Alan B. Miller

Effect of Amlodipine on Morbidity and Mortality in Severe Chronic Heart Failure

BACKGROUND Previous studies have shown that calcium-channel blockers increase morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic heart failure. We studied the effect of a new calcium-channel blocker, amlodipine, in patients with severe chronic heart failure. METHODS We randomly assigned 1153 patients with severe chronic heart failure and ejection fractions of less than 30 percent to double-blind treatment with either placebo (582 patients) or amlodipine (571 patients) for 6 to 33 months, while their usual therapy was continued. The randomization was stratified on the basis of whether patients had ischemic or nonischemic causes of heart failure. The primary end point of the study was death from any cause and hospitalization for major cardiovascular events. RESULTS Primary end points were reached in 42 percent of the placebo group and 39 percent of the amlodipine group, representing a 9 percent reduction in the combined risk of fatal and nonfatal events with amlodipine (95 percent confidence interval, 24 percent reduction to 10 percent increase; P=0.31). A total of 38 percent of the patients in the placebo group died, as compared with 33 percent of those in the amlodipine group, representing a 16 percent reduction in the risk of death with amlodipine (95 percent confidence interval, 31 percent reduction to 2 percent increase; P=0.07). Among patients with ischemic heart disease, there was no difference between the amlodipine and placebo groups in the occurrence of either end point. In contrast, among patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, amlodipine reduced the combined risk of fatal and nonfatal events by 31 percent (P=0.04) and decreased the risk of death by 46 percent (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Amlodipine did not increase cardiovascular morbidity or mortality in patients with severe heart failure. The possibility that amlodipine prolongs survival in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy requires further study.

Mode of Death in Patients With Heart Failure and a Preserved Ejection Fraction Results From the Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Study (I-Preserve) Trial

Background— The mode of death has been well characterized in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction; however, less is known about the mode of death in patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF). The purpose of this study was to examine the mode of death in patients with HFPEF enrolled in the Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Study (I-Preserve) trial and to determine whether irbesartan altered the distribution of mode of death in HFPEF. Methods and Results— All deaths were reviewed by a clinical end-point committee, and the mode of death was assigned by consensus of the members. The annual mortality rate was 5.2% in the I-Preserve trial. There were no significant differences in mortality rate between the placebo and irbesartan groups. The mode of death was cardiovascular in 60% (including 26% sudden, 14% heart failure, 5% myocardial infarction, and 9% stroke), noncardiovascular in 30%, and unknown in 10%. There were no differences in the distribution of mode-specific mortality rates between placebo and irbesartan. Conclusions— Sixty percent of the deaths in patients with HFPEF were cardiovascular, with sudden death and heart failure death being the most common. Treatment with irbesartan did not affect overall mortality or the distribution of mode-specific mortality rates. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00095238.

Can physicians always explain the results of clinical trials? a case study of amlodipine in heart failure

A lthough much emphasis is currently placed on evidence-based medicine, most of the decisions made in clinical practice are not based on data derived from randomized clinical trials. Perhaps this is to be expected, because it is impossible to conduct a trial to test the validity of every possible option available to physicians in the management of patients. Many therapeutic choices are so compelling that a test would be unethical; others are so trivial that a test might not be worth the time or effort. Yet, we cannot escape the fact that physicians do not practice evidence-based medicine even when evidence is available from randomized clinical trials. To most physicians, knowing the right answer is only the first step in the process of adopting a new treatment. They will not use a drug simply because they have seen data that indicate that it works; they will use the drug only when they have been told how it works. Indeed, for some, identification of the probable mechanism of action is the only prerequisite for adopting a new treatment. Such physicians will use a drug simply because it should work, even if there is no evidence that it does. The search for mechanisms has, in fact, emerged as a national preoccupation in the medical community. On the one hand, we will prescribe drugs that make mechanistic sense even if they are harmful; simply look at the enthusiasm for positive inotropic drugs for the treatment of chronic heart failure. On the other hand, we will avoid drugs that conflict with any preexisting view we might have of a disease even when the data supporting their use are overwhelming; witness, for example, the reluctance of physicians to prescribe b-blockers for the treatment of heart failure. The search for mechanisms drives (and haunts) all physicians, including those in academic medicine (who pride themselves on being rational) and those in primary-care medicine (who pride themselves on being practical). When the results of a clinical trial conflict with a widely held mechanistic model, we doubt the evidence from the study. When the results from clinical trials become so pervasive that they can no longer be ignored, we create and embrace a new model and forget the details of the trials. In the end, only the model survives. This should not be surprising: physicians are just like everyone else—we love a good story. The story of this supplement begins in March 1995. The results of a large-scale clinical trial known as the Prospective Randomized Amlodipine Survival Evaluation (PRAISE) study had just been presented at the Annual Scientific Sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The trial had randomized 1,153 patients with severe heart failure due to ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy to treatment with placebo or amlodipine—with the intention of evaluating the long-term effect of the drug on morbidity and From the Division of Circulatory Physiology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York, USA (MP); and the Division of Cardiology, University of Florida Health Sciences Center, Jacksonville, Florida, USA (ABM). Address for reprints: Milton Packer, MD, Division of Circulatory Physiology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, 630 West 168th Street, New York, New York 10032.

Causes of death and rehospitalization in patients hospitalized with worsening heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: Results from efficacy of vasopressin antagonism in heart failure outcome study with tolvaptan (EVEREST) program

BACKGROUND The postdischarge rehospitalization and death rates are high in patients with acute heart failure (HF) syndromes despite optimization of standard therapy for chronic HF. To the best of our knowledge, there has been no systematic analysis of the causes of death and rehospitalization in this patient population. METHODS This was a prespecified analysis of adjudicated cause-specific all-cause mortality and cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization in the Efficacy of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure Outcome Study with Tolvaptan (EVEREST) trial, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients hospitalized with worsening HF and left ventricular ejection fraction < or =40% comparing tolvaptan, an oral vasopressin receptor antagonist to placebo, in addition to standard care. RESULTS Of the 4,133 randomized, there were 5,239 rehospitalizations and 1,080 deaths during a median of 9.9 months. Of all deaths, 41.0% were due to HF, 26.0% due to sudden cardiac death (SCD), 2.6% due to acute myocardial infarction (MI), 2.2% due to stroke, and 13.2% due to non-CV causes. Of all hospitalizations, 39.2% were non-CV, whereas 46.3% were for HF, and a minority of hospitalizations was due to stroke, MI, arrhythmia, or other CV causes. CONCLUSIONS Despite close follow-up and evidence-based therapy within a clinical trial, rehospitalization and death remain high. Although most deaths were from HF, one quarter of patients had SCD. In addition, there were almost as many non-CV hospitalizations as HF hospitalizations. Knowledge of the causes of death and rehospitalization may be essential for proper management and early initiation of therapy.

Body Mass Index and Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Results From the Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (I-PRESERVE) Trial

Background— Obesity is a major risk factor for incident heart failure (HF). Paradoxically, in HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFREF), a high body mass index (BMI) appears to be beneficial. Approximately 50% of HF patients have a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFPEF). However, there are few data regarding the relationship between BMI and outcomes in HFPEF. Methods and Results— Baseline characteristics and cardiovascular outcomes were assessed in the 4109 patients (mean age, 72 years; mean follow-up, 49.5 months) in the Irbesartan in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction (I-PRESERVE) trial. Based on the BMI distribution, 5 BMI categories were defined: <23.5, 23.5 to 26.4, 26.5 to 30.9, 31 to 34.9, and ≥35 kg/m2. Most patients (71%) had a BMI ≥26.5, 21% had a BMI between 23.5 and 26.4, and 8% had a BMI <23.5 kg/m2. Patients with higher BMI were younger, more often women, and more likely to have hypertension and diabetes and higher left ventricular ejection fraction. Patients with BMI of 26.5 to 30.9 kg/m2 had the lowest rate for the primary composite outcome (death or cardiovascular hospitalization) and were used as reference group. After adjustment for 21 risk variables including age, sex, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, the hazard ratio for the primary outcome was increased in patients with BMI <23.5 (hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 1.56; P=0.019) and in those with BMI ≥35 kg/m2 (hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 1.52; P=0.011) compared with the referent group. A similar relationship was found for all-cause mortality and for HF hospitalization. Conclusions— Obesity is common in HFPEF patients and is accompanied by multiple differences in clinical characteristics. Independent of other key prognostic variables, there was a U-shaped relationship, with the greatest rate of adverse outcomes in the lowest and highest BMI categories. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT000095238.Background— Obesity is a major risk factor for incident heart failure (HF). Paradoxically, in HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFREF), a high body mass index (BMI) appears to be beneficial. Approximately 50% of HF patients have a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFPEF). However, there are few data regarding the relationship between BMI and outcomes in HFPEF. Methods and Results— Baseline characteristics and cardiovascular outcomes were assessed in the 4109 patients (mean age, 72 years; mean follow-up, 49.5 months) in the Irbesartan in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction (I-PRESERVE) trial. Based on the BMI distribution, 5 BMI categories were defined: <23.5, 23.5 to 26.4, 26.5 to 30.9, 31 to 34.9, and ≥35 kg/m2. Most patients (71%) had a BMI ≥26.5, 21% had a BMI between 23.5 and 26.4, and 8% had a BMI <23.5 kg/m2. Patients with higher BMI were younger, more often women, and more likely to have hypertension and diabetes and higher left ventricular ejection fraction. Patients with BMI of 26.5 to 30.9 kg/m2 had the lowest rate for the primary composite outcome (death or cardiovascular hospitalization) and were used as reference group. After adjustment for 21 risk variables including age, sex, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, the hazard ratio for the primary outcome was increased in patients with BMI <23.5 (hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 1.56; P =0.019) and in those with BMI ≥35 kg/m2 (hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 1.52; P =0.011) compared with the referent group. A similar relationship was found for all-cause mortality and for HF hospitalization. Conclusions— Obesity is common in HFPEF patients and is accompanied by multiple differences in clinical characteristics. Independent of other key prognostic variables, there was a U-shaped relationship, with the greatest rate of adverse outcomes in the lowest and highest BMI categories. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: . Unique identifier: NCT000095238.

Effect of amlodipine on mode of death among patients with advanced heart failure in the praise trial

Investigations of calcium antagonists in patients with advanced heart failure have raised concern over an increased risk of worsening heart failure and heart failure deaths. We assessed the effect of amlodipine on cause-specific mortality in such patients enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. In total, 1,153 patients in New York Heart Association class IIIb or IV heart failure were randomized to receive amlodipine or placebo, along with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, diuretics, and digitalis. Over a median 14.5 months of follow-up, 413 patients died. Cardiovascular deaths accounted for 89% of fatalities, 50% of which were sudden deaths and 45% of which were due to pump failure, with fewer attributed to myocardial infarction (3.3%) or other cardiovascular causes (1.6%). Amlodipine treatment resulted in a greater relative reduction in sudden deaths (21%) than in pump failure deaths (6.6%) overall. When patients were classified by etiology of heart failure (ischemic or nonischemic), cause-specific mortality did not differ significantly between treatment groups in the ischemic stratum. In the nonischemic stratum, however, sudden deaths and pump failure deaths were reduced by 38% and 45%, respectively, with amlodipine. Thus, when added to digitalis, diuretics, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in patients with advanced heart failure, amlodipine appears to have no effect on cause-specific mortality in ischemic cardiomyopathy, but both pump failure and sudden deaths appear to be decreased in nonischemic heart failure patients treated with amlodipine.

Measuring aortic pulse wave velocity using high-field cardiovascular magnetic resonance: comparison of techniques.

BackgroundThe assessment of arterial stiffness is increasingly used for evaluating patients with different cardiovascular diseases as the mechanical properties of major arteries are often altered. Aortic stiffness can be noninvasively estimated by measuring pulse wave velocity (PWV). Several methods have been proposed for measuring PWV using velocity-encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), including transit-time (TT), flow-area (QA), and cross-correlation (XC) methods. However, assessment and comparison of these techniques at high field strength has not yet been performed. In this work, the TT, QA, and XC techniques were clinically tested at 3 Tesla and compared to each other.MethodsFifty cardiovascular patients and six volunteers were scanned to acquire the necessary images. The six volunteer scans were performed twice to test inter-scan reproducibility. Patient images were analyzed using the TT, XC, and QA methods to determine PWV. Two observers analyzed the images to determine inter-observer and intra-observer variabilities. The PWV measurements by the three methods were compared to each other to test inter-method variability. To illustrate the importance of PWV using CMR, the degree of aortic stiffness was assessed using PWV and related to LV dysfunction in five patients with diastolic heart failure patients and five matched volunteers.ResultsThe inter-observer and intra-observer variability results showed no bias between the different techniques. The TT and XC results were more reproducible than the QA; the mean (SD) inter-observer/intra-observer PWV differences were -0.12(1.3)/-0.04(0.4) for TT, 0.2(1.3)/0.09(0.9) for XC, and 0.6(1.6)/0.2(1.4) m/s for QA methods, respectively. The correlation coefficients (r) for the inter-observer/intra-observer comparisons were 0.94/0.99, 0.88/0.94, and 0.83/0.92 for the TT, XC, and QA methods, respectively. The inter-scan reproducibility results showed low variability between the repeated scans (mean (SD) PWV difference = -0.02(0.4) m/s and r = 0.96). The inter-method variability results showed strong correlation between the TT and XC measurements, but less correlation with QA: r = 0.95, 0.87, and 0.89, and mean (SD) PWV differences = -0.12(1.0), 0.8(1.7), and 0.65(1.6) m/s for TT-XC, TT-QA, and XC-QA, respectively. Finally, in the group of diastolic heart failure patient, PWV was significantly higher (6.3 ± 1.9 m/s) than in volunteers (3.5 ± 1.4 m/s), and the degree of LV diastolic dysfunction showed good correlation with aortic PWV.ConclusionsIn conclusion, while each of the studied methods has its own advantages and disadvantages, at high field strength, the TT and XC methods result in closer and more reproducible aortic PWV measurements, and the associated image processing requires less user interaction, than in the QA method. The choice of the analysis technique depends on the vessel segment geometry and available image quality.

Body Mass Index and Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection FractionClinical Perspective

Background— Obesity is a major risk factor for incident heart failure (HF). Paradoxically, in HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFREF), a high body mass index (BMI) appears to be beneficial. Approximately 50% of HF patients have a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFPEF). However, there are few data regarding the relationship between BMI and outcomes in HFPEF. Methods and Results— Baseline characteristics and cardiovascular outcomes were assessed in the 4109 patients (mean age, 72 years; mean follow-up, 49.5 months) in the Irbesartan in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction (I-PRESERVE) trial. Based on the BMI distribution, 5 BMI categories were defined: <23.5, 23.5 to 26.4, 26.5 to 30.9, 31 to 34.9, and ≥35 kg/m2. Most patients (71%) had a BMI ≥26.5, 21% had a BMI between 23.5 and 26.4, and 8% had a BMI <23.5 kg/m2. Patients with higher BMI were younger, more often women, and more likely to have hypertension and diabetes and higher left ventricular ejection fraction. Patients with BMI of 26.5 to 30.9 kg/m2 had the lowest rate for the primary composite outcome (death or cardiovascular hospitalization) and were used as reference group. After adjustment for 21 risk variables including age, sex, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, the hazard ratio for the primary outcome was increased in patients with BMI <23.5 (hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 1.56; P=0.019) and in those with BMI ≥35 kg/m2 (hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 1.52; P=0.011) compared with the referent group. A similar relationship was found for all-cause mortality and for HF hospitalization. Conclusions— Obesity is common in HFPEF patients and is accompanied by multiple differences in clinical characteristics. Independent of other key prognostic variables, there was a U-shaped relationship, with the greatest rate of adverse outcomes in the lowest and highest BMI categories. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT000095238.Background— Obesity is a major risk factor for incident heart failure (HF). Paradoxically, in HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFREF), a high body mass index (BMI) appears to be beneficial. Approximately 50% of HF patients have a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFPEF). However, there are few data regarding the relationship between BMI and outcomes in HFPEF. Methods and Results— Baseline characteristics and cardiovascular outcomes were assessed in the 4109 patients (mean age, 72 years; mean follow-up, 49.5 months) in the Irbesartan in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction (I-PRESERVE) trial. Based on the BMI distribution, 5 BMI categories were defined: <23.5, 23.5 to 26.4, 26.5 to 30.9, 31 to 34.9, and ≥35 kg/m2. Most patients (71%) had a BMI ≥26.5, 21% had a BMI between 23.5 and 26.4, and 8% had a BMI <23.5 kg/m2. Patients with higher BMI were younger, more often women, and more likely to have hypertension and diabetes and higher left ventricular ejection fraction. Patients with BMI of 26.5 to 30.9 kg/m2 had the lowest rate for the primary composite outcome (death or cardiovascular hospitalization) and were used as reference group. After adjustment for 21 risk variables including age, sex, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, the hazard ratio for the primary outcome was increased in patients with BMI <23.5 (hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 1.56; P =0.019) and in those with BMI ≥35 kg/m2 (hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 1.52; P =0.011) compared with the referent group. A similar relationship was found for all-cause mortality and for HF hospitalization. Conclusions— Obesity is common in HFPEF patients and is accompanied by multiple differences in clinical characteristics. Independent of other key prognostic variables, there was a U-shaped relationship, with the greatest rate of adverse outcomes in the lowest and highest BMI categories. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: . Unique identifier: NCT000095238.

Circadian rhythm and sudden death in heart failure: results from Prospective Randomized Amlodipine Survival Trial.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to address the timing of sudden death in advanced heart failure patients. BACKGROUND Sudden death is a catastrophic event in cardiovascular disease. It has a circadian pattern prominent in the early AM, which has been thought to be due to a surge of sympathetic stimulation. We postulated that the distribution of events in advanced heart failure, with chronic sympathetic activation, would be more uniform implicating other potential mechanisms. METHODS We analyzed data from Prospective Randomized Amlodipine Survival Trial (PRAISE). Sudden deaths were analyzed by time of death in 4-h and 1-h blocks for uniformity of distribution in the entire cohort, and in the prespecified ischemic and nonischemic stratum. Further analyses were undertaken in the treatment groups of amlodipine and placebo, and among those receiving background therapy of aspirin and warfarin. RESULTS Sudden deaths in the overall cohort showed a nonuniform distribution with a PM peak but not an AM peak. The ischemic stratum also showed a PM peak, but sudden deaths within the nonischemic stratum were uniformly distributed. Neither amlodipine treatment nor aspirin or warfarin use altered the distribution. CONCLUSIONS Sudden death in advanced heart failure did not show an AM peak, suggesting that circadian sympathetic activation did not strongly influence these events. The PM peak noted is likely complex in origin and was not affected by antiischemic or antithrombotic medications.

Prospective assessment of the occurrence of anemia in patients with heart failure: Results from the Study of Anemia in a Heart Failure Population (STAMINA-HFP) Registry

BACKGROUND Although a potentially important pathophysiologic factor in heart failure, the prevalence and predictors of anemia have not been well studied in unselected patients with heart failure. METHODS The Study of Anemia in a Heart Failure Population (STAMINA-HFP) Registry prospectively studied the prevalence of anemia and the relationship of hemoglobin to health-related quality of life and outcomes among patients with heart failure. A random selection algorithm was used to reduce bias during enrollment of patients seen in specialty clinics or clinics of community cardiologists with experience in heart failure. In this initial report, data on prevalence and correlates of anemia were analyzed in 1,076 of the 1,082 registry patients who had clinical characteristics and hemoglobin determined by finger-stick at baseline. RESULTS Overall (n = 1,082), the registry patients were 41% female and 73% white with a mean age (+/-SD) of 64 +/- 14 years (68 +/- 13 years in community and 57 +/- 14 years in specialty sites, P < .001). Among the 1,076 patients in the prevalence analysis, mean hemoglobin was 13.3 +/- 2.1 g/dL (median 13.2 g/dL); and anemia (defined by World Health Organization criteria) was present in 34%. Age identified patients at risk for anemia, with 40% of patients >70 years affected. CONCLUSIONS Initial results from the STAMINA-HFP Registry suggest that anemia is a common comorbidity in unselected outpatients with heart failure. Given the strong association of anemia with adverse outcomes in heart failure, this study supports further investigation concerning the importance of anemia as a therapeutic target in this condition.