receiving amlodipine and nonamlodipine CCBs. Among 7514 prematch patients, multivariable-adjusted and propensity-adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for primary composite end point were 1.03 (0.95-1.12) and 1.02 (0.94-1.11), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In hospitalized older patients with heart failure, new discharge prescriptions for CCBs had no associations with composite or individual end points of mortality or heart failure hospitalization, regardless of the class of CCBs.

Calcium channel autoantibodies predicted sudden cardiac death and all-cause mortality in patients with ischemic and nonischemic chronic heart failure

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether CC-AAbs levels could predict prognosis in CHF patients. A total of 2096 patients with CHF (841 DCM patients and 1255 ICM patients) and 834 control subjects were recruited. CC-AAbs were detected and the relationship between CC-AAbs and patient prognosis was analyzed. During a median follow-up time of 52 months, there were 578 deaths. Of these, sudden cardiac death (SCD) occurred in 102 cases of DCM and 121 cases of ICM. The presence of CC-AAbs in patients was significantly higher than that of controls (both P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that positive CC-AAbs could predict SCD (HR 3.191, 95% CI 1.598–6.369 for DCM; HR 2.805, 95% CI 1.488–5.288 for ICM) and all-cause mortality (HR 1.733, 95% CI 1.042–2.883 for DCM; HR 2.219, 95% CI 1.461–3.371 for ICM) in CHF patients. A significant association between CC-AAbs and non-SCD (NSCD) was found in ICM patients (HR = 1.887, 95% CI 1.081–3.293). Our results demonstrated that the presence of CC-AAbs was higher in CHF patients versus controls and corresponds to a higher incidence of all-cause death and SCD. Positive CC-AAbs may serve as an independent predictor for SCD and all-cause death in these patients.